RFC 6744

IPv6 Nonce Destination Option for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for IPv6 (ILNPv6)

📅 published November 2012, from ietf

RFC 6744: IPv6 Nonce Destination Option for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for IPv6 (ILNPv6) 🦋

Okay bestie, this one is from the IRTF (Internet Research Task Force) stream, written by RJ Atkinson (a consultant) and SN Bhatti (U. St Andrews) ✨. It's dated November 2012 and marked Experimental, ISSN 2070-1721 💅. The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so it's a standalone doc 🌸.

Abstract 🌈

So ILNP (the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol) is an experimental, evolutionary upgrade to IP 🔥, and it can come in more than one flavour (multiple instantiations). This doc is about an experimental Nonce Destination Option that's used only with ILNP for IPv6 (ILNPv6) 💜. It's a product of the IRTF Routing Research Group.

Status of This Memo 🧚

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification, so it's published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation 🔍.

This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community 🦋. It's a product of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), which publishes results of Internet-related research and development activities 🌸. These results might not be suitable for deployment ⚠️. This RFC represents the individual opinion(s) of one or more members of the Routing Research Group of the IRTF 💅. Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not 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/rfc6744 🎀.

Copyright (c) 2012 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, because they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document 📜.

This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English 🫶.

Table of Contents 🍓

1. Introduction ....................................................2
   1.1. ILNP Document Roadmap ......................................3
   1.2. Terminology ................................................5
2. Syntax ..........................................................5
3. Transport Protocol Effects ......................................6
4. Location Changes ................................................7
5. Implementation Considerations ...................................7
   5.1. ILNP Communication Cache ...................................8
   5.2. Mode Indicator .............................................8
   5.3. IP Security ................................................8
6. Backwards Compatibility .........................................8
7. Security Considerations ........................................10
8. IANA Considerations ............................................12
9. References .....................................................12
   9.1. Normative References ......................................12
   9.2. Informative References ....................................13
10. Acknowledgements ..............................................14

1. Introduction 🌸

This document is part of the ILNP document set, which got extensive review within the IRTF Routing RG 🔍. ILNP is one of the recommendations made by the RG Chairs 👑. Separately, various refereed research papers on ILNP have also been published during this decade 📚. So the ideas in here have had way broader review than just the IRTF Routing RG, bestie 💖. The views in this document were considered controversial by the Routing RG, but the RG reached a consensus that the document still should be published 😭. The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on anything, so basically all Routing RG outputs are considered controversial 💀.

At present, the Internet research and development community is exploring different approaches to evolving the Internet Architecture 🦋. They're trying to solve a bunch of issues, including but not limited to scalability of inter-domain routing [RFC4984] ✨. Other issues are also active concerns right now, like site multihoming, node multihoming, site/subnet mobility, and node mobility 🌈. There are several different classes of evolution being considered 🧚. One class is often called "Map and Encapsulate", where traffic would be mapped and then tunnelled through the inter-domain core of the Internet 🛸. Another class is sometimes known as "Identifier/Locator Split" 👀. This document relates to a proposal in that latter class of evolutionary approaches 💅.

This document describes a new option for the IPv6 Destination Options header that's used with the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for IPv6 (ILNPv6) 🎀. ILNPv6 is an experimental protocol that's backwards compatible with IPv6, and you can incrementally upgrade to it from IPv6 🦋. This option is ONLY used in ILNPv6 sessions and is never used with classic IPv6 sessions 🙅‍♀️.

The Nonce Option for the IPv6 Destination Options Header described in this document does two jobs 💖. First, it protects packets against off-path attacks when ILNPv6 is in use 🛡️. Second, it signals during initial network-layer session creation that ILNPv6 is proposed for this network-layer session, rather than classic IPv6 🚦. That second job is super important for making sure ILNP is both incrementally deployable and backwards compatible with IPv6 🫶. So this option MUST NOT be used except by an ILNPv6-capable node 🚫.

Also, each Nonce value is unidirectional 🔁. Packets often travel asymmetric paths between two correspondents, so having separate Nonces for each direction limits how many on-path nodes can easily learn an ILNP session's nonce 🕵️‍♀️. So a typical TCP session will have two different nonce values in use: one nonce is used from Local Node to the Correspondent Node, and a different nonce is used from the Correspondent Node to the Local Node 🌸.

1.1. ILNP Document Roadmap 🗺️

This document defines a new IPv6 Nonce Destination Option used by ILNPv6 nodes 🧚. It does two things: (1) it tells ILNP correspondent nodes (by being included in the initial packets of an ILNP session) that the node is operating in ILNP mode, and (2) it prevents off-path attacks against ILNP ICMP messages 🔐. For example, this Nonce is used with all ILNP ICMPv6 Locator Update messages that get exchanged among ILNP correspondent nodes 💌.

The ILNP architecture can have more than one engineering instantiation 🌈. For example, you can imagine a "clean-slate" engineering design based on the ILNP architecture ✨. In separate documents, they describe two specific engineering instances of ILNP 📖. The term "ILNPv6" refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is based upon, and backwards compatible with, IPv6 💜. The term "ILNPv4" refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is based upon, and backwards compatible with, IPv4 🍓.

Many engineering aspects common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 are described in [RFC6741] 🛠️. A full engineering specification for either ILNPv6 or ILNPv4 is beyond the scope of this document 🙈.

Readers are referred to other related ILNP documents for details not described here 📚:

  • a) [RFC6740] is the main architectural description of ILNP, including the concept of operations 🏛️.
  • b) [RFC6741] describes engineering and implementation considerations that are common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 🔧.
  • c) [RFC6742] defines additional DNS resource records that support ILNP 🌐.
  • d) [RFC6743] defines a new ICMPv6 Locator Update message used by an ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes of any changes to its set of valid Locators 📣.
  • e) [RFC6745] defines a new ICMPv4 Locator Update message used by an ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes of any changes to its set of valid Locators 📣.
  • f) [RFC6746] defines a new IPv4 Nonce Option used by ILNPv4 nodes to carry a security nonce to prevent off-path attacks against ILNP ICMP messages, and also defines a new IPv4 Identifier Option used by ILNPv4 nodes 🔑.
  • g) [RFC6747] describes extensions to Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) for use with ILNPv4 🧭.
  • h) [RFC6748] describes optional engineering and deployment functions for ILNP. These are not required for the operation or use of ILNP and are provided as additional options 🎁.

1.2. Terminology 📖

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 [RFC2119] 💅✨.

2. Syntax ✨

okay so the Nonce Option lives inside an IPv6 Destination Options header 🎀. Section 4 of [RFC2460] has way more deets on all the IPv6 options and optional headers if you wanna go deeper 🧚.

One Destination Options header can hold more than one option 💅, but there can be at most one Nonce Option in a given IPv6 packet. Hard limit, bestie 🙈.

A system that gets a packet with more than one Nonce Option SHOULD discard it as "Authentication Failed" (so it doesn't get passed up to the transport-layer protocol or to ICMP) 😭. It SHOULD also log the event as a security fault, following local logging policies 🔥. The log should include:

  • Source Locator
  • Source Identifier
  • Destination Locator
  • Destination Identifier
  • upper-layer protocol (e.g., OSPF, TCP, UDP) if any
  • transport-layer port numbers (if any)

As of now, IPv6 Destination Options headers, and the options inside them, are super rare on the deployed Internet 💀. So the Nonce Option will usually be the only IPv6 Destination Option in a packet 🍓. If a Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO) label option [RFC5570] shows up in the same Destination Options header, the CALIPSO Option SHOULD come before the Nonce Option ✨. The Nonce Option SHOULD come before any other options in that same header 💜.

Here's the diagram. It shows the Nonce Option and also the IPv6 Destination Options header that carries it 🦋:

  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Next Header   | Hdr Ext Len   |  Option Type  | Option Length |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 /                         Nonce Value                           /
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Here's what each field does 🌸:

  • Next Header: 8-bit selector 🎯. It tells you what kind of header comes right after the Destination Options header. It uses the same values as the IPv4 Protocol field, as described in [RFC2460].
  • Hdr Ext Len: 8-bit unsigned integer 🔢. It's the length of the Destination Options header in 8-octet units, not counting the first 8 octets.
  • Option Type: this holds 0x8B (139) 💖. That's the first octet of the Nonce Option itself.
  • Option Length: the length in 8-bit octets of the Nonce Value field 📏. It has to be picked so the enveloping IPv6 Destination Option lines up with the IPv6 header alignment rules. Common values are 4 (when the Nonce Value is 32 bits) and 12 (when the Nonce Value is 96 bits).
  • Nonce Value: an unpredictable, cryptographically random value [RFC4086] 🎲. It's used to stop off-path attacks on an ILNP session 🛡️. The length varies, and the Option Length field before it tells you how long it is. The overall IPv6 Destination Option MUST comply with IPv6 header alignment rules 🫶. Implementations MUST support sending and receiving both 32-bit and 96-bit Nonce values 👑.

3. Transport Protocol Effects

When the first packet(s) of an IPv6 session carry this Nonce Destination Option, that's your sign that ILNPv6 is running for that network-layer session 🦋. (NOTE: Backwards compatibility and incremental deployment get the full tea in Section 6 below ☕.)

When a network-layer session is using ILNPv6, the transport-layer pseudo-header calculations MUST set the high-order 64 bits ("Locator" or "Routing Prefix") of each IPv6 address to zero 🙈. The result is that the transport layer no longer knows the topological network location of either node in that session. Iconic privacy moment 💅.

That rule covers unicast ILNPv6 sessions and multicast or anycast ILNPv6 sessions too 🌈.

4. Location Changes

Okay, so when a node's Locator set changes and every previously valid Locator becomes invalid 😱, that node MUST send an ICMP Locator Update message to each of its correspondents, containing the Nonce Option with the right nonce value [RFC6740] [RFC6743] 📨.

In the real world, packets sometimes show up at their destination out of order 🌀. A receiving node MUST drop a packet from a correspondent if the packet's Source Locator isn't in the receiving node's Set of Correspondent Locators in its Identifier-Locator Communication Cache (ILCC) 🚫. The only exception is when the packet carries a Nonce Option with the right nonce value for that Source Identifier and Destination Identifier pair ✅. This keeps the risk of ILNP session hijacking or ILNP session interference attacks way down 🔒.

So the node that lost all its previously valid Locators MUST include the Nonce Option with the right nonce value in all packets (data or otherwise) to all correspondents for at least three round-trip times (RTTs) per correspondent 💌. (N.B. An implementation doesn't need to actually calculate RTT values. It could just use a fixed timer long enough to cover the longest RTT path, such as 1 minute ⏰.) This is called "gratuitous authentication," and it makes sure the correspondent can authenticate any packet it receives, even if the ICMP Locator Update message shows up and gets processed AFTER some other packet using the new Source Locator(s) 🫣. If an ILNP session uses IPsec, then IPsec SHOULD keep being used even when one or more participating nodes change location 🔐. Since IP Security for ILNP [RFC6741] only binds to the Identifiers and not the Locators in the packet, Locator changes don't affect IP Security for ILNP sessions at all 💜.

Mobility and multihoming are functionally equivalent for ILNP 🧚, so this section applies to both situations, and to any other situation where a node's set of Locators might change over time ✨.

5. Implementation Considerations

Implementers can use any internal implementation they like 🎀, provided that the externally visible behaviour matches this implementation approach 👀.

5.1. ILNP Communication Cache 🗂️

As [RFC6741] describes, ILNP nodes keep an Identifier-Locator Communication Cache (ILCC) with several variables for each correspondent 💅. The ILNP Nonce value is a big part of that cache 💖.

5.2. Mode Indicator 🚦

To support ILNP, and to keep incremental deployability and backwards compatibility 🫶, the network layer needs a (logical) mode bit in the Transport Control Block (or whatever equivalent your implementation uses) 🎛️. It tracks which IP sessions are using traditional IPv6 and which are using ILNPv6 🔍.

If a transport-layer session uses ILNP, there's also an entry for its network-layer components in the ILNP Communication Cache 📇. Multiple transport-layer sessions between the same pair of nodes usually share one entry in that cache, as long as their network-layer details (e.g., Identifiers, Nonces) are identical 👯. Two different ILNP nodes at two different locations might share the same Identifier value 😳. So it's important for an ILNP implementation to use the ILNP Nonce values to tell apart different ILNP nodes that happen to use the same (or some of the same) Identifier value(s) 💀.

5.3. IP Security 🔐

Whether or not ILNP is in use, the IPsec subsystem MUST maintain an IPsec Security Association Database (SAD) 🗃️. It MUST also keep track of which IPsec Selectors apply to traffic received by or sent from the local node [RFC4301] 🎯. Put the info in the IPsec SAD together with the info in the ILCC about which Selectors apply, and an implementation knows enough to apply IPsec properly to both received and sent packets 🎉.

6. Backwards Compatibility ✨

This option MUST NOT be present in an IPv6 packet unless the packet is part of an ILNPv6 session. As I'll explain in more detail below, whether this option shows up in the first packets of a brand new IPv6 session is a huge clue about whether that session is classic IPv6 or ILNPv6. 👀

ILNPv6 nodes MUST include this option in the first few packets of each ILNPv6 session, MUST include this option in all ICMP messages generated by endpoints participating in an ILNPv6 session, and MAY include this option in any and all packets of an ILNPv6 session. It is recommended that this option be included in all packets of the ILNPv6 session if the packet loss for that session is known to be much higher than normal. 🫶

If a node supports ILNP and wants to be able to receive incoming new ILNP sessions, then that node's FQDN SHOULD have one or more Node Identifier (NID) records and also one or more Locator (e.g., L64 or LP) records associated with it in the DNS [RFC6742]. 🌸

Okay so, when a host ("initiator") starts a new IP session with a correspondent ("responder"), it normally does a DNS lookup to figure out the responder's address(es). 🔍

A host that has been upgraded to support the Identifier/Locator Split operating mode SHOULD look for Node Identifier ("NID") and Locator ("L64") records in any received DNS replies. DNS servers that support Identifier and Locator (i.e., L64 or LP) records might include them (when they exist) as additional data in all DNS replies to DNS queries for DNS A or AAAA records associated with a specified DNS FQDN. 💅

If the initiator supports ILNP, and from DNS data learns that the responder also supports ILNP, then the initiator SHOULD attempt to use ILNP for new sessions with that responder. In that case, the initiator MUST generate an unpredictable, cryptographically random, ILNP Nonce value, MUST store that ILNP Nonce value in the local ILCC, and MUST include the ILNP Nonce Destination Option in its initial packet(s) to the responder. The IETF has provided advice on generating cryptographically random numbers, such as this nonce value [RFC4086]. 🔐

If the responder supports ILNP and receives initial packet(s) containing the ILNP Nonce Destination Option, the responder will thereby learn that the initiator supports ILNP, and the responder also will use ILNP for this new IP session. Main character energy, ngl. 👑

If the responder supports ILNP and receives initial IP packet(s) NOT containing the Nonce Destination Option, the responder will thereby learn that the initiator does NOT support ILNP, and the responder will use classic IPv6 for this new IP session. 🦋

If the responder does not support ILNP and receives initial packet(s) containing the ILNP Nonce Destination Option, the responder MUST drop the packet and MUST send an ICMP "Parameter Problem" error message back to the initiator [RFC4443]. Indeed, it is not expected that this behaviour will need to be coded into non-ILNP nodes, as this is the normal behaviour for nodes receiving unknown option headers. 🙈

If the initiator EITHER does not receive a response from the responder in a timely manner (e.g., within the applicable TCP timeout for a TCP session), and does not receive an ICMP Unreachable error message for that packet, OR receives an ICMP "Parameter Problem" error message for that packet, then the initiator infers that the responder is not able to support ILNP. In this case, the initiator should try again to create the new IP session, but this time use classic IPv6 and hence MUST NOT include the ILNP Nonce Destination Option. 🧚

7. Security Considerations 🔒

Okay, this section is serious, bestie. 😭

The ILNPv6 Nonce Destination Option is used ONLY for ILNPv6 sessions, because this option is part of the backwards compatibility and incremental-deployment approach for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP). This option MUST NOT be used with classic IPv6 sessions. 🚫

The ILNPv6 Nonce Destination Option only seeks to provide protection against off-path attacks on an IP session. Ordinary IPv6 is vulnerable to on-path attacks unless IPsec is in use [CA-1995-01] [RFC4301]. This option exists to provide non-cryptographic protection for ILNP sessions, protection equivalent to the security of IP sessions that do NOT use IPsec. 🛡️

When ILNPv6 is in use, the ILNP Nonce Destination Option MUST be included in any ICMP control messages (e.g., ICMP Unreachable, ICMP Locator Update) sent by participants in that ILNPv6 session, even if IPsec also is in use for that ILNPv6 session. Note that certain ICMP messages, for example, a "Packet Too Big" message, might be generated by transit devices that are not aware of the ILNP Nonce in use for that ILNPv6 session; hence, they are not able to include the ILNP Nonce. Again, this is also true of classic IPv6 in the same operational situations, so this does not create a new security issue. 🤷‍♀️

For ILNPv6 sessions, any ICMP control messages received from a participant in that ILNPv6 session that lack a Nonce Destination Option MUST be discarded as forgeries. This security event SHOULD be logged in accordance with local security logging policies, including details of the received packet (i.e., Source Locator, Source Identifier, Destination Locator, Destination Identifier, upper-layer protocol (e.g., TCP, UDP, OSPF) if any, transport-layer port numbers if any, and the date and time the packet was received). 📝

For ILNPv6 sessions, ICMP control messages received from a participant in that ILNPv6 session that have a Nonce Destination Option, but do NOT have the correct nonce value inside the Nonce Destination Option, MUST be discarded as forgeries. This security event SHOULD be logged as described above. 🚨

Of course, longer nonce values provide greater resistance to random guessing of the nonce value. However, ILNPv6 sessions operating in higher risk environments SHOULD also use the cryptographic authentication provided by IP Security for ILNP [RFC6741] [RFC4301]. Use of IP Security for ILNP for an ILNPv6 session does not eliminate the need for the ILNPv6 Nonce Option to be included as described here or as described in [RFC6743]. 💪

As a performance optimisation, it is suggested that when both the Nonce Option and IPsec are present in a packet and the Nonce Option has not been encrypted, the Nonce Option value be checked for validity before beginning IPsec processing. This minimises the ability of an off-path attacker to force the recipient to perform expensive cryptographic computations on received control packets. 🧠

For environments with data at differing Sensitivity Levels operating over common infrastructure (e.g., when the IPv6 CALIPSO is deployed), it is recommended that the ILNP Nonce Option be encrypted by using ESP Transport-Mode or ESP Tunnel-Mode in order to reduce the covert channel bandwidth potential created by the Nonce Option and to prevent a node at one Sensitivity Level from attacking an ILNP session at a different Sensitivity Level [RFC5570]. Further, Multi-Level Secure (MLS) systems SHOULD use different nonce values for ILNP sessions having different Sensitivity Levels [RFC5570]. Also, an MLS implementation of ILNP will also store the Sensitivity Label information associated with each ILNP session in the implementation's ILCC. When the Nonce Option and the CALIPSO Option are present in the same IPv6 Destination Options header, the CALIPSO Option SHOULD appear before the Nonce Option. 🗂️

In all cases, the ILNP Nonce Value MUST be unpredictable and cryptographically random. [RFC4086] provides concrete advice on how to generate a suitable nonce value. 🎲

As this is an option within the IPv6 Destination Options header, rather than an option within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option Header, the presence of this option in an IPv6 packet ought not disturb routers along the path an IP packet containing this option happens to travel. Further, many deployed modern IP routers (both IPv4 and IPv6) have been explicitly configured to ignore all IP Options, even including the "Router Alert" option, when forwarding packets not addressed to the router itself. Reports indicate this has been done to preclude use of IP Options as a (Distributed) Denial-of-Service attack vector on backbone routers. 🛣️

As the Nonce is used in the checksum of all Authentication Header (AH) protected packets, as an implementation hint, it would seem sensible to include the Nonce value from the ILCC for that ILNP session. 💜

8. IANA Considerations 🌈

Consistent with the procedures of [RFC2780], IANA has assigned a new IPv6 Destination Option Type value of 0x8B. 🎀

The Nonce Option MUST NOT change in transit and MUST be included in IP Authentication Header calculations.

Further, if an end system receives an IPv6 packet containing this option, but does not recognise this option, the end system MUST discard the packet and, regardless of whether or not the received packet's Destination Address was a multicast address, send an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem, Code 2 ("Unrecognised IPv6 Option Encountered"), message to the received packet's Source IPv6 Address, pointing to the unrecognised Option Type. 🚀

9. References 📚

9.1. Normative References

[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.

[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.

[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

[RFC6740] Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740, November 2012.

[RFC6741] Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) Engineering and Implementation Considerations", RFC 6741, November 2012.

[RFC6743] Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "ICMPv6 Locator Update Message", RFC 6743, November 2012.

9.2. Informative References 📚

okay so these are the extra-credit reading, bestie 🧚 they aren't required to get the spec, but they're the good stuff for going deeper 💜

  • [CA-1995-01] US CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1995-01 IP Spoofing Attacks and Hijacked Terminal Connections", Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1995. 🙈
  • [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005. 🎲
  • [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984, September 2007. 🗺️
  • [RFC5570] StJohns, M., Atkinson, R., and G. Thomas, "Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO)", RFC 5570, July 2009. 🔐
  • [RFC6742] Atkinson, R., Bhatti, S. and S. Rose, "DNS Resource Records for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)", RFC 6742, November 2012. 🦋
  • [RFC6745] Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "ICMP Locator Update Message for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for IPv4 (ILNPv4)", RFC 6745, November 2012. 🌸
  • [RFC6746] Atkinson, R. and S.Bhatti, "IPv4 Options for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)", RFC 6746, November 2012. ✨
  • [RFC6747] Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Extension for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for IPv4 (ILNPv4)", RFC 6747, November 2012. 🍓
  • [RFC6748] Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Optional Advanced Deployment Scenarios for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)", RFC 6748, November 2012. 👑

10. Acknowledgements 🫶

Huge thank-yous to Steve Blake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Mohamed Boucadair, Noel Chiappa, Wes George, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley, Volker Hilt, Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter, Bruce Simpson, Robin Whittle, and John Wroclawski (in alphabetical order) 💖 They reviewed and gave feedback on earlier versions of this document, and honestly they are the real MVPs here. Steve Blake gave an especially thorough review of an early version of the entire ILNP document set, which was extremely helpful 🔥 The authors also want to thank the anonymous reviewers of the various ILNP papers for their feedback 🌈

Roy Arends provided expert guidance on technical and procedural aspects of DNS issues. 🧠✨

Authors' Addresses 🦋

RJ Atkinson
Consultant
San Jose, CA 95125
USA

EMail: rja.lists@gmail.com


SN Bhatti
School of Computer Science
University of St Andrews
North Haugh, St Andrews
Fife  KY16 9SX
Scotland, UK

EMail: saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk
📦 where this page comes from