IPv6 Maintenance (6man) Internet Drafts
| Solution approaches for address-selection problems | |||||||||||||||||
|
In response to address selection problem statement and requirement documents, this document describes approaches to solutions and evaluates proposed solution mechanisms in line with requirements. It also examines the applicability of each solution mechanism from the viewpoint of practical application. Matsumoto, et al. Expires August 2, 2008 [page 1] | ||||||||||||||||
| IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. | ||||||||||||||||
| Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers | |||||||||||||||||
|
Interface Identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique within a subnet. Several RFCs have specified interface identifiers or identifier ranges that have a special meaning attached to them. An IPv6 node autoconfiguring an interface identifier in these ranges will encounter unexpected consequences. Since there is no centralized repository for such reserved identifiers, this document aims to create one. | ||||||||||||||||
| IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes | |||||||||||||||||
|
IPv6 specifies a model of a subnet that is different than the IPv4 subnet model. The subtlety of the differences has resulted in incorrect implementations that do not interoperate. This document spells out the most important difference; that an IPv6 address isn't automatically associated with an IPv6 on-link prefix. This document also invalidates (partially due to security concerns) a part of the definition of on-link from [RFC4861]. | ||||||||||||||||
| Handling of overlapping IPv6 fragments | |||||||||||||||||
|
The fragmentation and reassembly algorithm specified in the base IPv6 specification allows fragments to overlap. This document demonstrates the security issues with allowing overlapping fragments and updates the IPv6 specification to explicitly forbid overlapping fragments. | ||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
IPv6 Maintenance (6man)
Last Modified: 2008-08-21
Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/6man
Chair(s):
Internet Area Director(s):
Internet Area Advisor:
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: ipv6@ietf.orgTo Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/index.html
Description of Working Group:
The 6man working group is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep,and advancement of the IPv6 protocol specifications and addressing
architecture. It is not chartered to develop major changes or
additions to the IPv6 specifications. The working group will
address protocol limitations/issues discovered during deployment
and operation. It will also serve as a venue for discussing
the proper location for working on IPv6-related issues within
the IETF.
The working group's work items are as follows:
o Complete work on RA Flags Option
o Complete work on RH0 Deprecation
o Complete work on IPv6 over PPP Compression Negotiation
o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local
Addresses (ULA-C)
All new work items not listed above require the approval
of the working group and the sponsoring Area Director before
they will be taken on by the working group.
Goals and Milestones:
| Done | Submit RH0 Deprecation specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Jan 2008 | Submit PPP Compression Negotiation specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Mar 2008 | Determine way forward for ULA-C specification |
Internet-Drafts:
Solution approaches for address-selection problems (36207 bytes)IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis (42231 bytes)
Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers (15129 bytes)
IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes (20973 bytes)
Handling of overlapping IPv6 fragments (13532 bytes)
Request For Comments:
Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol (RFC 5172) (14646 bytes) obsoletes RFC 2472IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.
Return to working group directory. 
