Network Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia
June 18, 2002
Expires: December 18, 2002
IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 2002.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments.
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft June 2002
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of this Document
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
3. Sub-IP Layer
3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
3.2 RFC2467 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks
3.3 RFC2470 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring
3.4 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP
3.5 RFC2491 - IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks
3.6 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks
3.7 RFC2497 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet
Networks
3.8 RFC2529 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 Domains without Explicit
Tunnels
3.9 RFC2590 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification
4. IP Layer
4.1 General
4.2 Neighbor Discovery
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.4 ICMPv6
4.5 Addressing
4.6 Other
5. Application Layer, Transport and DNS
5.1 RFC2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms
5.2 RFC2732 - Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's
5.3 DNS
5.4 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
6. Transition
6.1 RFC2893 - Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers
7. Mobility
8. Security
8.1 Basic Architecture
8.2 Security Protocols
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
8.4 Key Management Method
9. Router Functionality
9.1 RFC2711 - IPv6 Router Alert Option
9.2 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft June 2002
10. Network Management
10.1 RFC2452 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control
Protocol
10.2 RFC2454 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol
10.3 RFC2465 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: Textual Conventions
and General Group
10.4 RFC2466 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: ICMPv6 Group
10.5 RFC2851 - Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses
10.6 RFC3019 - IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol
11. Security Considerations
12. References
12.1 Normative
12.2 Non-Normative
13. Authors and Acknowledgements
14. Editor's Address
Appendix A: Change history
Appendix B: List of Specifications Included
Appendix C: Specifications Not Included
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft June 2002
1. Introduction
The goal of this document is to define a minimal set of functionality
required for an IPv6 node. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional
or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to
implement the requirements listed in this document.
The document is written to minimize protocol discussion in this
document but instead make pointers to RFCs. In case of any
conflicting text, this document takes less precedence than the
normative RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this
document.
During the process of writing this document, if any issue is raised
regarding the normative RFCs, the consensus is, whenever possible, to
fix the RFCs not to add text in this document. However, it may be
useful to include this information in an appendix for informative
purposes.
Although the document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.
As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact
usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
that they should adhere to John Postel's Robustness Principle:
Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. [RFC793].
1.1 Scope of this Document
IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be
deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore,
it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes, in order
to ensure interoperability.
This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
requirements specified here.
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups
This document defines three classes of conformance for an IPv6 node:
Unconditionally Mandatory, Conditionally Mandatory and
Unconditionally Optional. The three classes of conformance are
defined in section 1.2.
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft June 2002
From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we
have the following definitions:
Description of an IPv6 Node
- a device that implements IPv6
Description of an IPv6 router
- a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to
itself.
Description of an IPv6 Host
- any node that is not a router.
Usage of IPv6 nodes
TBD
Conformance Group
A conformance group is a collection of related behavioral
specifications that appear in standards. A single RFC may contain
multiple independent pieces of functionality that belong to
separate conformance groups. If a node claims compliance to a
given conformance group, that means it implements all of the
mandatory behavior therein, including implementing all MUSTs, and
none of the MUST NOTs.
Unconditionally Mandatory
If a node claims compliance to this document, then it must support
the behavior specified within each conformance group listed of
type unconditionally mandatory.
Conditionally Mandatory
Conditionally mandatory groups include those which are mandatory
only if a particular condition is true, such as whether a specific
type of hardware is present, or whether another given group is
implemented. When a conditionally mandatory specification or
group is described, the condition will also be described. A given
RFC or portion thereof can sometimes appear in multiple
conformance groups, with different conditions.
Unconditionally Optional
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft June 2002
Behavior that is neither unconditionally mandatory nor
conditionally mandatory is unconditionally optional for compliance
to this document.
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
AH Authentication Header
DAD Duplicate Address Detection
ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
MIB Management Information Base
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit
NA Neighbor Advertisement
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
3. Sub-IP Layer (A.K.A - IPv6 over Foo)
An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
sending packet. By definition, these specifications are
conditionally mandatory, based upon what layer-2 is used.
3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] is
conditionally mandatory if the node has an Ethernet interface.
3.2 RFC2467 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI
Networks
A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks
[RFC-2467] is conditionally mandatory if the node has a FDDI
interface.
3.3 RFC2470 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token
Ring Networks
A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft June 2002
Networks [RFC-2470] is conditionally mandatory if the node has a
token ring interface.
3.4 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP
IPv6 over PPP [RFC-2472] is conditionally mandatory if the node
supports PPP.
3.5 RFC2491 - IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks
IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks [RFC2491] is
conditionally mandatory if the node has a NBMA network interface.
3.6 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks
IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] is conditionally mandatory if the
node has an ATM interface.
3.7 RFC2497 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet
Networks
A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks
[RFC2497] is conditionally mandatory if the node has an ARCnet
network interface.
3.8 RFC2529 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 Domains without
Explicit Tunnels
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 Domains without Explicit
Tunnels [2529] is unconditionally optional.
3.9 RFC2590 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification
[RFC2590] is conditionally mandatory if the node has a Frame Relay
interface.
4. IP Layer
4.1 General
4.1.1 RFC2460 - Internet Protocol Version 6
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This
specification is unconditionally mandatory.
Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft June 2002
extensions must be processed as described in RFC 2460.
The node must follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.
Nodes must always be able to receive fragment headers. However, if it
does not implement path MTU it may not need to send fragment headers.
However, nodes that do not implement transmission of fragment headers
need to impose limitation to payload size of layer 4 protocols.
The capability of being a final destination is unconditionally
mandatory, whereas the capability of being an intermediate
destination is unconditionally optional (i.e. - host functionality
vs. router functionality).
RFC-2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers.
A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
Security Payload. [RFC2460]
It is unconditionally mandatory for an IPv6 node to process these
headers.
4.2 Neighbor Discovery
4.2.1 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
Neighbor Discovery is conditionally mandatory. RFC 2461 states:
"Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating
IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA
links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those
services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering
the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services
described in this document that are not directly dependent on
multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor
Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as
specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on
NBMA links is an area for further study."
Some detailed analysis of Neighbor discovery follows:
Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
attached link. Router Discovery is unconditionally mandatory for
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft June 2002
implementations. However, the implementation SHOULD support disabling
this feature.
Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
Prefix discovery is unconditionally mandatory for implementation with
option to disable this function.
Address resolution is how nodes determine the link-layer address of
an on-link destination (e.g., a neighbor) given only the
destination's IP address. It is conditionally mandatory
implementation depending on the link type support. Address Resolution
for point-to-point links may not be mandatory; working group
clarification is needed on this.
Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) is conditionally mandatory.
It is unconditionally mandatory for all paths between hosts and
neighboring nodes. It is unconditionally optional for paths between
routers. It is unconditionally optional for multicast. However, when
a node receives a unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (that
may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST respond to it (i.e. send a unicast
Neighbor Advertisement).
Duplicate Address Detection is unconditionally mandatory (RFC2462
section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses).
Sending Router Solicitation is unconditionally mandatory for host
implementation, with a configuration option to disable this
functionality.
Receiving Router Advertisement is unconditionally mandatory for host
implementation, with a configuration option to disable this
functionality.
Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) are unconditionally mandatory. NS and NA messages
are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Router Discovery is Unconditionally mandatory.
Redirect Function is conditionally mandatory. If the node is a
router, Redirect Function is unconditionally mandatory.
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.3.1 RFC-1981 - Path MTU Discovery
Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] is unconditionally optional. The IPv6
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft June 2002
specification [RFC-2460] states in section 5 that "a minimal IPv6
implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit implementation
of Path MTU Discovery."
If Path MTU Discovery is not implemented then the sending packet size
is limited to 1280 octets (standard limit in [RFC-2460]).
4.3.2 RFC2675 - IPv6 Jumbograms
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] is unconditionally optional.
4.4 ICMPv6
ICMPv6 [RFC 2463] is Unconditionally Mandatory.
4.5 Addressing
Currently, there is discussion on-going on support for site-local
addressing.
4.5.1 RFC2373 - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-2373] is a mandatory part of
IPv6. Currently, this specification is being updated by [ADDRARCHv3].
4.5.2 RFC2462 - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
This specification is Unconditionally mandatory for nodes that are
hosts.
It is unconditionally mandatory for nodes that are routers to
generate link local addresses as described in this specification.
From 2462:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface.
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is unconditionally mandatory for
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft June 2002
all interface addresses assigned to the node.
4.5.3 RFC3041 - Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
is unconditionally optional. Currently, there is discussion of the
applicability of temporary addresses.
4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6
Default Address Selection for IPv6 [DEFADDR] is conditionally
mandatory, if a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or
a node has more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical)
configured.
4.6 Other
4.6.1 RFC2473 - Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification
Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] conditionally Mandatory, with the
condition being implementing the mobile node functionality or Home
Agent functionality of Mobile IP [MIPv6].
4.6.2 RFC2710 - Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] is Conditionally Mandatory,
where the condition is if the node joins any multicast groups other
than the all-nodes-on-link group (which will always be the case if it
runs ND or DAD on the link).
5. Application Layer, Transport Layer and DNS
5.1 RFC2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms
This specification is conditionally mandatory, if Jumbograms are
implemented [RFC-2675]. One open issue is if this document needs to
be updated, as it refers to an obsoleted document.
5.2 RFC2732 - Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's
RFC 2732 is Conditionally Mandatory if the node uses URL's.
5.3 DNS
Support for DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035] and [RFC-
1886], is unconditionally optional. Not all nodes will need to
resolve addresses.
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft June 2002
5.4 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 [DHCPv6] is
unconditionally optional.
6. Transition
IPv6 nodes should use native address instead of transition-based
addressing.
6.1 RFC2893 - Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers
Support for RFC-2893 is conditionally mandatory, if a node supports
IPv4 as well as IPv6. It specifies dual IP layer operation and IPv6
over IPv4 tunneling for IPv6 nodes.
This document is currently being updated.
7. Mobility
Currently, the MIPv6 specification [MIPv6] is nearing completion.
Mobile IPv6 places some requirements on IPv6 nodes. This document is
not meant to prescribe behaviors, but to capture the consensus of
what should be done for IPv6 nodes with respect to Mobile IPv6.
The Mobile IP specification [MIPv6] specifies the following classes
of functionality: Correspondent Node, Mobile Node, Route Optimization
functionality and Home Agent Functionality.
Correspondent Node functionality is Unconditionally Mandatory.
Mobile Node functionality is Conditionally Mandatory for nodes that
need to maintain sessions while changing their point of attachment to
the Internet.
Route Optimization functionality is conditionally optional for hosts.
Route Optimization is unconditionally optional for routers. There is
ongoing discussion about the role of Route Optimization. This
document should list some of the benefits of Route Optimization.
Home Agent functionality is Unconditionally Optional.
8. Security
This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.
Other issues that IPsec cannot resolve are described in the security
considerations.
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft June 2002
8.1 Basic Architecture
Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] is
unconditionally mandatory except of the following description.
Requirements that this section describes explicitly MUST refer to
RFC-2401.
IPsec transport mode is unconditionally mandatory.
IPsec tunnel mode is unconditionally optional.
[DISCUSSION: Network administrators want to make separated
networks to be a single network by using a site-local address
space. The routers should be implemented both IPsec transport
mode and a generic tunnel in this case, but if there is no
statement what it should be, the administrators must use IPsec
tunnel mode because it is used now in IPv4 network.]
Applying single security association of ESP [RFC-2406] to a packet
is unconditionally mandatory, although RFC-2401 defines four types
of combination of security associations that must be supported by
compliant IPsec hosts,
Applying single security association of AH is conditionally
mandatory if AH [RFC-2402] is implemented.
The following packet type is conditionally mandatory if AH is
combined with ESP: IP|AH|ESP|ULP.
The summary of Basic Combinations of Security Associations in
section 4.5 of RFC-2401 is:
case 1-2 is unconditionally mandatory.
case 1-1 and 1-3 is conditionally mandatory if AH is implemented.
case 1-4, 1-5, 2-5 and 4is conditionally optional if IPsec tunnel
mode is implemented.
case 2-4 is conditionally optional if IPsec tunnel mode and AH is
implemented.
case 3 is not applicable to this document.
8.2 Security Protocols
ESP [RFC-2406] is unconditionally mandatory even when ESP is not
used. AH [RFC-2402] is conditionally mandatory if there is data in IP
header to be protected, for example, an extension header.
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft June 2002
The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV [RFC-2405] is
conditionally mandatory if you need to have interoperability with old
implementation by using DES-CBC. Note the IPsec WG recommends not
using this algorithm. 3DES-CBC is conditionally mandatory so that the
part of ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] is unconditionally
mandatory. Note that the IPsec WG also recommends not using this
algorithm. AES-128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] is unconditionally
mandatory but there is on-going work in the IPsec WG. NULL Encryption
algorithm [RFC-2410] is conditionally mandatory. It is for only
providing integrity service, and it is also for debugging use.
The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP that described in [RFC-2404] is
unconditionally mandatory. This has to be referred if AH is
implemented. The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within ESP that described in
[RFC-2403] is unconditionally mandatory. This has to be referred if
AH is implemented. The HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and Its Use With
IPsec [ipsec-ciph-sha-256] is unconditionally mandatory, but it is
working out in the IPsec WG. An implementer MUST refer to Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104].
8.4 Key Management Method
Manual keying is unconditionally mandatory.
Automated SA and Key Management is conditionally mandatory for the
use of the anti-replay features of AH and ESP, and to accommodate
on-demand creation of SAs, session-oriented keying.
IKE [RFC-2407, RFC2-408, RFC-2409] is unconditionally optional for
unicast traffic. Note that the IPsec WG is working on a new version
of IKE [IKEV2]. Implementers should be aware of the new work.
9. Router Functionality
This section defines general considerations for IPv6 nodes that act
as routers. It is for future study if this document, or a separate
document is needed to fully define IPv6 router requirements.
Currently, this section does not discuss routing protocols.
9.1 RFC2711 - IPv6 Router Alert Option
The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is conditionally mandatory if the
node does performs packet forwarding at the IP layer.
9.2 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation is
unconditionally mandatory.
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft June 2002
10. Network Management
Network Management, is generally not a requirement for IPv6 nodes.
However, for IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management
may be the only possibility to control these hosts. In a general
sense, MIBs can be considered conditionally mandatory when there is
no other means to manage the IPv6 node. This section is for further
study. It should be also noted that these specifications are updated.
10.1 RFC2452 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the Transmission
Control Protocol
10.2 RFC2454 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram
Protocol
10.3 RFC2465 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: Textual
Conventions and General Group
10.4 RFC2466 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: ICMPv6
Group
10.5 RFC2851 - Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses
10.6 RFC3019 - IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol
11. Security Considerations
This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but
implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
security features to ensure security on the Internet. "IP Security
Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read.
The security considerations in RFC2401 describes,
The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].
IPsec cannot cover all of security requirement for IPv6 node. For
example, IPsec cannot protect the node from kind of DoS attack. The
node may need a mechanism of IPv6 packet filtering functionality, and
also may need a mechanism of rate limitation.
The use of ICMPv6 without IPsec can expose the nodes in question to
various kind of attacks including Denial-of-Service, Impersonation,
Man-in-the-Middle, and others. Note that only manually keyed IPsec
can protect some of the ICMPv6 messages that are related to
establishing communications. This is due to chick en-and-egg problems
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft June 2002
on running automated key management protocols on top of IP. However,
manually keyed IPsec may require a large number of SAs in order to
run on a large network due to the use of many addresses during ICMPv6
Neighbor Discovery.
An implementer should also consider the analysis of anycast
[ANYCAST].
12. References
12.1 Normative
[ADDRARCHv3] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", Work in progress.
[DEFADDR] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", Work
in progress.
[DHCPv6] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Work in progress.
[MIPv6] Johnson D. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in
IPv6", Work in progress.
[RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU
Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC-1886] Thomson, S. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to sup-
port IP version 6, RFC 1886, December 1995.
[RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC:
Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
[RFC-2246] Dierks, T. and Allen, C., "The TLS Protocol Version
1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft June 2002
[RFC-2373] Hinden, R. and Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for
the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC-2402] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication
Header", RFC 2402, November 1998.
[RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
[RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1
within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[RFC-2405] Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.
[RFC-2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security
Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.
[RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
[RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner,
J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management
Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.
[RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key
Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm
and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998
[RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft June 2002
[RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver-
sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December
1998.
[RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462.
[RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Pro-
tocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.
[RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC
2472, December 1998.
[RFC-2473] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling
in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
1999.
[RFC-2711] Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert
Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.
12.2 Non-Normative
[ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast"
Work in Progress.
[IKEv2] Harkins, D. et. al, "Proposal for the IKEv2 Protocol",
Work in Progress.
[RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
August 1980.
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft June 2002
[RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili-
ties", RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147,
May 1997.
[RFC-2452] M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the
Transmission Control Protocol", RFC2452, December 1998.
[RFC-2454] M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the
User Datagram Protocol, RFC2454", December 1998.
[RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC-2465] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for IP
Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group",
RFC2465, December 1998.
[RFC-2467] M. Crawford, "A Method for the Tranmission of IPv6 Pack-
ets over FDDI Networks", RFC2467, December 1998.
[RFC-2470] M. Crawford, T. Narten, S. Thomas, "A Method for the
Tranmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks",
RFC2470, December 1998.
[RFC-2491] G. Armitage, P. Schulter, M. Jork, G. Harter, "IPv6 over
Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC2491,
January 1999.
[RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over
ATM Networks", RFC2492, January 1999.
[RFC-2497] I. Souvatzis, "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6
Packets over ARCnet Networks", RFC2497, January 1999.
[RFC-2529] Carpenter, B. and Jung, C., "Transmission of IPv6 over
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft June 2002
IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March
1999.
[RFC-2566] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for IP
Version 6: ICMPv6 Group", RFC2466, December 1998.
[RFC-2590] A. Conta, A. Malis, M. Mueller, "Transmission of IPv6
Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC
2590, May 1999.
[RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo-
grams", RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.
[RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder,
"Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses",
RFC2851, June 2000.
[RFC-2874] Crawford, M. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to Support
IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, July
2000.
[RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for State-
less Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, Janu-
ary 2001.
[RFC-3056] Carpenter, B. and Moore, K., "Connection of IPv6 domains
via IPv4 clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC-3019] B. Haberman, R. Worzella, "IP Version 6 Management Infor-
mation Base for the Multicast Listener Discovery Proto-
col", RFC3019, January 2001.
13. Authors and Acknowledgements
This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft June 2002
Jari Arkko
[jari.arkko@ericsson.com]
Marc Blanchet
[Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca]
Samita Chakrabarti
[Samita.Chakrabarti@eng.sun.com]
Alain Durand
[Alain.Durand@Sun.com]
Gerard Gastaud
[Gerard.Gastaud@alcatel.fr]
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
[itojun@iijlab.net]
Atsushi Inoue
[inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
Masahiro Ishiyama
[masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
John Loughney
[John.Loughney@Nokia.com]
Okabe Nobuo
[nov@tahi.org]
Rajiv Raghunarayan
[raraghun@cisco.com]
Shoichi Sakane
[shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com]
Dave Thaler
[dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]
Juha Wiljakka
[juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]
14. Editor's Contact Information
Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the IPv6
Working Group mailing list (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com) or to:
John Loughney
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft June 2002
Nokia Research Center
Itmerenkatu 11-13
00180 Helsinki
Finland
Phone: +358 50 483 6242
Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com
Appendix A: Change history
TBD
Appendix B: List of RFCs
This is a list of RFC to look at during the editing process. They are
classified by generic categories and by level of potential conformance.
TBD
Appendix C: Specifications Not Included
Here is a list of documents considered, but not included in this document.
In general, Information documents are not considered to place requirements on
implementations. Experimental documents are just that, experimental, and
cannot place requirements on the general behavior of IPv6 nodes.
Upper Protocols
2428 FTP Extensions For IPv6 And NATs
Compression
2507 IP Header Compression
2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers For Low-Speed Serial Links
2509 IP Header Compression Over PPP
Informational
1752 The Recommendation For The IP Next Generation Protocol API RFCs
1881 IPv6 Address Allocation Management.
1887 An Architecture For Ipv6 Unicast Address Allocation
2104 HMAC: Keyed-Hashing For Message Authentication
2374 An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format.
2450 Proposed TLA And NLA Assignment Rules.
Experimental
2874 DNS Extensions To Support Ipv6 Address Aggregation
2471 IPv6 Testing Address Allocation.
Other
2526 Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast
2732 Format For Literal IPv6 Addr In URLs
2894 Router Renumbering
3122 Extensions To IPv6 ND For Inverse Discovery
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft June 2002
Loughney (editor) expires November 2002 [Page 23]