Internet Engineering Task Force P. Savola
Internet-Draft CSC/FUNET
Expires: July 30, 2004 Jan 30, 2004
Basic Transition Mechanisms (RFC 2893bis) Implementation and
Interoperability Report Template
draft-savola-v6ops-mechv2-interop-impl-template-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 July 30, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo is a checklist and a template to verify the implementation
status and the interoperability of implemented features of Basic
Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (RFC 2893bis), to
gather the implementation results to advance, and revise if
necessary, RFC 2893bis to Draft Standard.
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Part I: Information about the Implementation . . . . . . . . 3
3. Part II: Implementantation of the Features . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Support for Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1 DNS Resolver Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Configured Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1 Fragmentation and MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2 Hop Limit Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3 ICMPv4 Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.4 IPv4 Header Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.5 Decapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.6 Link-local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.7 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Part III: Interoperability of the Features . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 MTU and Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 ICMP Error Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 Encapsulation and Decapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4 Link-local Addresses and Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 12
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
1. Introduction
This memo is a checklist and a template to verify the implementation
status and the interoperability of implemented features of Basic
Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (RFC 2893bis) [1],
to gather the implementation results to advance, and revise if
necessary, RFC 2893bis to Draft Standard [2].
This memo has three templates: the contact information and basic
details of an implementation, the implementation status, and the
interoperability.
Hints for filling the template are given, when appropriate, in square
brackets.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are
used only to refer to the requirement level specified in RFC 2893bis
[1].
2. Part I: Information about the Implementation
Name of the implementation:
Version number, if appropriate:
Organization:
Origin of code: [developed from scratch, adapted, etc.?]
Information from: [name and email address]
3. Part II: Implementantation of the Features
3.1 Support for Dual Stack
Is a configuration switch provided to disable either stack? (MAY)
* IPv4: [YES/NO]
* IPv6: [YES/NO]
Does DNS resolver implementation support AAAA records: [YES/NO]
3.1.1 DNS Resolver Support
(Only filled if AAAA records are supported.)
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
When a query locates both AAAA and A records,
Does the library filter or order (or provide the capability to do
so) the results returned to the application to influence the
selection of IP version? (MAY)
* filter: [YES/NO]
o Is this configurable on the system level? [YES/NO]
* order: [YES/NO]
o Is this configurable on the system level? [YES/NO]
If the results are ordered, which records are ordered first: (MAY)
[AAAA/A]
If the results are filtered or ordered, is application allowed to
control whether or not filtering takes place? (MUST): [YES/NO]
3.2 Configured Tunneling
Is configured tunneling supported? [YES/NO]
3.2.1 Fragmentation and MTU
Does the implementation treat the tunnel as an interface with MTU
of about 64 kilobytes? (MUST NOT) [YES/NO]
Does the implementation support static MTU determination? [YES/NO]
Does the implementation support dynamic MTU determination?
(OPTIONAL) [YES/NO]
If yes to both, is it possible to choose between static and
dynamic MTU on a per-tunnel basis? (SHOULD) [YES/NO]
3.2.1.1 Static MTU
(Please only fill in if implemented.)
Is the default MTU be between 1280 and 1480 bytes (inclusive)?
(MUST) [YES/NO]
Is the default MTU 1280 bytes? (SHOULD) [YES/NO]
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
Is there a configuration knob to change the MTU value? (MUST if
not 1280 by default) [YES/NO]
Is IPv4 Don't Fragment bit set used when encapsulating? (MUST NOT)
[YES/NO]
3.2.1.2 Dynamic MTU Determination
(Please only fill in if implemented.)
oes dynamic MTU determination behave as described in the algorithm
described in Section 3.2.2? (SHOULD) [YES/NO]
In particular,
* Are IPv6 packet too big messages sent if IPv6 packet
is larger than 1280 and does not fit into the IPv4
path MTU? [YES/NO]
* If the IPv6 packet is not larger than 1280 bytes, but
the IPv4 path MTU is less than equal to 1300, is the
encapsulation done without setting the Don't Fragment
bit in the IPv4 header? [YES/NO]
* If the IPv4 path MTU is larger than 1300, and an IPv6
packet which does not fit into the IPv4 path MTU is
to be tunneled, is ICMv6 "packet too big" sent back,
pointing to the maximum available MTU? [YES/NO]
* If the IPv4 path MTU is larger than 1300, and the
IPv6 packet fits in it, is Don't Fragment bit set in
the encapsulation? [YES/NO]
If "no" to any one of these, please elaborate (optional):
3.2.2 Hop Limit Handling
Is Hop Limit decreased by one only when forwarding the IPv6
packet, as with any regular datalink? [YES/NO]
Is it possible to administratively configure IPv4 TTL of a tunnel?
[YES/NO]
* If so, is it possible using IP Tunnel MIB? [YES/NO]
Is the default TTL 255? [YES/NO]
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
3.2.3 ICMPv4 Errors
(Do not respond if only static MTU is supported, and ICMP errors are
not relayed.)
Are IPv4 packet too big ICMP errors relayed as IPv6 ICMP packet
too big errors? [YES/NO]
Are other kind of ICMP errors relayed as ICMPv6 messages if the
ICMPv4 messages include enough payload? [YES/NO]
* If yes, is Destination Unreachable -
Address Unreachable code used? [YES/NO]
3.2.4 IPv4 Header Construction
Is ToS byte, when encapsulating, zero by default? [YES/NO]
* If not, does the behaviour comply to
RFC 2983 [3]
and
3168 [4]
section 9.1? [YES/NO]
Is the source address the outgoing interface address unless
otherwise configured? [YES/NO]
Can the source address of be administratively set to something
else (SHOULD)? [YES/NO]
3.2.5 Decapsulation
Does the node receive and process tunneled packets which have not
been addressed to one of its own IPv4 addresses (e.g.
255.255.255.255 or a directed broadcast address)? (must not) [YES/
NO]
Is source address of the packets arriving at the interface
verified to be the tunnel endpoint configured at this node? (MUST)
[YES/NO]
* Are packets failing that check discarded (MUST)? [YES/NO]
* Are any ICMP messages generated (SHOULD NOT)? [YES/NO]
* Does the implementation generate ICMP destination
unreachable packets for unknown protocols? [YES/NO]
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
o If yes, is the same ICMP code used here?
(MAY) [YES/NO]
Is "Strict RPF" -like mechanism implemented for incoming IPv4
packets? (MAY) [YES/NO]
* If so, is it disabled by default (RECOMMENDED)? [YES/NO]
* Are packets failing this check discarded (SHOULD)? [YES/NO]
o Are any ICMP messages generated by default
(SHOULD NOT)? [YES/NO]
Is the IPv6 MRU on the tunnel interfaces (at least) the maximum of
1500 bytes and the largest (IPv6) interface MTU on the
decapsulator? (MUST) [YES/NO]
Is IPv4 tunnel packet reassembly supported up to (at least) the
maximum of 1500 bytes and the largest MTU of the IPv4 interfaces?
(MUST) [YES/NO]
* Is there a knob to set a larger value? [YES/NO]
* Is it possible to set a smaller value (MUST NOT)? [YES/NO]
Are the IPv6 ToS bits modified when decapsulating? [YES/NO]
* If so, is this conformant with RFC 2983 and
RFC3168 section 9.1? [YES/NO]
Is the IPv6 packet length determined from the IPv6 payload length
(and not e.g., IPv4 length)? (MUST) [YES/NO]
After decapsulation, are packets with invalid IPv6 source
addresses discarded (MUST)? [YES/NO]
* Are all of the following discarded (SHOULD): [YES/NO]
1. IPv6 multicast addresses (FF00::/8)
2. The loopback address (::1)
3. IPv4 compatible addresses (::/96) except ::/128
(the unspecified address)
4. IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (::ffff:0:0/96)
* If not, what's missing:
* If more are discarded, please elaborate (optional):
Are the resulting IPv6 packets subjected to a strict RPF -like
ingress filter (should)? [YES/NO]
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
3.2.6 Link-local Addresses
Does every IPv6 tunnel interface have a link-local address (MUST)?
[YES/NO]
What method is used to form the identifier:
* IPv4 address as described in the document? [YES/NO]
o If there are multiple addresses on an interface,
is just one chosen in some fashion? [YES/NO]
* If some other mechanism, please describe (optional):
3.2.7 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels
Does the implementation at least accept and respond to NUD probes?
(MUST) [YES/NO]
Does the implementation send NUD probes? (SHOULD) [YES/NO]
* If yes, can NUD probes be omitted on router-to-router
links if a routing protocol tracks bidirectional
reachability? [YES/NO]
Are Source or Target Link Layer Address options sent with Neighbor
Discovery? (SHOULD NOT) [YES/NO]
Is the content of such options silently ignored? (MUST) [YES/NO]
3.3 Miscellaneous
Are interfaces to different links treated as separate (e.g., from
Discovery point-of-view)? (must) [YES/NO]
4. Part III: Interoperability of the Features
(When describing the tested interoperability of a feature with
another implementation, please include the name of the implementation
and date, even, or place (as appropriate). Abbreviations should be
used and explained as appropriate.)
4.1 MTU and Fragmentation
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
Static MTU tested against Static MTU:
* same MTU at each end:
* different MTUs at each end:
* a lower IPv6 MTU on the path than
configured:
* all of these also work with IPv4
fragmentation:
Static MTU tested against Dynamic MTU:
* When Dynamic MTU sends larger packets than
the static MTU at the other end:
* all of these also work with IPv4
fragmentation:
* all the four branches of the dynamic
algorithm tested:
Dynamic MTU tested against Dynamic MTU:
* all the four branches of the dynamic
algorithm tested:
4.2 ICMP Error Messages
Can relay ICMPv4 Packet Too Big errors to ICMPv6 so that the other
implementations process them:
Can receive and process ICMPv6 messages generated from ICMPv4
Packet Too Big messages:
Do both of these also work for other kind of ICMP errors?
4.3 Encapsulation and Decapsulation
If implemented, has ToS byte modification been tested:
* Our encapsulation is understood:
* We understand what others encapsulate:
If "Strict RPF" -like mechanism is implemented for IPv4, it has
been tested to work with:
IPv4 packet reassembly, up to the largest MTU of IPv4 interfaces,
has been tested:
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
The implementation can defend its interface address with DAD (the
unspecified address not filtered out):
If "Strict RPF" -like mechanism is implemented for IPv6, it has
been tested to work with:
4.4 Link-local Addresses and Neighbor Discovery
Link-local addresses are tested to be generated in a unique-enough
fashion:
Does the implementation accept and respond to NUD probes:
Does the implementation send NUD probes which are responded to:
Does the implementation ignore the content (and not the whole
message) of received SLLA/TLLA options:
Does the implementation send SLLA/TLLA options, and the content is
properly ignored:
5. Security Considerations
This memo provides a template for checking the implementation and
interoperability status of a standard, and as such has no security
issues.
Normative References
[1] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01 (work in
progress), October 2003.
[2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[3] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", RFC 2983,
October 2000.
[4] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, "The Addition of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,
September 2001.
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
Author's Address
Pekka Savola
CSC/FUNET
Espoo
Finland
EMail: psavola@funet.fi
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 13]