One document matched: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- You want a table of contents -->
<!-- ?rfc symrefs="yes" ?-->
<!-- Uncomment this if you want symbolic labels for references -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<!-- This sorts the references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<!-- Change to "yes" if someone has disclosed IPR for the draft -->
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02.txt" ipr="full3978">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<front>
<title>IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis</title>
<author fullname="John Loughney" initials="J" surname="Loughney">
<organization>Nokia</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>955 Page Mill Road</street>
<city>Palo Alto</city>
<code>94303</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 650 283 8068</phone>
<email>john.loughney@nokia.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2008" />
<workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Requirements Language">
<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>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 this document summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track documents in
one place.</t>
<t>This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and references RFCs for this purpose.
This document is informational in nature and does not update Standards Track RFCs.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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:</t>
<t>Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others
<xref target='RFC0793' />.</t>
<section title="Scope of This Document">
<t> 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
to ensure interoperability. </t>
<t>This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum requirements specified here.</t>
</section>
<section title="Description of IPv6 Nodes">
<t>From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification <xref target='RFC2460' />, we have
the following definitions:</t>
<t> Description of an IPv6 Node</t>
<t> - a device that implements IPv6.</t>
<t> Description of an IPv6 router</t>
<t> - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to itself.</t>
<t> Description of an IPv6 Host</t>
<t> - any node that is not a router.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Abbreviations Used in This Document">
<t><list style='hanging'>
<t>ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode</t>
<t>AH Authentication Header</t>
<t>DAD Duplicate Address Detection</t>
<t>ESP Encapsulating Security Payload</t>
<t>ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol</t>
<t>IKE Internet Key Exchange</t>
<t>MIB Management Information Base</t>
<t>MLD Multicast Listener Discovery</t>
<t>MTU Maximum Transfer Unit</t>
<t>NA Neighbor Advertisement</t>
<t>NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access</t>
<t>ND Neighbor Discovery</t>
<t>NS Neighbor Solicitation</t>
<t>NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection</t>
<t>PPP Point-to-Point Protocol</t>
<t>PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit</t>
<t>SVC Switched Virtual Circuit</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Sub-IP Layer">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<section title="Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC 2464">
<t>Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over Ethernet Networks <xref target='RFC2464' />.</t>
</section>
<section title="IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 5072">
<t>Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP <xref target='RFC5072' />.</t>
</section>
<section title="IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492">
<t>Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM Networks
<xref target='RFC2492' />. Additionally, RFC 2492 states:</t>
<t><list style='hanging'>
<t>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.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="IP Layer">
<section title="Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460">
<t>The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in <xref target='RFC2460' />. This specification
MUST be supported.</t>
<t>Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options extensions MUST be
processed as described in RFC 2460.</t>
<t>The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.</t>
<t>Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment headers. All
conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of sending and receiving IPv6 packets;
the forwarding functionality MAY be supported.</t>
<t>RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these headers.</t>
<t>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 <xref target='RFC2460' />.</t>
<t>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' that they cause.</t>
</section>
<section title="Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861">
<t>Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. <xref target='RFC4861' /> states:</t>
<t><list style='hanging'>
<t>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.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:</t>
<t>Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an attached link. Router Discovery
MUST be supported for implementations.</t>
<t>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).</t>
<t>Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting link-layer multicast
(RFC 4862, Section 5.4, specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses).</t>
<t>A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations.</t>
<t>Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for host implementations.
The ability to understand specific Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the
specification where the RA is specified.</t>
<t>Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) MUST be
supported. NS and NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).</t>
<t>Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router, Redirect functionality
MUST be supported.</t>
</section>
<section title="Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size">
<section title="Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981">
<t>Path MTU Discovery <xref target='RFC1981' /> 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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675">
<t>IPv6 Jumbograms <xref target='RFC2675' /> MAY be supported.</t>
</section>
<section title="ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443">
<t>ICMPv6 <xref target='RFC4443' /> MUST be supported.</t>
</section>
<section title="Addressing">
<section title="IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291">
<t>The IPv6 Addressing Architecture <xref target='RFC4291' /> MUST be supported.</t>
</section>
<section title="IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862">
<t>IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in <xref target='RFC4862' />. This
specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts. Static address can be supported as well.</t>
<t>Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses as described in RFC 4862
<xref target='RFC4862' />.</t>
<t>From 4862:</t>
<t><list style='hanging'>
<t>The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies only to hosts and not
routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses information advertised by routers, routers will
need to be configured by some other means. However, it is expected that routers will generate
link-local addresses using the mechanism described in this document. In addition, routers are
expected to successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure described in this
document on all addresses prior to assigning them to an interface.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.</t>
</section>
<section title="Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941">
<t>Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration <xref target='RFC4941' />
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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484">
<t>The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
<xref target='RFC3484' /> document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes
will need to deal with multiple addresses.</t>
</section>
<section title="Stateful Address Autoconfiguration">
<t>Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' />
is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see Section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support.</t>
<t>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 that 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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710">
<t> Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 <xref target='RFC3590' />. MLDv1 is
needed by any node that is expected to receive and process
multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used on most
link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and requires
that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses.</t>
<t>Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 <xref target='RFC3810' />.
However, if the node has applications that only need support for Any-Source Multicast
<xref target='RFC3569' />, the node MAY implement MLDv1 <xref target='RFC2710' /> instead.
If the node has applications that need support for Source-Specific Multicast <xref target='RFC3569' />,
<xref target='RFC4607' />, the node MUST support MLDv2 <xref target='RFC3810' />. In all
cases, nodes are strongly encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than
MLDv1, as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link
requires that all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatability mode.</t>
<t>When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener
Discovery (MLD) Protocol <xref target='RFC3590' /> MUST be followed.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="DNS and DHCP">
<section title="DNS">
<t>DNS is described in <xref target='RFC1034' />, <xref target='RFC1035' />,
<xref target='RFC3363' />, and <xref target='RFC3596' />. Not all nodes will need to resolve names;
those that will never need to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality.
However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure capability that applications rely
on and generally needs to be supported. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement
stub-resolver <xref target='RFC1034' /> functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support
for:</t>
<t><list style='hanging'>
<t> - AAAA type Resource Records <xref target='RFC3596' />;</t>
<t> - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records <xref target='RFC3596' />;</t>
<t> - EDNS0 <xref target='RFC2671' /> to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 octets.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions <xref target='RFC4033' />,
<xref target='RFC4034' />, and <xref target='RFC4035' />.</t>
<t>Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 Resource Records
<xref target='RFC3363' />.</t>
</section>
<section title="Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315">
<section title="5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration">
<t>The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment can obtain IPv6 addresses
and other configuration information upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'M' flag set
is described in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862.</t>
<t>In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment
MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information, as described in
Section 5.5.2 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore
the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements.</t>
</section>
<section title="Other Configuration Information">
<t>The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration information can obtain
other configuration information upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'O' flag set is
described in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862.</t>
<t>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 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for other configuration
information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router Advertisements.</t>
<t>An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in <xref target='RFC3736' />) to
obtain other configuration information.</t>
</section>
<section title="Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments">
<t>Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) are expected to
determine their default router information and on-link prefix information from received
Router Advertisements.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="IPv4 Support and Transition">
<t>IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.</t>
<section title="Transition Mechanisms">
<section title="Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 2893">
<t>If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then <xref target='RFC4213' /> MUST
be supported.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Mobile IP">
<t>The Mobile IPv6 <xref target='RFC3775' /> specification defines requirements for the following
types of nodes:</t>
<t><list style='hanging'>
<t> - mobile nodes</t>
<t> - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization</t>
<t> - home agents</t>
<t> - all IPv6 routers</t>
</list></t>
<t>Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5 of <xref target='RFC3775' />,
including support of generic packet tunneling <xref target='RFC2473' /> and secure home agent
communications <xref target='RFC3776' />.</t>
<t>Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for correspondent nodes described in
Section 8.2 of <xref target='RFC3775' />.</t>
<t>Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for all IPv6 routers described
in Section 8.3 of <xref target='RFC3775' />. Routers MAY support the home agent functionality
described in Section 8.4 of <xref target='RFC3775' />, including support of <xref target='RFC2473' />
and <xref target='RFC3776' />.</t>
</section>
<section title="Security">
<t>This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.</t>
<section title="Basic Architecture">
<t>Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol <xref target='RFC4301' /> MUST be supported.</t>
</section>
<section title="Security Protocols">
<t>ESP <xref target='RFC4303' /> MUST be supported. AH <xref target='RFC4302' /> MAY be supported.</t>
</section>
<section title="Transforms and Algorithms">
<t>Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms for use with AH and ESP:
NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96. However, 'Cryptographic Algorithm
Implementation Requirements For ESP and AH' <xref target='RFC4835' /> contains the current set
of mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies algorithms that should be
implemented because they are likely to be promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes
SHOULD conform to the requirements in <xref target='RFC4835' />, as well as the requirements
specified below.</t>
<t>Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support for the NULL encryption
algorithm <xref target='RFC2410' /> and the NULL authentication algorithm <xref target='RFC4303' />
MUST be provided to maintain consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However, while
authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT both be NULL. The NULL encryption
algorithm is also useful for debugging.</t>
<t>The DES-CBC encryption algorithm <xref target='RFC2405' /> SHOULD NOT be supported within ESP.
Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed in 'DESDIFF', 'DESINT', and 'DESCRACK'.
DES-CBC is still listed as required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will be
published in the near future. DES provides 56 bits of protection, which is no longer considered
sufficient.</t>
<t>The use of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm <xref target='RFC2404' /> within AH and ESP MUST be supported.
The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm <xref target='RFC2403' /> within AH and ESP MAY also be
supported.</t>
<t>The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm <xref target='RFC2451' /> does not suffer from the same security
issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm within ESP MUST be supported to ensure
interoperability.</t>
<t>The AES-128-CBC algorithm <xref target='RFC3602' /> MUST also be supported within ESP. AES-128 is
expected to be a widely available, secure, and efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required
by the current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future.</t>
</section>
<section title="Key Management Methods">
<t>An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the security key and SPI. The
SPI configuration is needed in order to delineate between multiple keys.</t>
<t>Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management systems include IKEv2
<xref target='RFC4306' /> and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include key management functions.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Router-Specific Functionality">
<t>This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that act as routers. Currently,
this section does not discuss routing-specific requirements.</t>
<section title="General">
<section title="IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711">
<t>The IPv6 Router Alert Option <xref target='RFC2711' /> is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Header
that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP <xref target='RFC2205' /> or MLD
<xref target='RFC2710' />). The Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols
that mandate its usage are implemented. See Section 4.6.</t>
</section>
<section title="Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861">
<t>Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST be supported.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Network Management">
<t>Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 nodes that are embedded
devices, network management may be the only possible way of controlling these nodes.</t>
<section title="Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)">
<t>The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent.</t>
<section title="IP Forwarding Table MIB">
<t>IP Forwarding Table MIB <xref target='RFC4292' /> SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent.</t>
</section>
<section title="Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)">
<t>IP MIB <xref target='RFC4293' /> SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>This document 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' <xref target='RFC2411' /> is important for everyone to read.</t>
<t>The security considerations in RFC 2460 state the following:</t>
<t>The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol <xref target='RFC2401' />.</t>
<t>RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for the security features of IPv6.</t>
</section>
<section title="Authors and Acknowledgements">
<t>This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:</t>
<t><list style='hanging'>
<t>Jari Arkko</t>
<t>jari.arkko@ericsson.com</t>
<t>Marc Blanchet</t>
<t>marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca</t>
<t>Samita Chakrabarti</t>
<t>samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com</t>
<t>Alain Durand</t>
<t>alain.durand@sun.com</t>
<t>Gerard Gastaud</t>
<t>gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr</t>
<t>Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino</t>
<t>itojun@iijlab.net</t>
<t>Atsushi Inoue</t>
<t>inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp</t>
<t>Masahiro Ishiyama</t>
<t>masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp</t>
<t>John Loughney</t>
<t>john.loughney@nokia.com</t>
<t>Rajiv Raghunarayan</t>
<t>raraghun@cisco.com</t>
<t>Shoichi Sakane</t>
<t>shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com</t>
<t>Dave Thaler</t>
<t>dthaler@windows.microsoft.com</t>
<t>Juha Wiljakka</t>
<t>juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com</t>
</list></t>
<t>The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter, Ralph Droms,
Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments.
Thanks to Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to Alfred Hoenes for tracking
the updates to various RFCs.</t>
</section>
<section title="Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294">
<t>This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294</t>
<t>1. Section 5.1, removed "and DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363.</t>
<t>2. RFC 2463 references updated to RFC 4443.</t>
<t>3. RFC 3513 references updated to RFC 4291.</t>
<t>4. RFC 3152 refrrences updated to RFC 3596.</t>
<t>5. RFC 2893 references updated to RFC 4213.</t>
<t>6. AH [RFC-4302] support chanced from MUST to MAY.</t>
<t>7. The reference for RFC 3152 has been deleted, as the RFC has been obsoleted, and has been incorporated into RFC 3596.</t>
<t>8. The reference for RFC 3879 has been reomved as the material from RFC 3879 has been incorporated into RFC 4291.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1035" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1981" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2401" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2403" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2404" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2405" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2410" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2411" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2451" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2460" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2473" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2671" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2710" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2711" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3315" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3363" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3484" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3590" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3596" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3602" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3775" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3776" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3810" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4291" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4292" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4293" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4301" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4302" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4303" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4443" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4607" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4861" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4862" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4835" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4941" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5072" ?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.0793" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1034" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2205" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2464" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2492" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2675" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3569" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3736" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4033" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4034" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4035" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4213" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4306" ?>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:38:00 |