RFC 6434
IPv6 Node Requirements
IPv6 Node Requirements 💖
okay bestie, this is RFC 6434 and it's literally the checklist for what an IPv6 node needs to do 🎀 It was written by E. Jankiewicz (SRI International, Inc.), J. Loughney (Nokia), and T. Narten (IBM Corporation) 👑 It's dated December 2011, and its category is Informational 🧚 The ISSN is 2070-1721. It obsoletes RFC 4294, and the title block doesn't list anything it updates ✨
Abstract 🦋
okay so the abstract says this doc defines requirements for IPv6 nodes 💅 IPv6 is expected to show up in a huge range of devices and situations, and spelling out what nodes need to do is how IPv6 keeps working well and interoperating across all of those deployments 🌈
This document obsoletes RFC 4294.
Status of This Memo 🌸
this one is not an Internet Standards Track specification 💀 It's published for informational purposes only 🫶
It is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 🔥 It represents the consensus of the IETF community, got public review, and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not every IESG-approved document is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so check Section 2 of RFC 5741 if you're curious 🙈
For info on the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, go to 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) as they stand on the date of publication. please actually read these, bestie, they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 📜 Any Code Components pulled out of this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come 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 people who control the copyright in some of that material may not have granted the IETF Trust permission to allow modifications outside the IETF Standards Process 😭 So unless you get an adequate license from those copyright holders, 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. The only exceptions are formatting it for publication as an RFC or translating 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261. Introduction ✨
this doc spells out the common stuff that both IPv6 hosts and IPv6 routers need 🌸 Lots of IPv6 nodes add optional or extra features on top, but this doc gathers and summarizes the requirements from other published Standards Track documents so you don't have to hunt them all down 💖
It tries not to dive into protocol details and points to RFCs for those instead 🦋 It's meant to be an applicability statement, giving guidance on which IPv6 specifications should be implemented in the general case and which ones may be interesting for specific deployment scenarios. It does not update any individual protocol document RFCs 🙈
Even though it points at different specs, the granularity of a requirement is often smaller than a whole spec 😭 Lots of specs define multiple independent pieces, and some of those pieces aren't mandatory. Also, most specs define both client and server behavior together, but a lot of implementations only care about one of those roles 💅
This doc defines a minimal level of requirement a device needs to provide useful internet service, and it covers a wide range of device types and deployment scenarios 🔥 Because deployments vary so much, these minimal requirements might not be enough for every situation. it is perfectly reasonable (and honestly expected) for other profiles to add extra or stricter requirements that fit specific usage and deployment environments 🎀 For example, this doc doesn't mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment scenarios may decide it's appropriate to require it. Government agencies in the USA have also defined profiles with specialized IPv6 requirements for target environments (see [DODv6] and [USGv6]) 👑
Since an implementer can't always know exactly how IPv6 will be used in a node, there's an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes: they should follow Jon Postel's Robustness Principle, "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" [RFC0793] 🫶
1.1. Scope of This Document 🧚
IPv6 covers a LOT of specifications 💜 It's meant to be deployed in many different situations and environments, so it matters a lot to develop requirements for IPv6 nodes so they interoperate 🌈
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 get these 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 💖
okay this part is the decoder ring for the requirement words 🔑 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 🍓
here's the abbreviation glossary, so you don't have to guess what the acronyms mean 🧠
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
NA Neighbor Advertisement
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol4. Sub-IP Layer ✨
okay so bestie, an IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer specifications 🔥. Which link-layer specs an implementation should include depends on what link-layers the hardware on the system actually supports 💅. A conformant IPv6 node can totally run IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not others, no cap 🎀.
As IPv6 gets run over new layer 2 technologies, new specs are expected to be issued 🦋. Here's a list of some layer 2 techs that already have an IPv6 spec. It's for informational purposes only and might not be complete 🌸.
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]
- IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification [RFC2590]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146]
- Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]
- Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks [RFC5121]
- IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]
In addition to traditional physical link-layers, you can also tunnel IPv6 over other protocols 🧚. Examples include:
- Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]
- 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. The exception is Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which [RFC5095] deprecated 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 🫶.
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].
Here's some deeper analysis of Neighbor Discovery 👀.
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 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, 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 happens 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 💌.
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 🏃♀️💨.
5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941
Okay, so this one is about privacy, and it's a whole vibe. Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] fixes a specific problem: a client device whose user doesn't want their activity or location tracked 👀. It shows up for a static client, and it also shows up for one that keeps changing where it connects to the Internet 🧳. With Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier part of the address it forms stays constant and is globally unique 🔒. So even though a node's global IPv6 address changes when it moves to a new point of attachment, the Interface Identifier part stays the same. That means servers can follow one specific device around as it moves, or see its pattern of activity if it stays in one place. Not okay, honestly 😭. This may raise privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862].
In situations like that, RFC 4941 SHOULD be implemented 🫶. In other cases, like dedicated servers in a data center, RFC 4941 gives little or no benefit, so it's not the main event there ✨.
Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses 🙈. Check out "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more details.
5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484
This is the rulebook for picking addresses, and it's a big deal 💅. The rules in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented, no exceptions 🔥. IPv6 nodes are going to have to juggle multiple addresses configured at the same time, so you need the rules to choose between them 🌈.
5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
Here's where DHCPv6 [RFC3315] comes in. It can be used to obtain and configure addresses 🎀. In general, a network might provide address configuration through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6, or both. There's a huge range of IPv6 deployment models with different address assignment needs, and some of them will require DHCPv6 for address assignment 💜. So, all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCPv6 🌸.
Without a router, IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment MAY start DHCP to get IPv6 addresses and other configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of [RFC4862] 🧚.
5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
Okay, multicast time 📡. Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 [RFC2710] 🔥. MLDv1 is needed by any node that's expected to receive and process multicast traffic. Also, Neighbor Discovery (as used on most link types, see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and needs nodes to join Solicited Node multicast addresses. So it's not optional lore, it's load-bearing 💀.
MLDv2 [RFC3810] levels up MLDv1 by supporting Source-Specific Multicast ✨. The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810], which supports Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607], has two types of "filter modes" 👑. With an INCLUDE filter, a node names a multicast group along with a list of senders it wants traffic from 💖. With an EXCLUDE filter, a node names a multicast group along with a list of senders it does NOT want traffic from. Real talk, blocking sources with EXCLUDE mode is rarely used, but it adds a lot of implementation complexity to MLDv2 😩. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] is a simplified subset of the original MLDv2 spec 🦋. It leaves out EXCLUDE filter mode for specifying undesired sources, so it's the streamlined version.
Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] 🌈. Specifically, nodes supporting applications that use Source-Specific Multicast and want to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], [RFC4604], and [RFC4607] 💅. Nodes supporting applications that only need MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality, plus 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 (so they don't use Source-Specific Multicast), then implementing MLDv1 [RFC2710] is sufficient 🍓. That said, in all cases nodes are strongly encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 instead of MLDv1. The reason is that if even one MLDv1 participant is on a link, every other node on that link has to 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
Let's talk about who hands out configuration info to hosts 🎁. In IPv6 there are two main mechanisms for that: Router Advertisements (RAs) and DHCP. Historically, RA options were limited to the ones considered essential for basic network functioning, where every node gets exactly the same information. Examples are the Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, and so on 🧱. DHCP, on the other hand, has usually been the go-to for more general parameters, especially client-specific ones 💼. Still, figuring out exactly which side of the line an option belongs on, DHCP or an RA option, hasn't always been easy 🙃. Generally though, the goal has been to define just one mechanism for configuring a given option, instead of several different ways to configure the same info 💜.
Having multiple ways to configure the same information causes problems: interoperability suffers if a host picks one mechanism but the network operator picks a different one 😬. In "closed" environments, where the operator has a lot of say over what devices connect and therefore which configuration mechanisms they support, the operator can make sure every connected host supports a particular mechanism 🔐. In more open environments, though, where arbitrary devices may connect (like a WiFi hotspot), things can go sideways 📶. To maximize interoperability in those places, hosts would need to implement multiple configuration mechanisms 🌸.
Originally, in IPv6, DNS server configuration was done exclusively via DHCP 🗂️. In 2007, an RA option was defined but published as Experimental [RFC5006] 🧪. Then in 2010, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published as a Standards Track document 🎉. So DNS configuration info can now be learned through DHCP or through RAs. Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) they should implement. Specific guidance on DNS server discovery is in Section 7 🧭.
7. DNS and DHCP
7.1. DNS
DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596] 📖. Not every node needs to resolve names. Nodes that will never need to resolve DNS names don't need to implement resolver functionality 🙅♀️. But being able to resolve names is basic infrastructure that applications rely on, so 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:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];
- reverse addressing in
ip6.arpausing PTR records [RFC3596]; - 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 get address configuration information (see Section 5.9.5), and to get additional configuration that isn't about addresses 🎀. If a host implementation supports applications or other protocols that need configuration that's only available through DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP 🫶. For specialized devices that don't have any such configuration need, DHCP may not be necessary 🤷♀️.
An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to get 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 figure out 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 used to limit their options to the ones that are critical to basic IPv6 functioning 🧱. DNS configuration originally wasn't an RA option, and DHCP was the recommended way to get DNS configuration info 🗂️. Over time, the thinking changed. It's now widely recognized that few nodes can function well without a working DNS resolver 🌈. [RFC5006] was published as an Experimental document in 2007, and more recently, a revised version was put on the Standards Track [RFC6106] 🎉.
Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106] 💅.
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 lets users and operators type in IPv6 addresses in text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" [RFC5952] ⭐.
9.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)
There are a bunch of IPv6-related APIs 🧁. This document doesn't mandate the use of any of them, because the choice of API doesn't directly affect the on-the-wire behavior of protocols 🙌. Implementers, however, would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing existing APIs for the kind of functionality they offer to applications 🧠.
"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides the IPv6 functionality that typical applications use 🔌. 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] gives access to advanced IPv6 features needed by diagnostic and other more specialized applications 🔍.
"IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides facilities that let an application 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 📡.
"Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] features 🚀.
10. Mobility 🦋
okay bestie so Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and its associated specs [RFC3776] [RFC4877] let a node change where it plugs into the Internet while keeping (and using) a permanent address ✨ all the communication using that permanent address keeps going as expected even while the node is wandering around 🧳 it's giving main character energy fr. Mobile IP has requirements for these types of nodes:
- mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents
- all IPv6 routers
ngl Mobile IP has only seen limited implementation and no big deployment 😭 partly because it originally assumed an IPv6-only world instead of a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. More recently people did more work so mobility could run 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 🙈 so [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 whole saga 💀 operational procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate management approaches, etc., are all pieces that affect how much security you actually get. Even more important, a weak or badly fitting piece in any one component can seriously drag down the effectiveness of the whole approach 😬
IPsec gives channel security at the Internet layer, so it's possible to secure communication for all (or a subset of) flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes 🔒 it's flexible and granular enough 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 whole bunch of security technologies and approaches are out there today (e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH), etc.) and no one approach has emerged as the ideal technology for all needs and environments 🌈 IPsec isn't viewed as the ideal security technology in every case, and it's 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's 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] 🎀
11.2. Transforms and Algorithms 🧮
The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec Architecture is 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, so 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 is 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's 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.
In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a single LAN or multiple LANs attached to that router, together with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC6204]). However, there's no need for relay agents in those scenarios 🙌
In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or service provider networks, using DHCP takes some level of configuration in order to set up relay agents, DHCP servers, etc. In those environments, the DHCP server might even 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 those 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 a whole vibe and you can't skip it 💀 this document only adds to the security considerations of the protocols it points to, so read those too!
Security is also discussed in Section 11 above 🔐
15. Authors and Acknowledgments 🫶
15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 💜
For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors want 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
Dave Thaler
dthaler@windows.microsoft.com
Juha Wiljakka
juha.wiljakka@Nokia.comThe 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 🎀
okay bestie, there have been SO many editorial clarifications plus some big additions and updates 💅 This section highlights some of them, but it's NOT the full list, so don't rely on it as a complete changelog 🙈
- Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes. 🌸
- Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAYs. 🦋
- Changed Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and added some more RFCs. 🧚
- Added section on SEND (it is a MAY). 💜
- Revised section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more nuance to recommendation. ✨
- Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading overall recommendation to a SHOULD. 🔥
- Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD. 👑
- Added background section on DHCP versus RA options, added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs [RFC6106], and cleaned up DHCP recommendations. 🍓
- Added recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5 of [RFC6275]. 💅
- Added pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942]. 🌈
- Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] SHOULD be implemented. ⭐
- Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made it a MUST to implement. 😭
- Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 🫶
- Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about [RFC3363]. 💀
- Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents, including [RFC4443], [RFC4291], [RFC3596], and [RFC4213]. 🦋
- 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]. 🙈
- Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents. 🌸
- Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 💖
- Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made it a MUST to implement. 🔥
- Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD [RFC5790]. 🧚
- Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]. 👑
- Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD. ✨
17. References 📚
17.1. Normative References
Here's the full reference list, every single entry, no cuts 🫶
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 💅
okay bestie, these are the "good to know" references 📚 they aren't required to implement the spec, but they're the receipts behind the vibes, so you'll want them handy 🧚
- [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>. - [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.
- [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.
- [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>.
Authors' Addresses 🎀
these are the lovely people who wrote it, with all their contact details 🫶
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📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc6434 2011-12
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms