Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz
Internet-Draft SRI International
Intended status: Informational J. Loughney
Expires: September 10, 2010 Nokia
T. Narten
IBM Corporation
March 9, 2010
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt
Abstract
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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 BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
Table of Contents
1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 8
5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 8
5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC
4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.8. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 9
5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 9
5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in
IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 10
5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 10
6. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
- RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.2. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.3. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.4. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 15
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
11. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 15
11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 16
14.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 16
15. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
The goal of this document is to define the common functionality
required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will
implement optional or additional features, but this document collects
and summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track
documents in one place.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an
Applicability Statement and provide guidance as to which IPv6
specifications should be implemented in the general case. This
document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs.
Although the document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.
As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact
usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle:
Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others [RFC0793].
2.1. 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 the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure
interoperability.
This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
requirements specified here.
2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes
From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460],
we have the following definitions:
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
Description of an IPv6 Node
- a device that implements IPv6.
Description of an IPv6 router
- a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to
itself.
Description of an IPv6 Host
- any node that is not a router.
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
AH Authentication Header
DAD Duplicate Address Detection
ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
IKE Internet Key Exchange
MIB Management Information Base
MLD Multicast Listener Discovery
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit
NA Neighbor Advertisement
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
4. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
specifications. Which link-layer specifications are included will
depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available
on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support
IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others.
As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the
link-layers for which an IPv6 specification has been developed. It
is provided for information purposes only, and may not be complete.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]
- IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification [RFC2590]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146]
- Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]
- Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE
802.16 Networks [RFC5121]
- IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]
In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible
to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include:
- Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address
Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]
- Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels
[RFC2529]
5. IP Layer
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This
specification MUST be supported.
Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460.
The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.
Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment
headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
be supported.
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers.
A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
Security Payload [RFC2460].
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is
Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized
routing type.
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. [RFC4861] states:
Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP
over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA
links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those
services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering
the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services
described in this document that are not directly dependent on
multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor
Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as
specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on
NBMA links is an area for further study.
Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:
Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for
implementations.
Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. Neighbor
Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths
between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths
between routers. However, when a node receives a unicast Neighbor
Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST
respond to it (i.e., send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement).
Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting
link-layer multicast (RFC 4862, Section 5.4, specifies DAD MUST take
place on all unicast addresses).
A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations.
Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
host implementations. The ability to understand specific Router
Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the specification
where the RA is specified.
Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
Redirect functionality MUST be supported.
5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971
SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA)
[RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor
Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4
counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain
classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some
implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment
experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF
working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on
additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for
deployment.
At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide
SEND functionality.
5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175
Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends
the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this
writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2
are available for future assignment. No flags have been defined that
make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is no
requirement to implement the option today. However, implementations
that are able to pass unrecognized options to a higher level entity
that may be able to understand them (e.g., a user-level process using
a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to handle the option in
anticipation of a future usage.
5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size
5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981
From [RFC2460]:
It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of
path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6
implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit
implementation of Path MTU Discovery.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and
reassembly.
5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443
ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported.
5.8. Addressing
5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.
5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC4862].
This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.
Static address can be supported as well.
Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses
as described in RFC 4862 [RFC4862].
From 4862:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface.
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.
5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is
concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem
arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes
its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration [RFC 4862], the Interface Identifier
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
portion of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique.
Thus, although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes
its point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those
addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track
the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its
pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise
privacy concerns as described in [RFC 4862].
In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases,
such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides
limited or no benefit.
5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484
The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
[RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6
nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses.
5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6
[RFC3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol;
see Section 6.2 for DHCPv6 support.
Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be
unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses, aside from link-local addresses,
when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed
address configuration) set and that contains no prefixes advertised
for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see Section 4.5.2).
Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration
information, such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is
connected to a link over which the node receives a router
advertisement in which the 'O' flag (Other stateful configuration) is
set.
5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710
Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1
[RFC3590]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive
and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used
on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and
requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses.
Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
[RFC3810]. However, if the node has applications that only need
support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement
MLDv1 [RFC2710] instead. If the node has applications that need
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], [RFC4607], the node
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. In all cases, nodes are strongly
encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a
single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on
the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode.
When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be
followed.
6. DNS and DHCP
6.1. DNS
DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596].
Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need
to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality.
However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure
capability that applications rely on and generally needs to be
supported. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement
stub-resolver [RFC1034] functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1,
with support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596];
- EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512
octets.
Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
[RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035].
Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6
Resource Records [RFC3363].
6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration
The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment
can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'M' flag set is described
in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862.
In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 nodes that use
DHCP for address assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6
addresses and other configuration information, as described in
Section 5.5.2 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for
address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
6.2.2. Other Configuration Information
The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other
configuration information can obtain other configuration information
upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'O' flag set is
described in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862.
Those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration
information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described
in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP
for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router
Advertisements.
An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to
obtain other configuration information.
6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments
Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
are expected to determine their default router information and on-
link prefix information from received Router Advertisements.
7. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
7.1. Transition Mechanisms
7.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC
4213
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213]
MUST be supported.
8. Mobility
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776]
[RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the
Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All
communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as
expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP
includes requirements for the following types of nodes:
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
- mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents
- all IPv6 routers
At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation
and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed
an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet.
Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed-
mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555].
More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before
any one can be recommended for broad implementation in all hosts and
routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and associated
standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this time.
9. Security
This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.
9.1. Basic Architecture
Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC4301] MUST be
supported.
9.2. Security Protocols
ESP [RFC4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC4302] MAY be supported.
9.3. Transforms and Algorithms
Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms
for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and
HMAC-MD5-96. However, 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835] contains the current set of
mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies
algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be
promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes SHOULD conform
to the requirements in [RFC4835], as well as the requirements
specified below.
Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC2410] and the NULL
authentication algorithm [RFC4303] MUST be provided to maintain
consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However,
while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT
both be NULL. The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
debugging.
The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC2405] SHOULD NOT be supported
within ESP. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed
in 'DESDIFF', 'DESINT', and 'DESCRACK'. DES-CBC is still listed as
required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will
be published in the near future. DES provides 56 bits of protection,
which is no longer considered sufficient.
The use of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC2404] within AH and ESP
MUST be supported. The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC2403]
within AH and ESP MAY also be supported.
The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC2451] does not suffer from the
same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm within
ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability.
The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC3602] MUST also be supported within
ESP. AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and
efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the
current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future.
9.4. Key Management Methods
An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the
security key and SPI. The SPI configuration is needed in order to
delineate between multiple keys.
Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management
systems include IKEv2 [RFC4306] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include
key management functions.
Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand
creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying
MUST be supported.
Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on
by the MSEC WG.
10. Router-Specific Functionality
This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing-
specific requirements.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
10.1. General
10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711
The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP
[RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be
implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are
implemented. See Section 4.6.
10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
be supported.
11. Network Management
Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6
nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
possible way of controlling these nodes.
11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)
The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent.
11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB
IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that
support an SNMP agent.
11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP
agent.
12. Open Issues
1. Should we try and tackle the confusion related to the M and O
bits in Router Advertisements? (probably not in this document --
see previous point.)
2. Security Recommendations needs updating. Are they still correct?
And what is value of mandating IPsec if there is no key
management? Also, what is the sense of mandating IPsec for
limited-functionality devices that have a limited number of
applications, each using their own security? Relax current
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
requirement or leave as is?
13. Security Considerations
This document does not affect the security of the Internet, but
implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
security features to ensure security on the Internet. 'IP Security
Document Roadmap' [RFC2411] is important for everyone to read.
The security considerations in RFC 2460 state the following:
The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC2401].
RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for
the security features of IPv6.
14. Authors and Acknowledgments
14.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
14.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279
The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the
IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Jari Arkko
jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Marc Blanchet
marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca
Samita Chakrabarti
samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com
Alain Durand
alain.durand@sun.com
Gerard Gastaud
gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
itojun@iijlab.net
Atsushi Inoue
inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Masahiro Ishiyama
masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
John Loughney
john.loughney@nokia.com
Rajiv Raghunarayan
raraghun@cisco.com
Shoichi Sakane
shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com
Dave Thaler
dthaler@windows.microsoft.com
Juha Wiljakka
juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to
Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to
Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.
15. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicabity
statement
2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols
3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs.
4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY)
5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance
to recommendation
6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs [
16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294
1. Section 5.1, removed "and DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-
3363.
2. RFC 2463 references updated to RFC 4443.
3. RFC 3513 references updated to RFC 4291.
4. RFC 3152 references updated to RFC 3596.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
5. RFC 2893 references updated to RFC 4213.
6. AH [RFC4302] support chanced from MUST to MAY.
7. The reference for RFC 3152 has been deleted, as the RFC has been
obsoleted, and has been incorporated into RFC 3596.
8. The reference for RFC 3879 has been removed as the material from
RFC 3879 has been incorporated into RFC 4291.
17. References
17.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC2403] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
[RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[RFC2405] Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.
[RFC2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and
Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.
[RFC2411] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
[RFC2451] Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, August 1999.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, October 1999.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
August 2002.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
September 2003.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
October 2003.
[RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
September 2003.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
April 2006.
[RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
[RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over
PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
December 2007.
17.2. Informative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.
[RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.
[RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
RFC 2590, May 1999.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001.
[RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, March 2005.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC4306] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
RFC 4306, December 2005.
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of
IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets
over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
February 2006.
[RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877,
April 2007.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
[RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
February 2008.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Ed Jankiewicz
SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
USA
Phone:
Email: ed.jankiewicz@sri.com
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis March 2010
John Loughney
Nokia
955 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto 94303
USA
Phone: +1 650 283 8068
Email: john.loughney@nokia.com
Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Ave.
PO Box 12195
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
USA
Phone: +1 919 254 7798
Email: narten@us.ibm.com
Jankiewicz, et al. Expires September 10, 2010 [Page 24]
