diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt | 1200 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1200 deletions
diff --git a/contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt b/contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2d5c87e..0000000 --- a/contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1200 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -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] - - |
