1 / 4

IPv6 Node Requirements

IPv6 Node Requirements. IETF 59 Tuesday March 2, 2004 Seoul, South Korea IPv6 Node Requirements http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt John Loughney (editor). Issue List. draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt 35 Editorial TOC Closed

lucian
Download Presentation

IPv6 Node Requirements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPv6 Node Requirements IETF 59 Tuesday March 2, 2004 Seoul, South Korea IPv6 Node Requirements http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt John Loughney (editor)

  2. Issue List • draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt • 35 Editorial TOC Closed • 33 Editorial Path MTU -> SHOULD Closed • 36 Technical MIB issues Closed • 34 Technical Security issues Closed • 32 Editorial editorial nits Closed • 37 Technical EDNS0 support Rejected

  3. Fix Path MTU -> SHOULD • Steve Bellovin: • I'm astonished that Path MTU is a MAY -- I had thought it was a MUST. I'd really like some more text explaining what some of the many exceptions are that are alluded to here. • RFC 2460 states: • It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981], in order to discover and take advantage of path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit implementation of Path MTU Discovery. • Node Req. text now is: • Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and reassembly.

  4. Security issues • Security AD comments: • The crypto algorithm requirements should be better aligned with recommendations from the IPsec wg. There's a draft that lists 3DES as SHOULD, not MAY. • I think that IKEv? should be a SHOULD, not a MAY. While the IESG hasn't yet seen draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt, it will soon and it describes automated key management as a "strong SHOULD". That's certainly the consensus in the security area. • Added the following text to Section 8.3 • In addition to the above requirements, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the current set of mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH as well as specifying algorithms that should be implemented because they may be promoted to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 nodes conform to the requirements in this document. • And the following text to Section 8.4 • "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2" [IKEv2ALGO] defines the current set of mandatory to implement algorithms for use of IKEv2 as well as specifying algorithms that should be implemented because they made be promoted to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 conform to the requirements in this document.

More Related