From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc5075.txt | 395 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 395 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc5075.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5075.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5075.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5075.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1f4f8e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5075.txt @@ -0,0 +1,395 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group B. Haberman, Ed. +Request for Comments: 5075 JHU APL +Category: Standards Track R. Hinden + Nokia + November 2007 + + + IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option + +Status of This Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Abstract + + The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery's Router Advertisement message contains + an 8-bit field reserved for single-bit flags. Several protocols have + reserved flags in this field and others are preparing to reserve a + sufficient number of flags to exhaust the field. This document + defines an option to the Router Advertisement message that expands + the available number of flag bits available. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 3. Current Router Advertisement Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 4. Flags Expansion Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Haberman & Hinden Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 5075 IPv6 RA Flags Options November 2007 + + +1. Introduction + + The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol's (NDP) [RFC4861] Router + Advertisement message contains an 8-bit field reserved for single-bit + flags. Several protocols have reserved flags in this field and + others are preparing to reserve a sufficient number of flags to + exhaust the field. + + This document defines an option for the Router Advertisement message + that expands the available number of flag bits by adding an + additional 48 flag bits to NDP messages. + +2. Terminology + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. + +3. Current Router Advertisement Flags + + Currently, the NDP Router Advertisement message contains the + following one-bit flags defined in published RFCs: + + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |M|O|H|Prf|P|R|R| + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 1: Router Advertisement Flags + + o M - Managed Address Configuration Flag [RFC4861] + + o O - Other Configuration Flag [RFC4861] + + o H - Mobile IPv6 Home Agent Flag [RFC3775] + + o Prf - Router Selection Preferences [RFC4191] + + o P - Neighbor Discovery Proxy Flag [RFC4389] + + o R - Reserved + + With other protocols in the works (e.g., Detecting Network + Attachment) that want to use flags in the NDP messages, it is + necessary to define an expansion capability to support new features. + + + + + + +Haberman & Hinden Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 5075 IPv6 RA Flags Options November 2007 + + +4. Flags Expansion Option + + The Neighbor Discovery specification [RFC4861] contains the + capability to define NDP options. The following (Figure 2) is the + definition of the Expanded Flags Option (EFO) for NDP Router + Advertisement messages. + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Type | Length | Bit fields available .. + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + ... for assignment | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 2: Router Advertisement Expanded Flags Option + + o Type - TBD (to be assigned by IANA) + + o Length - The length MUST be checked when processing the option in + order to allow for future expansion of this option. An + implementation of this specification MUST set the Length to 1, + MUST ignore any unrecognized data, and MUST be able to recognize + the specific length in order to skip over unrecognized bits. + + o Bits - allocated by IANA + + The definition and usage of these bits is to be found in the document + requesting their allocation. + + During the construction/transmission, this option: + + o MUST only occur in Router Advertisement messages. + + o MUST occur prior to any additional options associated with any + flags set in this option. + + o MUST only occur once in the Router Advertisement message. + + o MUST NOT be added to a Router Advertisement message if no flags in + the option are set. + + o MUST set all unused flags to zero. + + + + + + + + +Haberman & Hinden Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 5075 IPv6 RA Flags Options November 2007 + + + Upon reception, a receiver processing NDP messages containing this + option: + + o MUST ignore the option if it occurs in a message other than a + Router Advertisement. + + o MUST ignore all instances of the option except the first one + encountered in the Router Advertisement message. + + o MUST ignore the option if the Length is less than 1. + + o MUST ignore any unknown flag bits. + + The bit fields within the option are numbered from left to right, + from 8 to 55 (starting as bit offset 16 in the option) and follow the + numbering of the flag bits in the RA option described in Figure 1. + Flag bits 0 to 7 are found in the Router Advertisement message header + defined in [RFC4861]. + +5. IANA Considerations + + IANA has defined a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery option for the option + defined in this document of the form: + + +------+---------------------------+-----------+ + | Type | Description | Reference | + +------+---------------------------+-----------+ + | 26 | RA Flags Extension Option | [RFC5075] | + +------+---------------------------+-----------+ + + The registry for these options can be found at: + http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters + + IANA has created a new registry for IPv6 ND Router Advertisement + flags. This should include the current flags in the RA option and in + the extension option defined in this document. The new registry has + been added to the icmpv6-parameters as shown above. The format for + the registry is: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Haberman & Hinden Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 5075 IPv6 RA Flags Options November 2007 + + + +---------------+---------------------------------------+-----------+ + | RA Option Bit | Description | Reference | + +---------------+---------------------------------------+-----------+ + | 0 | M - Managed Address Configuration | [RFC4861] | + | | Flag | | + | 1 | O - Other Configuration Flag | [RFC4861] | + | 2 | H - Mobile IPv6 Home Agent Flag | [RFC3775] | + | 3 | Prf - Router Selection Preferences | [RFC4191] | + | 4 | Prf - Router Selection Preferences | [RFC4191] | + | 5 | P - Neighbor Discovery Proxy Flag | [RFC4389] | + | 6-53 | R - Reserved; Available for | | + | | assignment | | + | 54-55 | Private Experimentation | | + +---------------+---------------------------------------+-----------+ + + The assignment of new RA flags in the RA option header and the bits + defined in the RA extension option defined in this document require + standards action or IESG approval [RFC2434]. + +6. Security Considerations + + This protocol shares the security issues of NDP that are documented + in the "Security Considerations" section of [RFC4861]. + + The inclusion of additional optional bit fields provides a potential + covert channel that is useful for passing information. + +7. References + +7.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an + IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, + October 1998. + + [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, + "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, + September 2007. + + + + + + + + + + +Haberman & Hinden Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 5075 IPv6 RA Flags Options November 2007 + + +7.2. Informative References + + [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support + in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. + + [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and + More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005. + + [RFC4389] Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery + Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006. + +Authors' Addresses + + Brian Haberman (editor) + Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab + 11100 Johns Hopkins Road + Laurel, MD 20723-6099 + USA + + Phone: +1 443 778 1319 + EMail: brian@innovationslab.net + + + Robert Hinden + Nokia + 313 Fairchild Drive + Mountain View, CA 94043 + USA + + Phone: +1 650 625 2004 + EMail: bob.hinden@nokia.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Haberman & Hinden Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 5075 IPv6 RA Flags Options November 2007 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND + THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS + OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF + THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Haberman & Hinden Standards Track [Page 7] + -- cgit v1.2.3