path: root/doc/rfc/rfc4294.txt

Network Working Group                                   J. Loughney, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4294                                         Nokia
Category: Informational                                       April 2006


                         IPv6 Node Requirements

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

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.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Requirement Language .......................................3
      1.2. Scope of This Document .....................................3
      1.3. Description of IPv6 Nodes ..................................3
   2. Abbreviations Used in This Document .............................3
   3. Sub-IP Layer ....................................................4
      3.1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
           - RFC 2464 .................................................4
      3.2. IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 2472 ...........................4
      3.3. IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492 ..........................4
   4. IP Layer ........................................................5
      4.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 .....................5
      4.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461 .....................5
      4.3. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size .........................6
      4.4. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) -
           RFC 2463 ...................................................7
      4.5. Addressing .................................................7
      4.6. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 .....8
   5. DNS and DHCP ....................................................8
      5.1. DNS ........................................................8




Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


      5.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
           (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 ........................................9
   6. IPv4 Support and Transition ....................................10
      6.1. Transition Mechanisms .....................................10
   7. Mobile IP ......................................................10
   8. Security .......................................................10
      8.1. Basic Architecture ........................................10
      8.2. Security Protocols ........................................11
      8.3. Transforms and Algorithms .................................11
      8.4. Key Management Methods ....................................12
   9. Router-Specific Functionality ..................................12
      9.1. General ...................................................12
   10. Network Management ............................................12
      10.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) ...............12
   11. Security Considerations .......................................13
   12. References ....................................................13
      12.1. Normative References .....................................13
      12.2. Informative References ...................................16
   13. Authors and Acknowledgements ..................................18

1.  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
   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 informational in
   nature and does not update Standards Track 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 [RFC-793].








Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


1.1.  Requirement 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 [RFC-2119].

1.2.  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.

1.3.  Description of IPv6 Nodes

   From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
   [RFC-2460], we have the following definitions:

      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.

2.  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




Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 3]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


   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

3.  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.  This section highlights some major
   layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.

3.1.  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC 2464

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement
   Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464].

3.2.  IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 2472

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP
   [RFC-2472].

3.3.  IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM
   Networks [RFC-2492].  Additionally, RFC 2492 states:



Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 4]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


      A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
      of operation.  An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
      SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.

4.  IP Layer

4.1.  Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460

   The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460].  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 [RFC-2460].

   An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers.  It should be
   noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers
   and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] that they cause.

4.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461

   Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported.  [RFC-2461] 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




Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 5]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


      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 2462, 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
   required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).

   Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported.  If the node is a router,
   Redirect functionality MUST be supported.

4.3.  Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size

4.3.1.  Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981

   Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal
   implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets.
   The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and
   reassembly.

4.3.2.  IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675

   IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] MAY be supported.



Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 6]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


4.4.  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 2463

   ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported.

4.5.  Addressing

4.5.1.  IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 3513

   The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported as
   updated by [RFC-3879].

4.5.2.  IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 2462

   IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
   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 2462 [RFC-2462].

   From 2462:

      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.

4.5.3.  Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 3041

   Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
   SHOULD be supported.  It is recommended that this behavior be
   configurable on a connection basis within each application when
   available.  It is noted that a number of applications do not work
   with addresses generated with this method, while other applications
   work quite well with them.

4.5.4.  Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484

   The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
   [RFC-3484] document MUST be implemented.  It is expected that IPv6
   nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses.



Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 7]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


4.5.5.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration

   Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported.  DHCPv6
   [RFC-3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol;
   see Section 5.3 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.

4.6.  Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710

   Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
   [RFC-3810].  However, if the node has applications that only need
   support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC-3569], the node MAY implement
   MLDv1 [RFC-2710] instead.  If the node has applications that need
   support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC-3569, SSM-ARCH], the node
   MUST support MLDv2 [RFC-3810].

   When MLD is used, the rules in the "Source Address Selection for the
   Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be
   followed.

5.  DNS and DHCP

5.1.  DNS

   DNS is described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363],
   and [RFC-3596].  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 [RFC-1034] functionality, as in
   RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for:

      -  AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596];

      -  reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152];





Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 8]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


      -  EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512
         octets.

   Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
   [RFC-4033], [RFC-4034], and [RFC-4035].

   Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
   DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363].

5.2.  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

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 2462.

   In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 nodes that use
   DHCP for address assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6
   addresses and other configuration information, as described in
   Section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462.  Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for
   address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements.

5.2.2.  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 2462.

   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 2462.  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 [RFC-3736]) to
   obtain other configuration information.

5.3.3.  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.





Loughney                     Informational                      [Page 9]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


6.  IPv4 Support and Transition

   IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.

6.1.  Transition Mechanisms

6.1.1.  Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 2893

   If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC-4213]
   MUST be supported.

7.  Mobile IP

   The Mobile IPv6 [RFC-3775] specification defines requirements for the
   following types of nodes:

      -  mobile nodes

      -  correspondent nodes with support for route optimization

      -  home agents

      -  all IPv6 routers

   Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5
   of [RFC-3775], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-
   2473] and secure home agent communications [RFC-3776].

   Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
   correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [RFC-3775].

   Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for
   all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [RFC-3775].  Routers MAY
   support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of
   [RFC-3775], including support of [RFC-2473] and [RFC-3776].

8.  Security

   This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.

8.1.  Basic Architecture

   Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-4301] MUST be
   supported.







Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 10]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


8.2.  Security Protocols

   ESP [RFC-4303] MUST be supported.  AH [RFC-4302] MUST be supported.

8.3.  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" [RFC-4305] 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 [RFC-4305], as well as the requirements
   specified below.

   Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
   for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] and the NULL
   authentication algorithm [RFC-4303] 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
   debugging.

   The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2405] 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 [RFC-2404] within AH and ESP
   MUST be supported.  The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC-2403]
   within AH and ESP MAY also be supported.

   The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2451] 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 [RFC-3602] 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.








Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 11]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


8.4.  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 [RFC-4306] 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.

9.  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.

9.1.  General

9.1.1.  IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711

   The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-
   Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g.,
   RSVP [RFC-2205] or MLD [RFC-2710]).  The Router Alert option will
   need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are
   implemented.  See Section 4.6.

9.1.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461

   Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
   be supported.

10.  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.

10.1.  Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)

   The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
   SNMP agent.



Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 12]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


10.1.1.  IP Forwarding Table MIB

   IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that
   support an SNMP agent.

10.1.2.  Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)

   IP MIB [RFC-4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP
   agent.

11.  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" [RFC-2411] 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 [RFC-2401].

   RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for
   the security features of IPv6.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC-1035]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
                  specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC-1981]     McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU
                  Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [RFC-2104]     Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
                  Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
                  February 1997.

   [RFC-2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC-2403]     Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96
                  within ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.

   [RFC-2404]     Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96
                  within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.




Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 13]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


   [RFC-2405]     Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
                  Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.

   [RFC-2410]     Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm
                  and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.

   [RFC-2411]     Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
                  Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.

   [RFC-2451]     Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
                  Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.

   [RFC-2460]     Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version
                  6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC-2461]     Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
                  Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December
                  1998.

   [RFC-2462]     Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
                  Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.

   [RFC-2463]     Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message
                  Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6
                  (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2463, December 1998.

   [RFC-2472]     Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC
                  2472, December 1998.

   [RFC-2473]     Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
                  IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

   [RFC-2671]     Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
                  2671, August 1999.

   [RFC-2710]     Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
                  Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
                  1999.

   [RFC-2711]     Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert
                  Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.

   [RFC-3041]     Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for
                  Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC
                  3041, January 2001.

   [RFC-3152]     Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", BCP 49, RFC 3152,
                  August 2001.



Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 14]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


   [RFC-3315]     Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
                  C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration
                  Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC-3363]     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.

   [RFC-3484]     Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S., and B. Wijnen,
                  "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version
                  3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
                  Framework", BCP 74, RFC 3584, August 2003.

   [RFC-3513]     Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version
                  6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April
                  2003.

   [RFC-3590]     Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the
                  Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC
                  3590, September 2003.

   [RFC-3596]     Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
                  "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
                  October 2003.

   [RFC-3602]     Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC
                  Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
                  September 2003.

   [RFC-3775]     Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
                  Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [RFC-3776]     Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using
                  IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile
                  Nodes and Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.

   [RFC-3810]     Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
                  Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   [RFC-3879]     Huitema, C. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
                  Addresses", RFC 3879, September 2004.

   [RFC-4292]     Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
                  April 2006.

   [RFC-4293]     Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for
                  the Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.



Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 15]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


   [RFC-4301]     Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for
                  the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC-4302]     Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
                  December 2005.

   [RFC-4303]     Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
                  RFC 4303, December 2005.

   [RFC-4305]     Eastlake 3rd, D., "Cryptographic Algorithm
                  Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security
                  Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC
                  4305, December 2005.

12.2.  Informative References

   [DESDIFF]      Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of
                  DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4,
                  Jan 1991.

   [DESCRACK]     Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA
                  2000.

   [DESINT]       Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without
                  Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF,
                  Danvers, MA, April 1995.

   [IPv6-RH]      P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
                  Address Options", Work in Progress.

   [RFC-793]      Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
                  RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC-1034]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and
                  facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC-2205]     Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
                  Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
                  Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
                  September 1997.

   [RFC-2464]     Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
                  Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.

   [RFC-2492]     Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over
                  ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.





Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 16]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


   [RFC-2675]     Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6
                  Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999.

   [RFC-4213]     Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition
                  Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
                  October 2005.

   [RFC-3569]     Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
                  Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.

   [RFC-3736]     Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration
                  Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April
                  2004.

   [RFC-4001]     Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J.
                  Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet
                  Network Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005.

   [RFC-4033]     Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
                  S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
                  RFC 4033, March 2005.

   [RFC-4034]     Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
                  S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
                  Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005.

   [RFC-4035]     Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
                  S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
                  Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [RFC-4306]     Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2)
                  Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005.

   [SSM-ARCH]     H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
                  IP", Work in Progress.
















Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 17]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


13.  Authors and Acknowledgements

   This document 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]

   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.





Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 18]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


Editor's Contact Information

   Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the
   IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipv6@ietf.org) or to:

   John Loughney
   Nokia Research Center
   Itamerenkatu 11-13
   00180 Helsinki
   Finland

   Phone: +358 50 483 6242
   EMail: John.Loughney@Nokia.com






































Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 19]
^L
RFC 4294                 IPv6 Node Requirements               April 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   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 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Loughney                     Informational                     [Page 20]
^L