GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc4294

Network Working Group J. Loughney, Ed. Request for Comments: 4294 Nokia Category: Informational April 2006

                       IPv6 Node Requirements

Status of This Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

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.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
    1.1. Requirement Language .......................................3
    1.2. Scope of This Document .....................................3
    1.3. Description of IPv6 Nodes ..................................3
 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document .............................3
 3. Sub-IP Layer ....................................................4
    3.1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
         - RFC 2464 .................................................4
    3.2. IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 2472 ...........................4
    3.3. IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492 ..........................4
 4. IP Layer ........................................................5
    4.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 .....................5
    4.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461 .....................5
    4.3. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size .........................6
    4.4. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) -
         RFC 2463 ...................................................7
    4.5. Addressing .................................................7
    4.6. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 .....8
 5. DNS and DHCP ....................................................8
    5.1. DNS ........................................................8

Loughney Informational [Page 1] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

    5.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
         (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 ........................................9
 6. IPv4 Support and Transition ....................................10
    6.1. Transition Mechanisms .....................................10
 7. Mobile IP ......................................................10
 8. Security .......................................................10
    8.1. Basic Architecture ........................................10
    8.2. Security Protocols ........................................11
    8.3. Transforms and Algorithms .................................11
    8.4. Key Management Methods ....................................12
 9. Router-Specific Functionality ..................................12
    9.1. General ...................................................12
 10. Network Management ............................................12
    10.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) ...............12
 11. Security Considerations .......................................13
 12. References ....................................................13
    12.1. Normative References .....................................13
    12.2. Informative References ...................................16
 13. Authors and Acknowledgements ..................................18

1. Introduction

 The goal of this document is to define the common functionality
 required from both IPv6 hosts and routers.  Many IPv6 nodes will
 implement optional or additional features, but this document
 summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track
 documents in one place.
 This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
 references RFCs for this purpose.  This document is informational in
 nature and does not update Standards Track RFCs.
 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 Jon Postel's Robustness Principle:
    Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
    others [RFC-793].

Loughney Informational [Page 2] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

1.1. Requirement Language

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119].

1.2. 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 to ensure
 interoperability.
 This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
 requirements specified here.

1.3. Description of IPv6 Nodes

 From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
 [RFC-2460], we have the following definitions:
    Description of an IPv6 Node
  1. a device that implements IPv6.
    Description of an IPv6 router
  1. a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed

to itself.

    Description of an IPv6 Host
  1. 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
 IKE   Internet Key Exchange

Loughney Informational [Page 3] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

 MIB   Management Information Base
 MLD   Multicast Listener Discovery
 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
 PVC   Permanent Virtual Circuit
 SVC   Switched Virtual Circuit

3. Sub-IP Layer

 An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
 specifications.  Which link-layer specifications are included will
 depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available
 on the system.  It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support
 IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others.
 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. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC 2464

 Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement
 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464].

3.2. IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 2472

 Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP
 [RFC-2472].

3.3. IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492

 Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM
 Networks [RFC-2492].  Additionally, RFC 2492 states:

Loughney Informational [Page 4] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

    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. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460

 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 send, receive, and process fragment
 headers.  All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
 sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
 be supported.
 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 [RFC-2460].
 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] that they cause.

4.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461

 Neighbor Discovery 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

Loughney Informational [Page 5] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

    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 MUST be supported for
 implementations.
 Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
 that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
 Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations.  Neighbor
 Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths
 between hosts and neighboring nodes.  It is not required for paths
 between routers.  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 MUST be supported on all links supporting
 link-layer multicast (RFC 2462, Section 5.4, specifies DAD MUST take
 place on all unicast addresses).
 A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations.
 Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
 host implementations.  The ability to understand specific Router
 Advertisement options 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 functionality SHOULD be supported.  If the node is a router,
 Redirect functionality MUST be supported.

4.3. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size

4.3.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981

 Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal
 implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets.
 The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and
 reassembly.

4.3.2. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675

 IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] MAY be supported.

Loughney Informational [Page 6] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

4.4. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 2463

 ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported.

4.5. Addressing

4.5.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 3513

 The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported as
 updated by [RFC-3879].

4.5.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 2462

 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
 This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.
 Static address can be supported as well.
 Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses
 as described in RFC 2462 [RFC-2462].
 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. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 3041

 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
 SHOULD be supported.  It is recommended that this behavior be
 configurable on a connection basis within each application when
 available.  It is noted that a number of applications do not work
 with addresses generated with this method, while other applications
 work quite well with them.

4.5.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484

 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
 [RFC-3484] document MUST be implemented.  It is expected that IPv6
 nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses.

Loughney Informational [Page 7] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

4.5.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration

 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported.  DHCPv6
 [RFC-3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol;
 see Section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support.
 Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be
 unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses, aside from link-local addresses,
 when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed
 address configuration) set and that contains no prefixes advertised
 for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see Section 4.5.2).
 Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration
 information, such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is
 connected to a link over which the node receives a router
 advertisement in which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration")
 is set.

4.6. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710

 Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
 [RFC-3810].  However, if the node has applications that only need
 support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC-3569], the node MAY implement
 MLDv1 [RFC-2710] instead.  If the node has applications that need
 support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC-3569, SSM-ARCH], the node
 MUST support MLDv2 [RFC-3810].
 When MLD is used, the rules in the "Source Address Selection for the
 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be
 followed.

5. DNS and DHCP

5.1. DNS

 DNS is described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363],
 and [RFC-3596].  Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that
 will never need to resolve DNS names do not need to implement
 resolver functionality.  However, the ability to resolve names is a
 basic infrastructure capability that applications rely on and
 generally needs to be supported.  All nodes that need to resolve
 names SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, as in
 RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for:
  1. AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596];
  1. reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152];

Loughney Informational [Page 8] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

  1. EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512

octets.

 Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
 [RFC-4033], [RFC-4034], and [RFC-4035].
 Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
 DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363].

5.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration

 The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment
 can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
 receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set is described
 in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.
 In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 nodes that use
 DHCP for address assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6
 addresses and other configuration information, as described in
 Section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462.  Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for
 address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements.

5.2.2. Other Configuration Information

 The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other
 configuration information can obtain other configuration information
 upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set is
 described in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.
 Those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration
 information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon
 receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described
 in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.  Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP
 for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router
 Advertisements.
 An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC-3736]) to
 obtain other configuration information.

5.3.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments

 Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
 are expected to determine their default router information and on-
 link prefix information from received Router Advertisements.

Loughney Informational [Page 9] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

6. IPv4 Support and Transition

 IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.

6.1. Transition Mechanisms

6.1.1. Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 2893

 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC-4213]
 MUST be supported.

7. Mobile IP

 The Mobile IPv6 [RFC-3775] specification defines requirements for the
 following types of nodes:
  1. mobile nodes
  1. correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
  1. home agents
  1. all IPv6 routers
 Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5
 of [RFC-3775], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-
 2473] and secure home agent communications [RFC-3776].
 Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
 correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [RFC-3775].
 Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for
 all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [RFC-3775].  Routers MAY
 support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of
 [RFC-3775], including support of [RFC-2473] and [RFC-3776].

8. Security

 This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.

8.1. Basic Architecture

 Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-4301] MUST be
 supported.

Loughney Informational [Page 10] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

8.2. Security Protocols

 ESP [RFC-4303] MUST be supported.  AH [RFC-4302] MUST be supported.

8.3. Transforms and Algorithms

 Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms
 for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and
 HMAC-MD5-96.  However, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
 Requirements For ESP And AH" [RFC-4305] contains the current set of
 mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH.  It also specifies
 algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be
 promoted to mandatory at some future time.  IPv6 nodes SHOULD conform
 to the requirements in [RFC-4305], as well as the requirements
 specified below.
 Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
 for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] and the NULL
 authentication algorithm [RFC-4303] MUST be provided to maintain
 consistency with the way these services are negotiated.  However,
 while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT
 both be NULL.  The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for
 debugging.
 The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2405] SHOULD NOT be supported
 within ESP.  Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed
 in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], and [DESCRACK].  DES-CBC is still listed as
 required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will
 be published in the near future.  DES provides 56 bits of protection,
 which is no longer considered sufficient.
 The use of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC-2404] within AH and ESP
 MUST be supported.  The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC-2403]
 within AH and ESP MAY also be supported.
 The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2451] does not suffer from the
 same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm within
 ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability.
 The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST also be supported within
 ESP.  AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and
 efficient algorithm.  While AES-128-CBC is not required by the
 current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future.

Loughney Informational [Page 11] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

8.4. Key Management Methods

 An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the
 security key and SPI.  The SPI configuration is needed in order to
 delineate between multiple keys.
 Key management SHOULD be supported.  Examples of key management
 systems include IKEv2 [RFC-4306] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include
 key management functions.
 Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand
 creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying
 MUST be supported.
 Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on
 by the MSEC WG.

9. Router-Specific Functionality

 This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
 act as routers.  Currently, this section does not discuss routing-
 specific requirements.

9.1. General

9.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711

 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-
 Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g.,
 RSVP [RFC-2205] or MLD [RFC-2710]).  The Router Alert option will
 need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are
 implemented.  See Section 4.6.

9.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461

 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
 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
 possible way of controlling these nodes.

10.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)

 The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
 SNMP agent.

Loughney Informational [Page 12] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

10.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB

 IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that
 support an SNMP agent.

10.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)

 IP MIB [RFC-4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP
 agent.

11. Security Considerations

 This document 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 RFC 2460 state the following:
    The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
    Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].
 RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for
 the security features of IPv6.

12. References

12.1. Normative References

 [RFC-1035]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
                specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
 [RFC-1981]     McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU
                Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
 [RFC-2104]     Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
                Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
                February 1997.
 [RFC-2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC-2403]     Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96
                within ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
 [RFC-2404]     Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96
                within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.

Loughney Informational [Page 13] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

 [RFC-2405]     Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
                Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.
 [RFC-2410]     Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm
                and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.
 [RFC-2411]     Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
                Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
 [RFC-2451]     Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
                Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.
 [RFC-2460]     Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version
                6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
 [RFC-2461]     Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
                Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December
                1998.
 [RFC-2462]     Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
                Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
 [RFC-2463]     Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message
                Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6
                (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2463, December 1998.
 [RFC-2472]     Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC
                2472, December 1998.
 [RFC-2473]     Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
                IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
 [RFC-2671]     Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
                2671, August 1999.
 [RFC-2710]     Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
                Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
                1999.
 [RFC-2711]     Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert
                Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.
 [RFC-3041]     Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for
                Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC
                3041, January 2001.
 [RFC-3152]     Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", BCP 49, RFC 3152,
                August 2001.

Loughney Informational [Page 14] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

 [RFC-3315]     Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
                C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration
                Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
 [RFC-3363]     Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and
                T. Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6
                (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC
                3363, August 2002.
 [RFC-3484]     Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S., and B. Wijnen,
                "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version
                3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
                Framework", BCP 74, RFC 3584, August 2003.
 [RFC-3513]     Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version
                6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April
                2003.
 [RFC-3590]     Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the
                Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC
                3590, September 2003.
 [RFC-3596]     Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
                "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
                October 2003.
 [RFC-3602]     Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC
                Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
                September 2003.
 [RFC-3775]     Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
                Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
 [RFC-3776]     Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using
                IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile
                Nodes and Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
 [RFC-3810]     Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
                Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
 [RFC-3879]     Huitema, C. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
                Addresses", RFC 3879, September 2004.
 [RFC-4292]     Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
                April 2006.
 [RFC-4293]     Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for
                the Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.

Loughney Informational [Page 15] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

 [RFC-4301]     Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for
                the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
 [RFC-4302]     Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
                December 2005.
 [RFC-4303]     Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
                RFC 4303, December 2005.
 [RFC-4305]     Eastlake 3rd, D., "Cryptographic Algorithm
                Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security
                Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC
                4305, December 2005.

12.2. Informative References

 [DESDIFF]      Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of
                DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4,
                Jan 1991.
 [DESCRACK]     Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA
                2000.
 [DESINT]       Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without
                Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF,
                Danvers, MA, April 1995.
 [IPv6-RH]      P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
                Address Options", Work in Progress.
 [RFC-793]      Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
                RFC 793, September 1981.
 [RFC-1034]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and
                facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
 [RFC-2205]     Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
                Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
                Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
                September 1997.
 [RFC-2464]     Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
                Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
 [RFC-2492]     Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over
                ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.

Loughney Informational [Page 16] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

 [RFC-2675]     Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6
                Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999.
 [RFC-4213]     Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition
                Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
                October 2005.
 [RFC-3569]     Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
                Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
 [RFC-3736]     Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration
                Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April
                2004.
 [RFC-4001]     Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J.
                Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet
                Network Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005.
 [RFC-4033]     Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
                S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
                RFC 4033, March 2005.
 [RFC-4034]     Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
                S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
                Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005.
 [RFC-4035]     Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
                S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
                Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
 [RFC-4306]     Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2)
                Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005.
 [SSM-ARCH]     H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
                IP", Work in Progress.

Loughney Informational [Page 17] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

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]
 Rajiv Raghunarayan
 [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 Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
 Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
 Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments.

Loughney Informational [Page 18] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

Editor's Contact Information

 Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the
 IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipv6@ietf.org) or to:
 John Loughney
 Nokia Research Center
 Itamerenkatu 11-13
 00180 Helsinki
 Finland
 Phone: +358 50 483 6242
 EMail: John.Loughney@Nokia.com

Loughney Informational [Page 19] RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements April 2006

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
 retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Loughney Informational [Page 20]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc4294.txt · Last modified: 2006/04/06 23:45 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki