draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-21.txt   draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22.txt 
Network Working Group F. Templin Network Working Group F. Templin
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
Expires: October 16, 2004 T. Gleeson May 26, 2004 T. Gleeson
Cisco Systems K.K. Expires: November 26, 2004 Cisco Systems K.K.
M. Talwar M. Talwar
D. Thaler D. Thaler
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
April 16, 2004
Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)
draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-21.txt draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
of Section 10 of RFC2026. patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 16, 2004. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2004.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
The Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) connects The Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) connects
IPv6 hosts/routers over IPv4 networks. ISATAP views the IPv4 network IPv6 hosts/routers over IPv4 networks. ISATAP views the IPv4 network
as a link layer for IPv6 and views other nodes on the network as as a link layer for IPv6 and views other nodes on the network as
potential IPv6 hosts/routers. ISATAP supports an automatic tunneling potential IPv6 hosts/routers. ISATAP supports an automatic tunneling
abstraction similar to the Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access (NBMA) abstraction similar to the Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA)
model. model.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies a simple mechanism called the Intra-Site This document specifies a simple mechanism called the Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) that connects IPv6 Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) that connects IPv6
hosts/routers over IPv4 networks. Dual-stack (IPv6/IPv4) nodes use hosts/routers over IPv4 networks. Dual-stack (IPv6/IPv4) nodes use
ISATAP to automatically tunnel IPv6 packets in IPv4, i.e., ISATAP ISATAP to automatically tunnel IPv6 packets in IPv4, i.e., ISATAP
views the IPv4 network as a link layer for IPv6 and views other nodes views the IPv4 network as a link layer for IPv6 and views other nodes
on the network as potential IPv6 hosts/routers. on the network as potential IPv6 hosts/routers.
ISATAP enables automatic tunneling whether global or private IPv4 ISATAP enables automatic tunneling whether global or private IPv4
addresses are used, and presents a Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access addresses are used, and presents a Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
(NBMA) abstraction similar to [RFC2491][RFC2492][RFC2529][RFC3056]. (NBMA) abstraction similar to [RFC2491][RFC2492][RFC2529][RFC3056].
The main objectives of this document are to: 1) describe the domain The main objectives of this document are to: 1) describe the domain
of applicability, 2) specify addressing requirements, 3) specify of applicability, 2) specify addressing requirements, 3) specify
automatic tunneling using ISATAP, 4) specify the operation of IPv6 automatic tunneling using ISATAP, 4) specify the operation of IPv6
Neighbor Discovery over ISATAP interfaces, and 5) discuss Site Neighbor Discovery over ISATAP interfaces, and 5) discuss Site
Administration, Security and IANA considerations. Administration, Security and IANA considerations.
2. Requirements 2. Requirements
skipping to change at page 2, line 48 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
The terminology of [RFC2460][RFC2461] applies to this document. The The terminology of [RFC2460][RFC2461] applies to this document. The
following additional terms are defined: following additional terms are defined:
ISATAP node: ISATAP node:
a node that implements the specifications in this document. a node that implements the specifications in this document.
ISATAP interface: ISATAP interface:
an ISATAP node's point-to-multipoint IPv6 interface used for an ISATAP node's non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA) IPv6 interface
automatic tunneling of IPv6 packets in IPv4. used for automatic tunneling of IPv6 packets in IPv4.
ISATAP interface identifier: ISATAP interface identifier:
an IPv6 interface identifier with an embedded IPv4 address an IPv6 interface identifier with an embedded IPv4 address
constructed as specified in section 6.1. constructed as specified in section 6.1.
ISATAP address: ISATAP address:
an IPv6 unicast address that matches an on-link prefix on an an IPv6 unicast address that matches an on-link prefix on an
ISATAP interface of the node, and includes an ISATAP interface ISATAP interface of the node, and includes an ISATAP interface
identifier. identifier.
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 4, line 42
locator SHOULD be removed from its associated locator set(s). When a locator SHOULD be removed from its associated locator set(s). When a
new IPv4 address is assigned to an interface, the corresponding new IPv4 address is assigned to an interface, the corresponding
locator MAY be added to the appropriate locator set(s). locator MAY be added to the appropriate locator set(s).
ISATAP interfaces form ISATAP interface identifiers from IPv4 ISATAP interfaces form ISATAP interface identifiers from IPv4
addresses in their locator set and use them to create link-local addresses in their locator set and use them to create link-local
ISATAP addresses ([RFC2462], section 5.3). ISATAP addresses ([RFC2462], section 5.3).
6.3 Multicast/Anycast 6.3 Multicast/Anycast
ISATAP interfaces recognize a node's required IPv6 multicast/anycast It is not possible to assume the general availability of wide-area
addresses ([RFC3513], section 2.8). IPv4 multicast, so (unlike 6over4 [RFC2529]) ISATAP must assume only
unicast capability in its underlying IPv4 carrier network. Support
for IPv6 multicast over ISATAP interfaces is not described in this
document.
Similarly, support for Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses is not
described in this document.
7. Automatic Tunneling 7. Automatic Tunneling
ISATAP interfaces use the basic tunneling mechanisms specified in ISATAP interfaces use the basic tunneling mechanisms specified in
([MECH], section 3). The following additional specifications are also ([MECH], section 3). The following additional specifications are also
used: used:
7.1 Handling ICMPv4 Errors 7.1 Encapsulation
ISATAP addresses are mapped to a link-layer address by a static
computation, i.e., the last four octets are treated as an IPv4
address.
7.2 Handling ICMPv4 Errors
ISATAP interfaces SHOULD process ARP failures and persistent ICMPv4 ISATAP interfaces SHOULD process ARP failures and persistent ICMPv4
errors as link-specific information indicating that a path to a errors as link-specific information indicating that a path to a
neighbor may have failed ([RFC2461], section 7.3.3). neighbor may have failed ([RFC2461], section 7.3.3).
7.2 Decapsulation 7.3 Decapsulation
The specification in ([MECH], section 3.6) is used. Additionally, The specification in ([MECH], section 3.6) is used. Additionally,
when an ISATAP node receives an IPv4 protocol 41 datagram that does when an ISATAP node receives an IPv4 protocol 41 datagram that does
not belong to a configured tunnel interface, it determines whether not belong to a configured tunnel interface, it determines whether
the packet's IPv4 destination address and arrival interface match a the packet's IPv4 destination address and arrival interface match a
locator configured in an ISATAP interface's locator set. locator configured in an ISATAP interface's locator set.
If an ISATAP interface that configures a matching locator is found, If an ISATAP interface that configures a matching locator is found,
the decapsulator MUST verify that the packet's IPv4 source address is the decapsulator MUST verify that the packet's IPv4 source address is
correct for the encapsulated IPv6 source address. The IPv4 source correct for the encapsulated IPv6 source address. The IPv4 source
skipping to change at page 5, line 34 skipping to change at page 5, line 46
- the IPv6 source address is an ISATAP address that embeds the - the IPv6 source address is an ISATAP address that embeds the
IPv4 source address in its interface identifier, or: IPv4 source address in its interface identifier, or:
- the IPv4 source address is a member of the Potential Router - the IPv4 source address is a member of the Potential Router
List (see: section 8.1). List (see: section 8.1).
Packets for which the IPv4 source address is incorrect for this Packets for which the IPv4 source address is incorrect for this
ISATAP interface are checked to determine whether they belong to ISATAP interface are checked to determine whether they belong to
another tunnel interface. another tunnel interface.
7.3 Link-Local Addresses 7.4 Link-Local Addresses
ISATAP interfaces use link local addresses constructed as specified ISATAP interfaces use link local addresses constructed as specified
in section 6 of this document. in section 6 of this document.
7.4 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels 7.5 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels
ISATAP interfaces use the specifications for neighbor discovery found ISATAP interfaces use the specifications for neighbor discovery found
in the following section of this document. in the following section of this document.
8. Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces 8. Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces
ISATAP nodes use the neighbor discovery mechanisms specified in ISATAP interfaces use the neighbor discovery mechanisms specified in
[RFC2461] to create/change neighbor cache entries. ISATAP interfaces [RFC2461] and also implement the following specifications:
also implement the following specifications:
8.1 Conceptual Model Of A Host 8.1 Conceptual Model Of A Host
To the list of Conceptual Data Structures ([RFC2461], section 5.1), To the list of Conceptual Data Structures ([RFC2461], section 5.1),
ISATAP interfaces add: ISATAP interfaces add:
Potential Router List (PRL) Potential Router List (PRL)
A set of entries about potential routers; used to support router A set of entries about potential routers; used to support router
and prefix discovery. Each entry ("PRL(i)") has an associated and prefix discovery. Each entry ("PRL(i)") has an associated
timer ("TIMER(i)"), and an IPv4 address ("V4ADDR(i)") that timer ("TIMER(i)"), and an IPv4 address ("V4ADDR(i)") that
skipping to change at page 7, line 18 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
discovered via manual configuration, a DNS fully-qualified domain discovered via manual configuration, a DNS fully-qualified domain
name (FQDN) [STD13], a DHCPv4 option, a DHCPv4 vendor-specific name (FQDN) [STD13], a DHCPv4 option, a DHCPv4 vendor-specific
option, or an unspecified alternate method. FQDNs are established via option, or an unspecified alternate method. FQDNs are established via
manual configuration or an unspecified alternate method. FQDNs are manual configuration or an unspecified alternate method. FQDNs are
resolved into IPv4 addresses through a static host file lookup, resolved into IPv4 addresses through a static host file lookup,
querying the DNS service, querying a site-specific name service, or querying the DNS service, querying a site-specific name service, or
an unspecified alternate method. an unspecified alternate method.
After initializing an ISATAP interface's PRL, the node sets a timer After initializing an ISATAP interface's PRL, the node sets a timer
for the interface to PrlRefreshInterval seconds and re-initializes for the interface to PrlRefreshInterval seconds and re-initializes
the interface's PRL as specified above when the timer expires. When a the interface's PRL as specified above when the timer expires. When
FQDN is used, and when it is resolved via a service that includes an FQDN is used, and when it is resolved via a service that includes
TTLs with the IPv4 addresses returned (e.g., DNS 'A' resource records TTLs with the IPv4 addresses returned (e.g., DNS 'A' resource records
[STD13]), the timer SHOULD be set to the minimum of [STD13]), the timer SHOULD be set to the minimum of
PrlRefreshInterval and the minimum TTL returned. (Zero-valued TTLs PrlRefreshInterval and the minimum TTL returned. (Zero-valued TTLs
are interpreted to mean that the PRL is re-initialized before each are interpreted to mean that the PRL is re-initialized before each
Router Solicitation event - see: section 8.3.4). Router Solicitation event - see: section 8.3.4).
8.3.3 Processing Received Router Advertisements 8.3.3 Processing Received Router Advertisements
To the list of checks for validating Router Advertisement messages To the list of checks for validating Router Advertisement messages
([RFC2461], section 6.1.1), ISATAP interfaces add: ([RFC2461], section 6.1.1), ISATAP interfaces add:
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 10
Since unsolicited Router Advertisements may be incomplete and/or Since unsolicited Router Advertisements may be incomplete and/or
absent, ISATAP nodes MAY schedule periodic Router Solicitation events absent, ISATAP nodes MAY schedule periodic Router Solicitation events
for certain PRL(i)'s by setting the corresponding TIMER(i). for certain PRL(i)'s by setting the corresponding TIMER(i).
When periodic Router Solicitation events are scheduled, the node When periodic Router Solicitation events are scheduled, the node
SHOULD set TIMER(i) such that the next event will refresh remaining SHOULD set TIMER(i) such that the next event will refresh remaining
lifetimes stored for PRL(i) before they expire, including the Router lifetimes stored for PRL(i) before they expire, including the Router
Lifetime, Valid Lifetimes received in Prefix Information Options, and Lifetime, Valid Lifetimes received in Prefix Information Options, and
Route Lifetimes received in Route Information Options [DEFLT]. Route Lifetimes received in Route Information Options [DEFLT].
TIMER(i) MUST be set to no less than MinRouterSolicitInterval seconds TIMER(i) MUST be set to no less than MinRouterSolicitInterval seconds
where MinRouterSolicitInterval is configurable for the node, or for a where MinRouterSolicitInterval is configurable for the node, or for a
specific PRL(i), with a conservative default value (e.g. 2 minutes). specific PRL(i), with a conservative default value (e.g., 2 minutes).
When TIMER(i) expires, the node sends Router Solicitation messages as When TIMER(i) expires, the node sends Router Solicitation messages as
specified in ([RFC2461], section 6.3.7) except that the messages are specified in ([RFC2461], section 6.3.7) except that the messages are
sent directly to PRL(i), i.e., they might not be received by other sent directly to PRL(i), i.e., they might not be received by other
routers. While the node continues to require periodic Router routers. While the node continues to require periodic Router
Solicitation events for PRL(i), and while PRL(i) continues to act as Solicitation events for PRL(i), and while PRL(i) continues to act as
a router, the node resets TIMER(i) after each expiration event as a router, the node resets TIMER(i) after each expiration event as
described above. described above.
8.4 Address Resolution 8.4 Neighbor Unreachability Detection
The specification in ([RFC2461], section 7.2) is used. ISATAP
addresses for which the neighbor's link-layer address cannot
otherwise be determined (e.g., from a neighbor cache entry) are
resolved to link-layer addresses by a static computation, i.e., the
last four octets are treated as an IPv4 address.
Hosts SHOULD perform an initial reachability confirmation by sending
Neighbor Solicitation message(s) and receiving a Neighbor
Advertisement message. Routers MAY perform this initial reachability
confirmation, but this might not scale in all environments.
8.5 Neighbor Unreachability Detection
Hosts SHOULD perform Neighbor Unreachability Detection ([RFC2461], Hosts SHOULD perform Neighbor Unreachability Detection ([RFC2461],
section 7.3). Routers MAY perform neighbor unreachability detection, section 7.3). Routers MAY perform neighbor unreachability detection,
but this might not scale in all environments. but this might not scale in all environments.
After address resolution, hosts SHOULD perform an initial
reachability confirmation by sending Neighbor Solicitation message(s)
and receiving a Neighbor Advertisement message. Routers MAY perform
this initial reachability confirmation, but this might not scale in
all environments.
9. Site Administration Considerations 9. Site Administration Considerations
Site administrators maintain a Potential Router List (PRL) of IPv4 Site administrators maintain a Potential Router List (PRL) of IPv4
addresses representing advertising ISATAP interfaces of routers. addresses representing advertising ISATAP interfaces of routers.
The PRL is commonly maintained as a FQDN for the ISATAP service in The PRL is commonly maintained as an FQDN for the ISATAP service in
the site's name service (see: section 8.3.2). There are no mandatory the site's name service (see: section 8.3.2). There are no mandatory
rules for the selection of the FQDN, but site administrators are rules for the selection of the FQDN, but site administrators are
encouraged to use the convention "isatap.domainname" (e.g., encouraged to use the convention "isatap.domainname" (e.g.,
isatap.example.com). isatap.example.com).
When the site's name service includes TTLs with the IPv4 addresses When the site's name service includes TTLs with the IPv4 addresses
returned, site administrators SHOULD configure the TTLs with returned, site administrators SHOULD configure the TTLs with
conservative values to minimize control traffic. conservative values to minimize control traffic.
10. Security considerations 10. Security considerations
skipping to change at page 9, line 19 skipping to change at page 9, line 19
Use of IP security at both IPv4 and IPv6 levels should nevertheless Use of IP security at both IPv4 and IPv6 levels should nevertheless
be avoided, for efficiency reasons. For example, if IPv6 is running be avoided, for efficiency reasons. For example, if IPv6 is running
encrypted, encryption of IPv4 would be redundant except if traffic encrypted, encryption of IPv4 would be redundant except if traffic
analysis is felt to be a threat. If IPv6 is running authenticated, analysis is felt to be a threat. If IPv6 is running authenticated,
then authentication of IPv4 will add little. Conversely, IPv4 then authentication of IPv4 will add little. Conversely, IPv4
security will not protect IPv6 traffic once it leaves the ISATAP security will not protect IPv6 traffic once it leaves the ISATAP
domain. Therefore, implementing IPv6 security is required even if domain. Therefore, implementing IPv6 security is required even if
IPv4 security is available. IPv4 security is available.
The threats associated with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery are described in The threats associated with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery are described in
[SENDPS]. [RFC3756].
There is a possible spoofing attack in which spurious ip-protocol-41 There is a possible spoofing attack in which spurious ip-protocol-41
packets are injected into an ISATAP link from outside. Since an packets are injected into an ISATAP link from outside. Since an
ISATAP link spans an entire IPv4 site, restricting access to the link ISATAP link spans an entire IPv4 site, restricting access to the link
can be achieved by restricting access to the site, i.e., by having can be achieved by restricting access to the site, i.e., by having
site border routers implement IPv4 ingress filtering and site border routers implement IPv4 ingress filtering and
ip-protocol-41 filtering. ip-protocol-41 filtering.
Another possible spoofing attack involves spurious ip-protocol-41 Another possible spoofing attack involves spurious ip-protocol-41
packets injected from within an ISATAP link by a node pretending to packets injected from within an ISATAP link by a node pretending to
skipping to change at page 10, line 22 skipping to change at page 10, line 22
Office of Naval Research). SRI International sponsors include Dr. Office of Naval Research). SRI International sponsors include Dr.
Mike Frankel, J. Peter Marcotullio, Lou Rodriguez, and Dr. Ambatipudi Mike Frankel, J. Peter Marcotullio, Lou Rodriguez, and Dr. Ambatipudi
Sastry. Sastry.
The following are acknowledged for providing peer review input: Jim The following are acknowledged for providing peer review input: Jim
Bound, Rich Draves, Cyndi Jung, Ambatipudi Sastry, Aaron Schrader, Bound, Rich Draves, Cyndi Jung, Ambatipudi Sastry, Aaron Schrader,
Ole Troan, Vlad Yasevich. Ole Troan, Vlad Yasevich.
The following are acknowledged for their significant contributions: The following are acknowledged for their significant contributions:
Alain Durand, Hannu Flinck, Jason Goldschmidt, Nathan Lutchansky, Alain Durand, Hannu Flinck, Jason Goldschmidt, Nathan Lutchansky,
Karen Nielsen, Mohan Parthasarathy, Chirayu Patel, Art Shelest, Pekka Karen Nielsen, Mohan Parthasarathy, Chirayu Patel, Art Shelest,
Savola, Margaret Wasserman, Brian Zill. Markku Savela, Pekka Savola, Margaret Wasserman, Brian Zill.
The authors acknowledge the work of Quang Nguyen on "Virtual The authors acknowledge the work of Quang Nguyen on "Virtual
Ethernet" under the guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang that proposed very Ethernet" under the guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang that proposed very
similar ideas to those that appear in this document. This work was similar ideas to those that appear in this document. This work was
first brought to the authors' attention on September 20, 2002. first brought to the authors' attention on September 20, 2002.
Appendix A. Major Changes since version 20: Appendix A. Major Changes
Changes since version 21:
- incorporated proposed text from ISATAP Issue Tracker
issues 14, 22, 23
- revised section 6.3 to follow RFC 3056 precedent
- editorial changes
Changes since version 20:
- moved extensions into separate document. - moved extensions into separate document.
- added Site Administration Considerations section. - added Site Administration Considerations section.
- updated neighbor discovery, IANA considerations, security - updated neighbor discovery, IANA considerations, security
considerations sections to match widely-deployed implementations. considerations sections to match widely-deployed implementations.
Appendix B. Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet Address Block Appendix B. Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet Address Block
Modified EUI-64 addresses ([RFC3513], section 2.5.1 and Appendix A) Modified EUI-64 addresses ([RFC3513], section 2.5.1 and Appendix A)
in the IANA Ethernet Address Block are formed by concatenating the in the IANA Ethernet Address Block are formed by concatenating the
24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E) with a 40-bit extension identifier and 24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E) with a 40-bit extension identifier and
inverting the "u" bit, i.e., the "u" bit is set to one (1) to inverting the "u" bit, i.e., the "u" bit is set to one (1) to
indicate universal scope and it is set to zero (0) to indicate local indicate universal scope and it is set to zero (0) to indicate local
scope. scope.
Modified EUI-64 addresses have following appearance in memory (bits Modified EUI-64 addresses have the following appearance in memory
transmitted right-to-left within octets, octets transmitted left-to- (bits transmitted right-to-left within octets, octets transmitted
right): left-to-right):
0 23 63 0 23 63
| OUI | extension identifier | | OUI | extension identifier |
000000ug00000000 01011110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 000000ug00000000 01011110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When the first two octets of the extension identifier encode the When the first two octets of the extension identifier encode the
hexadecimal value 0xFFFE, the remainder of the extension identifier hexadecimal value 0xFFFE, the remainder of the extension identifier
encodes a 24-bit vendor-supplied id as follows: encodes a 24-bit vendor-supplied id as follows:
0 23 39 63 0 23 39 63
skipping to change at page 11, line 49 skipping to change at page 11, line 49
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and [STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery [RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December
1998.
[RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address [RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 [RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
[MECH] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms [MECH] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2, Work in for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2,
Progress, January 2004. Work in Progress, January 2004.
Informative References Informative References
[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M. and G. Harter, "IPv6 [RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M. and G. Harter, "IPv6
over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC 2491, over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC
January 1999. 2491, January 1999.
[RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P. and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P. and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.
[RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 [RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999. Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.
[RFC3041] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless [RFC3041] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for
Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041,
January 2001.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J. and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May
2004.
[CGA] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", [CGA] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
draft-ietf-send-cga, Work in Progress, February 2004. draft-ietf-send-cga, Work in Progress, February 2004.
[DEFLT] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and [DEFLT] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection, Work in More-Specific Routes", draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection,
Progress, December 2003. Work in Progress, December 2003.
[NODEREQ] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", draft-ietf-ipv6-node-
requirements, Work in Progress, January 2004.
[SENDPS] Nikander, P., Kempf, J. and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor [NODEREQ] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements",
Discovery Trust Models and Threats", draft-ietf-send-psreq, Work in draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements,
Progress, October 2003. Work in Progress, May 2004.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fred L. Templin Fred L. Templin
Nokia Nokia
313 Fairchild Drive 313 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, CA 94110 Mountain View, CA 94110
US US
Phone: +1 650 625 2331 Phone: +1 650 625 2331
skipping to change at page 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 13, line 45
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399 Redmond, WA 98052-6399
US US
Phone: +1 425 703 8835 Phone: +1 425 703 8835
EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and except as to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
that may cover technology that may be required to implement this rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/