draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-08.txt   draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-09.txt 
IPv6 Maintenance L. Colitti IPv6 Maintenance L. Colitti
Internet-Draft J. Linkova Internet-Draft J. Linkova
Intended status: Standards Track Google Intended status: Standards Track Google
Expires: May 30, 2020 November 27, 2019 Expires: June 21, 2020 December 19, 2019
Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements
draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-08 draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-09
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery option to be used in This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery option to be used in
Router Advertisements to communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts. Router Advertisements to communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 31 skipping to change at page 1, line 31
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Use cases for communicating the NAT64 prefix to hosts . . . . 3 2. Use cases for communicating the NAT64 prefix to hosts . . . . 3
3. Why include the NAT64 prefix in Router Advertisements . . . . 3 3. Why include the NAT64 prefix in Router Advertisements . . . . 3
4. Usage Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Option format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Option format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Scaled Lifetime Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Usage Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. PREF64 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. PREF64 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
NAT64 [RFC6146] with DNS64 [RFC6147] is a widely-deployed mechanism NAT64 [RFC6146] with DNS64 [RFC6147] is a widely-deployed mechanism
to provide IPv4 access on IPv6-only networks. In various scenarios, to provide IPv4 access on IPv6-only networks. In various scenarios,
the host must be aware of the NAT64 prefix in use by the network. the host must be aware of the NAT64 prefix in use by the network.
This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] option to be This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] option to be
used in Router Advertisements to communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts. used in Router Advertisements to communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 3, line 18 skipping to change at page 3, line 18
On networks employing NAT64, it is useful for hosts to know the NAT64 On networks employing NAT64, it is useful for hosts to know the NAT64
prefix for several reasons, including the following: prefix for several reasons, including the following:
o Enabling DNS64 functions on end hosts. In particular: o Enabling DNS64 functions on end hosts. In particular:
* Local DNSSEC validation (DNS64 in stub-resolver mode). As * Local DNSSEC validation (DNS64 in stub-resolver mode). As
discussed in [RFC6147] section 2, the stub resolver in the host discussed in [RFC6147] section 2, the stub resolver in the host
"will try to obtain (real) AAAA RRs, and in case they are not "will try to obtain (real) AAAA RRs, and in case they are not
available, the DNS64 function will synthesize AAAA RRs for available, the DNS64 function will synthesize AAAA RRs for
internal usage." This is required in order to use DNSSEC on a internal usage." Therefore to perform the DNS64 function the
NAT64 network. stub resolver needs to know the NAT64 prefix. This is required
in order to use DNSSEC on a NAT64 network.
* Trusted DNS server. AAAA synthesis is required for the host to * Trusted DNS server. AAAA synthesis is required for the host to
be able to use a DNS server not provided by the network (e.g., be able to use a DNS server not provided by the network (e.g.,
a DNS-over-TLS [RFC7858] or DNS-over-HTTPS [RFC8484] server a DNS-over-TLS [RFC7858] or DNS-over-HTTPS [RFC8484] server
with which the host has an existing trust relationship). with which the host has an existing trust relationship).
* Networks with no DNS64 server. Hosts that support AAAA * Networks with no DNS64 server. Hosts that support AAAA
synthesis and that are aware of the NAT64 prefix in use do not synthesis and that are aware of the NAT64 prefix in use do not
need the network to perform the DNS64 function at all. need the network to perform the DNS64 function at all.
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 21
Updatability: it is possible to change the NAT64 prefix at any time, Updatability: it is possible to change the NAT64 prefix at any time,
because when it changes, it is possible to notify hosts by sending a because when it changes, it is possible to notify hosts by sending a
new Router Advertisement. new Router Advertisement.
Deployability: all IPv6 hosts and networks are required to support Deployability: all IPv6 hosts and networks are required to support
Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] so just a minor extension to the Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] so just a minor extension to the
existing implementation is required. Other options such as [RFC7225] existing implementation is required. Other options such as [RFC7225]
require implementing other protocols (e.g. PCP [RFC7225]) which require implementing other protocols (e.g. PCP [RFC7225]) which
could be considered an obstacle for deployment. could be considered an obstacle for deployment.
4. Usage Guidelines 4. Option format
This option specifies exactly one NAT64 prefix for all IPv4
destinations. If the network operator desires to route different
parts of the IPv4 address space to different NAT64 devices, this can
be accomplished by routing more specifics of the NAT64 prefix to
those devices. For example, if the operator is using the RFC1918
address space, e.g. 10.0.0.0/8 internally and would like to route
10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device A and the rest of the IPv4 space
through NAT64 device B, and the operator's NAT64 prefix is
2001:db8:a:b::/96, then the operator can route
2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 to NAT64 A and 2001:db8:a:b::/96 to NAT64 B.
This option may appear more than once in a Router Advertisement (e.g.
in case of graceful renumbering the network from one NAT64 prefix to
another). Host behaviour with regards to synthesizing IPv6 addresses
from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in
Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have non-
zero lifetime.
In a network (or a provisioning domain) that provides both IPv4 and
NAT64, it may be desirable for certain IPv4 addresses not to be
translated. An example might be private address ranges that are
local to the network/provisioning domain and should not be reached
through the NAT64. This type of configuration cannot be conveyed to
hosts using this option, or through other NAT64 prefix provisioning
mechanisms such as [RFC7050] or [RFC7225]. This problem does not
apply in IPv6-only networks, because in such networks, the host does
not have an IPv4 address and cannot reach any IPv4 destinations
without the NAT64.
5. Option format
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Scaled Lifetime | PLC | | Type | Length | Scaled Lifetime | PLC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+ + + +
| Highest 96 bits of the Prefix | | Highest 96 bits of the Prefix |
+ + + +
skipping to change at page 6, line 14 skipping to change at page 5, line 14
Type 8-bit identifier of the PREF64 option type as assigned by Type 8-bit identifier of the PREF64 option type as assigned by
IANA: TBD IANA: TBD
Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option
(including the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 (including the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8
octets. The sender MUST set the length to 2. The receiver octets. The sender MUST set the length to 2. The receiver
MUST ignore the PREF64 option if the length field value is MUST ignore the PREF64 option if the length field value is
not 2. not 2.
Scaled 13-bit unsigned integer. The maximum time in units of 8 Scaled 13-bit unsigned integer. The maximum time in units of 8
Lifetime seconds over which this NAT64 prefix MAY be used. The value Lifetime seconds over which this NAT64 prefix MAY be used. See
of the Scaled Lifetime field SHOULD by default be set to the Section 4.1 for the Scaled Lifetime field processing rules.
lesser of 3 x MaxRtrAdvInterval divided by 8, or 8191. The
receiver MUST multiply the Scaled Lifetime value by 8 (for
example, by logical left shift) to calculate the maximum
time in seconds the prefix MAY be used. Lifetime of 0
indicates that the prefix SHOULD NOT be used anymore. Router
vendors SHOULD allow administrators to specify non-zero
lifetime values which are not divisible by 8. In such cases
the router SHOULD round the provided value up to the lesser
of nearest integer divisible by 8, or 65528 and divide the
result by 8 (or just perform a logical right-shift by 3) and
set the Scaled Lifetime field to the resulting value. If
such a non-zero lifetime value to be divided by 8 (to be
subjected to a logical right-shift by 3) is less than 8 then
the Scaled Lifetime field SHOULD by default be set to 1.
PLC 3-bit unsigned integer. This field encodes the NAT64 Prefix PLC 3-bit unsigned integer. This field encodes the NAT64 Prefix
(Prefix Length defined in [RFC6052]. The PLC field values 0, 1, 2, (Prefix Length defined in [RFC6052]. The PLC field values 0, 1, 2,
Length 3, 4 and 5 indicate the NAT64 prefix length of 96, 64, 56, Length 3, 4 and 5 indicate the NAT64 prefix length of 96, 64, 56,
Code) 48, 40 and 32 bits respectively. The receiver MUST ignore Code) 48, 40 and 32 bits respectively. The receiver MUST ignore
the PREF64 option if the prefix length code field is not set the PREF64 option if the prefix length code field is not set
to one of those values. to one of those values.
Highest 96-bit unsigned integer. Contains bits 0 - 95 of the NAT64 Highest 96-bit unsigned integer. Contains bits 0 - 95 of the NAT64
96 bits prefix. 96 bits prefix.
of the of the
prefix prefix
6. Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes 4.1. Scaled Lifetime Processing
It would be highly undesirable for the NAT64 prefix to have a
lifetime shorter than the Router Lifetime, which is defined in the
Section 4.2 of [RFC4861] as 16-bit unsigned integer. If the NAT64
prefix lifetime is not at least equal to the default router lifetime
it might lead to scenarios when the NAT64 prefix lifetime expires
before the arrival of the next unsolicited RA. Therefore the Scaled
Lifetime encodes the NAT64 prefix lifetime in units of 8 seconds.
The receiver MUST multiply the Scaled Lifetime value by 8 (for
example, by logical left shift) to calculate the maximum time in
seconds the prefix MAY be used. The maximum lifetime of the NAT64
prefix is thus 65528 seconds. To ensure that the NAT64 prefix does
not expire before the default router, when using this option it is
NOT RECOMMENDED to configure default router lifetimes greater than
65528 seconds. Lifetime of 0 indicates that the prefix SHOULD NOT be
used anymore.
The value of the Scaled Lifetime field SHOULD by default be set to
the lesser of 3 x MaxRtrAdvInterval ([RFC4861]) divided by 8, or
8191.
Router vendors SHOULD allow administrators to specify non-zero
lifetime values which are not divisible by 8. In such cases the
router SHOULD round the provided value up to the nearest integer that
is divisible by 8 and smaller than 65536, then divide the result by 8
(or perform a logical right-shift by 3), and set the Scaled Lifetime
field to the resulting value. If such a non-zero lifetime value to
be divided by 8 (to be subjected to a logical right-shift by 3) is
less than 8 then the Scaled Lifetime field SHOULD be set to 1. This
last step ensures that lifetimes under 8 seconds are encoded as a
non-zero Scaled Lifetime.
5. Usage Guidelines
This option specifies exactly one NAT64 prefix for all IPv4
destinations. If the network operator desires to route different
parts of the IPv4 address space to different NAT64 devices, this can
be accomplished by routing more specific sub-prefixes of the NAT64
prefix to those devices. For example, suppose an operator is using
the [RFC1918] address space 10.0.0.0/8 internally. That operator
might want to route 10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device A, and the rest
of the IPv4 space through NAT64 device B. If the operator's NAT64
prefix is 2001:db8:a:b::/96, then the operator can route
2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 to NAT64 A and 2001:db8:a:b::/96 to NAT64 B.
This option may appear more than once in a Router Advertisement (e.g.
in case of graceful renumbering the network from one NAT64 prefix to
another). Host behaviour with regards to synthesizing IPv6 addresses
from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in
Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have non-
zero lifetime.
In a network (or a provisioning domain) that provides both IPv4 and
NAT64, it may be desirable for certain IPv4 addresses not to be
translated. An example might be private address ranges that are
local to the network/provisioning domain and should not be reached
through the NAT64. This type of configuration cannot be conveyed to
hosts using this option, or through other NAT64 prefix provisioning
mechanisms such as [RFC7050] or [RFC7225]. This problem does not
apply in IPv6-only networks, because in such networks, the host does
not have an IPv4 address and cannot reach any IPv4 destinations
without the NAT64.
5.1. Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes
In some cases a host may receive multiple NAT64 prefixes from In some cases a host may receive multiple NAT64 prefixes from
different sources. Possible scenarios include (but are not limited different sources. Possible scenarios include (but are not limited
to): to):
o the host is using multiple mechanisms to discover PREF64 prefixes o the host is using multiple mechanisms to discover PREF64 prefixes
(e.g. by using PCP [RFC7225]) and/or by resolving IPv4-only fully (e.g. by using PCP [RFC7225]) and/or by resolving IPv4-only fully
qualified domain name [RFC7050] in addition to receiving the qualified domain name [RFC7050] in addition to receiving the
PREF64 RA option); PREF64 RA option);
o the PREF64 option presents in a single RA more than once; o the PREF64 option presents in a single RA more than once;
o the host receives multiple RAs with different PREF64 prefixes on o the host receives multiple RAs with different PREF64 prefixes on a
one or multiple interfaces. given interface.
When multiple PREF64 were discovered via RA PREF64 Option (the Option When multiple PREF64 were discovered via RA PREF64 Option (the Option
presents more than once in a single RA or multiple RAs were presents more than once in a single RA or multiple RAs were
received), host behaviour with regards to synthesizing IPv6 addresses received), host behaviour with regards to synthesizing IPv6 addresses
from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in
Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have non- Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have non-
zero lifetime. zero lifetime.
When different PREF64 are discovered by using multiple mechanisms, When different PREF64 are discovered by using multiple mechanisms,
hosts SHOULD select one source of information only. The RECOMMENDED hosts SHOULD select one source of information only. The RECOMMENDED
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
o PREF64 discovered via RA Option; o PREF64 discovered via RA Option;
o PREF64 resolving IPv4-only fully qualified domain name [RFC7050] o PREF64 resolving IPv4-only fully qualified domain name [RFC7050]
Note that if the network provides PREF64 both via this RA option and Note that if the network provides PREF64 both via this RA option and
[RFC7225], hosts that receive the PREF64 via RA option may choose to [RFC7225], hosts that receive the PREF64 via RA option may choose to
use it immediately before waiting for PCP to complete, and therefore use it immediately before waiting for PCP to complete, and therefore
some traffic may not reflect any more detailed configuration provided some traffic may not reflect any more detailed configuration provided
by PCP. by PCP.
7. PREF64 Consistency The host SHOULD treat the PREF64 as being specific to the network
interface it was received on. Provisioning Domain (PvD, [RFC7556])
aware hosts MUST treat the PREF64 as being scoped to the implicit or
explicit PvD.
5.2. PREF64 Consistency
Section 6.2.7 of [RFC4861] recommends that routers inspect RAs sent Section 6.2.7 of [RFC4861] recommends that routers inspect RAs sent
by other routers to ensure that all routers onlink advertise the by other routers to ensure that all routers onlink advertise
consistent information. Routers SHOULD inspect valid PREF64 options consistent information. Routers SHOULD inspect valid PREF64 options
received on a given link and verify the consistency. Detected received on a given link and verify the consistency. Detected
inconsistencies indicate that one or more routers might be inconsistencies indicate that one or more routers might be
misconfigured. Routers SHOULD log such cases to system or network misconfigured. Routers SHOULD log such cases to system or network
management. Routers SHOULD check and compare the following management. Routers SHOULD check and compare the following
information: information:
o set of PREF64 with non-zero lifetime; o set of PREF64 with non-zero lifetime;
o set of PREF64 with zero lifetime. o set of PREF64 with zero lifetime.
Provisioning Domain (PvD, [RFC7556])-aware routers MUST only compare Provisioning Domain (PvD, [RFC7556]) aware routers MUST only compare
information scoped to the same implicit or explicit PvD. information scoped to the same implicit or explicit PvD.
8. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option The IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option
type for the PREF64 option defined in this document. type for the PREF64 option defined in this document.
+---------------+-------+ +---------------+-------+
| Option Name | Type | | Option Name | Type |
+---------------+-------+ +---------------+-------+
| PREF64 option | (TBD) | | PREF64 option | (TBD) |
+---------------+-------+ +---------------+-------+
Table 1 Table 1
The IANA registry for these options is: The IANA registry for these options is:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters [1]
9. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Because Router Advertisements are required in all IPv6 configuration Because Router Advertisements are required in all IPv6 configuration
scenarios, on IPv6-only networks, Router Advertisements must already scenarios, on IPv6-only networks, Router Advertisements must already
be secured, e.g., by deploying RA guard [RFC6105]. Providing all be secured, e.g., by deploying RA guard [RFC6105]. Providing all
configuration in Router Advertisements reduces the attack surface to configuration in Router Advertisements reduces the attack surface to
be targeted by malicious attackers to provide hosts with invalid be targeted by malicious attackers to provide hosts with invalid
configuration as compared to distributing the configuration through configuration as compared to distributing the configuration through
multiple different mechanisms that need to be secured independently. multiple different mechanisms that need to be secured independently.
If a host is provided with an incorrect NAT64 prefix the IPv6-only
host might not be able to communicate with IPv4-only destinations.
Connectivity to destinations reachable over IPv6 would not be
impacted just by providing a host with an incorrect prefix (however
if attackers are capable of sending rogue RAs they can perform
denial-of-service or man-in-the-middle attacks, as described in
[RFC6104]).
The security measures that must already be in place to ensure that The security measures that must already be in place to ensure that
Router Advertisements are only received from legitimate sources Router Advertisements are only received from legitimate sources
eliminate the problem of NAT64 prefix validation described in section eliminate the problem of NAT64 prefix validation described in section
3.1 of [RFC7050]. 3.1 of [RFC7050].
10. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
review and feedback: Mikael Abrahamsson, Mark Andrews, Brian E review and feedback: Mikael Abrahamsson, Mark Andrews, Brian E
Carpenter, David Farmer, Nick Heatley, Robert Hinden, Martin Hunek, Carpenter, David Farmer, Nick Heatley, Robert Hinden, Martin Hunek,
Tatuya Jinmei, Erik Kline, Suresh Krishnan, David Lamparter, Jordi Tatuya Jinmei, Benjamin Kaduk, Erik Kline, Suresh Krishnan, Warren
Palet Martinez, Tommy Pauly, Alexandre Petrescu, Michael Richardson, Kumari, David Lamparter, Barry Leiba, Jordi Palet Martinez, Tommy
David Schinazi, Ole Troan, Bernie Volz. Pauly, Alexandre Petrescu, Michael Richardson, David Schinazi, Ole
Troan, Eric Vynke, Bernie Volz.
11. References 9. References
11.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 9, line 43
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of [RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013, RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC6104] Chown, T. and S. Venaas, "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement
Problem Statement", RFC 6104, DOI 10.17487/RFC6104,
February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6104>.
[RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J. [RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105, Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>. April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 28 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
[RFC8305] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2: [RFC8305] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305, Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>.
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS [RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018, (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.
11.3. URIs 9.3. URIs
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Lorenzo Colitti Lorenzo Colitti
Google Google
Shibuya 3-21-3 Shibuya 3-21-3
Shibuya, Tokyo 150-0002 Shibuya, Tokyo 150-0002
JP JP
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
82 lines changed or deleted 125 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/