One document matched: draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-00.txt
Stuart Cheshire
Document: draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-00.txt Apple Computer
Expires 8th April 2001 8th October 2000
Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 link-local addresses
<draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-00.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
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
As the Internet Protocol continues to increase in popularity as a
global communication system, it becomes increasingly valuable to be
able to use familiar IP tools such as ftp for local communication as
well. For example, two people with laptop computers with built-in
wireless Ethernet may meet and wish to exchange files. It is
desirable for these people to be able to use IP application software
without the inconvenience of having to manually configure static IP
addresses or set up a DHCP [RFC 2131] server.
This document describes a method by which a host may automatically
configure an interface with an IPv4 address in the 169.254/16 range
that is valid for link-local communication on that interface. This
is especially valuable in environments where no other configuration
mechanism is available.
Autoconfiguration for IPv4 using 169.254/16 link-local addresses
has been implemented and shipped for years now for Macintosh and
Windows operating systems. This document defines the protocol
implemented by this important installed base. This document goes
further, however, and specifies how link-local configuration should
be used by hosts that support multi-homing (more than one active
interface and/or more than one active address per interface).
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 1]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
1. Introduction
As the Internet Protocol continues to increase in popularity as a
global communication system, it becomes increasingly valuable to be
able to use familiar IP tools such as ftp for local communication as
well. For example, two people with laptop computers with built-in
wireless Ethernet may meet and wish to transfer files. It is
desirable for these people to be able to use IP application software
without the inconvenience of having to manually configure static IP
addresses or set up a DHCP [RFC 2131] server.
This document describes a method by which a host may automatically
configure an interface with an IPv4 address in the 169.254/16 range
that is valid for link-local communication on that interface. This
is especially valuable in environments where no other configuration
mechanism is available. Allocation of link-local IPv6 addresses
is described in [RFC 2462].
Autoconfiguration for IPv4 using 169.254/16 link-local addresses
has been implemented and shipped for years now for Macintosh and
Windows operating systems. This document defines the protocol
implemented by this important installed base. This document goes
further, however, and specifies how link-local configuration should
be used by hosts that support multi-homing (more than one active
interface and/or more than one active address per interface).
Hosts using addresses in the 169.254/16 range MUST follow the rules
laid out in this document. This document will discuss claiming and
defending addresses, multihoming issues, and maintaining addresses of
link-local and global scope for the same interface.
1.1. Conventions Used in the Document
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].
This document avoids using the term 'global address' since the
considerations that apply to link-local adddresses in comparison to
global addresses also apply equally in comparison to other kinds of
addresses, such as Net 10/8 addresses, which are not global [RFC
1918]. This document uses the slightly awkward but more accurate term
'non-link-local address' when referring to any IPv4 address that has
larger scope than link-local.
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 2]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
1.2. Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................2
1.1 Terminology...................................................2
1.2 Table of Contents.............................................3
1.3 Issues with Autoconfiguration.................................3
1.4 Supporting Multiple Addresses per Interface...................3
1.5 Supporting Multiple Interfaces................................3
2. IPv4 Link-Local Address Selection, Defense and Delivery.......4
2.1 Selecting Link-Local Addresses................................4
2.2 Claiming Link-Local Addresses.................................4
2.3 Address Collision Detection and Address Defense...............5
2.4 Link-Local Addresses Are Not Forwarded........................6
3. Considerations for Single-Homed Hosts.........................7
4. Considerations for Multiple Addresses per Interface...........7
5. Considerations for Multiple Interfaces........................8
6. Considerations for Joining of Previously Separate Networks...11
7. Security Considerations......................................11
8. Acknowledgements.............................................11
9. Copyright....................................................12
10. References...................................................12
11. Author's Address.............................................13
1.3. Issues with Autoconfiguration
Implementations of IPv4 link-local adddress autoconfiguration MUST
expect address collisions, and MUST be prepared to handle them
gracefully by automatically selecting a new address whenever a
collision is detected, as described in Section 2. This requirement to
detect and handle address collisions applies during the entire period
that a host is using a 169.254/16 link-local address, not just during
some 'startup phase' of initial interface configuration.
1.4. Supporting Multiple Addresses per Interface
IPv4 link-local addresses are independent from any other IPv4
addresses that a host may have. Each interface on a host MAY have
a link-local address in addition to zero or more other addresses
configured by other means (e.g. manually or via a DHCP server).
The motivation for this new capability as well as its implications
are discussed in Section 4.
1.5. Supporting Multiple Interfaces
Hosts which support multi-homing have additional considerations if
they wish to use IPv4 link-local addresses on more than one interface
at a time. These are discussed in Section 5.
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 3]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
2. IPv4 Link-Local Address Selection, Defense and Delivery
The following section explains the link-local address selection
algorithm, how these addresses are defended and how IPv4 packets
with link-local addresses are delivered.
The rules presented in this section are compatible with the
protocol used by hosts which already implement IPv4 address
autoconfiguration.
2.1 Selecting Link-Local Addresses
When a host wishes to configure a link-local address, it selects an
address at random, uniformly distributed in the range 169.254.1.0 to
169.254.254.255. The IPv4 network 169.254/16 is registered with the
IANA for this purpose. The first 256 and last 256 addresses in this
network are reserved for future use and SHOULD NOT be selected by a
host using this dynamic configuration mechanism.
The random number generator algorithm should be chosen so that
different hosts do not generate the same sequence of random numbers.
Recommendations for random number generators can be found in
"Randomness Recommendations for Security" [RFC 1750]. If the host has
access to persistent information that is different for each host,
such as it's burned-in Ethernet hardware address, then the random
number generator SHOULD be seeded using a value derived from this
information. This means that even without using any other persistent
storage, a host will usually select the same link-local address each
time it is booted, which can be convenient for debugging and other
operational reasons. Seeding the random number generator using the
real-time clock is NOT suitable for this purpose, since a group of
hosts that are all powered on at the same time might then all
generate the same random sequence.
2.2 Claiming Link-Local Addresses
After it has selected an address, the host MUST test to see if the
address is already in use before beginning to use it. On a network
such as Ethernet that supports ARP, this test is done using ARP [RFC
826] probes. On link-layer network technologies that do not support
ARP there may be equivalent mechanisms for determining whether a
particular IP address is currently in use, but these kinds of network
are not discussed in this document.
The host tests to see if the address is already in use by
broadcasting an ARP request for the desired address. The client MUST
fill in its own hardware address as the sender's hardware address,
and all zeroes as the sender's IP address, to avoid polluting ARP
caches in other hosts on the same link in the case where the address
turns out to already be in use by another host. This ARP request with
a sender IP address of all zeroes is referred to as an "ARP probe".
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 4]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
The appropriate number of ARP probes and the interval between them
may be implementation-dependent. For Ethernet at 10Mb/s, 100Mb/s or
1Gb/s (henceforth referred to simply as 'Ethernet'), four probes with
a two-second interval is recommended. If the host receives an ARP
response indicating that the address is currently in use, then the
host should select a new address at random and repeat the process.
While waiting for a possible response to this request, the client
MUST also listen for other ARP probes for the same address
originating from other hosts. This will occur if two (or more) hosts
are by chance attempting to configure the same link-local address at
the same time. If the client receives a response to the ARP request,
or sees another ARP probe for the same IP address with another host's
hardware address, it MUST consider the IP address as being in use,
and move on.
A host SHOULD keep a counter of the number of address collisions it
has experienced in the process of trying to acquire an address, and
if the count becomes too high it should cease attempting to acquire
an address. This is to prevent infinite loops in pathological failure
cases. On Ethernet, fifty consecutive failed attempts should be
considered "too high".
After successfully configuring a link-local address, a host on
Ethernet SHOULD send two gratuitous ARPs, spaced two seconds apart,
this time filling in the sender IP address. The purpose of these
gratuitous ARPs is to make sure that other hosts on the net do not
have stale ARP cache entries left over from some other host that may
previously have been using the same address.
Hosts which are equipped with persistent storage should, for each
interface, record the IP address they have selected, and on the next
boot should use that address as their first candidate when probing.
This increases the stability of addresses. For example, if a group
of hosts on an isolated IPv4 network are powered off at night, then
when they are powered on the next morning they will all resume using
the same addresses, instead of all picking new random addresses and
potentially having to resolve conflicts which arise.
2.3 Address Collision Detection and Address Defense
Address collision detection is not limited to the address selection
phase, when the host is sending ARP probes and listening for replies.
Address collision detection is an ongoing process that is in effect
for as long as the host is using a link-local IPv4 address. At any
time, if a host receives an ARP packet with its own IP address given
as the sender IP address, but a sender hardware address that does not
match any of its own interface addresses, then the host MUST treat
this as an address collision and configure a new link-local IP
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 5]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
address as described above. This forced reconfiguration may be
disruptive, causing TCP connections to be broken. However, it is
expected that such disruptions will be rare, and if an inadvertent
address duplication happens, then disruption of communication is
inevitable, no matter how the addresses were assigned. It is not
possible for two different hosts using the same IP address on the
same network to operate reliably. Immediately configuring a new
address as soon as the conflict is detected is the best way to
restore useful communication as quickly as possible.
After successfully configuring a link-local address, all subsequent
ARP packets (replies as well as requests) containing a link-local
source address SHOULD be sent using link-level broadcast instead of
link-level unicast. This is important to enable timely detection of
duplicate addresses, as described above. As an alternative, a host
which cannot send broadcast ARP replies SHOULD send a unicast ARP
reply but then neglect to follow the instructions in RFC 826 about
recording sender information from received ARP requests. This means
that, having failed to record the sender information, the host is
likely to send a broadcast ARP request of its own shortly later,
which allows another host using the same IP address to detect the
conflict and respond to it.
2.4 Link-Local Addresses Are Not Forwarded
IPv4 datagrams whose source or destination addresses are in the
169.254/16 range MUST NOT be sent to any router for forwarding, and
any network device receiving such datagrams MUST NOT forward them.
This restriction also applies to multicast packets. IP datagrams with
a multicast destination address and a link-local source address
SHOULD NOT be forwarded off the local link. Similar considerations
apply at layers above IP. For example, DNS Resource Records
containing link-local address SHOULD NOT be sent to hosts outside the
link to which those link-local address apply. Similarly,
automatically generated web pages SHOULD NOT contain links with
embedded link-local addresses if those pages are viewable from hosts
outside the local link where the addresses are valid. Since DNS
treats Resource Record Sets [RFC 2181] as indivisible units (e.g. for
generating DNS reply packets, signatures, etc.) this means that
RRSets SHOULD only contain A records where all the addresses have the
same scope. Link-local and non-local addresses SHOULD NOT be mixed in a
single set.
The corollary of the non-forwarding rule is that hosts may assume
that all 169.254/16 destination addresses are on-link and directly
reachable. The 169.254/16 network may not be subnetted.
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 6]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
3. Considerations for Single-Homed Hosts
Some operating systems do not support a host having more than one
active IPv4 address at a time. These hosts may have one externally
configured (e.g. manual or DHCP) IP address, or one self-configured
link-local address, but not both at the same time.
These hosts should only configure a link-local address on their
interface when other means of configuring an address have failed. For
example, if a host is set to obtain its address via DHCP, then after
attempting to contact a DHCP server for a reasonable period of time
and failing, it may elect instead to configure a link-local address.
Having elected to configure a link-local address, these hosts MUST
continue attempting to contact a DHCP server by sending periodic DHCP
DISCOVER packets. The host has no way of knowing whether it is on a
network with no DHCP service, or on a network where the DHCP server
was temporarily inaccessible or unresponsive. If the host receives a
response to one of its periodic DHCP DISCOVER packets, then a host
which is incapable of supporting more than one IP address at a time
should immediately cease using its link-local address and revert
to normal DHCP processing to configure a server-assigned address.
Immediate cessation of use of the link-local address may break active
TCP connections with other link-local peers, possibly causing user
data loss. This is why it is extremely beneficial for a host, even
if it cannot support true multi-homing, to at least support multiple
IP addresses on a single physical interface, so that it may maintain
its link-local address in addition to other addresses configured
by other means such as DHCP.
All IPv6 hosts are required to be able to support multiple IPv6
addresses per interface.
4. Considerations for Multiple Addresses per Interface
There are several reasons why it is beneficial for a host to maintain
link-local addresses in addition to any other addresses it may have.
For example, a DHCP server may appear on a network where hosts
are already communicating using link-local addresses, and it is
beneficial for those already-established link-local TCP connections
to continue working even after the hosts have configured additional
larger-scoped addresses assigned by the DHCP server.
Another example is that there may be networks where not all of the
hosts have externally configured addresses. For example, a user with
a wireless home network may have a laptop computer and an IP printer.
The laptop computer may have both a self-configured link-local
address and a DHCP-configured global address. The printer, in
contrast, may have only a link-local address, because the user does
not want the printer to be globally addressable. In this case, the
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 7]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
laptop computer would access pages on the World Wide Web using its
globally-routable address to communicate with servers world-wide, but
print those web pages using its link-local address to communicate
with its local printer.
A host which has a both a link-local and one or more non-link-local
address assigned to a single interface requires additional
capabilities in order to select which source address to use to
communicate with a given destination address.
In the case where two hosts on the same link have both link-local
addresses and non-link-local addresses, they SHOULD prefer the
larger-scoped addresses when establishing new communications (e.g.
TCP connections) because their non-link-local addresses are likely to
remain stable whereas their link-local addresses could change over
time, as described in Section 2.
A host which has both a link-local address and another address with
larger scope, SHOULD NOT establish communications from a link-local
source address to a non-link-local destination address, or vice
versa. However, a host which has only one or other kind of address
MAY choose to use that address for communication with the other kind
of address on the same link. Thus a host with a link-local address
wishing to send a packet to another host on the same link with a
non-link-local address MAY use ARP on the link to find the hardware
address and send the packet directly to the destination host.
Likewise, a host with a non-link-local address wishing to send a
packet to a link-local destination address MAY use ARP and send the
packet directly to the destination host on that link. This allows a
host which has only a link-local address to communicate with another
host on the same link which has only a non-link-local address. This
also allows vendors of Network Address Translation gateways to
implement a gateway which issues proxy ARP replies for all non-local
addresses, and then appropriately translates all IP packets it
consequently receives to eliminate link-local source addresses before
forwarding them to the larger network. This document does not endorse
the use of NAT [NAT-ARCH] [NAT-PROT], but neither does it attempt to
prohibit it.
5. Considerations for Multiple Interfaces
A multi-homed host may elect to configure an IPv4 link-local address
on only one of its active interfaces. In many situations this will be
adequate. However, should a host wish to configure IPv4 link-local
addresses on more than one of its active interfaces, there are some
additional precautions it should take. Implementers who are not
planning to support IPv4 link-local addresses on more than one
interface at a time may skip this section.
A multi-homed host MUST NOT forward IP datagrams it receives that
have source or destination addresses in the 169.254/16 range.
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 8]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
A multi-homed host should ensure that all of its links are configured
with different link-local addresses. If the random number generator
selects an address which is already in use on one of the host's other
interfaces, then another address should be selected.
A multi-homed host should also probe for, and defend, all of its
link-local addresses on all of its active interfaces that are using
link-local addresses. When bringing up a new interface, the host
should first probe for all of its existing link-local addresses on
that new interface. If any of the addresses are found to be in use
already on the new link, then the interfaces in question must be
reconfigured to select new unique link-local addresses. The host
should then select a link-local address for the new interface, and
probe on all of its active interfaces to verify that the address is
unique. This uniqueness requirement is in order to simplify host
application software, which typically identifies connections using
source and destination IP addresses, not interface names. Since
link-local addresses are only unique per-link, hosts on different
links could be using the same link-local address. By requiring
uniqueness of source addresses on the multi-homed host, this ensures
that TCP connections to hosts using the same link-local destination
addresses on different links can be disambiguated by their different
source addresses. Note that this also requires that the multi-homed
host using link-local addresses on multiple interfaces MUST implement
the "strong end system" model [RFC 1122] for packets going to
link-local destination addresses, so that packets are only sent out
from the interface that matches the source address in the packet.
(The "weak end system" model may still be used for packets to other
destination addresses.)
When a multi-homed host receives an ARP packet on a particular
interface with a source IP address equal to one of the host's
addresses, it should be silently discarded and not considered a
collision if the source hardware address matches the hardware address
of *any* of the host's active interfaces. This is because a user of a
multi-homed host with two Ethernet interfaces may connect both
interfaces to the same Ethernet hub, in which case the two interfaces
will see each other's packets, and the host could erroneously
conclude that all its addresses were in conflict if it did not check
and realize that the apparently conflicting ARP packets were coming
from itself. Another common example is a host with both wired and
wireless Ethernet interfaces, in an environment where a wireless
gateway is available, but (perhaps unknown to the user) is bridged
onto the same wired Ethernet.
Figure 1 shows a network topology where host A has an interface on
link X with link-local address P, and another interface on link Y
with link-local address Q. If we allowed there to be another host, B,
on link X which also has address Q, then when host A sends a UDP
packet from source address P to destination address Q, it is
ambiguous whether A intends to talk to itself, or to host B. By
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 9]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
ensuring that all of a host's link-local addresses are distinct not
only from each other, but also from all addresses currently active on
all links that the host is connected to, we remove this ambiguity.
| |
| P ----- Q |
|-----| A |-----|
| ----- |
X | | Y
| |
----- | |
| B |-----| |
----- Q | |
| |
Figure 1. Ambiguous addressing
Note that it is acceptable for different hosts on different links to
be using the same link-local address on their respective separate
links. Figure 2 shows a network topology where host C on link X is
using address R, while at the same time, host D on link Y is also
using address R. This is entirely in keeping with the concept of
link-local addresses. Link-local addresses are only unique amongst
the member hosts of a single link. Hosts C and D are not on the same
link, hence there is no requirement for them to have distinct
addresses. Note that in this case, host A is still able to
communicate with both hosts C and D, because a packet sent from
source address P to destination address R travels on link X to host
C, and a packet sent from source address Q to destination address R
travels on link Y to host D. TCP connections are uniquely identified
by the source and destination addresses and port numbers, not just by
the destination address and port number alone. To support link-local
addressing on multiple interfaces simultaneously, the network
software API must allow applications to bind endpoints to a desired
source address as well as specifying the desired destination address
for a TCP connection. Networking implementations that only allow the
destination address to be specified should limit themselves to
configuring only one interface for link-local addressing.
| |
| P ----- Q |
|-----| A |-----|
| ----- |
X | | Y
| |
----- | | -----
| C |-----| |-----| D |
----- R | | R -----
| |
Figure 2. Acceptable addressing
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 10]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
6. Considerations for Joining of Previously Separate Networks
Hosts on disjoint network links may unknowingly configure the same
link-local addresses. If these separate network links are later
joined or bridged together, then there may be two hosts which are now
on the same link, trying to use the same address. When either host
attempts to communicate with any other host on the network, it will
at some point broadcast an ARP packet which will enable the hosts in
question to detect that there is a duplicate address.
If a host receives an ARP packet with its own IP address given as the
sender IP address, but a different sender hardware address, then the
host must treat this as an address collision and configure a new
link-local IP address as described in Section 2 above.
This forced reconfiguration may be disruptive, causing TCP
connections to be broken. However, it is expected that such
disruptions will be rare. It should be relatively uncommon for
networks to be joined while hosts on those networks are active. Also,
65024 addresses are available for link-local use, so even when two
small networks are joined, the chance of collision for any given host
is fairly small. When joining two large networks there is a greater
chance of collision, but large networks are not expected to rely
heavily on link-local addresses for normal communication. Large
networks are better managed by using existing mechanisms such as DHCP
servers to allocate addresses.
7. Security Considerations
The use of this functionality may open a network host to new attacks.
In particular, a host that previously did not have an IP address, and
no IP stack running, was not susceptible to IP-based attacks. By
configuring a working address, the host may now be vulnerable to
IP-based attacks.
The ARP protocol [RFC 826] is insecure. A malicious host may send
fraudulent ARP packets on the network, interfering with the correct
operation of other hosts. For example, it is easy for a host to
answer all ARP requests with responses giving its own hardware
address, thereby claiming ownership of every address on the network.
8. Acknowledgements
I'd like to thank (in alphabetical order) Donald Eastlake 3rd, Peter
Ford, Erik Guttman, Myron Hattig, Richard Johnson, Thomas Narten,
Daniel Senie, Ryan Troll, and Valery Smyslov for their contributions.
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 11]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
9. Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society 8th March 2000.
All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
10. References
[RFC 826] D. Plummer, "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol -or-
Converting Network Addresses to 48-bit Ethernet Address
for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37, RFC 826,
November 1982.
[RFC 1122] R. Braden, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Communication Layers", RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC 1750] D. Eastlake 3rd, S. Crocker and J. Schiller, "Randomness
Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994.
[RFC 1918] Y. Rekhter et.al., "Address Allocation for Private
Internets", RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC 2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2131] R. Droms, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 12]
Internet Draft IPv4 Link-Local Addresses 8th October 2000
[RFC 2181] R. Elz and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[RFC 2462] S. Thomson and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[NAT-ARCH] Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", Work in
Progress.
[NAT-PROT] Holdrege, M. and P. Srisuresh, "Protocol Complications
with the IP Network Address Translator (NAT)", Work in
Progress.
11. Author's Address
Stuart Cheshire
Apple Computer, Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino
California 95014
USA
Phone: +1 408 974 3207
EMail: rfc@stuartcheshire.org
Expires 8th April 2001 Cheshire [Page 13]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:28:55 |