RFC 8504
IPv6 Node Requirements
RFC 8504: IPv6 Node Requirements 🌸
okay so bestie, here's the header info you need before we dive in 💖
- Stream: Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
- Request for Comments: 8504
- BCP: 220
- Category: Best Current Practice
- ISSN: 2070-1721
- Date: January 2019
- Authors: T. Chown (Jisc), J. Loughney (Intel), T. Winters (UNH-IOL)
- Obsoletes: 6434
Abstract ✨
this doc lays out the requirements for IPv6 nodes 🧚 IPv6 is expected to show up in a huge range of devices and situations, and spelling out what each node needs is how IPv6 keeps working well and interoperating across a large number of situations and deployments 💅
This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.
Status of This Memo 🎀
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504.
Copyright Notice 🌈
Copyright (c) 2019 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents 📚
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200 . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Support for IPv6 Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Protecting a Node from Excessive Extension Header Options 8
5.4. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 11
5.6. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 11
5.7. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.2. Minimum MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) -
RFC 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes -
RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 . 13
5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 . . . . 13
6. Addressing and Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . . . 13
6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . . . 14
6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 -
RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 16
6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . . . 16
7. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Configuring Non-address Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway . . . . . . . . 17
8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration - RFC 8106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Service Discovery Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . 19
11.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . 19
12. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . 22
14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 22
14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 23
14.4. IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding -
BCP 198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16. IPv6 Node Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . 24
16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.1.3. Interface MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.2. YANG Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
16.2.2. Interface Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . 25
17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 4294 to RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . 39
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421. Introduction ✨
okay so this doc is all about the common stuff that both IPv6 hosts and routers need 💅 Plenty of IPv6 nodes will also add optional or extra features, but this document collects and summarizes the requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one place, so you don't have to hunt them all down 🫶
This document tries to avoid getting into protocol details and points to RFCs for that instead. It's meant to be an applicability statement 🦋 It gives guidance on which IPv6 specifications should be implemented in the general case and which specifications may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios. This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs.
Although this document points to different specifications, it should be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both client and server behavior in the same specification, while many implementations will be focused on only one of those roles. so much nuance, I'm obsessed 🙈
This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a device to provide useful Internet service and considers a broad range of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific usage and deployment environments. As an example, this document does not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. As another example, NIST has defined profiles for specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments (see [USGv6]). main character energy for other profiles 👑
As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" [RFC793]. this is the iconic quote, periodt 🌸
1.1. Scope of This Document 💖
IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, it is important to develop requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure interoperability. literally the whole point 🎀
1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 🧚
From "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification" [RFC8200], we have the following definitions:
IPv6 node - a device that implements IPv6.
IPv6 router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly
addressed to itself.
IPv6 host - any IPv6 node that is not a router.2. Requirements Language 🎀
okay this part is the one to lock in 🔒 It explains how to read the special BCP 14 words when you see them in this document, and it's giving precision:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 🦋
here are the abbreviations you'll see throughout the doc, no cap 🍓
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 Multi-Access
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol4. Sub-IP Layer ✨
okay so first things first, bestie: every IPv6 node MUST include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer specifications 🫶 Which ones you pick depends on what link layers the hardware on your system can actually handle. And it's totally valid for a conformant node to run IPv6 on some interfaces but not others. Mix and match, it's giving flexibility 🦋
IPv6 keeps getting run over new Layer 2 technologies, so new specs are going to keep showing up. Here are some of the Layer 2 technologies that already have an IPv6 spec. This list is just for your information, and it might not be complete, so don't treat it as the full menu 🌸
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]
- 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]
Traditional physical links aren't the only option, though. You can also tunnel IPv6 over other protocols, and there are a couple of examples I think are super iconic 💅
- Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]
- Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (see Section 3 of [RFC4213])
5. IP Layer 👑
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200 💖
okay the Internet Protocol version 6 itself is specified in [RFC8200], and this specification MUST be supported 🔥 The node MUST also follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 8200. no cap, this is the foundation everything else sits on 😭
All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of sending and receiving IPv6 packets. Forwarding functionality MAY be supported, so it's optional, but the send and receive part is a must. Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process Fragment headers ✨
IPv6 nodes MUST not create overlapping fragments 🙈 And if a node is reassembling a datagram and one of its fragments turns out to be an overlapping fragment, the entire datagram (along with any constituent fragments) MUST be silently discarded. Gone, no trace 💀 You can read more in [RFC5722].
As recommended in [RFC8021], nodes MUST NOT generate atomic fragments, which means a fragment that is a whole datagram all by itself 🙅♀️ As per [RFC6946], if a receiving node reassembling a datagram runs into an atomic fragment, it should be processed as a fully reassembled packet, and any other fragments that match this packet should be processed independently 🧚
To mitigate a variety of potential attacks, nodes SHOULD avoid using predictable Fragment Identification values in Fragment headers, as discussed in [RFC7739]. Predictability is not your friend here 🕵️♀️
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 like routers and load distributors MUST NOT depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. And 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. Main character energy for flow labels 🎀
5.2. Support for IPv6 Extension Headers 🦋
RFC 8200 is where extension headers and their processing are specified, so that's your go-to reference 📖
Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path. That holds until the packet reaches the node identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header, or each node in that set when it's multicast. So hands off until it gets there 🙌
Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as described in RFC 8200. Also, where Section 4 of RFC 8200 talks about the action to take when a Next Header value in the current header isn't recognized by a node, that action applies whether the value is an unrecognized extension header or an unrecognized upper-layer protocol (ULP). Sneaky, but it all lines up 🧠
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these extension headers. The one exception is Routing Header type 0 (RH0). It got deprecated by [RFC5095] because of security concerns, and it MUST be treated as an unrecognized routing type. Bye bye RH0 😭🫡
[RFC7045] adds some specific requirements for how extension headers get processed. Mainly, any forwarding node along an IPv6 packet's path that forwards the packet for any reason SHOULD do so regardless of any extension headers that are present 🍓
As per RFC 8200, when a node fragments an IPv6 datagram, it MUST include the entire IPv6 Header Chain in the first fragment. The Per-Fragment headers MUST consist of the IPv6 header plus any extension headers that MUST be processed by nodes en route to the destination. In other words, that means all headers up to and including the Routing header if one is present, else the Hop-by-Hop Options header if present, else no extension headers at all ✨
On reassembly, if the first fragment doesn't include all headers through an upper-layer header, then that fragment SHOULD be discarded. An ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 3, message SHOULD be sent to the source of the fragment, with the Pointer field set to zero. For the reasons oversized IPv6 Extension Header Chains get avoided, check out [RFC7112] 🧐
Defining new IPv6 extension headers is not recommended, unless there's no existing extension header that can be used by specifying a new option for that extension header. A proposal to specify a new IPv6 extension header MUST include a detailed technical explanation of why an existing IPv6 extension header can not be used for the desired new function. In that case, it needs to follow the format described in Section 8 of RFC 8200. If you want more background reading, [RFC6564] has you covered 📚💜
5.3. Protecting a Node from Excessive Extension Header Options 🛡️
As per RFC 8200, end hosts are expected to process all extension headers, destination options, and hop-by-hop options in a packet. Here's the catch: the only limit on the number and size of extension headers is the MTU, so processing received packets could get really expensive 😩 A long chain of extension headers could even be used as a form of denial-of-service attack. So a host is allowed to put limits on the number and sizes of extension headers and options it's willing to process 🙅♀️
A host MAY limit the number of consecutive PAD1 options in destination options or hop-by-hop options to 7. In that case, if there are more than 7 consecutive PAD1 options present, the packet MAY be silently discarded. The reasoning is that if you need padding of 8 or more bytes, the PADN option SHOULD be used instead 🎀
A host MAY limit the number of bytes in a PADN option to be less than 8. In that case, if a PADN option is present with a length greater than 7, the packet SHOULD be silently discarded. The point of padding is alignment, and 8 bytes is the maximum alignment used in IPv6, so that's the logic 🌸
A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hop-by-hop options. This SHOULD be configurable, and the default is to accept unknown options and process them per [RFC8200]. If a packet with unknown options arrives and the host is configured to disallow them, then the packet SHOULD be silently discarded 🙈
A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum number of non-padding options allowed in the destination options and hop-by-hop extension headers. If this feature is supported, the maximum number SHOULD be configurable, and the default value SHOULD be set to 8. The limits for destination options and hop-by-hop options may be configured separately. If a packet arrives and the number of destination or hop-by-hop options exceeds the limit, then the packet SHOULD be silently discarded 🍓
A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum length of Destination Options or Hop-by-Hop Options extension headers. This value SHOULD be configurable, and the default is to accept options of any length. If a packet arrives and the length of the Destination or Hop-by-Hop Options extension header exceeds the length limit, then the packet SHOULD be silently discarded 🫶✨
5.4. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 🧭
okay so Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861], and [RFC5942] updated that definition 💅. Neighbor Discovery MUST be supported, with the exceptions noted below. Here's what RFC 4861 says about its own scope:
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].
Now for the detailed analysis 🔍
Router Discovery is how hosts locate the routers sitting on an attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality. ✨
Prefix Discovery is how hosts find the set of address prefixes that decide 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. 🫶
[RFC7048] talks about NUD in cases where it gets a little too impatient 😭. It says that if a node transmits more than a certain number of packets, then it SHOULD use exponential backoff of the retransmit timer, up to a certain threshold point.
Hosts MUST support sending Router Solicitations and receiving Router Advertisements (RAs). Being able to understand individual RA options depends on supporting the functionality that uses that particular option. 🌸
[RFC7559] covers packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations, and it requires that nodes MUST use a specific exponential backoff algorithm when retransmitting Router Solicitations. 💜
All nodes MUST support sending and receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). 💖
Hosts SHOULD support processing Redirect functionality. Routers MUST support sending Redirects, though not necessarily for every single packet (for example, because of rate limiting). Redirects are only useful on networks that have hosts on them. In core networks dominated by routers, Redirects are typically disabled. The sending of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on routers intended for deployment on core networks. They MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on edge networks. 🧚
As specified in [RFC6980], nodes MUST NOT use IPv6 fragmentation when sending any of the following Neighbor Discovery and SEcure Neighbor Discovery messages: Neighbor Solicitation, Neighbor Advertisement, Router Solicitation, Router Advertisement, Redirect, or Certification Path Solicitation. Nodes MUST silently ignore any of these messages on receipt if they arrive fragmented. See RFC 6980 for the details and the motivation. 🙈
"IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] has extra recommendations on how to pick from a set of available routers. [RFC4311] SHOULD be supported. 🍓
5.5. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 🔐
SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972] give us a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor Discovery. SEND has the potential to address certain classes of spoofing attacks, but it does not provide specific protection against threats from off-link attackers. 🛡️
There have been relatively few implementations of SEND in common operating systems and platforms since it was published in 2005, so deployment experience is still very limited to date. 🥲
Right now, support for SEND is considered optional. Because SEND is complicated to deploy and its provisioning is heavyweight, deployment is only likely to be considered where nodes are operating in a particularly strict security environment. 💅
5.6. 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 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, so strictly speaking there is no requirement to implement the option today. However, implementations that can pass unrecognized options up to a higher-level entity that might understand them (for example, a user-level process using a "raw socket" facility) MAY take steps to handle the option in anticipation of a future usage. 🦋
5.7. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 📦
5.7.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201 🛣️
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC8201] SHOULD be supported. From [RFC8200]:
It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU Discovery [RFC8201], 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 [RFC8200] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and reassembly. 🧩
As RFC 8201 describes, nodes that implement Path MTU Discovery and send packets larger than the IPv6 minimum link MTU are at risk of problematic connectivity if ICMPv6 messages are blocked or not transmitted. For example, connections can complete the TCP three-way handshake correctly and then hang when data gets transferred. This state is called a black-hole connection [RFC2923]. 🕳️ Path MTU Discovery relies on ICMPv6 Packet Too Big (PTB) to determine the MTU of the path, so these MUST NOT be filtered, as per the recommendation in [RFC4890]. 🚫
An alternative to the Path MTU Discovery defined in RFC 8201 can be found in [RFC4821]. It defines a method for Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD), designed for use over paths where delivery of ICMPv6 messages to a host is not assured. 🌈
5.7.2. Minimum MTU Considerations 📏
An IPv6 link MTU can be set to 1280 bytes, but it is recommended that, particularly for IPv6 UDP (which includes DNS operation), the sender uses a large MTU if they can. That helps avoid gratuitous fragmentation-caused packet drops. 🍭
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. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 🗺️
"Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191] supports nodes attached to multiple (different) networks, where each network provides routers that advertise themselves as default routers via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide connectivity to destinations that the other one does not, and choosing the "wrong" default router can cause reachability failures. To resolve this, IPv6 nodes MUST implement [RFC4191] and SHOULD implement the Type C host role defined in RFC 4191. 👑
5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 🚦
In multihomed scenarios, where a host has more than one prefix, each allocated by an upstream network that is assumed to implement BCP 38 ingress filtering, the host may have multiple routers to choose from. 🏠
Hosts that may be deployed in such multihomed environments SHOULD follow the guidance given in [RFC8028]. 💅
5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 📣
Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. MLD is needed by any node that is expected to receive and process multicast traffic. In particular, MLDv2 is required for support of source-specific multicast (SSM) as per [RFC4607]. 🎶
Earlier versions of this specification only required MLDv1 [RFC2710] to be implemented on all nodes. Since any MLDv1-only node on a link requires all other nodes on that link to operate in version 1 compatibility mode, the requirement to support MLDv2 on all nodes was upgraded to a MUST. Further, SSM is now the preferred multicast distribution method, rather than Any-Source Multicast (ASM). 📈
Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used on most link types -- see Section 5.4) depends on multicast and requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. 🧠
5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 🚨
An ECN-aware router sets a mark in the IP header to signal impending congestion, instead of dropping a packet. The receiver of the packet echoes the congestion indication back to the sender, which can then reduce its transmission rate as if it had detected a dropped packet. 🐢
Nodes SHOULD support ECN [RFC3168] by implementing an interface for the upper layer to access, and by setting the ECN bits in the IP header. The benefits of using ECN are documented in [RFC8087]. 🌟
6. Addressing and Address Configuration 🏡
6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 📍
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. 💖
The current IPv6 Address Architecture is based on a 64-bit boundary for subnet prefixes. The reasoning behind that decision is documented in [RFC7421]. 🧁
Implementations MUST also support the multicast flag updates documented in [RFC7371]. 🪄
6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations 🎀
Hosts may be configured with addresses through a variety of methods, including Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC), DHCPv6, or manual configuration. 🧩
[RFC7934] recommends that networks give general-purpose end hosts multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and it describes the benefits of doing so and the options for how. Routers SHOULD support [RFC7934] for assigning multiple addresses to a host. A host SHOULD support assigning multiple addresses as described in [RFC7934]. 🌷
Nodes SHOULD support the capability to be assigned a prefix per host, as documented in [RFC8273]. Such an approach can offer improved host isolation and enhanced subscriber management on shared network segments. 🫧
6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 ✨
okay so hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration 🫶 it's the auto-setup vibe where your device builds its own address with zero babysitting. Then it is RECOMMENDED, per [RFC8064], that nodes follow the procedure in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based addresses instead of using [RFC4862], unless there's a specific requirement for Media Access Control (MAC) addresses to be embedded in an Interface Identifier (IID) 💅 The [RFC7217] addresses stay the same whenever a device shows back up on the same subnet with the same IPv6 prefix, but the IID changes on each subnet it visits 🦋
Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses as described in [RFC4862] 🧚
Here's what [RFC4862] says about it, bestie:
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 🔥 and 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] is the glow-up that cuts down the delays of generating addresses through Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] ✨ It was built alongside Mobile IPv6 because devices that hop between networks need to get their addresses fast, and nobody wants transition lag 😭 For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains optional at this time 🌸
[RFC7527] covers enhanced DAD and an algorithm that automatically detects looped-back IPv6 ND messages used by DAD 🙈 Nodes SHOULD implement this behavior where such detection is beneficial 💜
6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 🕵️♀️
okay the privacy issue is so real 💀 A node using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] to form a globally unique IPv6 address that uses its MAC address to make the IID will keep the same IID on every network it visits, even though the network prefix changes. So a third-party device can track what that node is doing as it moves around the network 👀
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] fix this by letting nodes configure an extra temporary address where the IID is effectively randomly generated 🦋 Those privacy addresses are then used as source addresses for new communications the node starts 🫶
General privacy issues for IPv6 addressing are discussed in [RFC7721] 📖
RFC 4941 SHOULD be supported ✨ In some scenarios, like dedicated servers in a data center, it gives limited or no benefit, or it may complicate network management 🙃 So devices implementing this specification MUST provide a way for the end user to explicitly enable or disable the use of such temporary addresses 👑
Note that RFC 4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC or independently of SLAAC that is based on RFC 7217 🧚
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 💅
6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 📬
DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses 💖 In general, a network may provide address configuration through SLAAC, DHCPv6, or both. There's a wide range of IPv6 deployment models and different address assignment requirements, and some of them may need DHCPv6 for stateful address assignment 🌈 So, all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCPv6 🫶
If no Router Advertisement messages have been observed, IPv6 nodes MAY initiate DHCP to get IPv6 addresses and other configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of [RFC4862] 🍓
Where devices are likely to be carried by users and attached to multiple visited networks, DHCPv6 client anonymity profiles SHOULD be supported as described in [RFC7844] to minimize the disclosure of identifying information 🔒 Section 5 of RFC 7844 covers the operational considerations for using those anonymity profiles ✨
6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 🎯
IPv6 nodes will basically always have multiple addresses configured at the same time, so they need to choose which address to use for which communication 😭 The rules in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 document [RFC6724] MUST be implemented 🔥 [RFC8028] updates Rule 5.5 from [RFC6724], and implementations SHOULD implement this rule 💜
7. DNS 🌐
DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596] 📖 Not every node will need to resolve names, and those 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 Section 5.3.1 of [RFC1034], with support for:
AAAAtype Resource Records [RFC3596];- reverse addressing in
ip6.arpausingPTRrecords [RFC3596]; and - Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) [RFC6891] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 octets.
Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035] 🔐✨
A6 Resource Records [RFC2874] are classified as Historic per [RFC6563] 🗿 They were originally defined with Experimental status in [RFC3363] 🍂
8. Configuring Non-address Information ⚙️
8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information 🧩
DHCP [RFC3315] has a mechanism for IPv6 nodes to get address configuration information (see Section 6.5) and additional (non-address) configuration 💅 If a host implementation supports applications or other protocols that need configuration that's only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP 🫶 For specialized devices with no 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 💖
If an IPv6 node implements DHCP, it MUST implement the DNS options [RFC3646] because most deployments will expect those options to be available 🔥
8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway 📡
There is no defined DHCPv6 Gateway option 🙈 So 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 ✨
8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 8106 🌍
Router Advertisement options have historically been limited to the ones critical to basic IPv6 functionality 💜 DNS configuration wasn't originally an RA option, and DHCP was the recommended way to get DNS info. Over time the thinking changed, and it's now widely recognized that few nodes can function well without a working DNS resolver 😭 So a Standards Track document was published to provide this capability [RFC8106] 👑
Implementations MUST include support for the DNS RA option [RFC8106] 🫶
8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration 🥊
In IPv6 there are two main protocol mechanisms for passing configuration info to hosts: RAs and DHCP 🧠 RA options have been restricted to the ones deemed essential for basic network functioning, where all nodes get exactly the same info. Examples include the Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. DHCP has generally been the go-to for more general parameters and for parameters that may be client specific 💅 Still, there's been a desire to define only one mechanism for configuring a given option, instead of multiple different ways to configure the same info 🌈
Here's the issue with having multiple ways to configure the same info: interoperability suffers if a host picks one mechanism and the network operator picks a different one 😬 In "closed" environments, where the operator has significant influence over which devices connect and so which configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to make sure all connected hosts support a particular mechanism 🔒 In more open environments, though, where arbitrary devices may connect (e.g., a Wi-Fi hotspot), problems can pop up 💀 To maximize interoperability in those environments, hosts would need to implement multiple configuration mechanisms 🫠
9. Service Discovery Protocols 🔍
Multicast DNS (mDNS) and DNS-based Service Discovery (DNS-SD) are described in [RFC6762] and [RFC6763], respectively 🧚 These protocols, often called the 'Bonjour' protocols after Apple named them, let devices discover services within a local link and, when there's no unicast DNS service, exchange naming info 🍓
Where devices are deployed in networks where service discovery would be beneficial, e.g., for users looking for printers or display devices, mDNS and DNS-SD SHOULD be supported 🖨️✨
10. IPv4 Support and Transition 🦋
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4 🫶
10.1. Transition Mechanisms 🌉
10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 4213 🛤️
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] MUST be supported 🔥
11. Application Support 💻
11.1. 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] 💖
11.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 🧚
okay so APIs are a whole thing 💅 there are a bunch of IPv6-related ones, and this doc doesn't force you to use any of them, because the API you pick doesn't change what goes over the wire 🫶 that part is between you and your app. still, implementers are advised to think about making a common API, or at least checking out what's already out there for the kind of stuff their app needs ✨
"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] is the one typical apps use for basic IPv6 stuff 🌸 and implementers should know that RFC 3493 got picked up and standardized even more by the Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) [POSIX] 👑
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6" [RFC3542] is giving access to the fancier IPv6 features that diagnostic tools and other specialized apps need 🔥
"IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] lets an app override the default Source Address Selection rules from [RFC6724] 💜
"Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678] is how you express source filters on multicast group memberships 🦋
"Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] gives apps a way to access and turn on Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] features 🎀
12. Mobility 🦋
okay mobility is so cute ✨ Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and its friends [RFC3776] [RFC4877] let a node change where it's attached to the Internet while still keeping (and using) a permanent address 🫶 so all communication using that permanent address keeps working like normal even while the node is moving around 🌈 Mobile IP has requirements for these types of nodes:
- mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents
- all IPv6 routers
right now, 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 💀 extra work has been done to support mobility in mixed-mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks [RFC5555] ✨
more usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in all hosts and routers 🙈 so Mobility Support in IPv6 [RFC6275], Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers [RFC5555], and related standards (like Mobile IPv6 with IKEv2 and IPsec [RFC4877]) are considered a MAY at this time 💜
IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC7066] is a snapshot of the required IPv6 functionalities at the time it was published, which would need to be implemented on top of everything this doc recommends 🍓 also, a 3GPP IPv6 Host MAY implement [RFC7278] to deliver IPv6 prefixes on the LAN link 🧚
13. Security 🔐
this section is the security spec for IPv6 nodes, and it's serious business, bestie 😭
achieving security in practice is a whole complex undertaking 💀 operational procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate management approaches, etc. are all pieces that affect how much security you actually get in real life 🫠 and honestly? a weak or badly fitting piece in any one of them can seriously tank how well the whole approach works 🚨
IPsec can provide either end-to-end security between nodes or channel security (like a site-to-site IPsec VPN) 🔥 so it can secure all (or a subset of) communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of Internet nodes ✨ IPsec has two standard operating modes: Tunnel-mode and Transport-mode 💅 in Tunnel-mode, IPsec gives network-layer security and protects an entire IP packet by wrapping the original packet and then sticking a new IP header on the front 🎀 in Transport-mode, IPsec secures the transport layer (and above) by only wrapping that part of the packet, so no second IP header gets added 🦋
⚠️ manual keying is a thing IPsec can do in some cases, but that usage has limited applicability and is not recommended. don't just go with it because it's there 🙅♀️
there's a whole range of security tech out there today (IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH), TLS VPNS, etc.) 🌈 no single approach has emerged as the perfect fit for every need and environment 💖 and IPsec isn't seen as the ideal security tech in every case, and it's unlikely to replace the others 💅
back in the day, IPv6 mandated IPsec and recommended the IKE key-management approach 🕰️ RFC 6434 updated that by making support of the IPsec architecture [RFC4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes, and this doc keeps that recommendation 🫶 also, the IPsec Architecture requires implementing both manual and automatic key management (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301) ✨ right now, the recommended automated key-management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC7296] 🔑
this doc also knows that lots of device types and environments can justify security approaches other than IPsec 🧚 for example, special-purpose devices might only support a very limited number or type of apps, and an app-specific security approach could be enough for limited management or configuration 🍓 other devices might run on super constrained hardware (like sensors), where the full IPsec Architecture isn't justified 🥺
because most common platforms support IPv6 now and have it turned on by default, IPv6 security is an issue even for networks that are supposedly IPv4 only 😳 see [RFC7123] for guidance on this area 💜
13.1. Requirements 📋
"Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be supported by all IPv6 nodes 🫶 the IPsec Architecture requires implementing both manual and automatic key management (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) too 💅 currently, the default automated key-management protocol to implement is IKEv2 ✨ as [RFC4301] requires, IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302] 🔐
13.2. Transforms and Algorithms 🧮
the current mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec Architecture are defined in Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for ESP and AH [RFC8221] 🔥 IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8221] 💖 preferred crypto algorithms change way more often than security protocols do 🌸 so implementations MUST allow for migration to new algorithms, as RFC 8221 gets replaced or updated in the future 🦋
the current mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are defined in Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for ESP and AH [RFC8247] ✨ IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8247] and/or any future updates or replacements to [RFC8247] 💅
14. Router-Specific Functionality 🛣️
this section covers general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that act as routers 🫶 for now, it doesn't get into detailed routing-specific requirements 🙈 for typical home routers, [RFC7084] defines basic requirements for customer edge routers 🏠
14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 🚨
the IPv6 Router Alert option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Header that gets used with some protocols (like RSVP [RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLDv2) [RFC3810]) 🎀 the Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever those protocols that mandate its use are implemented 🔥 see Section 5.11 💅
14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 👂
sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations MUST be supported 🫶 Section 7 of [RFC6275] has some mobility-specific extensions to Neighbor Discovery 🦋 routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5, even if they don't implement home agent functionality ✨
14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 🏷️
a single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can give configuration info to devices directly attached to a shared link, and also to devices somewhere else in a site 🌸 talking between a client and a DHCP server on different links needs DHCP relay agents on routers 🔁
in simple setups, with one router and either one LAN or multiple LANs hooked up to that router, plus a WAN connection, a DHCP server built into the router is one common scenario (e.g., [RFC7084]) 🏡 no relay agents needed there 🙌
in more complex setups, like enterprise or service provider networks, using DHCP takes some configuring to set up relay agents, DHCP servers, etc. 🧑💻 in those environments, the DHCP server might even run on a regular server instead of inside a router 🖥️
because the deployment scenarios are so varied, DHCP server functionality on routers is optional 🫠 however, routers targeted for the more complex scenarios (as described above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality 💖 and "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC7084] requires implementing a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) routers 👑
14.4. IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding - BCP 198 📏
forwarding nodes MUST conform to BCP 198 [RFC7608] 🫶 so IPv6 implementations of nodes that may forward packets MUST conform to the rules in Section 5.1 of [RFC4632] 💅
15. Constrained Devices 🪫
the focus of this doc is general IPv6 nodes, but this section briefly talks about constrained devices 🧸
for constrained nodes, with limited CPU, memory, bandwidth or power, support for certain IPv6 functionality may need to be considered because of those limits 🥺 while the requirements of this document are RECOMMENDED for all nodes, including constrained ones, compromises may sometimes need to be made 💅 when they are, interoperability should be strongly considered 🫶 especially if it could affect other nodes on the same link, e.g., only supporting MLDv1 will affect other nodes 🙈
the IETF 6LowPAN (IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network) WG produced six RFCs 🌈 those include a general overview and problem statement [RFC4919] (about how IPv6 packets get sent over IEEE 802.15.4 networks [RFC4944]) and ND optimizations for that medium [RFC6775] ✨
IPv6 nodes that are battery powered SHOULD implement the recommendations in [RFC7772] 🔋
16. IPv6 Node Management 🛠️
network management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes 🫶 however, for IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management might be the only possible way to control them 🥹
existing network management protocols include SNMP [RFC3411], NETCONF [RFC6241], and RESTCONF [RFC8040] 💜
16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules 📚
the obsoleted status of various IPv6-specific MIB modules is clarified in [RFC8096] ✨
the following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent 🌸
16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 🗺️
the IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent 🫶
16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 🦋
Okay so, any node that runs an SNMP agent SHOULD support the IP MIB [RFC4293]. 💖 That's the whole vibe, bestie.
16.1.3. Interface MIB 🌸
Same energy here! Nodes with an SNMP agent SHOULD support the Interface MIB [RFC2863]. It's giving consistency 💅
16.2. YANG Data Models 🧚
Now the YANG models are lowkey the next level 👑 The following YANG data models SHOULD be supported by any node that has a NETCONF or RESTCONF agent. ✨
16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model 🎀
The IP Management YANG Model [RFC8344] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support NETCONF or RESTCONF. Obsessed 😭
16.2.2. Interface Management YANG Model 🍓
The Interface Management YANG Model [RFC8343] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support NETCONF or RESTCONF. Literally the same pattern, periodt 💜
17. Security Considerations 🔥
Okay, this part is serious, so listen up 🙈 This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, beyond the security considerations associated with the individual protocols. The individual protocols are where the real security lives, so don't skip those.
Security is also discussed in Section 13 above. Go back and reread it if you haven't, no cap 🫶
18. IANA Considerations 🌈
This document has no IANA actions. Nothing to register, nothing to update, we're all good ✨
19. References 📚
19.1. Normative References 💜
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3411, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3411>.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736,
April 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3736>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4292, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4292>.
[RFC4293] Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, DOI 10.17487/RFC4293,
April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4293>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
Sharing", RFC 4311, DOI 10.17487/RFC4311, November 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4311>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 5453, DOI 10.17487/RFC5453, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5453>.
[RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
RFC 5722, DOI 10.17487/RFC5722, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5722>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>.
[RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and
C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
[RFC6946] Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments",
RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC6946, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6946>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7048, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7048>.
[RFC7112] Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of
Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7112>.[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7527] Asati, R., Singh, H., Beebee, W., Pignataro, C., Dart, E., and W. George, "Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection", RFC 7527, DOI 10.17487/RFC7527, April 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7527>.
[RFC7559] Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559, DOI 10.17487/RFC7559, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559>.
[RFC7608] Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608, DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.
[RFC8021] Gont, F., Liu, W., and T. Anderson, "Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful", RFC 8021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8021, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8021>.
[RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028, DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu, "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers", RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.
[RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC8221] Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and T. Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221, DOI 10.17487/RFC8221, October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8221>.
[RFC8247] Nir, Y., Kivinen, T., Wouters, P., and D. Migault, "Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 8247, DOI 10.17487/RFC8247, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8247>.
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
[RFC8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>.
19.2. Informative References 📚✨
[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC 2491, DOI 10.17487/RFC2491, January 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>.
[RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC2590, May 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.
[RFC2874] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, DOI 10.17487/RFC2874, July 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2874>.
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery", RFC 2923, DOI 10.17487/RFC2923, September 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2923>.
[RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC3146, October 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3363, August 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3363>.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.
[RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei, "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6", RFC 3542, DOI 10.17487/RFC3542, May 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3542>.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646, DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.
[RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678, DOI 10.17487/RFC3678, January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3678>.
[RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and Home Agents", RFC 3776, DOI 10.17487/RFC3776, June 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3776>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191, November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.
[RFC4294] Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294, DOI 10.17487/RFC4294, April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4294>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, DOI 10.17487/RFC4338, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.
[RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, DOI 10.17487/RFC4584, July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4584>.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, DOI 10.17487/RFC4877, April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4877>.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC4890] Davies, E. and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890, DOI 10.17487/RFC4890, May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4890>.
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.
[RFC5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6563] Jiang, S., Conrad, D., and B. Carpenter, "Moving A6 to Historic Status", RFC 6563, DOI 10.17487/RFC6563, March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6563>.
[RFC6980] Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", RFC 6980, DOI 10.17487/RFC6980, August 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6980>.
[RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S. Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066, November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084, DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7123] Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Security Implications of IPv6 on IPv4 Networks", RFC 7123, DOI 10.17487/RFC7123, February 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7123>.
[RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7371] Boucadair, M. and S. Venaas, "Updates to the IPv6 Multicast Addressing Architecture", RFC 7371, DOI 10.17487/RFC7371, September 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7371>.
[RFC7421] Carpenter, B., Ed., Chown, T., Gont, F., Jiang, S., Petrescu, A., and A. Yourtchenko, "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", RFC 7421, DOI 10.17487/RFC7421, January 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7421>.
[RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.
[RFC7739] Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC7739, February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7739>.
[RFC7772] Yourtchenko, A. and L. Colitti, "Reducing Energy Consumption of Router Advertisements", BCP 202, RFC 7772, DOI 10.17487/RFC7772, February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7772>.
[RFC7844] Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844, DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.
[RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi, "Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204, RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>.
[RFC8087] Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087, DOI 10.17487/RFC8087, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087>.
[RFC8096] Fenner, B., "The IPv6-Specific MIB Modules Are Obsolete", RFC 8096, DOI 10.17487/RFC8096, April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8096>.
[RFC8273] Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8273>.
[POSIX] IEEE, "Information Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX(R)) Base Specifications, Issue 7", IEEE Std 1003.1-2017, DOI: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, January 2018, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8277153>.
[USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", NIST SP500-267, July 2008, <https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/usgv6-program>.
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 6434 ✨
Okay bestie, this is the changelog from RFC 6434! There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant additions and updates 💅. While this section highlights some of the changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive list of all changes 🙈.
- Restructured sections. 🧩
- Added 6LoWPAN to link layers as it has some deployment.
- Removed the Downstream-on-Demand (DoD) IPv6 Profile as it hasn't been updated.
- Updated MLDv2 support to a MUST 🔥, since nodes are restricted if MLDv1 is used.
- Required DNS RA options so SLAAC-only devices can get DNS; RFC 8106 is a MUST 💖.
- Required RFC 3646 DNS Options for DHCPv6 implementations.
- Added RESTCONF and NETCONF as possible options to network management.
- Added a section on constrained devices.
- Added text on RFC 7934 to address availability to hosts (SHOULD) 🌸.
- Added text on RFC 7844 for anonymity profiles for DHCPv6 clients.
- Added mDNS and DNS-SD as updated service discovery.
- Added RFC 8028 as a SHOULD as a method for solving a multi-prefix network.
- Added ECN RFC 3168 as a SHOULD.
- Added reference to RFC 7123 for security over IPv4-only networks.
- Removed Jumbograms (RFC 2675) as they aren't deployed.
- Updated obsoleted RFCs to the new version of the RFC, including RFCs 2460, 1981, 7321, and 4307.
- Added RFC 7772 for power consumptions considerations.
- Added why /64 boundaries for more detail -- RFC 7421.
- Added a unique IPv6 prefix per host to support currently deployed IPv6 networks.
- Clarified RFC 7066 was a snapshot for 3GPP.
- Updated RFC 4191 as a MUST and the Type C Host as a SHOULD as they help solve multi-prefix problems 🦋.
- Removed IPv6 over ATM since there aren't many deployments.
- Added a note in Section 6.6 for Rule 5.5 from RFC 6724.
- Added MUST for BCP 198 for forwarding IPv6 packets.
- Added a reference to RFC 8064 for stable address creation.
- Added text on the protection from excessive extension header options.
- Added text on the dangers of 1280 MTU UDP, especially with regard to DNS traffic.
- Added text to clarify RFC 8200 behavior for unrecognized extension headers or unrecognized ULPs.
- Removed dated email addresses from design team acknowledgements for [RFC4294].
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 4294 to RFC 6434 🎀
Same energy as Appendix A 💅. There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive list of all changes.
- Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.
- Significantly updated the mobility protocols section; added references and downgraded previous SHOULDs to MAYs.
- Changed the Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and added some more RFCs.
- Added a section on SEND (it is a MAY).
- Revised the section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more nuance to the recommendation.
- Completely revised the IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading the overall recommendation to a SHOULD.
- Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to a SHOULD.
- Added a background section on DHCP versus RA options, added a SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106), and cleaned up the DHCP recommendations.
- Added the recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5 of [RFC6275].
- Added a 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 the mention of delegation name (DNAME) from the discussion about [RFC3363].
- Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents, including [RFC3596], [RFC4213], [RFC4291], and [RFC4443].
- 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.
- Updated the MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD [RFC5790].
- Added a SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].
- Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.
Acknowledgments 🫶
Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who made this happen! 😭
- Acknowledgments (Current Document)
The authors would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Dave Thaler, Tom Herbert, Erik Kline, Mohamed Boucadair, and Michayla Newcombe for their contributions and many members of the 6man WG for the inputs they gave.
- Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434
RFC 6434 was authored by Ed Jankiewicz, John Loughney, and Thomas Narten.
The authors of RFC 6434 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. In addition, the authors thank Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text and Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.
- Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294
RFC 4294 was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team, which had the following members: Jari Arkko, Marc Blanchet, Samita Chakrabarti, Alain Durand, Gerard Gastaud, Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino, Atsushi Inoue, Masahiro Ishiyama, John Loughney, Rajiv Raghunarayan, Shoichi Sakane, Dave Thaler, and Juha Wiljakka.
The authors of RFC 4294 thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments.
Authors' Addresses 💌
Tim Chown
Jisc
Lumen House, Library Avenue
Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0SG
United Kingdom
Email: tim.chown@jisc.ac.ukJohn Loughney
Intel
Santa Clara, CA
United States of America
Email: john.loughney@gmail.comTimothy Winters
University of New Hampshire, Interoperability Lab (UNH-IOL)
Durham, NH
United States of America
Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8504 2019-01
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms