RFC 4294

IPv6 Node Requirements

📅 published April 2006, from ietf

RFC 4294: IPv6 Node Requirements 🎀

Part 1 of 4 🫶

Okay bestie, the title block is giving: this is RFC 4294, "IPv6 Node Requirements," from the Network Working Group. It's written by J. Loughney, Ed. (Nokia) and dated April 2006. It's Informational, so it's not a standard ✨. The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, and Section 1 says it doesn't update Standards Track RFCs 💅.

Status of This Memo 🌸

This memo gives information to the Internet community. It doesn't specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🦋.

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract 🧚

okay so this doc defines the requirements for IPv6 nodes 🍓. IPv6 is expected to show up in a huge range of devices and situations, and spelling out what nodes need is what lets IPv6 work well and interoperate across all those 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
      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 ✨

Okay, so the goal here is to define the common stuff that both IPv6 hosts and routers need 🎀. A lot of IPv6 nodes will have extra optional features on top, but this doc is basically a one-stop summary of requirements that already live in other Standards Track documents 💅.

It tries not to get into protocol details and points to the RFCs for that 🦋. It's informational in nature and doesn't update Standards Track RFCs 🌸.

The document points at a bunch of different specs, but the requirements are usually more fine-grained than one whole spec. Lots of specs are made of several independent pieces, and some of those pieces aren't mandatory 🧚.

Here's the thing: an implementer often can't know exactly how a node will use IPv6. So the big overriding guideline is that IPv6 nodes should follow Jon Postel's Robustness Principle 👑:

Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others [RFC-793].

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 a lot of specs, and it's meant to be deployed in tons of different situations and environments. So it's important to build up the requirements for IPv6 nodes so everything interoperates 🫶.

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], here are the definitions:

  • Description of an IPv6 Node: a device that implements IPv6.
  • Description of an IPv6 router: a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to itself.
  • Description of an IPv6 Host: any node that is not a router.

2. Abbreviations Used in This Document 🍓

Here's the abbreviations list, no cap 💅:

   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 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 specs get included depends on what link layers the hardware on the system supports 🌸. A conformant IPv6 node can run IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not others, and that's totally fine 🫶.

As IPv6 runs over new layer 2 technologies, new specs are expected to come out 🧚. This section just highlights some major layer 2 technologies, and it's not meant 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]. On top of that, RFC 2492 says:

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 those 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's worth noting there's some discussion about using Routing Headers and the possible security threats [IPv6-RH] they cause 🙈.

4.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461 🍓

Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. [RFC-2461] says:

"Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services described in this document that are not directly dependent on multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on NBMA links is an area for further study."

Here's some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery 🔥:

Router Discovery is how hosts find the routers on an attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for implementations 💖.

Prefix Discovery is how hosts find the set of address prefixes that decide 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's not required for paths between routers 🫶. However, when a node gets a unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (which might be a NUD's NS), the node MUST respond to it, meaning it sends a unicast Neighbor Advertisement ✨.

Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links that support 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. Understanding specific Router Advertisement options depends on supporting the spec where that 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 🧚.

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 ✨

Okay bestie, so IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (the auto-address magic 🪄) is defined in [RFC-2462]. This spec MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts. Static addresses can be supported too, so you get a bonus 💅

Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses as described in RFC 2462 [RFC-2462].

Here's the vibe 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. No skipping this one, periodt 🙅‍♀️

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. Lowkey, a bunch of applications don't work with addresses made this way, while others vibe with them just fine 🦋

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, so get ready 🧚

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 that don't support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses, aside from link-local addresses, when they receive 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). Yikes 💀 Plus, those nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration information, like the addresses of DNS servers, when they're connected to a link where they receive a router advertisement with the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") 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]. Main character energy 👑

When MLD is used, the rules in the "Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be followed. No cap, these rules are non-negotiable 💅

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, so those that will never need to resolve DNS names don't need to implement resolver functionality. However, resolving names is a basic infrastructure capability that applications rely on, and it 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:

  • AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596];
  • reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152];
  • 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]. Not the experimental stuff, bestie 🙈

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 don't 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 it 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 don't 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 💜

6. IPv4 Support and Transition 🦋

IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. Optional, but iconic 💅

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:

  • mobile nodes
  • correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
  • home agents
  • 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. Serious business, bestie 🔐

8.1. Basic Architecture

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

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. Not it, DES 💀

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] doesn't 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.

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.

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. Everyone, bestie 🌈

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. Use the new one, no excuses 💅

12. References ✨

Okay bestie, this is the bibliography, the list of every other doc this one leans on. Gonna keep every single title, author, number, and date exactly as they are. 💅

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.
  • [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.
  • [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.
  • [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.
  • [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.

13. Authors and Acknowledgements 🎀

This doc was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team, and here's the squad:

  • 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 also want to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Iconic group project behavior 🫶

Editor's Contact Information 📮

Comments or questions about this doc should go 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

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 ✨

okay so the IETF is being very honest here: it takes no position on whether any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights might apply to the technology in this document, and it's not saying whether any license under those rights might or might not be available 🙈 it also doesn't claim to have done any independent digging to find such rights. 💅 if you want the rules on rights for RFC documents, check out BCP 78 and BCP 79. they're the official homework 📚

copies of IPR disclosures sent to the IETF Secretariat 🗂️, any assurances of licenses that might be made available, and the results of any attempt to get a general license or permission for implementers or users to use those proprietary rights can be found on the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. ✨

and if you think you've got a copyright, patent, patent application, or other proprietary right that might cover technology needed to implement this standard? 🫶 the IETF really wants to hear about it! send it to ietf-ipr@ietf.org. bestie, that's the whole vibe 💜

Acknowledgement

funding for the RFC Editor function comes from the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). 🌸 the people keeping the lights on behind the scenes deserve a little flowers emoji 🌷🫶

📦 where this page comes from