Create releng/7.2 from stable/7 in preparation for 7.2-RELEASE.

[FreeBSD/releng/7.2.git] / contrib / bind9 / doc / draft / draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt

IPv6 Working Group                                 John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft                                                  Nokia
                                                     January 14, 2004

Expires: July 14, 2004



                         IPv6 Node Requirements
                draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt




Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

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.





Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 1]





Internet-Draft


Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction
   1.1 Requirement Language
   1.2  Scope of this Document
   1.3  Description of IPv6 Nodes
   2.   Abbreviations Used in This Document
   3.   Sub-IP Layer
   3.1  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464
   3.2  IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472
   3.3  IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492
   4.   IP Layer
   4.1  Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460
   4.2  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461
   4.3  Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
   4.4  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463
   4.5  Addressing
   4.6  Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
   5.   Transport and DNS
   5.1  Transport Layer
   5.2  DNS
   5.3  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
   6.   IPv4 Support and Transition
   6.1  Transition Mechanisms
   7.   Mobility
   8.   Security
   8.1  Basic Architecture
   8.2  Security Protocols
   8.3  Transforms and Algorithms
   8.4  Key Management Methods
   9.   Router Functionality
   9.1  General
   10.  Network Management
   10.1 MIBs
   11.  Security Considerations
   12.  References
   12.1 Normative
   12.2 Non-Normative
   13.  Authors and Acknowledgements
   14.  Editor's Address
   Notices










Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 2]





Internet-Draft


1. Introduction

   The goal of this document is to define the common functionality
   required from both IPv6 hosts and routers.  Many IPv6 nodes will
   implement optional or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be
   expected to implement the mandatory requirements listed in this
   document.

   This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
   references RFCs for this purpose.  In case of any conflicting text,
   this document takes less precedence than the normative RFCs, unless
   additional clarifying text is included in this document.

   Although the document points to different specifications, it should
   be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
   smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
   multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.

   As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact
   usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
   that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle:

      Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
      others [RFC-793].

1.1 Requirement Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119].

1.2 Scope of this Document

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

   This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
   requirements specified here.

1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes

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

      Description of an IPv6 Node




Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 3]





Internet-Draft


       - a device that implements IPv6

      Description of an IPv6 router

       - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to
         itself.

      Description of an IPv6 Host

       - any node that is not a router.

2. Abbreviations Used in This Document

   ATM   Asynchronous Transfer Mode

   AH    Authentication Header

   DAD   Duplicate Address Detection

   ESP   Encapsulating Security Payload

   ICMP  Internet Control Message Protocol

   IKE   Internet Key Exchange

   MIB   Management Information Base

   MLD   Multicast Listener Discovery

   MTU   Maximum Transfer Unit

   NA    Neighbor Advertisement

   NBMA  Non-Broadcast Multiple Access

   ND    Neighbor Discovery

   NS    Neighbor Solicitation

   NUD   Neighbor Unreachability Detection

   PPP   Point-to-Point Protocol

   PVC   Permanent Virtual Circuit

   SVC   Switched Virtual Circuit

3. Sub-IP Layer



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 4]





Internet-Draft


   An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
   specifications.  Which link-layer specifications are included will
   depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available
   on the system.  It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support
   IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others.

   As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
   specifications will be issued.  This section highlights some major
   layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.

3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464

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

3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472

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

3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492

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

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

4. IP Layer

4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460

   The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This
   specification MUST be supported.

   Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
   extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460.

   The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.

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

   RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
   headers.



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 5]





Internet-Draft


      A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
      following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
      Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
      Security Payload. [RFC-2460]

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

4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461

   Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported.  RFC 2461 states:

      "Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating
      IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
      types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
      its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA
      links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those
      services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering
      the operation of IP over a particular link type).  The services
      described in this document that are not directly dependent on
      multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor
      Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as
      specified in this document.  The details of how one uses ND on
      NBMA links is an area for further study."

   Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:

   Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
   attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for
   implementations.

   Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
   that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
   Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. Neighbor
   Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths
   between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths
   between routers.  However, when a node receives a unicast Neighbor
   Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST
   respond to it (i.e. send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement).

   Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting
   link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take
   place on all unicast addresses).

   A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations.

   Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 6]





Internet-Draft


   host implementations. The ability to understand specific Router
   Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the specification
   where the RA is specified.

   Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor
   Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required
   for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).

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

4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size

4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981

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

4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675

   IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] MAY be supported.

4.4  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463

   ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported.

4.5 Addressing

4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513

   The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported.

4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462

   IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
   This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.

   Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses
   as described in RFC 2462 [RFC-2462].

   From 2462:

      The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
      only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
      information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
      configured by some other means. However, it is expected that



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 7]





Internet-Draft


      routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
      described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
      successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
      described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
      them to an interface.

   Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.

4.5.3 Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC3041

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

4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484

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

4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration

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

   Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be
   unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses
   when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed
   address configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised
   for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2).
   Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration
   information such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected
   to a link over which the node receives a router advertisement in
   which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") is set.

4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710

   Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
   [MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications, which only need
   support for Any- Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement
   MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications, which need
   support for Source- Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node
   MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2].




Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 8]





Internet-Draft


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

5. Transport Layer and DNS

5.1 Transport Layer

5.1.1 TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2147

   This specification MUST be supported if jumbograms are implemented
   [RFC- 2675].

5.2 DNS

   DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363]
   and [RFC-3596] MAY be supported.  Not all nodes will need to resolve
   names. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub-
   resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with
   support for:

    - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596];
    - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152];
    - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512
      octets.

   Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extentions
   [DNSSEC- INTRO], [DNSSEC-REC] and [DNSSEC-PROT].

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

5.2.2 Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's - RFC2732

   RFC 2732 MUST be supported if applications on the node use URL's.

5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315

5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration

   Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP
   to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
   receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as described
   in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.  In addition, in the absence of a
   router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment MUST
   initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration
   information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462.  Those IPv6
   nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M'



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                    [Page 9]





Internet-Draft


   flag in Router Advertisements.

5.3.2 Other Configuration Information

   Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration
   information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon
   receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described
   in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.  Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP
   for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router
   Advertisements.

   An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] to
   obtain other configuration information.

6. IPv4 Support and Transition

   IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.

6.1 Transition Mechanisms

6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893

   If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then RFC2893
   MUST be supported.

   RFC 2893 is currently being updated.

7. Mobile IP

   The Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] specification defines requirements for the
   following types of nodes:

       - mobile nodes
       - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
       - home agents
       - all IPv6 routers

   Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5
   of [MIPv6], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-2473]
   and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC].

   Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
   correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [MIPv6].

   Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for
   all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [MIPv6]. Routers MAY
   support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of
   [MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC].



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 10]





Internet-Draft


8. Security

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

8.1 Basic Architecture

   Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] MUST be
   supported. RFC-2401 is being updated by the IPsec Working Group.

8.2 Security Protocols

   ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported.
   RFC- 2406 and RFC 2402 are being updated by the IPsec Working Group.


8.3 Transforms and Algorithms

   Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of certain transforms and
   algorithms, NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96.
   The requirements for these are discussed first, and then additional
   algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed.

   NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing
   integrity service and also for debugging use.

   The "ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV" [RFC-2405] SHOULD
   NOT be supported. Security issues related to the use of DES are
   discussed in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. It is still listed as
   required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but as it is currently viewed as
   an inherently weak algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended
   role.

   The NULL authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be supported within
   ESP. The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within AH and ESP, described in [RFC-
   2404] MUST be supported. The use of HMAC-MD5-96 within AH and ESP,
   described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. An implementer MUST refer
   to Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104].

   3DES-CBC does not suffer from the issues related to DES-CBC. 3DES-CBC
   and ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] MAY be supported. AES-
   CBC Cipher Algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST be supported, as it is expected
   to be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for
   interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, but
   is expected to become required in the future.

   In addition to the above requirements, "Cryptographic Algorithm
   Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the
   current set of mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH as



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 11]





Internet-Draft


   well as specifying algorithms that should be implemented because they
   may be promoted to mandatory at some future time.  It is RECOMMENDED
   that IPv6 nodes conform to the requirements in this document.

8.4 Key Management Methods

   Manual keying MUST be supported.

   IKE [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast
   traffic. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or
   on- demand creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required,
   automated keying MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working
   on the successor to IKE [IKE2]. Key management methods for multicast
   traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG.

   "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the Internet Key Exchange
   Version 2" [IKEv2ALGO] defines the current set of mandatory to
   implement algorithms for use of IKEv2 as well as specifying
   algorithms that should be implemented because they made be promoted
   to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 nodes
   implementing IKEv2 conform to the requirements in this
   document.

9. Router-Specific Functionality

   This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
   act as routers.  Currently, this section does not discuss routing-
   specific requirements.

9.1 General

9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711


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

9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461

   Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
   be supported.

10. Network Management

   Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes.  However, for IPv6



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 12]





Internet-Draft


   nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
   possibility to control these nodes.

10.1 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)

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

10.1.1  IP Forwarding Table MIB

   IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-2096BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes
   that support an SNMP agent.

10.1.2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)

   IP MIB [RFC-2011BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
   SNMP agent.

11. Security Considerations

   This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but
   implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
   security features to ensure security on the Internet.  "IP Security
   Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read.

   The security considerations in RFC2460 describe the following:

      The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
      Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].

12. References

12.1 Normative

   [CRYPTREQ]     D. Eastlake 3rd, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementa-
                  tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec-
                  esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 2004.

   [IKEv2ALGO]    J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the
                  Internet Key Exchange Version 2", draft-ietf-ipsec-
                  ikev2-algorithms-04.txt, Work in Progress.

   [DHCPv6-SL]    R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6
                  Service", draft- ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt,
                  Work in Progress.

   [MIPv6]        J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support
                  in IPv6", draft- ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work in



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 13]





Internet-Draft


                  progress.

   [MIPv6-HASEC]  J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec
                  to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes
                  and Home Agents", draft-ietf- mobileip-mipv6-ha-
                  ipsec-06.txt, Work in Progress.

   [MLDv2]        Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version
                  2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-07.txt, Work in
                  Progress.

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

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

   [RFC-2096BIS]  Haberman, B. and Wasserman, M., "IP Forwarding Table
                  MIB", draft-ietf- ipv6-rfc2096-update-07.txt, Work in
                  Progress.

   [RFC-2011BIS]  Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the
                  Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-
                  update-07.txt, Work in progress.

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

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

   [RFC-2401]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for
                  the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

   [RFC-2402]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R.,  "IP Authentication
                  Header", RFC 2402, November 1998.

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

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

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

   [RFC-2406]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 14]





Internet-Draft


                  Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

   [RFC-2407]     Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
                  Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.

   [RFC-2408]     Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner,
                  J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management
                  Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.

   [RFC-2409]     Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key
                  Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

   [RFC-2463]     Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Pro-
                  tocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.

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

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

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

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

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




Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 15]





Internet-Draft


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

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

   [RFC-3315]     Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
                  for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC-3363]     Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver-
                  sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System
                  (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.

   [RFC-3484]     Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC
                  3484, February 2003.

   [RFC-3513]     Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
                  Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

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

   [RFC-3596]     Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP
                  version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003.

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

12.2 Non-Normative

   [ANYCAST]      Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast",
                  draft-ietf- ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt, Work in
                  Progress.

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

   [DESCRACK]     Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA 2000.
   
   [DESINT]       Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without
                  Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF, Danvers,
                  MA, April 1995.

   [DHCPv6-SL]    Droms, R., "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Ser-
                  vice", draft- ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt, Work in



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 16]





Internet-Draft


                  Progress.

   [DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose,
                  S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements" draft-
                  ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro- 06.txt, Work in Progress.

   [DNSSEC-REC]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose,
                  S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
                  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec- records-04.txt, Work in Pro-
                  gress.

   [DNSSEC-PROT]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose,
                  S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Exten-
                  sions", draft-ietf-dnsext- dnssec-protocol-02.txt, Work
                  in Progress.

   [IKE2]         Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto-
                  col", draft-ietf- ipsec-ikev2-10.txt, Work in Progress.
  
   [IPv6-RH]      P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
                  Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-
                  03.txt, Work in Progress, March 2002.

   [MC-THREAT]    Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu-
                  rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sympo-
                  sium on Network and Distributed System Security", Febru-
                  ary 1995, pp.2-16.

   [RFC-793]      Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
                  August 1980.

   [RFC-1034]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili-
                  ties", RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC-2147]     Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147,
                  May 1997.

   [RFC-2205]     Braden, B. (ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and
                  S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", RFC
                  2205, September 1997.

   [RFC-2464]     Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
                  Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998.

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

   [RFC-2675]     Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 17]





Internet-Draft


                  Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999.

   [RFC-2732]     R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
                  IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.

   [RFC-2851]     M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder,
                  "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC
                  2851, June 2000.

   [RFC-2893]     Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for
                  IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.

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

   [SSM-ARCH]     H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP",
                  draft-ietf- ssm-arch-03.txt, Work in Progress.

13. Authors and Acknowledgements

   This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:

      Jari Arkko
      [jari.arkko@ericsson.com]

      Marc Blanchet
      [marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca]

      Samita Chakrabarti
      [samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com]

      Alain Durand
      [alain.durand@sun.com]

      Gerard Gastaud
      [gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr]

      Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
      [itojun@iijlab.net]

      Atsushi Inoue
      [inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]

      Masahiro Ishiyama
      [masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]

      John Loughney
      [john.loughney@nokia.com]



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 18]





Internet-Draft


      Rajiv Raghunarayan
      [raraghun@cisco.com]

      Shoichi Sakane
      [shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com]

      Dave Thaler
      [dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]

      Juha Wiljakka
      [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]

   The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car-
   penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten,
   Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments.

14. Editor's Contact Information

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

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

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

Notices

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to per-
   tain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
   document or the extent to which any license under such rights might
   or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made
   any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the IETF's
   procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
   related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of claims of
   rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses
   to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a
   general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights
   by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from
   the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary



Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 19]





Internet-Draft


   rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.
















































Loughney (editor)          February 16, 2004                   [Page 20]