GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6434

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Jankiewicz Request for Comments: 6434 SRI International, Inc. Obsoletes: 4294 J. Loughney Category: Informational Nokia ISSN: 2070-1721 T. Narten

                                                       IBM Corporation
                                                         December 2011
                       IPv6 Node Requirements

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.
 This document obsoletes RFC 4294.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.
 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
 Contributions published or made publicly available before November
 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
 than English.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   1.1.  Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   1.2.  Description of IPv6 Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 2.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 3.  Abbreviations Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 4.  Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
 5.  IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.1.  Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.3.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes -
         RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.4.  SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971  . . . . . . .  9
   5.5.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175  . . . .  9
   5.6.  Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.6.1.  Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981  . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.7.  IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.8.  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC
         4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.9.  Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.9.1.  IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291  . . . 11
     5.9.2.  IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862  . 11
     5.9.3.  Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in
             IPv6 - RFC 4941  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.9.4.  Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484  . . . . 12
     5.9.5.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC
             3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6  . . . . . . . 13
 6.  DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
     Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 7.  DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

   7.1.  DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.2.  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
         - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     7.2.1.  Other Configuration Information  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     7.2.2.  Use of Router Advertisements in Managed
             Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.3.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
         Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 8.  IPv4 Support and Transition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.1.  Transition Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.1.1.  Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
             Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 9.  Application Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.1.  Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952  . . . 16
   9.2.  Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)  . . . . . . . . 16
 10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   11.2. Transforms and Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 12. Router-Specific Functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711  . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 19
   12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . . 19
 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   13.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules  . . . . . . . . 20
     13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
             Protocol (IP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 14. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 15. Authors and Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 21
   15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4279  . . . . . . . . 21
 16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

1. Introduction

 This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6
 hosts and routers.  Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or
 additional features, but this document collects and 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 intended to be an
 applicability statement and to provide guidance as to which IPv6
 specifications should be implemented in the general case and which
 specifications may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios.
 This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs.
 Although this document points to different specifications, it should
 be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular
 requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many
 specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may
 not be mandatory.  In addition, most specifications define both
 client and server behavior in the same specification, while many
 implementations will be focused on only one of those roles.
 This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a
 device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range
 of device types and deployment scenarios.  Because of the wide range
 of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this
 document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios.  It is
 perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to
 define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific
 usage and deployment environments.  For example, this document does
 not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment
 scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement.  For
 example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for
 specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments (see [DODv6]
 and [USGv6]).
 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" [RFC0793].

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

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

1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes

 From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460],
 we have the following definitions:
 IPv6 node   - a device that implements IPv6.
 IPv6 router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly
               addressed to itself.
 IPv6 host   - any node that is not a router.

2. Requirements 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 [RFC2119].

3. 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
 MIB   Management Information Base
 MLD   Multicast Listener Discovery
 MTU   Maximum Transmission Unit

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 NA    Neighbor Advertisement
 NBMA  Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
 ND    Neighbor Discovery
 NS    Neighbor Solicitation
 NUD   Neighbor Unreachability Detection
 PPP   Point-to-Point Protocol

4. Sub-IP Layer

 An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
 specifications.  Which link-layer specifications an implementation
 should include 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.  In the following, we list some of the
 layer 2 technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been
 developed.  It is provided for informational purposes only and may
 not be complete.
  1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]
  1. IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492]
  1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks

Specification [RFC2590]

  1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146]
  1. Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)

Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338]

  1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]
  1. Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE

802.16 Networks [RFC5121]

  1. IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible
 to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols.  Examples include:
  1. Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address

Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]

  1. Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and

Routers" [RFC4213]

5. IP Layer

5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460

 The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460].  This
 specification MUST be supported.
 Any unrecognized extension headers or options 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.  Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in
 [RFC5722].
 RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
 headers.
 An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers.  An exception is
 Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to
 security concerns and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized
 routing type.
 All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label
 field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437].
 Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
 depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed.  It is
 RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow label by setting the
 Flow Label field for all packets of a given flow to the same value
 chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861

 Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861]; the definition was
 updated by [RFC5942].  Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported.  RFC
 4861 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., Non-
    Broadcast Multi-Access (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 are addressed in
    [RFC2491].
 Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:
 Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
 attached link.  Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality.
 Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
 that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
 Hosts MUST support Prefix Discovery.
 Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for
 all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes.  NUD is not required
 for paths between routers.  However, all nodes MUST respond to
 unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages.
 Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the
 receiving of Router Advertisements.  The ability to understand
 individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting
 the functionality making use of the particular option.
 All nodes MUST support the sending and receiving of Neighbor
 Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages.  NS and
 NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
 Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality.
 Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily
 for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting).  Redirects
 are only useful on networks supporting hosts.  In core networks
 dominated by routers, Redirects are typically disabled.  The sending

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers.  They
 MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on
 edge networks.
 "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional
 recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
 [RFC4311] SHOULD be supported.

5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191

 "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
 provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
 each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
 via Router Advertisements.  In some scenarios, one router may provide
 connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
 the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures.  In
 such cases, RFC 4191 can help.
 Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers
 adhering to [RFC6204] use RFC 4191 to advertise routes to certain
 local destinations.  Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in
 SOHO environments SHOULD implement RFC 4191.

5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971

 SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA)
 [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor
 Discovery.  SEND is a new technology in that it has no IPv4
 counterpart, but it has significant potential to address certain
 classes of spoofing attacks.  While there have been some
 implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment
 experience to date in using the technology.  In addition, the IETF
 working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on
 additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for
 deployment.
 At this time, SEND is considered optional, and IPv6 nodes MAY provide
 SEND functionality.

5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175

 Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
 Advertisement flags.  The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends
 the number of available flag bits by 48 bits.  At the time of this
 writing, 6 of the original 8 single-bit flags have been assigned,
 while 2 remain available for future assignment.  No flags have been
 defined that make use of the new option, and thus, strictly speaking,
 there is no requirement to implement the option today.  However,

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a
 higher-level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a
 user-level process using a "raw socket" facility) MAY take steps to
 handle the option in anticipation of a future usage.

5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size

5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981

 "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported.
 From [RFC2460]:
    It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
    Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of
    path MTUs greater than 1280 octets.  However, 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.
 The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet
 fragmentation and reassembly.
 One operational issue with Path MTU Discovery occurs when firewalls
 block ICMP Packet Too Big messages.  Path MTU Discovery relies on
 such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully
 sent.  "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids
 having a dependency on Packet Too Big messages.

5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675

 IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an optional extension that allow the
 sending of IP datagrams larger than 65.535 bytes.  IPv6 Jumbograms
 make use of IPv6 hop-by-hop options and are only suitable on paths in
 which every hop and link are capable of supporting Jumbograms (e.g.,
 within a campus or datacenter).  To date, few implementations exist,
 and there is essentially no reported experience from usage.
 Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time.

5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443

 ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported.  "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
 Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

5.9. Addressing

5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291

 The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.

5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862

 Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as
 defined in [RFC4862].  Configuration of static address(es) may be
 supported as well.
 Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses
 as described in [RFC4862].
 From RFC 4862:
    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.
 All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection.  Quoting from
 Section 5.4 of RFC 4862:
    Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast
    addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of
    whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration,
    DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions
    noted therein].
 "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429]
 specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating
 addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].  RFC
 4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce
 the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly
 move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize
 transition delays.  For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains
 optional at this time.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941

 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
 addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is
 concerned about its activity or location being tracked.  The problem
 arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes
 its point of attachment to the Internet.  When using Stateless
 Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion
 of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique.  Thus,
 although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its
 point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those
 addresses remains the same, making it possible for servers to track
 the location of an individual device as it moves around or its
 pattern of activity if it remains in one place.  This may raise
 privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862].
 In such situations, RFC 4941 SHOULD be implemented.  In other cases,
 such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC 4941 provides
 limited or no benefit.
 Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are
 reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses.
 Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more
 details.

5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484

 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
 [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented.  IPv6 nodes will need to deal
 with multiple addresses configured simultaneously.

5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

 DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses.  In
 general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses
 through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6, or both.  There will be a wide
 range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment
 requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for address
 assignment.  Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address
 configuration via DHCPv6.
 In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address
 assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other
 configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of
 [RFC4862].

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6

 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1
 [RFC2710].  MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive
 and process multicast traffic.  Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used
 on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and
 requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses.
 MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting
 Source-Specific Multicast.  The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810]
 supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of
 "filter modes".  Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a
 multicast group along with a list of senders for the group from which
 it wishes to receive traffic.  Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node
 indicates a multicast group along with a list of senders from which
 it wishes to exclude receiving traffic.  In practice, operations to
 block source(s) using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used but add
 considerable implementation complexity to MLDv2.  Lightweight MLDv2
 [RFC5790] is a simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification
 that omits EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s).
 Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2
 [RFC5790].  Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source-
 Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE
 functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810],
 [RFC4604], and [RFC4607].  Nodes supporting applications that expect
 to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as
 Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support MLDv2 as
 defined in [RFC5790].
 If a node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast
 (i.e, they do not use Source-Specific Multicast), implementing MLDv1
 [RFC2710] is sufficient.  In all cases, however, nodes are strongly
 encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1,
 as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that
 all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode.
 When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the
 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be
 followed.

6. DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration

 In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating
 configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements (RAs) and
 DHCP.  Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed
 essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are
 configured with exactly the same information.  Examples include the

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc.  On the other hand,
 DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general
 parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific.  That
 said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option
 should be configured via DHCP versus an RA option has not always been
 easy.  Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define
 only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than
 defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same
 information.
 One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same
 information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one
 mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism.
 For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant
 influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what
 configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to
 ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected
 hosts.  In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices
 may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise.  To maximize
 interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement
 multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability.
 Originally, in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was
 performed exclusively via DHCP.  In 2007, an RA option was defined
 but was published as Experimental [RFC5006].  In 2010, "IPv6 Router
 Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published
 as a Standards Track document.  Consequently, DNS configuration
 information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs.
 Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be
 implemented.  Specific guidance regarding DNS server discovery is
 discussed in Section 7.

7. DNS and DHCP

7.1. DNS

 DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596].
 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 on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to
 provide support.  All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034]
 functionality, as in [RFC1034], Section 5.3.1, with support for:
  1. AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];
  1. reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596];

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

  1. Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) [RFC2671] to allow for DNS

packet sizes larger than 512 octets.

 Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
 [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035].
 Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6
 Resource Records [RFC3363].

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

7.2.1. Other Configuration Information

 IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration
 information (see Section 5.9.5) and to obtain additional (non-
 address) configuration.  If a host implementation supports
 applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
 only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP.  For
 specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present,
 DHCP may not be necessary.
 An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to
 obtain other configuration information.

7.2.2. 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.

7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106

 Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that
 are critical to basic IPv6 functioning.  Originally, DNS
 configuration was not included as an RA option, and DHCP was the
 recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information.  Over time,
 the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved.  It is now
 generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without
 having access to a working DNS resolver.  [RFC5006] was published as
 an Experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was
 placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106].
 Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106].

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

8. IPv4 Support and Transition

 IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.

8.1. Transition Mechanisms

8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC

      4213
 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213]
 MUST be supported.

9. Application Support

9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952

 Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in
 text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
 Representation" [RFC5952].

9.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)

 There are a number of IPv6-related APIs.  This document does not
 mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly
 relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols.  Implementers, however,
 would be advised to consider providing a common API or reviewing
 existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to
 applications.
 "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6
 functionality used by typical applications.  Implementers should note
 that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by the
 Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) [POSIX].
 "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6"
 [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by
 diagnostic and other more specialized applications.
 "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides
 facilities that allow an application to override the default Source
 Address Selection rules of [RFC3484].
 "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678]
 provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group
 memberships.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides
 application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275]
 features.

10. Mobility

 Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and associated specifications [RFC3776]
 [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the
 Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address.  All
 communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as
 expected even as the node moves around.  The definition of Mobile IP
 includes 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
 At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation
 and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed
 an IPv6-only environment rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet.
 Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed-
 mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks [RFC5555].
 More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before
 any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in
 all hosts and routers.  Consequently, [RFC6275], [RFC5555], and
 associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this
 time.

11. Security

 This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes.
 Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking.  Operational
 procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate
 management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level
 of security actually achieved in practice.  More importantly,
 deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can
 significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular
 security approach.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it
 possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of)
 communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes.
 IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual
 TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc.
 Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such
 usage has limited applicability and is not recommended.
 A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today
 (e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH),
 etc.)  No one approach has emerged as an ideal technology for all
 needs and environments.  Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the ideal
 security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace the
 others.
 Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the
 key management approach of IKE.  This document updates that
 recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture [RFC4301]
 a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes.  Note that the IPsec Architecture
 requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both
 manual and automatic key management.  Currently, the default
 automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996].
 This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types
 and environments where approaches to security other than IPsec can be
 justified.  For example, special-purpose devices may support only a
 very limited number or type of applications, and an application-
 specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management
 or configuration capabilities.  Alternatively, some devices may run
 on extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full
 IPsec Architecture is not justified.

11.1. Requirements

 "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be
 supported by all IPv6 nodes.  Note that the IPsec Architecture
 requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) the implementation of both
 manual and automatic key management.  Currently, the default
 automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2.  As required
 in [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST
 implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302].

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

11.2. Transforms and Algorithms

 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec
 Architecture are defined in "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
 Requirements For ESP and AH" [RFC4835].  IPv6 nodes implementing the
 IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4835].
 Preferred cryptographic algorithms often change more frequently than
 security protocols.  Therefore, implementations MUST allow for
 migration to new algorithms, as RFC 4835 is replaced or updated in
 the future.
 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are
 defined in "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key
 Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC4307].  IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2
 MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future
 updates or replacements to [RFC4307].

12. 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.

12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711

 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
 Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP
 [RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710]).  The
 Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols
 that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are implemented.  See
 Section 5.10.

12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861

 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations
 MUST be supported.
 Section 7 of [RFC6275] includes some mobility-specific extensions to
 Neighbor Discovery.  Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5,
 even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality.

12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

 A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide
 configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared
 link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site.
 Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different
 links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a
 single LAN or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together
 with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is
 one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC6204]).  However, there is
 no need for relay agents in such scenarios.
 In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or
 service provider networks, the use of DHCP requires some level of
 configuration, in order to configure relay agents, DHCP servers, etc.
 In such environments, the DHCP server might even be run on a
 traditional server, rather than as part of a router.
 Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP
 server functionality on routers is optional.  However, routers
 targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described
 above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality.  Note that "Basic
 Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC6204] requires
 implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
 routers.

13. 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.

13.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules

 The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that
 support a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent.

13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB

 The IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes
 that support an SNMP agent.

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

 The IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
 SNMP agent.

14. Security Considerations

 This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet,
 beyond the security considerations associated with the individual
 protocols.
 Security is also discussed in Section 11 above.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

15. Authors and Acknowledgments

15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)

 For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors
 would like to thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph
 Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka
 Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave Thaler for their comments.

15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4279

 The original version of this document (RFC 4279) 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

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

    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.  Thanks to
 Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text.  Thanks to
 Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.

16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294

 There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
 additions and updates.  While this section highlights some of the
 changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
 list of all changes.
 1.   Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an
      applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.
 2.   Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding
      references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAYs.
 3.   Changed Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and
      added some more RFCs.
 4.   Added section on SEND (it is a MAY).
 5.   Revised section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more
      nuance to recommendation.
 6.   Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading overall
      recommendation to a SHOULD.
 7.   Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD.
 8.   Added background section on DHCP versus RA options, added SHOULD
      recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs [RFC6106], and
      cleaned up DHCP recommendations.
 9.   Added recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5
      of [RFC6275].
 10.  Added pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942].

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 11.  Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
      SHOULD be implemented.
 12.  Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
      it a MUST to implement.
 13.  Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
      [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
 14.  Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about [RFC3363].
 15.  Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
      including [RFC4443], [RFC4291], [RFC3596], and [RFC4213].
 16.  Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs.  There
      is no consensus at present on how to process these flags, and
      discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
      update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].
 17.  Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
 18.  Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
      [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
 19.  Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
      it a MUST to implement.
 20.  Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
      [RFC5790].
 21.  Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and
      More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].
 22.  Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.

17. References

17.1. Normative References

 [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
            STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
 [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
            specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
 [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
            for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
            (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
 [RFC2671]  Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
            RFC 2671, August 1999.
 [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
            Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
            October 1999.
 [RFC2711]  Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
            RFC 2711, October 1999.
 [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
            and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
            IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
 [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
            Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
 [RFC3590]  Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
            Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
            September 2003.
 [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
            "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
            October 2003.
 [RFC3736]  Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
            (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
 [RFC3810]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
            Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
 [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
            Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
            RFC 4033, March 2005.
 [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
            Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
            RFC 4034, March 2005.
 [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
            Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
            Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
            for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
 [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
            Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
 [RFC4292]  Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
            April 2006.
 [RFC4293]  Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the
            Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.
 [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
            Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
 [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
            RFC 4303, December 2005.
 [RFC4307]  Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
            Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307,
            December 2005.
 [RFC4311]  Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
            Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005.
 [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
            Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
            Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
 [RFC4604]  Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
            Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
            Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
            Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006.
 [RFC4607]  Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
            IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
 [RFC4835]  Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
            Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
            Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.
 [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
            "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
            September 2007.
 [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
            Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
            Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
            IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
 [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
            of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
            December 2007.
 [RFC5453]  Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
            RFC 5453, February 2009.
 [RFC5722]  Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
            RFC 5722, December 2009.
 [RFC5790]  Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
            Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
            Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
            February 2010.
 [RFC5942]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
            Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
            Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010.
 [RFC5952]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
            Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
 [RFC5996]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
            "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
            RFC 5996, September 2010.
 [RFC6106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
            "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
            RFC 6106, November 2010.
 [RFC6204]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
            Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
            Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011.
 [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
            "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, November 2011.

17.2. Informative References

 [DODv6]    DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6
            Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0",
            July 2010,
            <http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_50.pdf>.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 26] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 [POSIX]    IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information
            Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX),
            ISO/IEC 9945:2009", <http://www.ieee.org>.
 [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
            RFC 793, September 1981.
 [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
            Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
            Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
 [RFC2464]  Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
            Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
 [RFC2491]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
            over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
            RFC 2491, January 1999.
 [RFC2492]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
            Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.
 [RFC2590]  Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
            IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
            RFC 2590, May 1999.
 [RFC2675]  Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
            RFC 2675, August 1999.
 [RFC3146]  Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
            over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001.
 [RFC3363]  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.
 [RFC3493]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
            Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
            RFC 3493, February 2003.
 [RFC3542]  Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
            "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
            IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003.
 [RFC3678]  Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
            Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
            January 2004.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 27] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 [RFC3776]  Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
            Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
            Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
 [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
            Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
 [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
            RFC 3972, March 2005.
 [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
            More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.
 [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
            December 2005.
 [RFC4338]  DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of
            IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets
            over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006.
 [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
            Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
            February 2006.
 [RFC4429]  Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
            for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006.
 [RFC4584]  Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API
            for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, July 2006.
 [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
            Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
 [RFC4877]  Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
            IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877,
            April 2007.
 [RFC4884]  Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
            "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
            April 2007.
 [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
            "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
            Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
 [RFC5006]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
            "IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
            RFC 5006, September 2007.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 28] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

 [RFC5014]  Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
            Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
            September 2007.
 [RFC5072]  S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over
            PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007.
 [RFC5121]  Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
            Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
            Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
            February 2008.
 [RFC5555]  Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
            Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.
 [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
            in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
 [USGv6]    National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile
            for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008,
            <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/usgv6-v1.pdf>.

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 29] RFC 6434 IPv6 Node Requirements December 2011

Authors' Addresses

 Ed Jankiewicz
 SRI International, Inc.
 333 Ravenswood Ave.
 Menlo Park, CA  94025
 USA
 Phone: +1 443 502 5815
 EMail: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com
 John Loughney
 Nokia
 200 South Mathilda Ave.
 Sunnyvale, CA  94086
 USA
 Phone: +1 650 283 8068
 EMail: john.loughney@nokia.com
 Thomas Narten
 IBM Corporation
 3039 Cornwallis Ave.
 PO Box 12195
 Research Triangle Park, NC  27709-2195
 USA
 Phone: +1 919 254 7798
 EMail: narten@us.ibm.com

Jankiewicz, et al. Informational [Page 30]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6434.txt · Last modified: 2011/12/21 16:56 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki