IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia
October 31, 2002
Expires: April 31, 2003
IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-02.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 April 31, 2003
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) [Page 1]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of this Document
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
3. Sub-IP Layer
3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
3.2 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP
3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks
4. IP Layer
4.1 General
4.2 Neighbor Discovery
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.4 RFC2463 - ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
4.5 Addressing
4.6 Other
5. Transport and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer
5.2 DNS
5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
6. IPv4 Support and Transition
6.1 Transition Mechanisms
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 General
10. Network Management
10.1 MIBs
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) [Page 2]
Internet-Draft October 31, 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, any issue raised
regarding the normative RFCs, the consensus is, whenever possible, to
fix the RFCs and 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
From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we
have the following definitions:
Description of an IPv6 Node
Loughney (editor) [Page 3]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
- 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.
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
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
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
ULP Upper Layer Protocol
3. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
sending packet. By definition, these specifications are required
based upon what layer-2 is used. In general, it is reasonable to be
a conformant IPv6 node and NOT support some legacy interfaces.
Loughney (editor) [Page 4]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major
layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.
3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] MUST
be supported for nodes supporting Ethernet interfaces.
3.2 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP
IPv6 over PPP [RFC-2472] is MUST be supported for nodes that use PPP.
3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks
IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] is MUSt be supported for nodes
supporting ATM interfaces. Additionally, the specification states:
A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.
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 MUST be supported.
Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
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 discovery 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 MUST be supported,
whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination is MAY be
supported(i.e. - host functionality vs. router functionality).
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers.
Loughney (editor) [Page 5]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
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]
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be
noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers
and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused by them.
4.2 Neighbor Discovery
4.2.1 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
Neighbor Discovery is SHOULD be supported. 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 MUST be supported for
implementations. However, an implementation MAY support disabling
this function.
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 MUST be supported for implementations. However,
the implementation MAY support the option of disabling this function.
Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all
paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for
paths between routers. It is required 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 MUST be supported (RFC2462 section 5.4
Loughney (editor) [Page 6]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses).
Sending Router Solicitation MUST be supported for host
implementation, but MAY support a configuration option to disable
this functionality.
Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
host implementation s. However, the implementation MAY support the
option of disabling this function. The ability to understand specific
Router Advertisements is dependent on supporting the specification
where the RA is specified.
Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required
for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Redirect Function SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
Redirect Function MUST be supported.
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.3.1 RFC1981 - Path MTU Discovery
Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. Nodes with a link
MTU larger than the minimum IPv6 link MTU (1280 octets) can use Path
MTU Discovery in order to discover the real path MTU. The relative
overhead of IPv6 headers is minimized through the use of longer
packets, thus making better use of the available bandwidth.
The IPv6 specification [RFC-2460] states in chapter 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]). However, if
this is done, the host MUST be able to receive packets with size up
to the link MTU before reassembly. This is because the node at the
other side of the link has no way of knowing less than the MTU is
accepted.
4.3.2 RFC2675 - IPv6 Jumbograms
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
4.4 RFC2463 - ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported.
Loughney (editor) [Page 7]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
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] MUST be supported.
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 MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.
Nodes that are routers MUST be able 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) MUST be supported.
4.5.3 RFC3041 - Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
MAY be supported. Currently, there is discussion of the
applicability of temporary addresses.
4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6
Default Address Selection for IPv6 [DEFADDR] SHOULD be supported, if
a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or a node has
more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured.
The rules specified in the document are the only MUST to implement
portion of the architecture. A node MUST belong to one site. There
is no requirement that a node be able to belong to more than one.
Loughney (editor) [Page 8]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
This draft has been approved as a proposed standard.
4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. For those IPv6
Nodes that implement a stateful configuration mechanism such as
[DHCPv6], those nodes MUST initiate stateful address
autoconfiguration upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the
Managed address flag set. In addition, as defined in [RFC2462], in
the absence of a router, hosts that implement a stateful
configuration mechanism such as [DHCPv6] MUST attempt to use stateful
address autoconfiguration.
For IPv6 Nodes that do not implement the optional stateful
configuration mechanisms such as [DHCPv6], the Managed Address flag
of a Router Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in the
absence of a router, this type of node is not required to initiate
stateful address autoconfiguration as specified in [RFC2462].
4.6 Other
4.6.1 RFC2473 - Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification
Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] MUST be suppored for nodes
implementing 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] MUST be supported by nodes
supporting multicast applications. A primary IPv6 multicast
application is Neighbor Discovery (all those solicited-node mcast
addresses must be joined).
When MLDv2 [MLDv2] has been completed, it SHOULD take precedence over
MLD.
5. Transport Layer and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer
5.1.1 RFC2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms
This specification is MUST be supported 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 DNS
Loughney (editor) [Page 9]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035] and [RFC-1886] MAY be
supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve addresses.
5.2.1 RFC2874 - DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and
Renumbering
DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering
MAY be supported.
5.2.2 RFC2732 - Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's
RFC 2732 is MUST be supported if applications on the node use URL's.
5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 [DHCPv6] is MAY be
supported.
6. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. However, this document should consider
the following cases: native IPv6 only; native IPv6 with IPv4
supported only via tunneling over IPv6; and native IPv6 and native
IPv4 both fully supported.
6.1 Transition Mechanisms
IPv6 nodes SHOULD use native address instead of transition-based
addressing.
6.1.1 RFC2893 - Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers
If an IPv6 node implement dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893
MUST be supported.
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.
Mobile Node functionality MAY be supported.
Route Optimization functionality SHOULD be supported for hosts.
Route Optimization is not required for routers.
Loughney (editor) [Page 10]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
Home Agent functionality is MAY be supported.
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.
8.1 Basic Architecture
Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] MUST be
supported. IPsec transport mode MUST be supported. IPsec tunnel mode
MUST be supoorted.
Applying single security association of ESP [RFC-2406] to a packet is
MUST, 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 MUST be supported, if
AH [RFC-2402] is implemented.
The following packet type MUST be supported 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 MUST be supported.
case 1-1 and 1-3 MUST be supported if AH is implemented.
case 1-4, 1-5, 2-5 and 4 MUST be supported if IPsec tunnel mode is
implemented.
case 2-4 is MUST be supported if IPsec tunnel mode and AH is
implemented.
case 3 is not applicable to this document.
8.2 Security Protocols
ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported.
AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported. AH is needed if there is data in IP
header to be protected, for example, an extension header.
However, in practice, ESP can provide the same security services as
AH as well as confidentiality, thus there is no real need for AH.
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV [RFC-2405] is MUST
Loughney (editor) [Page 11]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
be supported if interoperability is required with old implementations
supported DES-CBC. Note, however, the IPsec WG recommends not using
this algorithm. 3DES-CBC is SHOULD be supported, so that ESP CBC-Mode
Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec
WG also recommends not using this algorithm.
AES-128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] is MUST be supported. NULL
Encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing
integrity service and also for debugging use.
The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2404] MUST be
supported. This MUST be used if AH is implemented. The Use of HMAC-
MD5-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. This
MUST be used if AH is implemented. The "HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and
Its Use With IPsec" [ipsec-ciph-sha-256] MUST be supported, but it is
being discussed in the IPsec WG. An implementer MUST refer to Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104].
8.4 Key Management Methods
Manual keying MUST be supported
Automated SA and Key Management SHOULD be supported 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, RFC-2408, RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast
traffic. Note that the IPsec WG is working on the successor to IKE
[SOI].
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 General
9.1.1 RFC2711 - IPv6 Router Alert Option
The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is MUST be supported by nodes that
perform packet forwarding at the IP layer (i.e. - the node is a
router).
9.1.2 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
Loughney (editor) [Page 12]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
be supported.
10. Network Management
Network Management, MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for
IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the
only possibility to control these hosts.
10.1 MIBs
In a general sense, MIBs are required by the nodes that support a
SNMP agent. It should be also noted that these specifications are
being updated.
10.1.1 RFC2452 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the Transmission
Control Protocol
TBA
10.1.2 RFC2454 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram
Protocol
TBA
10.1.3 RFC2465 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: Textual
Conventions and General Group
TBA
10.1.4 RFC2466 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: ICMPv6
Group
TBA
10.1.5 RFC2851 - Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses
TBA
10.1.6 RFC3019 - IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol
TBA
Loughney (editor) [Page 13]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
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 some kinds 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
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.
Loughney (editor) [Page 14]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
[MIPv6] Johnson D. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in IPv6",
Work in progress.
[MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress.
[RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and spec¡
ification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC-1886] Thomson, S. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to support
IP version 6, RFC 1886, December 1995.
[RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU Discov¡
ery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
1997.
[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.
Loughney (editor) [Page 15]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
[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 Interpre¡
tation 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 Algo¡
rithms", RFC 2451, November 1998
[RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor Dis¡
covery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
[RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address Auto¡
configuration", RFC 2462.
[RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Proto¡
col 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.
Loughney (editor) [Page 16]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
[RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast Lis¡
tener 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.
[SOI] C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Progress.
[RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
August 1980.
[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-2466] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for IP
Version 6: ICMPv6 Group", RFC2466, December 1998.
Loughney (editor) [Page 17]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
[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
IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March
1999.
[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-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.
[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-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.
Loughney (editor) [Page 18]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
[RFC-3019] B. Haberman, R. Worzella, "IP Version 6 Management Infor¡
mation Base for the Multicast Listener Discovery Proto¡
col", RFC3019, January 2001.
[RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for State¡
less Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, Jan¡
uary 2001.
[IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002.
13. Authors and Acknowledgements
This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
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
Loughney (editor) [Page 19]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
[raraghun@cisco.com]
Shoichi Sakane
[shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com ]
Dave Thaler
[dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]
Juha Wiljakka
[juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]
The authors would like to thank Adam Machalek, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments.
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
Nokia Research Center
Itmerenkatu 11-13
00180 Helsinki
Finland
Phone: +358 50 483 6242
Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com
Appendix A: Change history
The following is a list of changes since the previous version.
- Small updates based upon feedback from the IPv6 mailing list.
- Refomated chapters.
- Added Appendix B - List of RFCs.
TBD
Appendix B: 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
Loughney (editor) [Page 20]
Internet-Draft October 31, 2002
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) [Page 21]