view Side-By-Side changes

Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Expires: August 15, October 16, 2004                                     T. Gleeson
                                                      Cisco Systems K.K.
                                                               M. Talwar
                                                               D. Thaler
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                       February
                                                          April 16, 2004



        Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)
                    draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-20.txt
                    draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-21.txt


Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to 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.


   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, October 16, 2004.


Copyright Notice


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.


Abstract


   The Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) connects
   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
   potential IPv6 hosts/routers. ISATAP supports an automatic tunneling and
   a tunnel interface management
   abstraction similar to the Non-
   Broadcast, Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access (NBMA) and ATM Permanent/Switched Virtual
   Circuit (PVC/SVC) models.
   model.





Templin, et al.         Expires August 15, October 16, 2004                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  ISATAP Conceptual Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Node Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Addressing Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Configuration and Management Requirements  . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Automatic Tunneling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   10. Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   12. IAB Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   13. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   A.  Major Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   B.  The IPv6 Minimum MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   C.  Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet Address Block . 24
   D.  Proposed ICMPv6 Code Field Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 29




























Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February                       April 2004



1. Introduction


   This document specifies a simple mechanism called the Intra-Site
   Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) that connects IPv6
   [RFC2460]
   hosts/routers over IPv4 [STD5] networks. Dual-stack (IPv6/IPv4) nodes use
   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
   on the network as potential IPv6 hosts/routers.


   ISATAP enables automatic tunneling whether global or private IPv4
   addresses are used, and supports presents a tunnel interface management
   abstraction similar to the Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access
   (NBMA)
   [RFC2491] and ATM Permanent/Switched Virtual Circuit (PVC/SVC)
   [RFC2492] models. abstraction similar to [RFC2491][RFC2492][RFC2529][RFC3056].


   The main objectives of this document are to: 1) describe the ISATAP
   conceptual model, domain
   of applicability, 2) specify addressing requirements, 3) discuss
   configuration and management requirements, 4) specify
   automatic tunneling using ISATAP, 5) 4) specify operational aspects the operation of IPv6
   Neighbor Discovery, Discovery over ISATAP interfaces, and 6) 5) discuss IANA and Site
   Administration, Security and IANA considerations.

   This document surveys all IETF v6ops WG documents current up to
   February 16, 2004.


2. Requirements


   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
   document, are to be interpreted as described in [BCP14].


   This document also makes use of internal conceptual variables to
   describe protocol behavior and external variables that an
   implementation must allow system administrators to change. The
   specific variable names, how their values change, and how their
   settings influence protocol behavior are provided to demonstrate
   protocol behavior. An implementation is not required to have them in
   the exact form described here, so long as its external behavior is
   consistent with that described in this document.


3. Terminology


   The terminology of [STD3][RFC2460][RFC2461][RFC3582] [RFC2460][RFC2461] applies to this document. The
   following additional terms are defined:


   ISATAP node:
      a node that implements the specifications in this document.





Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   ISATAP daemon:
      an ISATAP node's server application that uses an API for control
      plane signaling and tunnel interface configuration/management.

   ISATAP driver:
      an ISATAP node's network module that provides an API for control
      plane signaling and tunnel interface configuration/management.
      Also provides a packet encapsulation/decapsulation engine, and an
      embedded gateway function (see: [STD3], section 3.3.4.2).

   logical interface:
      an IPv6 address or a configured tunnel interface associated with
      an ISATAP interface (see: [STD3], section 3.3.4.1).


   ISATAP interface:
      an ISATAP node's point-to-multipoint IPv6 interface that provides a
      control plane interface used for the
      automatic tunneling of IPv6 packets in IPv4.







Templin, et al.         Expires October 16, 2004                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP daemon and a forwarding
      plane nexus for its associated logical interfaces.                       April 2004



   ISATAP interface identifier:
      an IPv6 interface identifier with an embedded IPv4 address
      constructed as specified in section 6.1.


   ISATAP address:
      an IPv6 unicast address assigned that matches an on-link prefix on an
      ISATAP interface with an
      on-link prefix of the node, and includes an ISATAP interface
      identifier.


   locator:
      an IPv4 address-to-interface mapping, i.e., a node's IPv4 address
      and the index for it's its associated interface.


   locator set:
      a set of locators associated with a tunnel an ISATAP interface, where each
      locator in the set belongs to the same site.

















Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


4. ISATAP Conceptual Model

   ISATAP interfaces are advertising IPv6 interfaces that provide a
   point-to-multipoint abstraction for IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling.  They
   provide a forwarding plane nexus (used by the ISATAP driver) for
   their associated logical interfaces. They also provide a control
   plane interface (used by the ISATAP daemon) for tunnel configuration
   signaling.

   The ISATAP driver encapsulates packets for transmission according to
   parameters associated with its logical interfaces. It also determines
   the correct interface to receive each tunneled packet after
   decapsulation, and provides an embedded gateway function.

   The ISATAP daemon configures and manages tunnels via an API provided
   by the ISATAP driver. Each such configured tunnel provides a nexus
   for multiple applications using IPv6 addresses as application
   identifiers.  Each such application identifier provides a nexus for
   multiple sessions.  In summary, each configured tunnel provides a
   point-to-point connection between peers that can support multiple
   applications and multiple instances of each application.






























Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   The following example diagram depicts the ISATAP conceptual model:

                     <-- IPv6-enabled applications -->
      +----+  +---------------------------------------------+
      |I  D|  |                  IPv6 Stack                 |
      |S  a|  |                                             |
      |A  e|  |            <-- IPv6 addresses -->           |
      |T  m|  | +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+     +--+ |
      |A  o|  | |v6| |v6| |v6| |v6| |v6| |v6| |v6| ... |v6| |
      |P  n|  | +--+ +-++ ++-+ ++-+ ++++ ++-+ +-++     +-++ |
      +-+--+  +---/---/----|----|---/-|--|-\----|--------|--+
        |        /   /     |    |  /  |  |  \   |        |    <----+
        x       /   /      |    | /   |  |   \  |        |      I  |
               /   /    +--++  +++-+  +--++  ++-++     +-+-+    S  |
              /   /     |tun|  |tun|  |tun|  |tun| ... |tun|    A  |
             /   /      +-+-+  +--++  +-+-+  ++--+     +-+-+    T  |
            /   /         |        \    |    /           |      A  |
      x    /   /   x      |     x   \   |   /   x        |      P  |
      |   /   /    |      |     |    \  |  /    |        |         |
      +--+---+---+ +------+---+ +-----+-+-++    +--------+-+    D  |
      |ISATAP I/F| |ISATAP I/F| |ISATAP I/F| .. |ISATAP I/F|    r  |
      | (site 1) | | (site 1) | | (site 3) |    | (site n) |    i  |
      +---+----+++ +-++-----+-+ +-+-----+-++    +------+---+    v  |
          |    | \  / |     |     |     |  \           |        e  |
          |    |  \/  |     |     |     |   \          |        r  |
          |    |  /\  |     |     |     |    \         |      <----+
      +---|----|-/--\-|-----|-----|-----|-----\ -------|---+
      | +-+-+ +++-+ +++-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +--++    +-+-+ |
      | |loc| |loc| |loc| |loc| |loc| |loc| |loc| .. |loc| |
      | +-+-+ +--++ +---+ +---+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+    +-+-+ |
      |   |     /  /     /         \    |    /        /    |
      |   |    /  / +---+           \   |   /        /     |
      |   |   /  / /                 \  |  /        /      |
      |   |  /  / /       IPv4 Stack  \ | /        /       |
      +-+-+-+--+-+--+--------+--+------+++------+-+------+-+
        |IPv4 I/F|  |IPv4 I/F|  |IPv4 I/F| .... |IPv4 I/F|
        |(site 1)|  |(site 2)|  |(site 3)|      |(site n)|
        +--------+  +--------+  +--------+      +--------+


5. Node Requirements

   ISATAP nodes observe the common functionality requirements in
   [NODEREQ] and the DNS requirements in ([MECH], section 2.2). They
   also implement the additional features specified in this document.






Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


6. Addressing Requirements

   ISATAP nodes implement the addressing requirements found in
   ([NODEREQ], section 4.5). [RFC2462][RFC3484][ADDR] MUST be supported,
   and [RFC3041] SHOULD be supported (configurable on a per-connection
   basis).

6.1 ISATAP Interface Identifiers

   ISATAP interface identifiers are constructed in Modified EUI-64
   format ([ADDR], appendix A). They are formed by concatenating the
   24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E), the 8-bit hexadecimal value 0xFE, and a
   32-bit IPv4 address in network byte order.

   The format for ISATAP interface identifiers is given below (where 'u'
   is the IEEE universal/local bit, 'g' is the IEEE group/individual
   bit, and the 'm' bits represent the concatenated IPv4 address):

   |0              1|1              3|3              4|4              6|
   |0              5|6              1|2              7|8              3|
   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
   |000000ug00000000|0101111011111110|mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm|mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm|
   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

   When the IPv4 address is known to be globally unique, the 'u' bit is
   set to 1; otherwise, the 'u' bit is set to 0 ([ADDR], section 2.5.1).
   See: Appendix C for additional non-normative details.

6.2 ISATAP Addresses

   Any IPv6 unicast address ([ADDR], section 2.5) that contains an
   ISATAP interface identifier constructed as specified in section 6.1
   and an on-link prefix on an ISATAP interface is considered an ISATAP
   address.

6.3 Multicast/Anycast

   ISATAP interfaces recognize a node's required IPv6 multicast/anycast
   addresses ([ADDR], section 2.8).

   For IPv6 multicast addresses of interest to local applications,
   ISATAP nodes join the corresponding Organization-Local Scope IPv4
   multicast groups ([RFC2529], section 6) on each interface that
   appears in an ISATAP interface's locator set (see: section 7.2).

   IPv6 multicast addresses of interest include a node's required
   multicast addresses, and may also include e.g, the
   'All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers' and 'All_DHCP_Servers' multicast



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   addresses (i.e., if the node is configured as a DHCPv6 server
   [RFC3315][RFC3633]), etc.

   Considerations for IPv6 anycast appear in [ANYCAST].

6.4 Source/Target Link Layer Address Options

   Source/Target Link Layer Address Options ([RFC2461], section 4.6.1)
   for ISATAP have the following format:

    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+
    | Type  |Length |   0   |   0   |        IPv4 Address            |
    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+

   Type:
      1 for Source Link-layer address.  2 for Target Link-layer address.

   Length:
      1 (in units of 8 octets).

   IPv4 Address:
      A 32 bit IPv4 address, in network byte order.

   ISATAP nodes use the specifications in ([MECH], section 3.8) that
   pertain to sending and receiving Source/Target Link Layer Address
   Options.

7. Configuration and Management Requirements

7.1 Network Management

   This document defines no new MIB tables, nor extensions to any
   existing MIB tables. Objects found in [FTMIB][IPMIB][TUNMIB] are
   supported as described in the following subsections.

7.2 The ifRcvAddressTable

   The ISATAP driver maintains ifRcvAddressTable as a bidirectional
   association of locators with tunnel interfaces. Each locator in the
   table includes an IPv4 address-to-interface mapping (i.e., an IPv4
   ipAddressEntry in the node's ipAddressTable) and a list of associated
   tunnel interfaces. Each tunnel interface in the table has a
   tunnelIfEntry and a list of associated locators, i.e., a "locator
   set".

   The ISATAP driver implements the following conceptual functions to
   manage and search the ifRcvAddressTable:




Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


7.2.1 RcvTableAdd(locator, tunnel_interface)

   Creates a bidirectional association in the ifRcvAddressTable between
   the locator and tunnel interface, i.e., adds the locator to the
   tunnel interface's locator set and adds the tunnel interface to the
   locator's association list.

   Returns success or failure.

7.2.2 RcvTableDel(locator, tunnel_interface)

   Deletes ifRcvAddressTable entries according to the locator and tunnel
   interface arguments as follows:

   -  if both arguments are NULL, garbage-collects the entire table.

   -  if both arguments are non-NULL, deletes the locator from the
      tunnel interface's locator set and deletes the tunnel interface
      from the locator's association list.

   -  if the locator is non-NULL and tunnel interface is NULL, deletes
      the locator from the locator sets of all tunnel interfaces.

   -  if the locator is NULL and the tunnel interface is non-NULL,
      deletes the tunnel interface from the association lists of all
      locators.

   Returns success or failure.

7.2.3 RcvTableLocate(packet)

   Searches the ifRcvAddressTable to locate the correct tunnel interface
   to decapsulate a packet. First, determines the locator that matches
   the packet's IPv4 destination address and ifIndex for the interface
   the packet arrived on. Next, checks each tunnel interface in the
   locator's association list for exact matches of tunnelIfEncapsMethod
   with the packet's encapsulation type and tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress
   with the packet's IPv4 source address.

   If there is no match on the packet's IPv4 source address, a tunnel
   interface with a matching tunnelIfEncapsMethod and with
   tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress set to 0.0.0.0 is selected. If there are
   multiple matches, a tunnel interface with tunnelIfLocalInetAddress
   that matches the packet's IPv4 destination address is preferred.

   Returns a pointer to a tunnel interface if a match is found; else
   NULL.




Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


7.3 ISATAP Driver API

   The ISATAP driver implements an API used by, e.g., the ISATAP daemon,
   startup scripts, manual command line entry, kernel processes, etc.
   Access MUST be restricted to privileged users and applications.
   ISATAP nodes implement the basic and advanced APIs for IPv6
   [RFC3493][RFC3542].

7.4 ISATAP Interface Creation/Configuration

   ISATAP interfaces are created via the tunnelIfConfigTable, which
   results in simultaneous creation of a tunnelIfEntry and a companion
   ipv6InterfaceEntry. Each ISATAP interface configures a locator set,
   where each locator in the set represents an IPv4 address-to-interface
   mapping for the same site (or, represents a mapping that is routable
   on the global Internet). ISATAP interfaces MUST NOT configure a
   locator set that spans multiple sites.

   ISATAP interfaces configure the following values for objects in
   tunnelIfEntry:

   -  tunnelIfEncapsMethod is set to an IANATunnelType for "isatap".

   -  tunnelIfLocalInetAddress is set to an IPv4 address from the
      interface's locator set.

   -  tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress is set to 0.0.0.0 to denote wildcard
      match for remote tunnel endpoints.

   -  other read-write objects in the tunnelIfEntry are configured as
      for any tunnel interface.

   ISATAP interfaces are configured as advertising IPv6 interfaces and
   set the following values for objects in ipv6InterfaceEntry:

   -  ipv6InterfaceType is set to "tunnel".

   -  ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress is set to an octet string of zero
      length to indicate that this IPv6 interface does not have a
      physical address.

   -  ipv6InterfaceForwarding and ip6Forwarding for the node are set to
      "forwarding".

   -  other read-write objects in ipv6InterfaceEntry are configured as
      for any IPv6 interface.

   ISATAP interfaces create an ipv6RouterAdvertEntry and set its



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   ipv6RouterAdvertIfIndex object to the same value as
   ipv6InterfaceIfIndex. Other objects in ipv6RouterAdvertEntry are
   configured as for any IPv6 router.

7.5 Configured Tunnel Creation/Configuration

   Configured tunnels are normally created by the ISATAP daemon in
   dynamic response to a tunnel creation request as an ISATAP
   interface's associated logical interface; they inherit the locator
   set of their associated ISATAP interface. Configured tunnels set the
   following values for objects in tunnelIfEntry:

   -  tunnelIfEncapsMethod is set to an appropriate IANATunnelType
      value.

   -  tunnelIfLocalInetAddress is set to an IPv4 address from the
      interface's locator set.

   -  tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress is set to an IPv4 address for the node
      at the far end of the tunnel.

   -  other read-write objects in the tunnelIfEntry are configured as
      for any tunnel interface.

   Configured tunnels set values for objects in ipv6InterfaceEntry as
   follows:

   -  ipv6InterfaceType is set to "tunnel".

   -  ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress is set to an octet string of zero
      length to indicate that this IPv6 interface does not have a
      physical address.

   -  other read-write objects in ipv6InterfaceEntry are configured as
      for any IPv6 interface.

7.6 Reconfigurations Due to IPv4 Address Changes

   When an IPv4 address is removed from an interface, its corresponding
   locator SHOULD be removed from all locator sets via
   RcvTableDel(locator, NULL); tunnelIfEntrys that used the IPv4 address
   as tunnelIfLocalInetAddress SHOULD also configure a different local
   IPv4 address from their remaining locator set.

   When a new IPv4 address is added to an IPv4 interface, the node MAY
   add the corresponding new locator to a tunnel interface's locator set
   via RcvTableAdd(locator, tunnel_interface), and MAY also set
   tunnelIfLocalInetAddress for its tunnelIfEntry to the new address.



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   Methods for triggering the above changes are out of scope.

8. Automatic Tunneling

   ISATAP nodes use the basic tunneling mechanisms specified in [MECH].
   The following additional specifications are also used:

8.1 Encapsulation

   The ISATAP driver encapsulates IPv6 packets using various
   encapsulation methods, including ip-protocol-41 (e.g., 6over4
   [RFC2529], 6to4 [RFC3056], IPv6-in-IPv4 configured tunnels [MECH],
   isatap, etc.), UDP [STD6] port 3544, and others.

   Security processing (e.g., [RFC2402][RFC2406], etc.), upper layer
   fragmentation [RFC3542] and header compression for the packet's inner
   headers are performed prior to encapsulation.

8.1.1 NAT Traversal

   Native IPv6 and/or ip-protocol-41 encapsulation provides sufficient
   functionality to support communications between peers that reside
   within the same site (i.e., the same enterprise network). When the
   remote peer is in a different site, NAT traversal via UDP/IPv4
   encapsulation MAY be necessary.

   When an ISATAP node determines that NAT traversal is necessary to
   reach a particular peer, it encapsulates IPv6 packets using UDP/IPv4
   port 3544 encapsulation. This determination may come through, e.g.,
   first attempting communications via ip-protocol-41 then failing over
   to UDP/IPv4 port 3544 encapsulation, administrative knowledge that a
   NAT is on the path, etc.

8.1.2 Multicast

   ISATAP interfaces encapsulate packets with IPv6 multicast destination
   addresses using a mapped Organization-Local Scope IPv4 multicast
   address ([RFC2529], section 6) as the destination address in the
   encapsulating IPv4 header.












Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


8.2 Tunnel MTU and Fragmentation

   Encapsulated packets sent by the ISATAP driver may require host-based
   IPv4 fragmentation in order to satisfy the 1280 byte IPv6 minimum
   MTU, e.g., when the underlying link has a small IPv4 MTU [BCP48].
   While this intentional fragmentation is not considered harmful,
   unmitigated IPv4 fragmentation caused by the network can cause poor
   performance [FRAG].  For example, since the minimum IPv4 fragment
   size is only 8 bytes [STD5], a single 1280 byte encapsulated packet
   could be shredded by the network into as many as 160 IPv4 fragments
   with obvious negative performance implications.

   ISATAP uses the MTU and fragmentation specifications in ([MECH],
   section 3.2) and the Maximum Reassembly Unit (MRU) specifications in
   ([MECH], section 3.6), which provide sufficient measures for avoiding
   excessive IPv4 fragmentation in certain controlled environments
   (e.g., 3GPP operator networks, enterprise networks, etc). To minimize
   IPv4 fragmentation and improve performance in general use case
   scenarios, ISATAP nodes SHOULD add the following simple
   instrumentation to the IPv4 reassembly cache:

   When the initial fragment of an encapsulated packet arrives, the
   packet's IPv4 reassembly timer is set to 1 second (i.e., the worst
   case store-and-forward delay budget for a 1280 byte packet). If an
   encapsulated packet's IPv4 reassembly timer expires:

   -  If enough contiguous leading bytes of the packet have arrived
      (see: section 8.6), reassemble the packet using zero-filled or
      heuristically-chosen replacement data bytes in place of any
      missing fragments. (Otherwise, garbage-collect the reassembly
      buffer and return from processing.)

   -  Mark the packet as "INCOMPLETE", and also mark it with an
      "ACTUAL_BYTES" length that encodes the actual number of data bytes
      in fragments that arrived.

   -  Deliver the packet to the ISATAP driver, and do not send an ICMPv4
      "time exceeded" message [STD5].

   Appendix B provides informative text on the derivation of the 1280
   byte IPv6 minimum MTU.

8.3 Handling ICMPv4 Errors

   ISATAP interfaces SHOULD process ARP failures and persistent ICMPv4
   errors as link-specific information indicating that a path to a
   neighbor may have failed ([RFC2461], section 7.3.3).




Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


8.4 Link-Local Addresses

   ISATAP interfaces use link local addresses constructed as specified
   in section 6.1


4. Domain of this document.

8.5 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels Applicability


   The domain of applicability for this technical specification in ([MECH], section 3.8) is used; the additional
   specification for neighbor discovery in section 9
   automatic tunneling of this document
   are also used.

8.6 Decapsulation/Filtering

   ISATAP nodes typically arrange for the ISATAP driver to receive all
   IPv4-encapsulated IPv6 packets that are addressed to one of the
   node's in IPv4 addresses. Examples include ip-protocol-41 (e.g., 6to4,
   6over4, configured tunnels, isatap, etc.), UDP/IPv4 port 3544, and
   others.  The for ISATAP driver uses nodes within
   sites that observe the decapsulation and filtering
   specifications Security Considerations found in ([MECH], section 3.6), and processes each packet
   according to the following steps:

   1.  Locate the correct tunnel interface to receive the packet (see:
       section 7.2.3). If not found, silently discard the packet this
   document, including host-to-router, router-to-host, and
       return from processing.

   2.  If the tunnel uses header compression, reconstitute headers.  If
       header reconstitution fails, silently discard the packet host-to-host
   automatic tunneling in certain enterprise networks and
       return from processing.

   3.  Verify that the packet's IPv4 source address is correct for 3GPP/3GPP2
   wireless operator networks. (Other scenarios with sufficient trust
   basis ensured by the
       encapsulated IPv6 source address. For packets received on a
       configured tunnel interface, verification is exactly as mechanisms specified in ([MECH], section 3.6).

       For packets received on an ISATAP interface, the IPv4 source
       address is correct if:

       - this document also fall
   within this domain of applicability.)


   Extensions to the IPv6 source address is an ISATAP address that embeds above domain of applicability (e.g., by combining
   the
          IPv4 source address mechanisms in its interface identifier, or:

       -  the IPv6 source address is the address this document with other technical specifications)
   are out of an IPv6 neighbor on
          an scope.


5. Node Requirements


   ISATAP interface associated with the locator that matched
          the packet (see: section 7.2.3), or:

       - nodes observe the IPv4 source address is a member of common functionality requirements for IPv6
   nodes found in [NODEREQ] and the Potential Router
          List (see: requirements for dual IP layer
   operation found in ([MECH], section 9.1).

       If the IPv4 source address is incorrect, silently discard 2). They also implement the
   additional features specified in this document.














Templin, et al.         Expires August 15, October 16, 2004                [Page 14] 3]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February                       April 2004


       packet and return from processing.

   4.  Perform IPv4 ingress filtering (optional; disabled by default)
       then decapsulate the packet but do not discard encapsulating
       headers.  If the IPv6 source address is invalid (see: [MECH],
       section 3.6), silently discard the packet and return from
       processing.

       For UDP port 3544 packets received on an ISATAP interface, if the
       IPv6 source address is an



6. Addressing Requirements


6.1 ISATAP link local address with the 'u'
       bit set to 0 and an embedded IPv4 address that does not match the
       IPv4 source address, rewrite the IPv6 source address to inform
       upper layers of the sender's mapped UDP port number and IPv4
       source address.  Specific rules for rewriting the IPv6 source
       address are established during Interface Identifiers


   ISATAP interface configuration.

   5.  Perform ingress filtering on the IPv6 source address (see:
       [MECH], identifiers are constructed in Modified EUI-64
   format ([RFC3513], section 3.6). Next, determine the correct transport
       protocol listener [FLOW] if the packet is destined to the
       localhost; otherwise, perform an IPv6 forwarding table lookup 2.5.1 and
       site border/firewall filtering (see: [UNIQUE], section 6).

       If the packet cannot be delivered, the driver SHOULD send an
       ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message ([RFC2463], section 3.2)
       to the packet's source. The message SHOULD select as its source
       address an IPv6 address from the outgoing interface (if appendix A) by concatenating the
       packet was destined to
   24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E), the localhost) or an ingress-wise correct
       IPv6 8-bit hexadecimal value 0xFE, and a
   32-bit IPv4 address from the interface that would have forwarded the
       packet had it not been filtered.

       The Code field of the message is set in network byte order as follows:

       -  if there is no route to the destination,


   |0              1|1              3|3                              6|
   |0              5|6              1|2                              3|
   +----------------+----------------+--------------------------------+
   |000000ug00000000|0101111011111110|mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm|
   +----------------+----------------+--------------------------------+


   When the Code field IPv4 address is set known to 0 (see: [RFC2463], section 3.1).

       -  if communication with the destination is administratively
          prohibited, be globally unique, the Code field "u" bit
   (universal/local) is set to 1 ([RFC2463], section
          3.1).

       -  if the packet is destined to the localhost, but the transport
          protocol has no listener, 1; otherwise, the Code field "u" bit is set to 4
          ([RFC2463], section 3.1).

       -  if the packet's destination 0.
   "g" is beyond the scope individual/group bit, and "m" are the bits of the source
          address, IPv4
   address.


6.2 ISATAP Interface Address Configuration


   Each ISATAP interface configures a set of locators consisting of IPv4
   address-to-interface mappings from a single site, i.e., an ISATAP
   interface's locator set MUST NOT span multiple sites.


   When an IPv4 address is removed from an interface, the Code field corresponding
   locator SHOULD be removed from its associated locator set(s). When a
   new IPv4 address is set assigned to 2 (see: IANA
          Considerations).

       -  if an interface, the packet was dropped due corresponding
   locator MAY be added to ingress filtering policies, the appropriate locator set(s).


   ISATAP interfaces form ISATAP interface identifiers from IPv4
   addresses in their locator set and use them to create link-local
   ISATAP addresses ([RFC2462], section 5.3).


6.3 Multicast/Anycast


   ISATAP interfaces recognize a node's required IPv6 multicast/anycast
   addresses ([RFC3513], section 2.8).


7. Automatic Tunneling


   ISATAP interfaces use the basic tunneling mechanisms specified in
   ([MECH], section 3). The following additional specifications are also
   used:







Templin, et al.         Expires August 15, October 16, 2004                [Page 15] 4]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February                       April 2004


          the Code field is set to 5 (see: IANA Considerations).

       -  if the packet is dropped due to



7.1 Handling ICMPv4 Errors


   ISATAP interfaces SHOULD process ARP failures and persistent ICMPv4
   errors as link-specific information indicating that a reject route, the Code field
          is set path to 6 (see: IANA Considerations).

       -  if the packet was received on a point-to-point link and
          destined to
   neighbor may have failed ([RFC2461], section 7.3.3).


7.2 Decapsulation


   The specification in ([MECH], section 3.6) is used. Additionally,
   when an address within a subnet assigned to ISATAP node receives an IPv4 protocol 41 datagram that same
          link, or if the reason for the failure to deliver cannot be
          mapped to any of the specific conditions listed above, the
          Code field is set does
   not belong to 3 ([RFC2463], section 3.2).

       After sending the ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message, discard a configured tunnel interface, it determines whether
   the packet packet's IPv4 destination address and return from processing.

   6.  If the packet is "INCOMPLETE" (see section 8.2) prepare arrival interface match a
   locator configured in an
       authenticated, unsolicited Router Advertisement message
       ([RFC2461], section 6.2.4) with ISATAP interface's locator set.


   If an MTU option ISATAP interface that encodes configures a matching locator is found,
   the
       maximum of "ACTUAL_BYTES" and (68 bytes minus decapsulator MUST verify that the size of
       encapsulating headers.)

       The IPv6 destination packet's IPv4 source address in the Router Advertisement message is set to
   correct for the packet's encapsulated IPv6 source address, and the message address. The IPv4 source
   address is
       reverse-encapsulated and returned to correct if:


       -  the node IPv6 source address is an ISATAP address that sent embeds the
       "INCOMPLETE" packet, i.e., it is NOT presented to
          IPv4 source address in its interface identifier, or:


       -  the native IPv6
       stack for transmission.

       The 68 byte minimum MTU IPv4 source address is due to the requirement that every
       Internet module must be able to forward a datagram member of 68 octets
       without further fragmentation ([STD5], Internet Protocol, section
       3.2).

   7.  Discard encapsulating headers. If the packet was destined to a
       remote host, forward the packet and return from processing.
       Otherwise, apply security processing (e.g., [RFC2402][RFC2406],
       etc.), and place the packet in a buffer Potential Router
          List (see: section 8.1).


   Packets for upper layers. The
       buffer may be, e.g., the IPv6 reassembly cache, an application's
       mapped data buffer [RFC3542], etc.

       If there is clear evidence that upper layer reassembly has
       stalled, an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message [RFC1981] MAY be sent
       to which the packet's IPv4 source address with an MTU value likely is incorrect for this
   ISATAP interface are checked to incur
       successful reassembly.  Some applications may realize greater
       efficiency by accepting partial information from "INCOMPLETE"
       packets (see: determine whether they belong to
   another tunnel interface.


7.3 Link-Local Addresses


   ISATAP interfaces use link local addresses constructed as specified
   in section 8.2) and requesting selective
       retransmission 6 of missing portions.






Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft this document.


7.4 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels


   ISATAP                    February 2004


9. interfaces use the specifications for neighbor discovery found
   in the following section of this document.


8. Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces


   ISATAP nodes use the neighbor discovery mechanisms specified in
   [RFC2461] to create/change neighbor cache entries and to provide
   control plane signaling for automatic tunnel configuration. Securing
   mechanisms for neighbor discovery messages (e.g., [RFC2402], [SEND])
   are used according to the trust model appropriate for the given
   deployment scenario [SENDPS]. entries. ISATAP interfaces
   also implement the following specifications:

9.1








Templin, et al.         Expires October 16, 2004                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                       April 2004



8.1 Conceptual Model Of A Host


   To the list of Conceptual Data Structures ([RFC2461], section 5.1),
   ISATAP interfaces add:


   Potential Router List (PRL)
      A set of entries about potential routers; used to support the
      mechanisms specified in  section 9.2.2.1. router
      and prefix discovery. Each entry ("PRL(i)") has an associated
      timer ("TIMER(i)"), and an IPv4 address ("V4ADDR(i)") that
      represents a router's advertising ISATAP interface.

9.2


8.2 Router and Prefix Discovery

9.2.1 - Router Specification

   Solicited Router Advertisements sent on


   Advertising ISATAP interfaces send Solicited Router Advertisement
   messages as specified in ([RFC2461], section 6.2.6) except that the
   messages are sent directly to the soliciting node, i.e., they might
   not be received by other nodes on the link.


8.3 Router Advertisements sent on ISATAP interfaces MAY include
   information delegated via DHCPv6 [RFC3633].

   Router Advertisements sent on ISATAP interfaces MUST NOT include a
   prefix option containing a preferred lifetime greater than the valid
   lifetime.

9.2.2 and Prefix Discovery - Host Specification


   The Host Specification in ([RFC2461], section 6.3) is used. ISATAP
   interfaces add the following specifications:

9.2.2.1


8.3.1 Host Variables


   To the list of host variables ([RFC2461], section 6.3.2), ISATAP
   interfaces add:





Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   PrlRefreshInterval
      Time in seconds between successive refreshments of the PRL after
      initialization. The designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff)
      represents infinity.
      Default: 3600 seconds


   MinRouterSolicitInterval
      Minimum time in seconds between successive solicitations of the
      same advertising ISATAP interface. The designated value of all 1's
      (0xffffffff) represents infinity.

9.2.2.2














Templin, et al.         Expires October 16, 2004                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                       April 2004



8.3.2 Potential Router List Initialization


   ISATAP nodes provision initialize an ISATAP interface's PRL with IPv4 addresses
   discovered via manual configuration, a DNS fully-qualified domain
   name (FQDN) [STD13],
   manual configuration, a DHCPv4 option, a DHCPv4 vendor-specific
   option, or an unspecified alternate method. FQDNs are established via
   manual configuration or an unspecified alternate method. FQDNs are
   resolved into IPv4 addresses through a static host file lookup,
   querying the DNS service, querying a site-specific name service,
   static host file lookup, or
   an unspecified alternate method.

   When the node provisions


   After initializing an ISATAP interface's PRL with IPv4
   addresses, it PRL, the node sets a timer
   for the interface (e.g.,
   PrlRefreshIntervalTimer) to PrlRefreshInterval seconds. The node re-
   initializes seconds and re-initializes
   the interface's PRL as specified above when PrlRefreshIntervalTimer
   expires, or when an asynchronous re-initialization event occurs. the timer expires. When a
   FQDN is used, and when it is resolved via a service that includes
   TTLs with the node re-initializes IPv4 addresses returned (e.g., DNS 'A' resource records
   [STD13]), the PRL, it resets PrlRefreshIntervalTimer timer SHOULD be set to the minimum of
   PrlRefreshInterval seconds.

9.2.2.3 and the minimum TTL returned.  (Zero-valued TTLs
   are interpreted to mean that the PRL is re-initialized before each
   Router Solicitation event - see: section 8.3.4).


8.3.3 Processing Received Router Advertisements


   To the list of checks for validating Router Advertisement messages
   ([RFC2461], section 6.1.1), ISATAP interfaces add:


      -  IP Source Address is an ISATAP a link-local ISATAP address that embeds
         V4ADDR(i) for some PRL(i).


   Valid Router Advertisements received on an ISATAP interface are
   processed exactly as specified in ([RFC2461], section 6.3.4).
   [RFC3315] and [RFC3633] are stateful mechanisms associated with the M
   and O bits.

   For Router Advertisements that include an MTU option, the MTU value
   does not alter the ISATAP interface LinkMTU. Instead, the MTU value
   is recorded, e.g., in the IPv6 forwarding table. If the IPv6
   destination address is one of the node's own unicast addresses, the



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   MTU value is recorded such that upper layer fragmentation [RFC3542]
   will be used to reduce the size of the encapsulated packets sent via
   the router. The recorded value is aged as for IPv6 path MTU
   information [RFC1981].

9.2.2.4


8.3.4 Sending Router Solicitations


   To the list of events after which Router Solicitation messages may be
   sent ([RFC2461], section 6.3.7), ISATAP interfaces add:


      -  TIMER(i) for some PRL(i) expires.


   Since unsolicited Router Advertisements may be incomplete and/or
   absent, TIMER(i) MAY be used to ISATAP nodes MAY schedule periodic Router Solicitation events
   for certain PRL(i)'s. PRL(i)'s by setting the corresponding TIMER(i).


   When used, TIMER(i) periodic Router Solicitation events are scheduled, the node
   SHOULD be set TIMER(i) such that the next Router
   Solicitation event will refresh remaining
   lifetimes stored for the
   PRL(i), PRL(i) before they expire, including the Router
   Lifetime, Valid Lifetimes received in Prefix Information Options, and
   Route Lifetimes received in Route Information Options [DEFLT].




Templin, et al.         Expires October 16, 2004                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                       April 2004



   TIMER(i) MUST be set to no less than MinRouterSolicitInterval seconds, seconds
   where MinRouterSolicitInterval is configurable for the node (or, node, or for each PRL(i)) a
   specific PRL(i), with a conservative default value. value (e.g. 2 minutes).


   When TIMER(i) expires, the node sends Router Solicitation messages are sent as
   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
   nodes on the link.
   routers.  While the node continues to use PRL(i) as a router
   (and, require periodic Router
   Solicitation events for PRL(i), and while PRL(i) continues to act as
   a router), router, the node resets TIMER(i) after each expiration event as
   described above.

9.3 Address Resolution and Neighbor Unreachability Detection

9.3.1


8.4 Address Resolution


   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.





Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


9.3.2


8.5 Neighbor Unreachability Detection


   Hosts SHOULD perform Neighbor Unreachability Detection ([RFC2461],
   section 7.3). Routers MAY perform neighbor unreachability detection,
   but this might not scale in all environments.

10. Security considerations

   The Security


9. Site Administration Considerations in the normative references, and in
   ([NODEREQ], section 8) apply. Also:

   -  ISATAP nodes observe the security considerations outlined in
      [SENDPS]; use of IPsec (e.g., [RFC2402][RFC2406], etc.) is not
      always feasible.

   -  site border routers SHOULD install a reject route for the IPv6
      prefix FC00::/7 [UNIQUE] to insure that packets with local IPv6
      destination addresses will not be forwarded outside of the site
      via a default route.

   -


   Site administrators MUST ensure that lists maintain a Potential Router List (PRL) of IPv4
   addresses representing the advertising ISATAP interfaces of PRL members are
      well maintained.

11. IANA Considerations routers.


   The IANA PRL is instructed to specify the format commonly maintained as a FQDN for Modified EUI-64
   address construction ([ADDR], Appendix A) in the IANA Ethernet
   Address Block. The text ISATAP service in Appendix C of this document is offered as
   an example specification. The current version of
   the IANA registry site's name service (see: section 8.3.2). There are no mandatory
   rules for Ether Types can be accessed at:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers.

   The IANA is instructed to assign the new ICMPv6 code field types
   found in Appendix D selection of this document for the ICMPv6 Destination
   Unreachable message. The policy for assigning new ICMPv6 code field
   types is First Come First Served, as defined in [BCP26]. The current
   version of FQDN, but site administrators are
   encouraged to use the IANA registry for ICMPv6 type numbers can be accessed
   at:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters.

12. IAB Considerations

   [RFC3424] ("IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address Fixing
   (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation") section 4 requires that
   any proposal supporting NAT traversal must explicitly address convention "isatap.domainname" (e.g.,
   isatap.example.com).


   When the site's name service includes TTLs with the
   following considerations: IPv4 addresses
   returned, site administrators SHOULD configure the TTLs with
   conservative values to minimize control traffic.







Templin, et al.         Expires August 15, October 16, 2004                [Page 20] 8]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February                       April 2004


12.1 Problem Definition

   The specific problem being solved is enabling



10. Security considerations


   Implementors should be aware that, in addition to possible attacks
   against IPv6, security attacks against IPv4 must also be considered.
   Use of IP security at both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity levels should nevertheless
   be avoided, for
   ISATAP nodes that are unable efficiency reasons. For example, if IPv6 is running
   encrypted, encryption of IPv4 would be redundant except if traffic
   analysis is felt to communicate via ip-protocol-41 or
   native IPv6.

12.2 Exit Strategy

   ISATAP nodes use UDP/IPv4 encapsulation for NAT traversal as be a last
   resort. As soon as native threat. If IPv6 or ip-protocol-41 support becomes
   available, ISATAP nodes is running authenticated,
   then authentication of IPv4 will naturally cease using UDP/IPv4
   encapsulation.

12.3 Brittleness

   UDP/IPv4 encapsulation with ISATAP introduces brittleness into add little. Conversely, IPv4
   security will not protect IPv6 traffic once it leaves the
   system ISATAP
   domain. Therefore, implementing IPv6 security is required even if
   IPv4 security is available.


   The threats associated with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery are described in several ways: the discovery process assumes
   [SENDPS].


   There is a certain
   classification of devices based on their treatment of UDP; the
   mappings need possible spoofing attack in which spurious ip-protocol-41
   packets are injected into an ISATAP link from outside. Since an
   ISATAP link spans an entire IPv4 site, restricting access to the link
   can be continuously refreshed, achieved by restricting access to the site, i.e., by having
   site border routers implement IPv4 ingress filtering and addressing structure
   may cause some hosts located beyond
   ip-protocol-41 filtering.


   Another possible spoofing attack involves spurious ip-protocol-41
   packets injected from within an ISATAP link by a common NAT node pretending to
   be unreachable
   from each other.

   ISATAP assumes a certain classification router. The Potential Router List (PRL) provides a list of devices based on their
   treatment IPv4
   addresses representing advertising ISATAP interfaces of UDP. There could be devices routers that
   hosts use in filtering decisions. Site administrators should ensure
   that would not fit into one
   of these molds, and hence would be improperly classified by ISATAP.

   The bindings allocated from the NAT need to be continuously
   refreshed.  Since the timeouts for these bindings PRL is very
   implementation specific, kept up to date, and that the refresh interval resolution mechanism
   (see: section 9) cannot easily be
   determined.  When subverted.


   The use of temporary addresses [RFC3041] and Cryptographically
   Generated Addresses [CGA] on ISATAP interfaces is outside the binding scope
   of this specification.


11. IANA Considerations


   The IANA is not being actively used to receive
   traffic, but requested to wait for an incoming message, specify the binding refresh
   will needlessly consume network bandwidth.

12.4 Requirements format for a Long Term Solution

   The devices that implement Modified EUI-64
   address construction ([RFC3513], Appendix A) in the IPv4 NAT service should IANA Ethernet
   Address Block. The text in Appendix B of this document is offered as
   an example specification. The current version of the future
   also become IPv6 routers. IANA registry
   for Ether Types can be accessed at:


      http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers








Templin, et al.         Expires August 15, October 16, 2004                [Page 21] 9]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February                       April 2004


13.



12. Acknowledgments


   The ideas in this document are not original, and the authors
   acknowledge the original architects. Portions of this work were
   sponsored through SRI International internal projects and government
   contracts. Government sponsors include Monica Farah-Stapleton and
   Russell Langan (U.S. Army CECOM ASEO), and Dr.  Allen Moshfegh (U.S.
   Office of Naval Research). SRI International sponsors include Dr.
   Mike Frankel, J. Peter Marcotullio, Lou Rodriguez, and Dr. Ambatipudi
   Sastry.


   The following are acknowledged for providing peer review input: Jim
   Bound, Rich Draves, Cyndi Jung, Ambatipudi Sastry, Aaron Schrader,
   Ole Troan, Vlad Yasevich.


   The following are acknowledged for their significant contributions:
   Alain Durand, Hannu Flinck, Jason Goldschmidt, Nathan Lutchansky,
   Karen Nielsen, Mohan Parthasarathy, Chirayu Patel, Art Shelest, Pekka
   Savola, Margaret Wasserman, Brian Zill.


   The authors acknowledge the work of Quang Nguyen on "Virtual
   Ethernet" under the guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang that proposed very
   similar ideas to those that appear in this document. This work was
   first brought to the authors' attention on September 20, 2002.

   IAB considerations are the same as for Teredo. The diagram in section
   4 was inspired by a similar diagram in RFC 3371.

   The following individuals are acknowledged for their helpful insights
   on path MTU discovery: Jari Arkko, Iljitsch van Beijnum, Jim Bound,
   Ralph Droms, Alain Durand, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, Brian Haberman,
   Bob Hinden, Christian Huitema, Kevin Lahey, Hakgoo Lee, Matt Mathis,
   Jeff Mogul, Erik Nordmark, Soohong Daniel Park, Chirayu Patel,
   Michael Richardson, Pekka Savola, Hesham Soliman, Mark Smith, Dave
   Thaler, Michael Welzl, Lixia Zhang and the members of the Nokia NRC/
   COM Mountain View team.

      "...and I'm one step ahead of the shoe shine,
       Two steps away from the county line,
       Just trying to keep my customers satisfied,
       Satisfi-i-ied!" - Paul Simon, 1969










Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Appendix A. Major Changes

   Major changes from earlier versions to version 17:

   -  new section on configuration/management.

   -  new appendices on IPv6 minimum MTU; IANA considerations.

   -  expanded section on MTU and fragmentation.

   -  expanded sections on encapsulation/decapsulation.

   -  specified relation to IPv6 Node Requirements.

   -  introduced distinction between control; forwarding planes.

   -  specified multicast mappings.

   -  revised neighbor discovery, address autoconfiguration, IANA
      considerations and security considerations sections.

Appendix B. The IPv6 minimum MTU

   The 1280 byte IPv6 minimum MTU was proposed by Steve Deering and
   agreed through working group consensus in November 1997 discussions
   on the IPv6 mailing list. The size was chosen to allow extra room for
   link layer encapsulations without exceeding the Ethernet MTU of 1500
   bytes, i.e., the practical physical cell size of the Internet. The
   1280 byte MTU also provides a fixed upper bound for the size of IPv6
   packets/fragments with a maximum store-and-forward delay budget of ~1
   second assuming worst-case link speeds of ~10Kbps [BCP48], thus
   providing a convenient value for use in reassembly buffer timer
   settings. Finally, under the 1280 byte MTU allows transport connections
   (e.g., TCP) guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang that proposed very
   similar ideas to configure a large-enough maximum segment size for
   improved performance even if the IPv4 interface those that will send appear in this document. This work was
   first brought to the
   tunneled packets uses a smaller MTU. authors' attention on September 20, 2002.


Appendix A. Major Changes since version 20:


   -  moved extensions into separate document.


   -  added Site Administration Considerations section.


   -  updated neighbor discovery, IANA considerations, security
      considerations sections to match widely-deployed implementations.



















Templin, et al.         Expires August 15, October 16, 2004               [Page 23] 10]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February                       April 2004



Appendix C. B. Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet Address Block


   Modified EUI-64 addresses ([ADDR], ([RFC3513], section 2.5.1 and Appendix A)
   in the IANA Ethernet Address Block are formed as the concatenation of by concatenating the
   24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E) with a 40-bit extension identifier. They have identifier and
   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
   scope.


   Modified EUI-64 addresses have following appearance in memory (bits
   transmitted right-to-left within octets, octets transmitted left-to-right): left-to-
   right):


   0                       23                                        63
   |        OUI            |            extension identifier         |
   000000ug00000000 01011110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


   When the first two octets of the extension identifier encode the
   hexadecimal value 0xFFFE, the remainder of the extension identifier
   encodes a 24-bit vendor-supplied id as follows:


   0                       23               39                       63
   |        OUI            |     0xFFFE     |   vendor-supplied id   |
   000000ug00000000 0101111011111111 11111110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


   When the first octet of the extension identifier encodes the
   hexadecimal value 0xFE, the remainder of the extension identifier
   encodes a 32-bit IPv4 address as follows:


   0                       23      31                                63
   |        OUI            |  0xFE |           IPv4 address          |
   000000ug00000000 0101111011111110 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   Modified EUI-64 format interface identifiers are formed by 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 scope
   ([ADDR], section 2.5.1).



















Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Appendix D. Proposed ICMPv6 Code Field Types

   Three new ICMPv6 Code Field Type definitions are proposed for the
   ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message. The first proposes a new
   definition for a currently-unassigned code type (2) in the ICMPv6
   Type Numbers registry; the others propose new definitions for code
   types (5) and (6). The code type field definition proposals appear
   below:

      Type    Name                                    Reference
      ----    -------------------------               ---------
         1    Destination Unreachable                 [RFC2463]
         Code           2 - beyond the scope of source address
                        5 - source address failed ingress policy
                        6 - reject route to destination


Normative References

[BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[BCP26]    Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
   Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

[STD3]     Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication
   Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

[STD5]     Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
   1981.

[STD6]     Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August
   1980.

[RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S. and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




Normative References


[BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for
   IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

[RFC2402]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC
   2402, November 1998.

[RFC2406]  Kent, S. 2119, March 1997.


[STD13]    Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload
   (ESP)",
   Specification", STD 13, RFC 2406, 1035, November 1998. 1987.


[RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
   (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.


[RFC2461]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery
   for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


[RFC2462]  Thomson, S., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.

[RFC2463]  Conta, A., and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol
   (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification",
   RFC 2463, December 1998.

[RFC2529]  Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
   Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.

[RFC3041]  Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January, 2001.

[RFC3424]  Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-
   Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation", RFC 3424,
   November 2002.

[RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
   version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

[RFC3493]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
   Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 3493,
   February 2003.

[RFC3542]  Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E. and T.  Jinmei,
   "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6", RFC
   3542, May 2003.

[RFC3582]  Abley, J., Black, B. and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
   Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003.

[RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host
   Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003.

[ADDR]     Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
   Architecture", draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4, Work in Progress,
   October 2003.

[DEFLT]    Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
   More-Specific Routes", draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection, Work in
   Progress, December 2003.

[MECH]     Gilligan, R. and E. Nordmark, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
   for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2, Work in
   Progress, February 2003.

[NODEREQ]  Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", draft-ietf-ipv6-node-
   requirements, Work in Progress, October 2003. 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.




Templin, et al.         Expires August 15, October 16, 2004               [Page 26] 11]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February                       April 2004


[UNIQUE]



[RFC2462]  Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.


[RFC3513]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
   (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.


[MECH]     Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
   for IPv6 Unicast
   Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr, Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2, Work in
   Progress, January 2004.



Informative References

[BCP48]    Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M. and V.  Magret, "End-
   to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links", BCP 48, RFC 3150,
   July 2001.

[STD13]    Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
   specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.


[RFC2491]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M. and G.  Harter, "IPv6
   over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC 2491,
   January 1999.


[RFC2492]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P. and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
   Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.


[RFC2529]  Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
   Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.


[RFC3041]  Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001.


[RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
   IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

[RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon,


[CGA]      Aura, T., Perkins, C. and M.
   Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC
   3315, July 2003.

[ANYCAST]  Hagino, J. and K. Ettikan, "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast",
   draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis, Work in Progress, June 2003.

[FLOW]     Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B. and S.  Deering,
   "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label, "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
   draft-ietf-send-cga, Work in Progress, December 2003.

[FRAG]     Mogul, J. February 2004.


[DEFLT]    Draves, R. and C. Kent, "Fragmentation Considered Harmful", In
   Proc. SIGCOMM '87 Workshop on Frontiers in Computer Communications
   Technology. August, 1987.

[FTMIB]    Haberman, B. D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and M. Wasserman, "IP Forwarding Table MIB",
   draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update, Work in Progress, August 2003.

[IPMIB]    Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the Internet
   Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update,
   More-Specific Routes", draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection, Work in
   Progress,
   September December 2003.

[SEND]     Arkko, J., Kempf,


[NODEREQ]  Loughney, J., Sommerfield, B., Zill, B.  and P.
   Nikander, "Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", draft-ietf-send-ndopt,



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004 "IPv6 Node Requirements", draft-ietf-ipv6-node-
   requirements, Work in Progress, October 2003. January 2004.


[SENDPS]   Nikander, P., Kempf, J. and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
   Discovery Trust Models and Threats", draft-ietf-send-psreq, Work in
   Progress, October 2003.

[TUNMIB]   Thaler, D., "IP Tunnel MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-inet-tunnel-mib,
   Work in Progress, January 2004.










Templin, et al.         Expires October 16, 2004               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                       April 2004



Authors' Addresses


Fred L. Templin
Nokia
313 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, CA  94110
US


Phone: +1 650 625 2331
EMail: ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com



Tim Gleeson
Cisco Systems K.K.
Shinjuku Mitsu Building
2-1-1 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo  163-0409
Japan


EMail: tgleeson@cisco.com



Mohit Talwar
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA  98052-6399
US


Phone: +1 425 705 3131
EMail: mohitt@microsoft.com











Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004



Dave Thaler
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA  98052-6399
US


Phone: +1 425 703 8835
EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com



Full Copyright Statement


Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.





Templin, et al.         Expires October 16, 2004               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                       April 2004



This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.



Intellectual Property


The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any
independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP
78 and BCP 79.


Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be
obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.


The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
that may cover technology that may be required to implement this
standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004



Acknowledgment


Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.














Templin, et al.         Expires August 15, October 16, 2004               [Page 30] 14]
----