|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8504
Last modified on Wednesday, January 30th, 2019
 Permanent link to RFC 8504
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8504
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8504
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/RFC 8504.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 1 
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
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
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" [RFC 793].
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
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes
From "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification" [RFC 8200],
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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] 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
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC 2464]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification [RFC 2590]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC 3146]
- Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC 4338]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC 4944]
- Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE
802.16 Networks [RFC 5121]
- IP version 6 over PPP [RFC 5072]
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) [RFC 4380]
- Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (see
Section 3 of [RFC 4213])
5. IP Layer
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200
The Internet Protocol version 6 is specified in [RFC 8200]. 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 [RFC 5722] for more information.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 6
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
As recommended in [RFC 8021], nodes MUST NOT generate atomic
fragments, i.e., where the fragment is a whole datagram. As per
[RFC 6946], 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 [RFC 7739].
All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label
field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC 6437].
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
[RFC 5095] due to security concerns and which MUST be treated as an
unrecognized routing type.
Further, [RFC 7045] 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
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 [RFC 7112] 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 [RFC 6564].
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 [RFC 8200]. If a packet
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 8
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 [RFC 4861]; the definition was
updated by [RFC 5942]. 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
[RFC 2491].
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
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.
[RFC 7048] 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.
[RFC 7559] 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 [RFC 6980], 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" [RFC 4311] includes additional
recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
[RFC 4311] SHOULD be supported.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 10
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
5.5. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971
SEND [RFC 3971] and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
[RFC 3972] 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" [RFC 8201] SHOULD be supported.
From [RFC 8200]:
It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
Discovery [RFC 8201], 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 [RFC 8200] and [RFC 5722] MUST be followed for packet
fragmentation and reassembly.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 11
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 [RFC 2923]. 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 [RFC 4890]).
An alternative to Path MTU Discovery defined in RFC 8201 can be found
in [RFC 4821], 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 [RFC 4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
Part Messages" [RFC 4884] MAY be supported.
5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
"Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC 4191]
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 [RFC 4191] 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 [RFC 8028].
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 12
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
[RFC 3810]. 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 [RFC 4607].
Previous versions of this specification only required MLDv1 [RFC 2710]
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 [RFC 3168] 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 [RFC 8087].
6. Addressing and Address Configuration
6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC 4291] 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 [RFC 7421].
Implementations MUST also support the multicast flag updates
documented in [RFC 7371].
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
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 7934] 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 [RFC 7934] for assigning multiple addresses to a host.
A host SHOULD support assigning multiple addresses as described in
[RFC 7934].
Nodes SHOULD support the capability to be assigned a prefix per host
as documented in [RFC 8273]. 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 [RFC 8064], 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 [RFC 7217] to generate SLAAC-based addresses, rather than use
[RFC 4862]. Addresses generated using the method described in
[RFC 7217] 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 [RFC 4862].
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
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
"Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC 4429]
specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating
addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC 4862]. 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.
[RFC 7527] 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 [RFC 4862] 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 [RFC 4941]
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 [RFC 7721].
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" [RFC 5453] for more
details.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 15
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
DHCPv6 [RFC 3315] 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 [RFC 4862].
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 [RFC 7844] 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 [RFC 6724] MUST be implemented. [RFC 8028]
updates Rule 5.5 from [RFC 6724]; implementations SHOULD implement
this rule.
7. DNS
DNS is described in [RFC 1034], [RFC 1035], [RFC 3363], and [RFC 3596].
Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need
to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality.
However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure
capability on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to
provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC 1034]
functionality, as in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC 1034], with support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC 3596];
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC 3596]; and
- Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) [RFC 6891] to allow for DNS
packet sizes larger than 512 octets.
Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
[RFC 4033] [RFC 4034] [RFC 4035].
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 16
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
A6 Resource Records [RFC 2874] are classified as Historic per
[RFC 6563]. These were defined with Experimental status in [RFC 3363].
8. Configuring Non-address Information
8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information
DHCP [RFC 3315] 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 [RFC 3736]) to
obtain other configuration information.
If an IPv6 node implements DHCP, it MUST implement the DNS options
[RFC 3646] 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 [RFC 8106].
Implementations MUST include support for the DNS RA option [RFC 8106].
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 17
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 [RFC 6762] and [RFC 6763], 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
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 [RFC 4213]
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" [RFC 5952].
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" [RFC 3493] 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"
[RFC 3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by
diagnostic and other more specialized applications.
"IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC 5014] provides
facilities that allow an application to override the default Source
Address Selection rules of [RFC 6724].
"Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC 3678]
provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group
memberships.
"Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC 4584] provides
application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 [RFC 6275]
features.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 19
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
12. Mobility
Mobile IPv6 [RFC 6275] and associated specifications [RFC 3776]
[RFC 4877] 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 [RFC 5555].
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
[RFC 6275], Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers
[RFC 5555], and associated standards (such as Mobile IPv6 with IKEv2
and IPsec [RFC 4877]) are considered a MAY at this time.
IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC 7066] 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
[RFC 7278] 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
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 [RFC 4301] 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 [RFC 7296].
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 [RFC 7123] for guidance on this area.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 21
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
13.1. Requirements
"Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC 4301] 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 [RFC 4301]). Currently, the default
automated key-management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required
in [RFC 4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST
implement ESP [RFC 4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC 4302].
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 [RFC 8221]. IPv6 nodes implementing the
IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC 8221].
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 [RFC 8247]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 MUST conform to
the requirements in [RFC 8247] and/or any future updates or
replacements to [RFC 8247].
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,
[RFC 7084] defines basic requirements for customer edge routers.
14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711
The IPv6 Router Alert option [RFC 2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP
[RFC 2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLDv2) [RFC 3810]). 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
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
Section 7 of [RFC 6275] 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 ([RFC 3315] or [RFC 4862]) 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., [RFC 7084]). 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" [RFC 7084] 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 [RFC 7608]; thus, IPv6
implementations of nodes that may forward packets MUST conform to the
rules specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC 4632].
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
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 [RFC 4919] (the means by which IPv6 packets are transmitted
over IEEE 802.15.4 networks [RFC 4944] and ND optimizations for that
medium [RFC 6775]).
IPv6 nodes that are battery powered SHOULD implement the
recommendations in [RFC 7772].
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 [RFC 3411], NETCONF
[RFC 6241], and RESTCONF [RFC 8040].
16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules
The obsoleted status of various IPv6-specific MIB modules is
clarified in [RFC 8096].
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 [RFC 4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes
that support an SNMP agent.
16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
The IP MIB [RFC 4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent.
16.1.3. Interface MIB
The Interface MIB [RFC 2863] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support
an SNMP agent.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 24
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 [RFC 8344] SHOULD be supported by nodes
that support NETCONF or RESTCONF.
16.2.2. Interface Management YANG Model
The Interface Management YANG Model [RFC 8343] 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
[RFC 1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC 1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1034>.
[RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC 1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1035>.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2710, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2710>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 25
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2711, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2711>.
[RFC 2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2863>.
[RFC 3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3168>.
[RFC 3315] 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/RFC 3315, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3315>.
[RFC 3411] 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/RFC 3411, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3411>.
[RFC 3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3596, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3596>.
[RFC 3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3736,
April 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3736>.
[RFC 3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3810>.
[RFC 4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4033, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4033>.
[RFC 4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4034>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 26
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4035, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4035>.
[RFC 4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4213, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4213>.
[RFC 4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4291>.
[RFC 4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4292, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4292>.
[RFC 4293] Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4293,
April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4293>.
[RFC 4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4301>.
[RFC 4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4303>.
[RFC 4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
Sharing", RFC 4311, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4311, November 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4311>.
[RFC 4443] 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/RFC 4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4443>.
[RFC 4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4607, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4607>.
[RFC 4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4632, August
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4632>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 27
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4861>.
[RFC 4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4862>.
[RFC 4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4941>.
[RFC 5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5095, December 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5095>.
[RFC 5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 5453, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5453, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5453>.
[RFC 5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
RFC 5722, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5722, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5722>.
[RFC 5790] 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/RFC 5790, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5790>.
[RFC 5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5942, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5942>.
[RFC 5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5952, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5952>.
[RFC 6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6241>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 28
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6437>.
[RFC 6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6564, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6564>.
[RFC 6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6724>.
[RFC 6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6762, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6762>.
[RFC 6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6763>.
[RFC 6775] 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/RFC 6775, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6775>.
[RFC 6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6891>.
[RFC 6946] Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments",
RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6946, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6946>.
[RFC 7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7045, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7045>.
[RFC 7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7048, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7048>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 29
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 7112] Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of
Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7112, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7112>.
[RFC 7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7217>.
[RFC 7296] 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/RFC 7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7296>.
[RFC 7527] Asati, R., Singh, H., Beebee, W., Pignataro, C., Dart, E.,
and W. George, "Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection",
RFC 7527, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7527, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7527>.
[RFC 7559] Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss
Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7559, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7559>.
[RFC 7608] Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7608, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7608>.
[RFC 8021] Gont, F., Liu, W., and T. Anderson, "Generation of IPv6
Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful", RFC 8021,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8021, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8021>.
[RFC 8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8028, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8028>.
[RFC 8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8040>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 30
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8064, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8064>.
[RFC 8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8106, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8106>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[RFC 8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8200>.
[RFC 8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8201>.
[RFC 8221] 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/RFC 8221, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8221>.
[RFC 8247] 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/RFC 8247, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8247>.
[RFC 8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8343>.
[RFC 8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8344, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8344>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 31
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
19.2. Informative References
[RFC 793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC 793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 793>.
[RFC 2205] 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/RFC 2205, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2205>.
[RFC 2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2464, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2464>.
[RFC 2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
RFC 2491, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2491, January 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2491>.
[RFC 2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2590, May 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2590>.
[RFC 2874] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support
IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2874, July 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2874>.
[RFC 2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery",
RFC 2923, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2923, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2923>.
[RFC 3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3146,
October 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3146>.
[RFC 3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and
T. Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3363, August 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3363>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 32
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and
W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3493, February 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3493>.
[RFC 3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
IPv6", RFC 3542, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3542, May 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3542>.
[RFC 3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3646, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3646>.
[RFC 3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3678, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3678>.
[RFC 3776] 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/RFC 3776, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3776>.
[RFC 3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3971, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3971>.
[RFC 3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3972, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3972>.
[RFC 4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4191,
November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4191>.
[RFC 4294] Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4294, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4294>.
[RFC 4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4302, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4302>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 33
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 4338] 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/RFC 4338,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4338>.
[RFC 4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4380, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4380>.
[RFC 4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4429, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4429>.
[RFC 4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API
for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4584, July
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4584>.
[RFC 4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4821>.
[RFC 4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4877, April 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4877>.
[RFC 4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4884, April 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4884>.
[RFC 4890] Davies, E. and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering
ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4890, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4890>.
[RFC 4919] 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/RFC 4919, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4919>.
[RFC 4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4944>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 34
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5014, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5014>.
[RFC 5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5072, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5072>.
[RFC 5121] 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/RFC 5121, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5121>.
[RFC 5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5555, June
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5555>.
[RFC 6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6275>.
[RFC 6563] Jiang, S., Conrad, D., and B. Carpenter, "Moving A6 to
Historic Status", RFC 6563, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6563, March
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6563>.
[RFC 6980] Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation
with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", RFC 6980,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6980, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6980>.
[RFC 7066] 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/RFC 7066,
November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7066>.
[RFC 7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7084, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7084>.
[RFC 7123] Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Security Implications of IPv6 on
IPv4 Networks", RFC 7123, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7123, February
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7123>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 35
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 7278] 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/RFC 7278, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7278>.
[RFC 7371] Boucadair, M. and S. Venaas, "Updates to the IPv6
Multicast Addressing Architecture", RFC 7371,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7371, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7371>.
[RFC 7421] 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/RFC 7421, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7421>.
[RFC 7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy
Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7721, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7721>.
[RFC 7739] Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment
Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7739,
February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7739>.
[RFC 7772] Yourtchenko, A. and L. Colitti, "Reducing Energy
Consumption of Router Advertisements", BCP 202, RFC 7772,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7772, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7772>.
[RFC 7844] Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7844, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7844>.
[RFC 7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi,
"Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204,
RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7934, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7934>.
[RFC 8087] Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8087, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8087>.
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 36
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
[RFC 8096] Fenner, B., "The IPv6-Specific MIB Modules Are Obsolete",
RFC 8096, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8096, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8096>.
[RFC 8273] Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix
per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8273, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8273>.
[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
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
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 [RFC 4294].
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
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
4. Added a section on SEND (it is a MAY).
5. Revised the section on Privacy Extensions [RFC 4941] 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 [RFC 6275].
10. Added a pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC 5942].
11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC 4311]
SHOULD be implemented.
12. Added reference to [RFC 5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
it a MUST to implement.
13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC 5952] a SHOULD.
14. Removed the mention of delegation name (DNAME) from the
discussion about [RFC 3363].
15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
including [RFC 3596], [RFC 4213], [RFC 4291], and [RFC 4443].
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 [RFC 4862].
17. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
18. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC 5952] a SHOULD.
19. Updated the MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
[RFC 5790].
Chown, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 40
RFC 8504 IPv6 Node Requirements January 2019
20. Added a SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences
and More-Specific Routes" [RFC 4191].
21. Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC 6437] 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
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
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 96133 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Wednesday, January 30th, 2019
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
