path: root/doc/rfc/rfc8504.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          T. Chown
Request for Comments: 8504                                          Jisc
BCP: 220                                                     J. Loughney
Obsoletes: 6434                                                    Intel
Category: Best Current Practice                               T. Winters
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                  UNH-IOL
                                                            January 2019


                         IPv6 Node Requirements

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.

   This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504.

















Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Scope of This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Sub-IP Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IP Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200  . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Support for IPv6 Extension Headers  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Protecting a Node from Excessive Extension Header Options   8
     5.4.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861  . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.5.  SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . .  11
     5.6.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . .  11
     5.7.  Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.7.1.  Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201 . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.7.2.  Minimum MTU Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.8.  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) -
           RFC 4443  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.9.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes -
           RFC 4191  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810  .  13
     5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 . . . .  13
   6.  Addressing and Address Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . . .  13
     6.3.  IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . . .  14
     6.4.  Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 -
           RFC 4941  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15





Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


     6.5.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315  .  16
     6.6.  Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . . .  16
   7.  DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Configuring Non-address Information . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  DHCP for Other Configuration Information  . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  Router Advertisements and Default Gateway . . . . . . . .  17
     8.3.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
           Configuration - RFC 8106  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.4.  DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
           Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Service Discovery Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Transition Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       10.1.1.  Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
                Routers - RFC 4213  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   11. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.1.  Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952  . .  19
     11.2.  Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)  . . . . . . .  19
   12. Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   13. Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     13.1.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.2.  Transforms and Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   14. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     14.1.  IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711  . . . . . . . . . .  22
     14.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . .  22
     14.3.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 .  23
     14.4.  IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding -
            BCP 198  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   15. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   16. IPv6 Node Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     16.1.  Management Information Base (MIB) Modules  . . . . . . .  24
       16.1.1.  IP Forwarding Table MIB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       16.1.2.  Management Information Base for the Internet
                Protocol (IP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       16.1.3.  Interface MIB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     16.2.  YANG Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       16.2.1.  IP Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       16.2.2.  Interface Management YANG Model  . . . . . . . . . .  25
   17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   19. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     19.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     19.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 6434  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 4294 to RFC 6434  . . . . . . . . .  39
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


1.  Introduction

   This document defines common functionality required by 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 to provide guidance as to which IPv6
   specifications should be implemented in the general case and which
   specifications may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios.
   This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs.

   Although this document points to different specifications, it should
   be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular
   requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many
   specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may
   not be mandatory.  In addition, most specifications define both
   client and server behavior in the same specification, while many
   implementations will be focused on only one of those roles.

   This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a
   device to provide useful Internet service and considers a broad range
   of device types and deployment scenarios.  Because of the wide range
   of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this
   document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios.  It is
   perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to
   define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific
   usage and deployment environments.  As an example, this document does
   not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment
   scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement.  As
   another example, NIST has defined profiles for specialized
   requirements for IPv6 in target environments (see [USGv6]).

   As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact
   usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
   that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: "Be
   conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
   others" [RFC793].

1.1.  Scope of This Document

   IPv6 covers many specifications.  It is intended that IPv6 will be
   deployed in many different situations and environments.  Therefore,
   it is important to develop requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure
   interoperability.



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


1.2.  Description of IPv6 Nodes

   From "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification" [RFC8200],
   we have the following definitions:

   IPv6 node   - a device that implements IPv6.
   IPv6 router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly
                 addressed to itself.
   IPv6 host   - any IPv6 node that is not a router.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Abbreviations Used in This Document

   AH    Authentication Header
   DAD   Duplicate Address Detection
   ESP   Encapsulating Security Payload
   ICMP  Internet Control Message Protocol
   IKE   Internet Key Exchange
   MIB   Management Information Base
   MLD   Multicast Listener Discovery
   MTU   Maximum Transmission Unit
   NA    Neighbor Advertisement
   NBMA  Non-Broadcast Multi-Access
   ND    Neighbor Discovery
   NS    Neighbor Solicitation
   NUD   Neighbor Unreachability Detection
   PPP   Point-to-Point Protocol

4.  Sub-IP Layer

   An IPv6 node MUST include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
   specifications.  Which link-layer specifications an implementation
   should include 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.  We list here some of the Layer 2
   technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been developed.  It
   is provided for informational purposes only and may not be complete.



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   -  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]

   -  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
      Specification [RFC2590]

   -  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146]

   -  Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
      Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338]

   -  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]

   -  Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE
      802.16 Networks [RFC5121]

   -  IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]

   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]

   -  Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (see
      Section 3 of [RFC4213])

5.  IP Layer

5.1.  Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200

   The Internet Protocol version 6 is specified in [RFC8200].  This
   specification MUST be supported.

   The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 8200.

   All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of sending and
   receiving IPv6 packets; forwarding functionality MAY be supported.
   Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process Fragment
   headers.

   IPv6 nodes MUST not create overlapping fragments.  Also, when
   reassembling an IPv6 datagram, if one or more of its constituent
   fragments is determined to be an overlapping fragment, the entire
   datagram (and any constituent fragments) MUST be silently discarded.
   See [RFC5722] for more information.






Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   As recommended in [RFC8021], nodes MUST NOT generate atomic
   fragments, i.e., where the fragment is a whole datagram.  As per
   [RFC6946], if a receiving node reassembling a datagram encounters an
   atomic fragment, it should be processed as a fully reassembled
   packet, and any other fragments that match this packet should be
   processed independently.

   To mitigate a variety of potential attacks, nodes SHOULD avoid using
   predictable Fragment Identification values in Fragment headers, as
   discussed in [RFC7739].

   All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label
   field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437].
   Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
   depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow label by setting the
   Flow Label field for all packets of a given flow to the same value
   chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.

5.2.  Support for IPv6 Extension Headers

   RFC 8200 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
   headers.

   Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not
   processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery
   path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes,
   in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field
   of the IPv6 header.

   Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
   described in RFC 8200.  Note that where Section 4 of RFC 8200 refers
   to the action to be taken when a Next Header value in the current
   header is not recognized by a node, that action applies whether the
   value is an unrecognized extension header or an unrecognized upper-
   layer protocol (ULP).

   An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these extension headers.  An
   exception is Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which was deprecated by
   [RFC5095] due to security concerns and which MUST be treated as an
   unrecognized routing type.

   Further, [RFC7045] adds specific requirements for the processing of
   extension headers, in particular that any forwarding node along an
   IPv6 packet's path, which forwards the packet for any reason, SHOULD
   do so regardless of any extension headers that are present.





Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   As per RFC 8200, when a node fragments an IPv6 datagram, it MUST
   include the entire IPv6 Header Chain in the first fragment.  The Per-
   Fragment headers MUST consist of the IPv6 header plus any extension
   headers that MUST be processed by nodes en route to the destination,
   that is, all headers up to and including the Routing header if
   present, else the Hop-by-Hop Options header if present, else no
   extension headers.  On reassembly, if the first fragment does not
   include all headers through an upper-layer header, then that fragment
   SHOULD be discarded and an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 3, message
   SHOULD be sent to the source of the fragment, with the Pointer field
   set to zero.  See [RFC7112] for a discussion of why oversized IPv6
   Extension Header Chains are avoided.

   Defining new IPv6 extension headers is not recommended, unless there
   are no existing IPv6 extension headers that can be used by specifying
   a new option for that IPv6 extension header.  A proposal to specify a
   new IPv6 extension header MUST include a detailed technical
   explanation of why an existing IPv6 extension header can not be used
   for the desired new function, and in such cases, it needs to follow
   the format described in Section 8 of RFC 8200.  For further
   background reading on this topic, see [RFC6564].

5.3.  Protecting a Node from Excessive Extension Header Options

   As per RFC 8200, end hosts are expected to process all extension
   headers, destination options, and hop-by-hop options in a packet.
   Given that the only limit on the number and size of extension headers
   is the MTU, the processing of received packets could be considerable.
   It is also conceivable that a long chain of extension headers might
   be used as a form of denial-of-service attack.  Accordingly, a host
   may place limits on the number and sizes of extension headers and
   options it is willing to process.

   A host MAY limit the number of consecutive PAD1 options in
   destination options or hop-by-hop options to 7.  In this case, if
   there are more than 7 consecutive PAD1 options present, the packet
   MAY be silently discarded.  The rationale is that if padding of 8 or
   more bytes is required, then the PADN option SHOULD be used.

   A host MAY limit the number of bytes in a PADN option to be less than
   8.  In such a case, if a PADN option is present that has a length
   greater than 7, the packet SHOULD be silently discarded.  The
   rationale for this guideline is that the purpose of padding is for
   alignment and 8 bytes is the maximum alignment used in IPv6.

   A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hop-by-
   hop options.  This SHOULD be configurable where the default is to
   accept unknown options and process them per [RFC8200].  If a packet



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   with unknown options is received and the host is configured to
   disallow them, then the packet SHOULD be silently discarded.

   A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum number of non-padding
   options allowed in the destination options and hop-by-hop extension
   headers.  If this feature is supported, the maximum number SHOULD be
   configurable, and the default value SHOULD be set to 8.  The limits
   for destination options and hop-by-hop options may be separately
   configurable.  If a packet is received and the number of destination
   or hop-by-hop options exceeds the limit, then the packet SHOULD be
   silently discarded.

   A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum length of Destination
   Options or Hop-by-Hop Options extension headers.  This value SHOULD
   be configurable, and the default is to accept options of any length.
   If a packet is received and the length of the Destination or Hop-by-
   Hop Options extension header exceeds the length limit, then the
   packet SHOULD be silently discarded.

5.4.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861

   Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861]; the definition was
   updated by [RFC5942].  Neighbor Discovery MUST be supported with the
   noted exceptions below.  RFC 4861 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.,
      Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or
      mechanisms to implement those services will be specified (in the
      appropriate document covering the operation of IP over a
      particular link type).  The services described in this document
      that are not directly dependent on multicast, such as Redirects,
      Next-hop determination, Neighbor Unreachability Detection, etc.,
      are expected to be provided as specified in this document.  The
      details of how one uses ND on NBMA links are addressed in
      [RFC2491].

   Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:

   Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
   attached link.  Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality.

   Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
   that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
   Hosts MUST support Prefix Discovery.




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for
   all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes.  NUD is not required
   for paths between routers.  However, all nodes MUST respond to
   unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages.

   [RFC7048] discusses NUD, in particular cases where it behaves too
   impatiently.  It states that if a node transmits more than a certain
   number of packets, then it SHOULD use the exponential backoff of the
   retransmit timer, up to a certain threshold point.

   Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the
   receiving of Router Advertisements (RAs).  The ability to understand
   individual RA options is dependent on supporting the functionality
   making use of the particular option.

   [RFC7559] discusses packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations
   and requires that nodes MUST use a specific exponential backoff
   algorithm for retransmission of Router Solicitations.

   All nodes MUST support the sending and receiving of Neighbor
   Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages.  NS and
   NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).

   Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality.
   Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily
   for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting).  Redirects
   are only useful on networks supporting hosts.  In core networks
   dominated by routers, Redirects are typically disabled.  The sending
   of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on routers intended to be
   deployed on core networks.  They MAY be enabled by default on routers
   intended to support hosts on edge networks.

   As specified in [RFC6980], nodes MUST NOT employ IPv6 fragmentation
   for sending any of the following Neighbor Discovery and SEcure
   Neighbor Discovery messages: Neighbor Solicitation, Neighbor
   Advertisement, Router Solicitation, Router Advertisement, Redirect,
   or Certification Path Solicitation.  Nodes MUST silently ignore any
   of these messages on receipt if fragmented.  See RFC 6980 for details
   and motivation.

   "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional
   recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
   [RFC4311] SHOULD be supported.








Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 10]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


5.5.  SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971

   SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
   [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor
   Discovery.  SEND has the potential to address certain classes of
   spoofing attacks, but it does not provide specific protection for
   threats from off-link attackers.

   There have been relatively few implementations of SEND in common
   operating systems and platforms since its publication in 2005; thus,
   deployment experience remains very limited to date.

   At this time, support for SEND is considered optional.  Due to the
   complexity in deploying SEND and its heavyweight provisioning, its
   deployment is only likely to be considered where nodes are operating
   in a particularly strict security environment.

5.6.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175

   Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
   Advertisement flags.  The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends
   the number of available flag bits by 48 bits.  At the time of this
   writing, 6 of the original 8 single-bit flags have been assigned,
   while 2 remain available for future assignment.  No flags have been
   defined that make use of the new option; 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.

5.7.  Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size

5.7.1.  Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201

   "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC8201] SHOULD be supported.
   From [RFC8200]:

      It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
      Discovery [RFC8201], in order to discover and take advantage of
      path MTUs greater than 1280 octets.  However, a minimal IPv6
      implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
      sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit
      implementation of Path MTU Discovery.

   The rules in [RFC8200] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet
   fragmentation and reassembly.




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 11]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   As described in RFC 8201, nodes implementing Path MTU Discovery and
   sending packets larger than the IPv6 minimum link MTU are susceptible
   to problematic connectivity if ICMPv6 messages are blocked or not
   transmitted.  For example, this will result in connections that
   complete the TCP three-way handshake correctly but then hang when
   data is transferred.  This state is referred to as a black-hole
   connection [RFC2923].  Path MTU Discovery relies on ICMPv6 Packet Too
   Big (PTB) to determine the MTU of the path (and thus these MUST NOT
   be filtered, as per the recommendation in [RFC4890]).

   An alternative to Path MTU Discovery defined in RFC 8201 can be found
   in [RFC4821], which defines a method for Packetization Layer Path MTU
   Discovery (PLPMTUD) designed for use over paths where delivery of
   ICMPv6 messages to a host is not assured.

5.7.2.  Minimum MTU Considerations

   While an IPv6 link MTU can be set to 1280 bytes, it is recommended
   that for IPv6 UDP in particular, which includes DNS operation, the
   sender use a large MTU if they can, in order to avoid gratuitous
   fragmentation-caused packet drops.

5.8.  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443

   ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported.  "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
   Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported.

5.9.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191

   "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
   provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
   each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
   via Router Advertisements.  In some scenarios, one router may provide
   connectivity to destinations that the other router does not, and
   choosing the "wrong" default router can result in reachability
   failures.  In order to resolve this scenario, IPv6 nodes MUST
   implement [RFC4191] and SHOULD implement the Type C host role defined
   in RFC 4191.

5.10.  First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028

   In multihomed scenarios, where a host has more than one prefix, each
   allocated by an upstream network that is assumed to implement BCP 38
   ingress filtering, the host may have multiple routers to choose from.

   Hosts that may be deployed in such multihomed environments SHOULD
   follow the guidance given in [RFC8028].




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 12]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


5.11.  Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810

   Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv2
   [RFC3810].  MLD is needed by any node that is expected to receive and
   process multicast traffic; in particular, MLDv2 is required for
   support for source-specific multicast (SSM) as per [RFC4607].

   Previous versions of this specification only required MLDv1 [RFC2710]
   to be implemented on all nodes.  Since participation of any
   MLDv1-only nodes on a link require that all other nodes on the link
   then operate in version 1 compatibility mode, the requirement to
   support MLDv2 on all nodes was upgraded to a MUST.  Further, SSM is
   now the preferred multicast distribution method, rather than Any-
   Source Multicast (ASM).

   Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used on most link types -- see
   Section 5.4) depends on multicast and requires that nodes join
   Solicited Node multicast addresses.

5.12.  Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168

   An ECN-aware router sets a mark in the IP header in order to signal
   impending congestion, rather than dropping a packet.  The receiver of
   the packet echoes the congestion indication to the sender, which can
   then reduce its transmission rate as if it detected a dropped packet.

   Nodes SHOULD support ECN [RFC3168] by implementing an interface for
   the upper layer to access and by setting the ECN bits in the IP
   header.  The benefits of using ECN are documented in [RFC8087].

6.  Addressing and Address Configuration

6.1.  IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291

   The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.

   The current IPv6 Address Architecture is based on a 64-bit boundary
   for subnet prefixes.  The reasoning behind this decision is
   documented in [RFC7421].

   Implementations MUST also support the multicast flag updates
   documented in [RFC7371].

6.2.  Host Address Availability Recommendations

   Hosts may be configured with addresses through a variety of methods,
   including Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC), DHCPv6, or
   manual configuration.



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 13]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC7934] recommends that networks provide general-purpose end hosts
   with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and it
   describes the benefits of and the options for doing so.  Routers
   SHOULD support [RFC7934] for assigning multiple addresses to a host.
   A host SHOULD support assigning multiple addresses as described in
   [RFC7934].

   Nodes SHOULD support the capability to be assigned a prefix per host
   as documented in [RFC8273].  Such an approach can offer improved host
   isolation and enhanced subscriber management on shared network
   segments.

6.3.  IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862

   Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration.  It is
   RECOMMENDED, as described in [RFC8064], that unless there is a
   specific requirement for Media Access Control (MAC) addresses to be
   embedded in an Interface Identifier (IID), nodes follow the procedure
   in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based addresses, rather than use
   [RFC4862].  Addresses generated using the method described in
   [RFC7217] will be the same whenever a given device (re)appears on the
   same subnet (with a specific IPv6 prefix), but the IID will vary on
   each subnet visited.

   Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses
   as described in [RFC4862].

   From RFC 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.

   All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection.  Quoting from
   Section 5.4 of RFC 4862:

      Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast
      addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of
      whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration,
      DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following exceptions
      [noted therein].




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 14]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429]
   specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating
   addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].  RFC
   4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce
   the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly
   move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize
   transition delays.  For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains
   optional at this time.

   [RFC7527] discusses enhanced DAD and describes an algorithm to
   automate the detection of looped-back IPv6 ND messages used by DAD.
   Nodes SHOULD implement this behavior where such detection is
   beneficial.

6.4.  Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941

   A node using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] to form a
   globally unique IPv6 address that uses its MAC address to generate
   the IID will see that the IID remains the same on any visited
   network, even though the network prefix part changes.  Thus, it is
   possible for a third-party device to track the activities of the node
   they communicate with, as that node moves around the network.
   Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
   address this concern by allowing nodes to configure an additional
   temporary address where the IID is effectively randomly generated.
   Privacy addresses are then used as source addresses for new
   communications initiated by the node.

   General issues regarding privacy issues for IPv6 addressing are
   discussed in [RFC7721].

   RFC 4941 SHOULD be supported.  In some scenarios, such as dedicated
   servers in a data center, it provides limited or no benefit, or it
   may complicate network management.  Thus, devices implementing this
   specification MUST provide a way for the end user to explicitly
   enable or disable the use of such temporary addresses.

   Note that RFC 4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC or
   independently of SLAAC that is based on RFC 7217.

   Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are
   reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses.
   Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more
   details.







Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 15]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


6.5.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

   DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses.  In
   general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses
   through SLAAC, DHCPv6, or both.  There will be a wide range of IPv6
   deployment models and differences in address assignment requirements,
   some of which may require DHCPv6 for stateful address assignment.
   Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration via
   DHCPv6.

   In the absence of observed Router Advertisement messages, IPv6 nodes
   MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration
   information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of [RFC4862].

   Where devices are likely to be carried by users and attached to
   multiple visited networks, DHCPv6 client anonymity profiles SHOULD be
   supported as described in [RFC7844] to minimize the disclosure of
   identifying information.  Section 5 of RFC 7844 describes operational
   considerations on the use of such anonymity profiles.

6.6.  Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724

   IPv6 nodes will invariably have multiple addresses configured
   simultaneously and thus will need to choose which addresses to use
   for which communications.  The rules specified in the Default Address
   Selection for IPv6 document [RFC6724] MUST be implemented.  [RFC8028]
   updates Rule 5.5 from [RFC6724]; implementations SHOULD implement
   this rule.

7.  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 on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to
   provide support.  All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034]
   functionality, as in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC1034], with support for:

   -  AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];

   -  reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; and

   -  Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) [RFC6891] to allow for DNS
      packet sizes larger than 512 octets.

   Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
   [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035].



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 16]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   A6 Resource Records [RFC2874] are classified as Historic per
   [RFC6563].  These were defined with Experimental status in [RFC3363].

8.  Configuring Non-address Information

8.1.  DHCP for Other Configuration Information

   DHCP [RFC3315] specifies a mechanism for IPv6 nodes to obtain address
   configuration information (see Section 6.5) and to obtain additional
   (non-address) configuration.  If a host implementation supports
   applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
   only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP.  For
   specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present,
   DHCP may not be necessary.

   An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to
   obtain other configuration information.

   If an IPv6 node implements DHCP, it MUST implement the DNS options
   [RFC3646] as most deployments will expect that these options are
   available.

8.2.  Router Advertisements and Default Gateway

   There is no defined DHCPv6 Gateway option.

   Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
   are thus expected to determine their default router information and
   on-link prefix information from received Router Advertisements.

8.3.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 8106

   Router Advertisement options have historically been limited to those
   that are critical to basic IPv6 functionality.  Originally, DNS
   configuration was not included as an RA option, and DHCP was the
   recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information.  Over time,
   the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved.  It is now
   generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without
   having access to a working DNS resolver; thus, a Standards Track
   document has been published to provide this capability [RFC8106].

   Implementations MUST include support for the DNS RA option [RFC8106].









Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 17]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


8.4.  DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
      Configuration

   In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating
   configuration information to hosts: RAs and DHCP.  RA options have
   been restricted to those deemed essential for basic network
   functioning and for which all nodes are configured with exactly the
   same information.  Examples include the Prefix Information Options,
   the MTU option, etc.  On the other hand, DHCP has generally been
   preferred for configuration of more general parameters and for
   parameters that may be client specific.  Generally speaking, however,
   there has been a desire to define only one mechanism for configuring
   a given option, rather than defining multiple (different) ways of
   configuring the same information.

   One issue with having multiple ways to configure the same information
   is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one mechanism but
   the network operator chooses a different mechanism.  For "closed"
   environments, where the network operator has significant influence
   over what devices connect to the network and thus what configuration
   mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to ensure that a
   particular mechanism is supported by all connected hosts.  In more
   open environments, however, where arbitrary devices may connect
   (e.g., a Wi-Fi hotspot), problems can arise.  To maximize
   interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement
   multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability.

9.  Service Discovery Protocols

   Multicast DNS (mDNS) and DNS-based Service Discovery (DNS-SD) are
   described in [RFC6762] and [RFC6763], respectively.  These protocols,
   often collectively referred to as the 'Bonjour' protocols after their
   naming by Apple, provide the means for devices to discover services
   within a local link and, in the absence of a unicast DNS service, to
   exchange naming information.

   Where devices are to be deployed in networks where service discovery
   would be beneficial, e.g., for users seeking to discover printers or
   display devices, mDNS and DNS-SD SHOULD be supported.

10.  IPv4 Support and Transition

   IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.








Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 18]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


10.1.  Transition Mechanisms

10.1.1.  Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers -
         RFC 4213

   If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213]
   MUST be supported.

11.  Application Support

11.1.  Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952

   Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in
   text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
   Representation" [RFC5952].

11.2.  Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)

   There are a number of IPv6-related APIs.  This document does not
   mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly
   relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols.  Implementers, however,
   would be advised to consider providing a common API or reviewing
   existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to
   applications.

   "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6
   functionality used by typical applications.  Implementers should note
   that RFC 3493 has been picked up and further standardized by the
   Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) [POSIX].

   "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6"
   [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by
   diagnostic and other more specialized applications.

   "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides
   facilities that allow an application to override the default Source
   Address Selection rules of [RFC6724].

   "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678]
   provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group
   memberships.

   "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides
   application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275]
   features.






Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 19]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


12.  Mobility

   Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] 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:

      - 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.
   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 specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in
   all hosts and routers.  Consequently, Mobility Support in IPv6
   [RFC6275], Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers
   [RFC5555], and associated standards (such as Mobile IPv6 with IKEv2
   and IPsec [RFC4877]) are considered a MAY at this time.

   IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC7066] lists a snapshot of required IPv6
   functionalities at the time the document was published that would
   need to be implemented, going above and beyond the recommendations in
   this document.  Additionally, a 3GPP IPv6 Host MAY implement
   [RFC7278] to deliver IPv6 prefixes on the LAN link.

13.  Security

   This section describes the security specification for IPv6 nodes.

   Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking.  Operational
   procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate
   management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level
   of security actually achieved in practice.  More importantly,
   deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can
   significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular
   security approach.




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 20]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   IPsec can provide either end-to-end security between nodes or channel
   security (for example, via a site-to-site IPsec VPN), making it
   possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of)
   communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of Internet nodes.
   IPsec has two standard operating modes: Tunnel-mode and Transport-
   mode.  In Tunnel-mode, IPsec provides network-layer security and
   protects an entire IP packet by encapsulating the original IP packet
   and then prepending a new IP header.  In Transport-mode, IPsec
   provides security for the transport layer (and above) by
   encapsulating only the transport-layer (and above) portion of the IP
   packet (i.e., without adding a second IP header).

   Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such
   usage has limited applicability and is not recommended.

   A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today
   (e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH), TLS
   VPNS, etc.).  No single approach has emerged as an ideal technology
   for all needs and environments.  Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the
   ideal security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace
   the others.

   Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the
   key-management approach of IKE.  RFC 6434 updated that recommendation
   by making support of the IPsec architecture [RFC4301] a SHOULD for
   all IPv6 nodes, and this document retains that recommendation.  Note
   that the IPsec Architecture requires the implementation of both
   manual and automatic key management (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301).
   Currently, the recommended automated key-management protocol to
   implement is IKEv2 [RFC7296].

   This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types
   and environments where approaches to security other than IPsec can be
   justified.  For example, special-purpose devices may support only a
   very limited number or type of applications, and an application-
   specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management
   or configuration capabilities.  Alternatively, some devices may run
   on extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full
   IPsec Architecture is not justified.

   Because most common platforms now support IPv6 and have it enabled by
   default, IPv6 security is an issue for networks that are ostensibly
   IPv4 only; see [RFC7123] for guidance on this area.








Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 21]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


13.1.  Requirements

   "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be
   supported by all IPv6 nodes.  Note that the IPsec Architecture
   requires the implementation of both manual and automatic key
   management (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]).  Currently, the default
   automated key-management protocol to implement is IKEv2.  As required
   in [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST
   implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302].

13.2.  Transforms and Algorithms

   The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec
   Architecture are defined in Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
   Requirements for ESP and AH [RFC8221].  IPv6 nodes implementing the
   IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8221].
   Preferred cryptographic algorithms often change more frequently than
   security protocols.  Therefore, implementations MUST allow for
   migration to new algorithms, as RFC 8221 is replaced or updated in
   the future.

   The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are
   defined in Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for
   ESP and AH [RFC8247].  IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 MUST conform to
   the requirements in [RFC8247] and/or any future updates or
   replacements to [RFC8247].

14.  Router-Specific Functionality

   This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
   act as routers.  Currently, this section does not discuss detailed
   routing-specific requirements.  For the case of typical home routers,
   [RFC7084] defines basic requirements for customer edge routers.

14.1.  IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711

   The IPv6 Router Alert option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
   Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP
   [RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLDv2) [RFC3810]).  The
   Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever such
   protocols that mandate its use are implemented.  See Section 5.11.

14.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861

   Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations
   MUST be supported.





Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 22]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   Section 7 of [RFC6275] includes some mobility-specific extensions to
   Neighbor Discovery.  Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5,
   even if they do not implement home agent functionality.

14.3.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

   A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide
   configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared
   link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site.
   Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different
   links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers.

   In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a
   single LAN or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together
   with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is
   one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC7084]).  There is no need
   for relay agents in such scenarios.

   In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or
   service provider networks, the use of DHCP requires some level of
   configuration, in order to configure relay agents, DHCP servers, etc.
   In such environments, the DHCP server might even be run on a
   traditional server, rather than as part of a router.

   Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP
   server functionality on routers is optional.  However, routers
   targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described
   above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality.  Note that "Basic
   Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC7084] requires
   implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
   routers.

14.4.  IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding - BCP 198

   Forwarding nodes MUST conform to BCP 198 [RFC7608]; thus, IPv6
   implementations of nodes that may forward packets MUST conform to the
   rules specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC4632].

15.  Constrained Devices

   The focus of this document is general IPv6 nodes.  In this section,
   we briefly discuss considerations for constrained devices.

   In the case of constrained nodes, with limited CPU, memory, bandwidth
   or power, support for certain IPv6 functionality may need to be
   considered due to those limitations.  While the requirements of this
   document are RECOMMENDED for all nodes, including constrained nodes,
   compromises may need to be made in certain cases.  Where such



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 23]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   compromises are made, the interoperability of devices should be
   strongly considered, particularly where this may impact other nodes
   on the same link, e.g., only supporting MLDv1 will affect other
   nodes.

   The IETF 6LowPAN (IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network)
   WG produced six RFCs, including a general overview and problem
   statement [RFC4919] (the means by which IPv6 packets are transmitted
   over IEEE 802.15.4 networks [RFC4944] and ND optimizations for that
   medium [RFC6775]).

   IPv6 nodes that are battery powered SHOULD implement the
   recommendations in [RFC7772].

16.  IPv6 Node Management

   Network management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes.  However, for IPv6
   nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
   possible way of controlling these nodes.

   Existing network management protocols include SNMP [RFC3411], NETCONF
   [RFC6241], and RESTCONF [RFC8040].

16.1.  Management Information Base (MIB) Modules

   The obsoleted status of various IPv6-specific MIB modules is
   clarified in [RFC8096].

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

16.1.1.  IP Forwarding Table MIB

   The IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes
   that support an SNMP agent.

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

   The IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
   SNMP agent.

16.1.3.  Interface MIB

   The Interface MIB [RFC2863] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support
   an SNMP agent.






Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 24]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


16.2.  YANG Data Models

   The following YANG data models SHOULD be supported by nodes that
   support a NETCONF or RESTCONF agent.

16.2.1.  IP Management YANG Model

   The IP Management YANG Model [RFC8344] SHOULD be supported by nodes
   that support NETCONF or RESTCONF.

16.2.2.  Interface Management YANG Model

   The Interface Management YANG Model [RFC8343] SHOULD be supported by
   nodes that support NETCONF or RESTCONF.

17.  Security Considerations

   This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet,
   beyond the security considerations associated with the individual
   protocols.

   Security is also discussed in Section 13 above.

18.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

19.  References

19.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 25]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC2711]  Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
              RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.

   [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
              MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.

   [RFC3411]  Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
              Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
              Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3411, December 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3411>.

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
              "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
              RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.

   [RFC3736]  Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736,
              April 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3736>.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
              Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
              S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
              S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 26]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
              S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.

   [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
              for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC4292]  Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4292, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4292>.

   [RFC4293]  Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the
              Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, DOI 10.17487/RFC4293,
              April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4293>.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.

   [RFC4311]  Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
              Sharing", RFC 4311, DOI 10.17487/RFC4311, November 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4311>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC4607]  Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
              IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.

   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 27]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.

   [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.

   [RFC5453]  Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
              RFC 5453, DOI 10.17487/RFC5453, February 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5453>.

   [RFC5722]  Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
              RFC 5722, DOI 10.17487/RFC5722, December 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5722>.

   [RFC5790]  Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
              Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
              Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>.

   [RFC5942]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
              Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
              Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>.

   [RFC5952]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
              Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.



Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 28]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.

   [RFC6564]  Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
              M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
              RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.

   [RFC6762]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.

   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and
              C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
              Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
              RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.

   [RFC6891]  Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
              for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.

   [RFC6946]  Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments",
              RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC6946, May 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6946>.

   [RFC7045]  Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
              of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.

   [RFC7048]  Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
              Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7048, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7048>.




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 29]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC7112]  Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of
              Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7112>.

   [RFC7217]  Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
              Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
              Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.

   [RFC7296]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and
              T. Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
              (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.

   [RFC7527]  Asati, R., Singh, H., Beebee, W., Pignataro, C., Dart, E.,
              and W. George, "Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection",
              RFC 7527, DOI 10.17487/RFC7527, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7527>.

   [RFC7559]  Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss
              Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7559, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559>.

   [RFC7608]  Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
              Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.

   [RFC8021]  Gont, F., Liu, W., and T. Anderson, "Generation of IPv6
              Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful", RFC 8021,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8021, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8021>.

   [RFC8028]  Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
              Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.

   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.







Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 30]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC8064]  Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
              "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
              RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.

   [RFC8106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8201]  McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.

   [RFC8221]  Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and
              T. Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
              Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security
              Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8221, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8221>.

   [RFC8247]  Nir, Y., Kivinen, T., Wouters, P., and D. Migault,
              "Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance
              for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
              RFC 8247, DOI 10.17487/RFC8247, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8247>.

   [RFC8343]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
              Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.

   [RFC8344]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
              RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>.







Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 31]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


19.2.  Informative References

   [RFC793]   Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and
              S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version
              1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.

   [RFC2464]  Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
              Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.

   [RFC2491]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
              over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
              RFC 2491, DOI 10.17487/RFC2491, January 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>.

   [RFC2590]  Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
              IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
              RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC2590, May 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.

   [RFC2874]  Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support
              IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2874, July 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2874>.

   [RFC2923]  Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery",
              RFC 2923, DOI 10.17487/RFC2923, September 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2923>.

   [RFC3146]  Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
              over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC3146,
              October 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>.

   [RFC3363]  Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and
              T. Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
              Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3363, August 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3363>.







Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 32]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC3493]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and
              W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
              RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.

   [RFC3542]  Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
              "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
              IPv6", RFC 3542, DOI 10.17487/RFC3542, May 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3542>.

   [RFC3646]  Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.

   [RFC3678]  Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
              Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3678, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3678>.

   [RFC3776]  Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
              Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
              Home Agents", RFC 3776, DOI 10.17487/RFC3776, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3776>.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
              "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.

   [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
              RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
              November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.

   [RFC4294]  Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4294, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4294>.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.






Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 33]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC4338]  DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of
              IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets
              over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, DOI 10.17487/RFC4338,
              January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.

   [RFC4429]  Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
              for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.

   [RFC4584]  Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API
              for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, DOI 10.17487/RFC4584, July
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4584>.

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

   [RFC4877]  Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
              IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4877, April 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4877>.

   [RFC4884]  Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
              "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.

   [RFC4890]  Davies, E. and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering
              ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4890, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4890>.

   [RFC4919]  Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
              over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
              Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
              RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 34]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC5014]  Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
              Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.

   [RFC5072]  Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
              over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.

   [RFC5121]  Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and
              S. Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
              Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>.

   [RFC5555]  Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
              Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

   [RFC6563]  Jiang, S., Conrad, D., and B. Carpenter, "Moving A6 to
              Historic Status", RFC 6563, DOI 10.17487/RFC6563, March
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6563>.

   [RFC6980]  Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation
              with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", RFC 6980,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6980, August 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6980>.

   [RFC7066]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
              Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
              (3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
              November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.

   [RFC7084]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
              Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.

   [RFC7123]  Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Security Implications of IPv6 on
              IPv4 Networks", RFC 7123, DOI 10.17487/RFC7123, February
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7123>.






Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 35]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC7278]  Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
              /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
              (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.

   [RFC7371]  Boucadair, M. and S. Venaas, "Updates to the IPv6
              Multicast Addressing Architecture", RFC 7371,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7371, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7371>.

   [RFC7421]  Carpenter, B., Ed., Chown, T., Gont, F., Jiang, S.,
              Petrescu, A., and A. Yourtchenko, "Analysis of the 64-bit
              Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", RFC 7421,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7421, January 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7421>.

   [RFC7721]  Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy
              Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
              RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.

   [RFC7739]  Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment
              Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC7739,
              February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7739>.

   [RFC7772]  Yourtchenko, A. and L. Colitti, "Reducing Energy
              Consumption of Router Advertisements", BCP 202, RFC 7772,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7772, February 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7772>.

   [RFC7844]  Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
              Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.

   [RFC7934]  Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi,
              "Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204,
              RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>.

   [RFC8087]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8087, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087>.






Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 36]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   [RFC8096]  Fenner, B., "The IPv6-Specific MIB Modules Are Obsolete",
              RFC 8096, DOI 10.17487/RFC8096, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8096>.

   [RFC8273]  Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix
              per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8273>.

   [POSIX]    IEEE, "Information Technology -- Portable Operating System
              Interface (POSIX(R)) Base Specifications, Issue 7", IEEE
              Std 1003.1-2017, DOI: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153,
              January 2018,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8277153>.

   [USGv6]    National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile
              for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0",
              NIST SP500-267, July 2008,
              <https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/usgv6-program>.

































Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 37]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 6434

   There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
   additions and updates.  While this section highlights some of the
   changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
   list of all changes.

   1.   Restructured sections.

   2.   Added 6LoWPAN to link layers as it has some deployment.

   3.   Removed the Downstream-on-Demand (DoD) IPv6 Profile as it hasn't
        been updated.

   4.   Updated MLDv2 support to a MUST since nodes are restricted if
        MLDv1 is used.

   5.   Required DNS RA options so SLAAC-only devices can get DNS; RFC
        8106 is a MUST.

   6.   Required RFC 3646 DNS Options for DHCPv6 implementations.

   7.   Added RESTCONF and NETCONF as possible options to network
        management.

   8.   Added a section on constrained devices.

   9.   Added text on RFC 7934 to address availability to hosts
        (SHOULD).

   10.  Added text on RFC 7844 for anonymity profiles for DHCPv6
        clients.

   11.  Added mDNS and DNS-SD as updated service discovery.

   12.  Added RFC 8028 as a SHOULD as a method for solving a multi-
        prefix network.

   13.  Added ECN RFC 3168 as a SHOULD.

   14.  Added reference to RFC 7123 for security over IPv4-only
        networks.

   15.  Removed Jumbograms (RFC 2675) as they aren't deployed.

   16.  Updated obsoleted RFCs to the new version of the RFC, including
        RFCs 2460, 1981, 7321, and 4307.




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 38]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   17.  Added RFC 7772 for power consumptions considerations.

   18.  Added why /64 boundaries for more detail -- RFC 7421.

   19.  Added a unique IPv6 prefix per host to support currently
        deployed IPv6 networks.

   20.  Clarified RFC 7066 was a snapshot for 3GPP.

   21.  Updated RFC 4191 as a MUST and the Type C Host as a SHOULD as
        they help solve multi-prefix problems.

   22.  Removed IPv6 over ATM since there aren't many deployments.

   23.  Added a note in Section 6.6 for Rule 5.5 from RFC 6724.

   24.  Added MUST for BCP 198 for forwarding IPv6 packets.

   25.  Added a reference to RFC 8064 for stable address creation.

   26.  Added text on the protection from excessive extension header
        options.

   27.  Added text on the dangers of 1280 MTU UDP, especially with
        regard to DNS traffic.

   28.  Added text to clarify RFC 8200 behavior for unrecognized
        extension headers or unrecognized ULPs.

   29.  Removed dated email addresses from design team acknowledgements
        for [RFC4294].

Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 4294 to RFC 6434

   There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
   additions and updates.  While this section highlights some of the
   changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
   list of all changes.

   1.   Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an
        applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.

   2.   Significantly updated the section on mobility protocols; added
        references and downgraded previous SHOULDs to MAYs.

   3.   Changed the Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and
        added some more RFCs.




Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 39]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   4.   Added a section on SEND (it is a MAY).

   5.   Revised the section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more
        nuance to the recommendation.

   6.   Completely revised the IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading the
        overall recommendation to a SHOULD.

   7.   Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to a SHOULD.

   8.   Added a background section on DHCP versus RA options, added a
        SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106),
        and cleaned up the DHCP recommendations.

   9.   Added the recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and
        7.5 of [RFC6275].

   10.  Added a pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942].

   11.  Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
        SHOULD be implemented.

   12.  Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
        it a MUST to implement.

   13.  Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
        [RFC5952] a SHOULD.

   14.  Removed the mention of delegation name (DNAME) from the
        discussion about [RFC3363].

   15.  Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
        including [RFC3596], [RFC4213], [RFC4291], and [RFC4443].

   16.  Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs.  There
        is no consensus at present on how to process these flags, and
        discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
        update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].

   17.  Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.

   18.  Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
        [RFC5952] a SHOULD.

   19.  Updated the MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
        [RFC5790].





Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 40]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


   20.  Added a SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences
        and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].

   21.  Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.

Acknowledgments

   o  Acknowledgments (Current Document)

      The authors would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Dave Thaler, Tom
      Herbert, Erik Kline, Mohamed Boucadair, and Michayla Newcombe for
      their contributions and many members of the 6man WG for the inputs
      they gave.

   o  Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434

      RFC 6434 was authored by Ed Jankiewicz, John Loughney, and Thomas
      Narten.

      The authors of RFC 6434 thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim
      Chown, Ralph Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Bob Hinden, Paul
      Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave Thaler for their
      comments.  In addition, the authors thank Mark Andrews for
      comments and corrections on DNS text and Alfred Hoenes for
      tracking the updates to various RFCs.

   o  Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294

      RFC 4294 was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team,
      which had the following members: Jari Arkko, Marc Blanchet, Samita
      Chakrabarti, Alain Durand, Gerard Gastaud, Jun-ichiro Itojun
      Hagino, Atsushi Inoue, Masahiro Ishiyama, John Loughney, Rajiv
      Raghunarayan, Shoichi Sakane, Dave Thaler, and Juha Wiljakka.

      The authors of RFC 4294 thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
      Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
      Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments.














Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 41]
^L
RFC 8504                 IPv6 Node Requirements             January 2019


Authors' Addresses

   Tim Chown
   Jisc
   Lumen House, Library Avenue
   Harwell Oxford, Didcot  OX11 0SG
   United Kingdom

   Email: tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk


   John Loughney
   Intel
   Santa Clara, CA
   United States of America

   Email: john.loughney@gmail.com


   Timothy Winters
   University of New Hampshire, Interoperability Lab (UNH-IOL)
   Durham, NH
   United States of America

   Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu


























Chown, et al.             Best Current Practice                [Page 42]
^L