Skip to main content

Host Address Availability Recommendations
RFC 7934 also known as BCP 204

Document Type RFC - Best Current Practice (July 2016) Errata
Authors Lorenzo Colitti , Dr. Vinton G. Cerf , Stuart Cheshire , David Schinazi
Last updated 2016-09-20
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
IESG Responsible AD Joel Jaeggli
Send notices to (None)
RFC 7934
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        L. Colitti
Request for Comments: 7934                                       V. Cerf
BCP: 204                                                          Google
Category: Best Current Practice                              S. Cheshire
ISSN: 2070-1721                                              D. Schinazi
                                                              Apple Inc.
                                                               July 2016

               Host Address Availability Recommendations


   This document recommends that networks provide general-purpose end
   hosts with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and it
   describes the benefits of and the options for doing so.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Common IPv6 Deployment Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Benefits of Providing Multiple Addresses  . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Problems with Restricting the Number of Addresses per Host  .   4
   5.  Overcoming Limits Using Network Address Translation . . . . .   5
   6.  Options for Providing More Than One Address . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Number of Addresses Required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Host Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Address Space Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.3.  Addressing Link-Layer Scalability Issues via IP Routing .  10
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   In most aspects, the IPv6 protocol is very similar to IPv4.  This
   similarity can create a tendency to think of IPv6 as 128-bit IPv4,
   and thus lead network designers and operators to apply identical
   configurations and operational practices to both.  This is generally
   a good thing because it eases the transition to IPv6 and the
   operation of dual-stack networks.  However, in some design and
   operational areas, it can lead to carrying over IPv4 practices that
   are limiting or not appropriate in IPv6 due to differences between
   the protocols.

   One such area is IP addressing, particularly IP addressing of hosts.
   This is substantially different because unlike IPv4 addresses, IPv6
   addresses are not a scarce resource.  In IPv6, a single link provides
   over four billion times more address space than the whole IPv4
   Internet [RFC7421].  Thus, unlike IPv4, IPv6 networks are not forced
   by address scarcity concerns to provide only one address per host.
   Furthermore, providing multiple addresses has many benefits,
   including application functionality and simplicity, privacy, and
   flexibility to accommodate future applications.  Another significant
   benefit is the ability to provide Internet access without the use of
   Network Address Translation (NAT).  Providing only one IPv6 address
   per host negates these benefits.

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

   This document details the benefits of providing multiple addresses
   per host, and the problems with not doing so.  It recommends that
   networks provide general-purpose end hosts with multiple global
   addresses when they attach and lists current options for doing so.
   It does not specify any changes to protocols or host behavior.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].

2.  Common IPv6 Deployment Model

   IPv6 is designed to support multiple addresses, including multiple
   global addresses, per interface (see Section 2.1 of [RFC4291] and
   Section 5.9.4 of [RFC6434]).  Today, many general-purpose IPv6 hosts
   are configured with three or more addresses per interface: a link-
   local address, a stable address (e.g., using 64-bit Extended Unique
   Identifiers (EUI-64) or Opaque Interface Identifiers [RFC7217]), one
   or more privacy addresses [RFC4941], and possibly one or more
   temporary or non-temporary addresses obtained using the Dynamic Host
   Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].

   In most general-purpose IPv6 networks, hosts have the ability to
   configure additional IPv6 addresses from the link prefix(es) without
   explicit requests to the network.  Such networks include all 3GPP
   networks ([RFC6459], Section 5.2), in addition to Ethernet and Wi-Fi
   networks using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862].

3.  Benefits of Providing Multiple Addresses

   Today, there are many host functions that require more than one IP
   address to be available to the host, including:

   o  Privacy addressing to prevent tracking by off-network hosts

   o  Multiple processors inside the same device.  For example, in many
      mobile devices, both the application processor and the baseband
      processor need to communicate with the network, particularly for
      technologies like I-WLAN [TS.24327] where the two processors share
      the Wi-Fi network connection.

   o  Extending the network (e.g., "tethering").

   o  Running virtual machines on hosts.

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

   o  Translation-based transition technologies such as 464XLAT (a
      combination of stateful and stateless translation) [RFC6877] that
      translate between IPv4 and IPv6.  Some of these technologies
      require the availability of a dedicated IPv6 address in order to
      determine whether inbound packets are translated or native
      ([RFC6877], Section 6.3).

   o  Identifier-locator addressing (ILA) [ILA].

   o  Future applications (e.g., per-application IPv6 addresses [TARP]).

   Two examples of how the availability of multiple addresses per host
   has already allowed substantial deployment of new applications
   without explicit requests to the network are:

   o  464XLAT. 464XLAT is usually deployed within a particular network;
      in this model, the operator can ensure that the network is
      appropriately configured to provide the customer-side translator
      (CLAT) with the additional IPv6 address it needs to implement
      464XLAT.  However, there are deployments where the provider-side
      translator (PLAT) (i.e., NAT64) is provided as a service by a
      different network, without the knowledge or cooperation of the
      residential ISP (e.g., the IPv6v4 Exchange Service [IPv6v4]).
      This type of deployment is only possible because those residential
      ISPs provide multiple IP addresses to their users, and thus those
      users can freely obtain the extra IPv6 address required to run

   o  /64 sharing [RFC7278].  When the topology supports it, this is a
      way to provide IPv6 tethering without needing to wait for network
      operators to deploy DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (PD), which is only
      available in 3GPP release 10 or above ([RFC6459], Section 5.3).

4.  Problems with Restricting the Number of Addresses per Host

   Providing a restricted number of addresses per host implies that
   functions that require multiple addresses either will be unavailable
   (e.g., if the network provides only one IPv6 address per host, or if
   the host has reached the limit of the number of addresses available)
   or will only be available after an explicit request to the network is
   granted.  Requiring explicit requests to the network has the
   following drawbacks:

   o  Increased latency, because a provisioning operation, and possibly
      human intervention with an update to the Service Level Agreement
      (SLA), must complete before the functionality is available.

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

   o  Uncertainty, because it is not known if a particular application
      function will be available until the provisioning operation
      succeeds or fails.

   o  Complexity, because implementations need to deal with failures and
      somehow present them to the user.  Failures may manifest as
      timeouts, which may be slow and frustrating to users.

   o  Increased load on the network's provisioning servers.

   Some operators may desire that their networks be configured to limit
   the number of IPv6 addresses per host.  Reasons might include
   hardware limitations (e.g., Ternary Content-Addressable Memory (TCAM)
   size or size constraints of the Neighbor Cache table), business
   models (e.g., a desire to charge the network's users on a per-device
   basis), or operational consistency with IPv4 (e.g., an IP address
   management system that only supports one address per host).  However,
   hardware limitations are expected to ease over time, and an attempt
   to generate additional revenue by charging per device may prove
   counterproductive if customers respond (as they did with IPv4) by
   using NAT, which results in no additional revenue, but leads to more
   operational problems and higher support costs.

5.  Overcoming Limits Using Network Address Translation

   When the network limits the number of addresses available to a host,
   this can mostly be overcome by end hosts by using NAT, and indeed in
   IPv4 the scarcity of addresses is often mitigated by using NAT on the
   host.  Thus, the limits could be overcome in IPv6 as well by
   implementing NAT66 on the host.

   Unfortunately, NAT has well-known drawbacks.  For example, it causes
   application complexity due to the need to implement NAT traversal.
   It hinders development of new applications.  On mobile devices, it
   reduces battery life due to the necessity of frequent keepalives,
   particularly for UDP.  Applications using UDP that need to work on
   most of the Internet are forced to send keepalives at least every 30
   seconds [KA].  For example, the QUIC protocol uses a 15-second
   keepalive [QUIC].  Other drawbacks of NAT are well-known and
   documented [RFC2993].  While IPv4 NAT is inevitable due to the
   limited amount of IPv4 space available, that argument does not apply
   to IPv6.  Guidance from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is that
   deployment of IPv6 NAT is not desirable [RFC5902].

   The desire to overcome the problems listed in Section 4 without
   disabling any features has resulted in developers implementing IPv6
   NAT.  There are fully stateful address+port NAT66 implementations in
   client operating systems today: for example, Linux has supported

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

   NAT66 since 2012 [L66].  At least one popular software hypervisor
   also implemented NAT66 to work around these issues [V66].  Wide
   deployment of networks that provide a restricted number of addresses
   will cause proliferation of NAT66 implementations.

   This is not a desirable outcome.  It is not desirable for users
   because they may experience application brittleness.  It is likely
   not desirable for network operators either, as they may suffer higher
   support costs, and even when the decision to provide only one IPv6
   address per device is dictated by the network's business model, there
   may be little in the way of incremental revenue, because devices can
   share their IPv6 address with other devices.  Finally, it is not
   desirable for operating system manufacturers and application
   developers, who will have to build more complexity, lengthening
   development time and/or reducing the time spent on other features.

   Indeed, it could be argued that the main reason for deploying IPv6,
   instead of continuing to scale the Internet using only IPv4 and
   large-scale NAT44, is because doing so can provide all the hosts on
   the planet with end-to-end connectivity that is constrained not by
   accidental technical limitations, but only by intentional security

6.  Options for Providing More Than One Address

   Multiple IPv6 addresses can be provided in the following ways:

   o  Using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862].
      SLAAC allows hosts to create global IPv6 addresses on demand by
      simply forming new addresses from the global prefix(es) assigned
      to the link.  Typically, SLAAC is used on shared links, but it is
      also possible to use SLAAC while providing a dedicated /64 prefix
      to each host.  This is the case, for example, if the host is
      connected via a point-to-point link such as in 3GPP networks, on a
      network where each host has its own dedicated VLAN, or on a
      wireless network where every Media Access Control (MAC) address is
      placed in its own broadcast domain.

   o  Using stateful DHCPv6 address assignment [RFC3315].  Most DHCPv6
      clients only ask for one non-temporary address, but the protocol
      allows requesting multiple temporary and even multiple non-
      temporary addresses, and the server could choose to provide
      multiple addresses.  It is also technically possible for a client
      to request additional addresses using a different DHCP Unique
      Identifier (DUID), though the DHCPv6 specification implies that
      this is not expected behavior ([RFC3315], Section 9).  The DHCPv6
      server will decide whether to grant or reject the request based on
      information about the client, including its DUID, MAC address, and

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

      more.  The maximum number of IPv6 addresses that can be provided
      in a single DHCPv6 packet, given a typical MTU of 1500 bytes or
      smaller, is approximately 30.

   o  DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (PD) [RFC3633].  DHCPv6 PD allows the
      client to request and be delegated a prefix, from which it can
      autonomously form other addresses.  If the prefix is shorter than
      /64, it can be divided into multiple subnets that can be further
      delegated to downstream clients.  If the prefix is a /64, it can
      be extended via L2 bridging, Neighbor Discovery (ND) proxying
      [RFC4389], or /64 sharing [RFC7278], but it cannot be further
      subdivided, as a prefix longer than /64 is outside the current
      IPv6 specifications [RFC7421].  While the DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
      specification [RFC3633] assumes that the DHCPv6 client is a
      router, DHCPv6 PD itself does not require that the client forward
      IPv6 packets not addressed to itself, and thus does not require
      that the client be an IPv6 router as defined in the IPv6
      specification [RFC2460].  Also, in many cases (such as tethering,
      or hosting virtual machines), hosts are already forwarding IPv6
      packets and thus operating as IPv6 routers as defined in the IPv6
      specification [RFC2460].

   |                          | SLAAC |    DHCPv6   | DHCPv6 |  DHCPv4 |
   |                          |       |   IA_NA /   |   PD   |         |
   |                          |       |    IA_TA    |        |         |
   | Can extend network       |  No+  |      No     |  Yes   |   Yes   |
   |                          |       |             |        | (NAT44) |
   | Can number "unlimited"   |  Yes* |     Yes*    |   No   |    No   |
   | endpoints                |       |             |        |         |
   | Uses stateful, request-  |   No  |     Yes     |  Yes   |   Yes   |
   | based assignment         |       |             |        |         |
   | Is immune to Layer 3 on- |   No  |     Yes     |  Yes   |   Yes   |
   | link resource exhaustion |       |             |        |         |
   | attacks                  |       |             |        |         |

   [*] Subject to network limitations, e.g., ND cache entry size limits.
       [+] Except on certain networks, e.g., /64 sharing [RFC7278].

        Table 1: Comparison of Multiple Address Assignment Options

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

7.  Number of Addresses Required

   If we itemize the use cases from Section 3, we can estimate the
   number of addresses currently used in normal operations.  In typical
   implementations, privacy addresses use up to 7 addresses -- one per
   day ([RFC4941], Section 3.5).  Current mobile devices sharing an
   uplink connection may typically support 8 downstream client devices,
   with each one requiring one or more addresses.  A client might choose
   to run several virtual machines.  Current implementations of 464XLAT
   require the use of a separate address.  Some devices require another
   address for their baseband chip.  Even a host performing just a few
   of these functions simultaneously might need on the order of 20
   addresses at the same time.  Future applications designed to use an
   address per application or even per resource will require many more.
   These will not function on networks that enforce a hard limit on the
   number of addresses provided to hosts.  Thus, in general it is not
   possible to estimate in advance how many addresses are required.

8.  Recommendations

   In order to avoid the problems described above and preserve the
   Internet's ability to support new applications that use more than one
   IPv6 address, it is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 network deployments provide
   multiple IPv6 addresses from each prefix to general-purpose hosts.
   To support future use cases, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to impose a hard
   limit on the size of the address pool assigned to a host.
   Particularly, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to limit a host to only one IPv6
   address per prefix.

   Due to the drawbacks imposed by requiring explicit requests for
   address space (see Section 4), it is RECOMMENDED that the network
   give the host the ability to use new addresses without requiring
   explicit requests.  This can be achieved either by allowing the host
   to form new addresses autonomously (e.g., via SLAAC) or by providing
   the host with a dedicated /64 prefix.  The prefix MAY be provided
   using DHCPv6 PD, SLAAC with per-device VLANs, or any other means.

   Using stateful address assignment (DHCPv6 IA_NA or IA_TA) to provide
   multiple addresses when the host connects (e.g., the approximately 30
   addresses that can fit into a single packet) would accommodate
   current clients, but it sets a limit on the number of addresses
   available to hosts when they attach and therefore limits the
   development of future applications.

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

9.  Operational Considerations

9.1.  Host Tracking

   Some network operators -- often operators of networks that provide
   services to third parties such as university campus networks -- are
   required to track which IP addresses are assigned to which hosts on
   their network.  Maintaining persistent logs that map user IP
   addresses and timestamps to hardware identifiers such as MAC
   addresses may be used to attribute liability for copyright
   infringement or other illegal activity.

   It is worth noting that this requirement can be met without using
   DHCPv6 address assignment.  For example, it is possible to maintain
   these mappings by monitoring the IPv6 neighbor table: routers
   typically allow periodic dumps of the Neighbor Cache via the Simple
   Network Management Protocol (SNMP) or other means, and many can be
   configured to log every change to the Neighbor Cache.  Using SLAAC
   with a dedicated /64 prefix for each host simplifies tracking, as it
   does not require logging every address formed by the host, but only
   the prefix assigned to the host when it attaches to the network.
   Similarly, providing address space using DHCPv6 PD has the same
   tracking properties as DHCPv6 address assignment, but allows the
   network to provide unrestricted address space.

   Many large enterprise networks are fully dual stack and implement
   address monitoring without using or supporting DHCPv6.  The authors
   are directly aware of several networks that operate in this way,
   including the Universities of Loughborough, Minnesota, Reading,
   Southampton, and Wisconsin, and Imperial College London, in addition
   to the enterprise networks of the authors' employers.

   It should also be noted that using DHCPv6 address assignment does not
   ensure that the network can reliably track the IPv6 addresses used by
   hosts.  On any shared network without Layer 2 (L2) edge port
   security, hosts are able to choose their own addresses regardless of
   what address provisioning methodology the network operator believes
   is in use.  The only way to restrict the addresses used by hosts is
   to use L2 security mechanisms that enforce that particular IPv6
   addresses are used by particular link-layer addresses (for example,
   Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) [RFC7039]).  If those
   mechanisms are available, it is possible to use them to provide
   tracking; this form of tracking is more secure and reliable than
   server logs because it operates independently of how addresses are
   allocated.  Finally, tracking address information via DHCPv6 server
   logs is likely to become decreasingly viable due to ongoing efforts
   to improve the privacy of DHCPv6 and MAC address randomization

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

9.2.  Address Space Management

   In IPv4, all but the world's largest networks can be addressed using
   private space [RFC1918], with each host receiving one IPv4 address.
   Many networks can be numbered in, which has roughly 65
   thousand addresses.  In IPv6, that is equivalent to a /48, with each
   host receiving a /64 prefix.  Under current Regional Internet
   Registry (RIR) policies, a /48 is easy to obtain for an enterprise
   network.  Networks that need a bigger block of private space use, which has roughly 16 million addresses.  In IPv6, that is
   equivalent to a /40, with each host receiving a /64 prefix.
   Enterprises of such size can easily obtain a /40 under current RIR

   In the above cases, aggregation and routing can be equivalent to
   IPv4: if a network aggregates per-host IPv4 addresses into prefixes
   of length /32 - n, it can aggregate per-host /64 prefixes into the
   same number of prefixes of length /64 - n.

   Currently, residential users typically receive one IPv4 address and a
   /48, /56, or /60 IPv6 prefix.  While such networks do not provide
   enough space to assign a /64 per host, such networks almost
   universally use SLAAC, and thus do not pose any particular limit to
   the number of addresses hosts can use.

   Unlike IPv4 where addresses came at a premium, in all of these
   networks there is enough IPv6 address space to supply clients with
   multiple IPv6 addresses.

9.3.  Addressing Link-Layer Scalability Issues via IP Routing

   The number of IPv6 addresses on a link has a direct impact on
   networking infrastructure nodes (routers, switches) and other nodes
   on the link.  Setting aside exhaustion attacks via L2 address
   spoofing, every (L2, IP) address pair impacts networking hardware
   requirements in terms of memory, Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)
   snooping, solicited node multicast groups, etc.  Many of these costs
   are incurred by neighboring hosts.

   Hosts on such networks that create unreasonable numbers of addresses
   risk impairing network connectivity for themselves and other hosts on
   the network, and in extreme cases (e.g., hundreds or thousands of
   addresses) may even find their network access restricted by denial-
   of-service protection mechanisms.

   We expect these scaling limitations to change over time as hardware
   and applications evolve.  However, switching to a dedicated /64
   prefix per host can resolve these scaling limitations.  If the prefix

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                [Page 10]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

   is provided via DHCPv6 PD, or if the prefix can be used by only one
   link-layer address (e.g., if the link layer uniquely identifies or
   authenticates hosts based on MAC addresses), then there will be only
   one routing entry and one ND cache entry per host on the network.
   Furthermore, if the host is aware that the prefix is dedicated (e.g.,
   if it was provided via DHCPv6 PD and not SLAAC), it is possible for
   the host to assign IPv6 addresses from this prefix to an internal
   virtual interface such as a loopback interface.  This obviates the
   need to perform Neighbor Discovery and Duplicate Address Detection on
   the network interface for these addresses, reducing network traffic.

   Thus, assigning a dedicated /64 prefix per host is operationally
   prudent.  Clearly, however, it requires more IPv6 address space than
   using shared links, so the benefits provided must be weighed with the
   operational overhead of address space management.

10.  Security Considerations

   As mentioned in Section 9.3, on shared networks using SLAAC, it is
   possible for hosts to attempt to exhaust network resources and
   possibly deny service to other hosts by creating unreasonable numbers
   (e.g., hundreds or thousands) of addresses.  Networks that provide
   access to untrusted hosts can mitigate this threat by providing a
   dedicated /64 prefix per host.  It is also possible to mitigate the
   threat by limiting the number of ND cache entries that can be created
   for a particular host, but care must be taken to ensure that the
   network does not prevent the legitimate use of multiple IP addresses
   by non-malicious hosts.

   Security issues related to host tracking are discussed in
   Section 9.1.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

11.2.  Informative References

   [ILA]      Herbert, T., "Identifier-locator addressing for network
              virtualization", Work in Progress, draft-herbert-nvo3-
              ila-02, March 2016.

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                [Page 11]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

   [IPv6v4]   Japan Internet Exchange, "IPv6v4 Exchange Service", April
              2013, <>.

   [KA]       Roskind, J., "Quick UDP Internet Connections", November
              2013, <

   [L66]      McHardy, P., "netfilter: ipv6: add IPv6 NAT support",
              Linux commit 58a317f1061c894d2344c0b6a18ab4a64b69b815,
              August 2012, <

   [QUIC]     Hamilton, R., Iyengar, J., Swett, I., and A. Wilk, "QUIC:
              A UDP-Based Secure and Reliable Transport for HTTP/2",
              Work in Progress, draft-tsvwg-quic-protocol-02, January

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <>.

   [RFC2993]  Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2993, November 2000,

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
              2003, <>.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <>.

   [RFC4389]  Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
              Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, DOI 10.17487/RFC4389, April
              2006, <>.

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                [Page 12]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,

   [RFC5902]  Thaler, D., Zhang, L., and G. Lebovitz, "IAB Thoughts on
              IPv6 Network Address Translation", RFC 5902,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5902, July 2010,

   [RFC6434]  Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
              Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
              2011, <>.

   [RFC6459]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
              T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
              Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
              RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,

   [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,

   [RFC7039]  Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and C. Vogt, Ed.,
              "Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) Framework",
              RFC 7039, DOI 10.17487/RFC7039, October 2013,

   [RFC7217]  Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
              Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
              Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,

   [RFC7278]  Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
              /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
              (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                [Page 13]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

   [RFC7421]  Carpenter, B., Ed., Chown, T., Gont, F., Jiang, S.,
              Petrescu, A., and A. Yourtchenko, "Analysis of the 64-bit
              Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", RFC 7421,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7421, January 2015,

   [RFC7844]  Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
              Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016,

   [TARP]     Gleitz, PM. and SB. Bellovin, "Transient Addressing for
              Related Processes: Improved Firewalling by Using IPv6 and
              Multiple Addresses per Host", In Proceedings of the
              Eleventh Usenix Security Symposium, August 2001,

   [TS.24327] 3GPP, "Mobility between 3GPP Wireless Local Area Network
              (WLAN) interworking (I-WLAN) and 3GPP systems; General
              Packet Radio System (GPRS) and 3GPP I-WLAN aspects; Stage
              3", 3GPP TS 24.327, June 2011,

   [V66]      Oracle, "What's New in VirtualBox 4.3?", October 2013,


   The authors thank Tore Anderson, Brian Carpenter, David Farmer,
   Wesley George, Geoff Huston, Erik Kline, Victor Kuarsingh, Shucheng
   (Will) Liu, Shin Miyakawa, Dieter Siegmund, Mark Smith, Sander
   Steffann, Fred Templin, and James Woodyatt for their input and

Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                [Page 14]
RFC 7934        Host Address Availability Recommendations      July 2016

Authors' Addresses

   Lorenzo Colitti
   Roppongi 6-10-1
   Minato, Tokyo  106-6126


   Vint Cerf
   1875 Explorer Street
   10th Floor
   Reston, VA  20190
   United States of America


   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, CA  95014
   United States of America


   David Schinazi
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, CA  95014
   United States of America


Colitti, et al.           Best Current Practice                [Page 15]