Internet Draft S.Varada (Transwitch)
Document: draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt D.Haskins
Expires: December 2005 Ed Allen
June 2005
IP Version 6 over PPP
<draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) provides a standard method of
encapsulating Network Layer protocol information over
point-to-point links. PPP also defines an extensible Link Control
Protocol, and proposes a family of Network Control Protocols
(NCPs) for establishing and configuring different network-layer
protocols.
This document defines the method for sending IPv6 packets over PPP
links, the NCP for establishing and configuring the IPv6 over PPP
Varada et al. [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
and the method for forming IPv6 link-local addresses on PPP links.
It also specifies the conditions for performing Duplicate Address
Detection on IPv6 global unicast addresses configured for PPP
links either through stateful or stateless address
autoconfiguration.
This document is an update to RFC 2472 and, hence, obsoletes it.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
1.1 Specification of Requirements..............................3
2. Sending IPv6 Datagrams.........................................3
3. A PPP Network Control Protocol for IPv6........................3
4. IPV6CP Configuration Options...................................4
4.1 Interface-Identifier.......................................5
4.2 IPv6-Compression-Protocol.................................10
5. Stateless Autoconfiguration and Link-Local Addresses..........11
6. Security Considerations.......................................12
7. Acknowledgments...............................................12
8. References....................................................13
8.1 Normative References......................................13
8.2 Informative references....................................13
Appendix A: Global Scope Addresses..............................14
Appendix B: Changes from RFC-2472...............................14
Authors' Addresses...............................................14
IPR Disclosure...................................................14
IPR Notice .....................................................15
Copyright Notice and Disclaimer..................................15
1. Introduction
PPP has three main components:
1) A method for encapsulating datagrams over serial links.
2) A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring,
and testing the data-link connection.
3) A family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing
and configuring different network-layer protocols.
In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link,
each end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to
configure and test the data link. After the link has been
established and optional facilities have been negotiated as
needed by the LCP, PPP must send NCP packets to choose and
configure one or more network-layer protocols. Once each of the
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
chosen network-layer protocols has been configured, datagrams
from each network-layer protocol can be sent over the link.
In this document, the NCP for establishing and configuring the
IPv6 over PPP is referred as the IPv6 Control Protocol (IPV6CP).
The link will remain configured for communications until
explicit LCP or NCP packets close the link down, or until some
external event occurs (power failure at the other end, carrier
drop, etc.).
1.1 Specification of Requirements
In this document, several words are used to signify the
requirements of the specification.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in [7].
2. Sending IPv6 Datagrams
Before any IPv6 packets may be communicated, PPP MUST reach the
Network-Layer Protocol phase, and the IPv6 Control Protocol MUST
reach the Opened state.
Exactly one IPv6 packet is encapsulated in the Information field
of PPP Data Link Layer frames where the Protocol field indicates
Type hex 0057 (Internet Protocol Version 6).
The maximum length of an IPv6 packet transmitted over a PPP link
is the same as the maximum length of the Information field of a
PPP data link layer frame. PPP links supporting IPv6 MUST allow
the information field at least as large as the minimum link MTU
size required for IPv6 [2].
3. A PPP Network Control Protocol for IPv6
The IPv6 Control Protocol (IPV6CP) is responsible for
configuring, enabling, and disabling the IPv6 protocol modules
on both ends of the point-to-point link. IPV6CP uses the same
packet exchange mechanism as the LCP. IPV6CP packets may not be
exchanged until PPP has reached the Network-Layer Protocol phase.
IPV6CP packets received before this phase is reached should be
silently discarded.
The IPv6 Control Protocol is exactly the same as the LCP [1] with
the following exceptions:
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
Data Link Layer Protocol Field
Exactly one IPV6CP packet is encapsulated in the
Information field of PPP Data Link Layer frames where the
Protocol field indicates type hex 8057 (IPv6 Control
Protocol).
Code field
Only Codes 1 through 7 (Configure-Request, Configure-Ack,
Configure-Nak, Configure-Reject, Terminate-Request,
Terminate-Ack and Code-Reject) are used. Other Codes
should be treated as unrecognized and should result in
Code-Rejects.
Timeouts
IPV6CP packets may not be exchanged until PPP has reached
the Network-Layer Protocol phase. An implementation
should be prepared to wait for Authentication and Link
Quality Determination to finish before timing out waiting
for a Configure-Ack or other response. It is suggested
that an implementation give up only after user
intervention or a configurable amount of time.
Configuration Option Types
IPV6CP has a distinct set of Configuration Options.
4. IPV6CP Configuration Options
IPV6CP Configuration Options allow negotiation of desirable IPv6
parameters. IPV6CP uses the same Configuration Option format
defined for LCP [1] but with a separate set of Options. If a
Configuration Option is not included in a Configure-Request
packet, the default value for that Configuration Option is
assumed.
Up-to-date values of the IPV6CP Option Type field are specified
in the on-line database of "Assigned Numbers" maintained at
IANA [4]. Current values are assigned as follows:
1 Interface-Identifier
2 IPv6-Compression-Protocol
The only IPV6CP options defined in this document are Interface
Identifier and IPv6-Compression-Protocol. Any other IPV6CP
configuration options that can be defined over time are to be
defined in separate documents.
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
4.1 Interface-Identifier
Description
This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate an unique
64-bit interface identifier to be used for the address
autoconfiguration [3] at the local end of the link (see
section 5). A Configure-Request MUST contain exactly one
instance of the Interface-Identifier option [1]. The interface
identifier MUST be unique within the PPP link; i.e. upon
completion of the negotiation different Interface-Identifier
values are to be selected for the ends of the PPP link. The
interface identifier MAY also be unique over a broader scope.
Before this Configuration Option is requested, an implementation
chooses its tentative Interface-Identifier. The non-zero value of
the tentative Interface-Identifier SHOULD be chosen such that the
value is unique to the link and, preferably, consistently
reproducible across initializations of the IPV6CP finite state
machine (administrative Close and reOpen, reboots, etc). The
rationale for preferring a consistently reproducible unique
interface identifier to a completely random interface identifier
is to provide stability to global scope addresses (see Appendix A)
that can be formed from the interface identifier
Assuming that interface identifier bits are numbered from 0 to
63 in canonical bit order where the most significant bit is
the bit number 0, the bit number 6 is the "u" bit (universal/local
bit in IEEE EUI-64 [5] terminology) which indicates whether or
not the interface identifier is based on a globally unique IEEE
identifier (EUI-48 or EUI-64[5])(see the case 1 below). It is set
to one (1) if a globally unique IEEE identifier is used to derive
the interface-identifier, and it is set to zero (0) otherwise.
The following are methods for choosing the tentative Interface
Identifier in the preference order:
1)If an IEEE global identifier (EUI-48 or EUI-64) is
available anywhere on the node, it should be used to
construct the tentative Interface-Identifier due to its
uniqueness properties. When extracting an IEEE global
identifier from another device on the node, care should be
taken that the extracted identifier is presented in
canonical ordering [8].
The only transformation from an EUI-64 identifier is to invert
the "u" bit (universal/local bit in IEEE EUI-64 terminology).
For example, for a globally unique EUI-64 identifier of the
form:
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
most-significant least significant
bit bit
|0 1|1 3|3 4|4 6|
|0 5|6 1|2 7|8 3|
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|cccccc0gcccccccc|cccccccceeeeeeee|eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee|eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee|
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
where "c" are the bits of the assigned company_id, "0" is
the value of the universal/local bit to indicate global
scope, "g" is group/individual bit, and "e" are the bits
of the extension identifier, the IPv6 interface identifier
would be of the form:
most-significant least-significant
bit bit
|0 1|1 3|3 4|4 6|
|0 5|6 1|2 7|8 3|
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|cccccc1gcccccccc|cccccccceeeeeeee|eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee|eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee|
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
The only change is inverting the value of the
universal/local bit.
In the case of a EUI-48 identifier, it is first converted
to the EUI-64 format by inserting two bytes, with
hexa-decimal values of 0xFF and 0xFE, in the middle of the
48 bit MAC (between the company_id and extension identifier
portions of the EUI-48 value). For example, for a globally
unique 48 bit EUI-48 identifier of the
form:
most-significant least-significant
bit bit
|0 1|1 3|3 4|
|0 5|6 1|2 7|
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|cccccc0gcccccccc|cccccccceeeeeeee|eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee|
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
where "c" are the bits of the assigned company_id, "0" is
the value of the universal/local bit to indicate global
scope, "g" is group/individual bit, and "e" are the bits
of the extension identifier, the IPv6 interface identifier
would be of the form:
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
most-significant least-significant
bit bit
|0 1|1 3|3 4|4 6|
|0 5|6 1|2 7|8 3|
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|cccccc1gcccccccc|cccccccc11111111|11111110eeeeeeee|eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee|
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
2) If an IEEE global identifier is not available, a different
source of uniqueness should be used. Suggested sources of
uniqueness include link-layer addresses, machine serial
numbers, et cetera. In this case, the "u" bit of the
interface-identifier MUST be set to zero (0).
3) If a good source of uniqueness cannot be found, it is
recommended that a random number be generated. In this
case, the "u" bit of the interface-identifier MUST be set to
zero (0).
Good sources [1] of uniqueness or randomness are required for
the Interface-Identifier negotiation to succeed. If neither an
unique number or a random number can be generated, it is
recommended that a zero value be used for the Interface
Identifier transmitted in the Configure-Request. In this case
the PPP peer may provide a valid non-zero Interface-Identifier
in its response as described below. Note that if at least one of
the PPP peers is able to generate separate non-zero numbers for
itself and its peer, the identifier negotiation will succeed.
When a Configure-Request is received with the Interface
Identifier Configuration Option and the receiving peer
implements this option, the received Interface-Identifier is
compared with the Interface-Identifier of the last
Configure-Request sent to the peer. Depending on the result of the
comparison an implementation MUST respond in one of the
following ways:
If the two Interface-Identifiers are different but the received
Interface-Identifier is zero, a Configure-Nak is sent with a
non-zero Interface-Identifier value suggested for use by the
remote peer. Such a suggested Interface-Identifier MUST be
different from the Interface-Identifier of the last
Configure-Request sent to the peer. It is recommended that the
value suggested be consistently reproducible across
initializations of the IPV6CP finite state machine (administrative
Close and reOpen, reboots, etc). The "u" universal/local) bit of
the suggested identifier MUST be set to zero (0) regardless of its
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
source unless the globally unique EUI-48/EUI-64 derived
identifier is provided for the exclusive use by the remote peer.
If the two Interface-Identifiers are different and the received
Interface-Identifier is not zero, the Interface-Identifier MUST be
acknowledged, i.e. a Configure-Ack is sent with the requested
Interface-Identifier, meaning that the responding peer agrees with
the Interface-Identifier requested.
If the two Interface-Identifiers are equal and are not zero,
Configure-Nak MUST be sent specifying a different non-zero
Interface-Identifier value suggested for use by the remote peer.
It is recommended that the value suggested be consistently
reproducible across initializations of the IPV6CP finite state
machine (administrative Close and reOpen, reboots, etc). The "u"
universal/local) bit of the suggested identifier MUST be set to
zero (0) regardless of its source unless the globally unique
EUI-48/EUI-64 derived identifier is provided for the exclusive use
by the remote peer.
If the two Interface-Identifiers are equal to zero, the Interface
Identifiers negotiation MUST be terminated by transmitting the
Configure-Reject with the Interface-Identifier value set to zero.
In this case a unique Interface-Identifier can not be negotiated.
If a Configure-Request is received with the Interface-Identifier
Configuration Option and the receiving peer does not implement
this option, Configure-Rej is sent.
A new Configure-Request SHOULD NOT be sent to the peer until
normal processing would cause it to be sent (that is, until a
Configure-Nak is received or the Restart timer runs out).
A new Configure-Request MUST NOT contain the Interface-Identifier
option if a valid Interface-Identifier Configure-Reject is
received.
Reception of a Configure-Nak with a suggested Interface-Identifier
different from that of the last Configure-Nak sent to the peer
indicates an unique Interface-Identifier. In this case a new
Configure-Request MUST be sent with the identifier value suggested
in the last Configure-Nak from the peer. But if the received
Interface-Identifier is equal to the one sent in the last
Configure-Nak, a new Interface-Identifier MUST be chosen. In this
case, a new Configure-Request SHOULD be sent with the new
tentative Interface-Identifier. This sequence (transmit
Configure-Request, receive Configure-Request, transmit
Configure-Nak, receive Configure-Nak) might occur a few times, but
it is extremely unlikely to occur repeatedly. More likely, the
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
Interface-Identifiers chosen at either end will quickly diverge,
terminating the sequence.
If negotiation of the Interface-Identifier is required, and the
peer did not provide the option in its Configure-Request, the
option SHOULD be appended to a Configure-Nak. The tentative value
of the Interface-Identifier given must be acceptable as the remote
Interface-Identifier; i.e. it should be different from the
identifier value selected for the local end of the PPP link. The
next Configure-Request from the peer may include this option. If
the next Configure-Request does not include this option the peer
MUST NOT send another Configure-Nak with this option included. It
should assume that the peer's implementation does not support this
option.
By default, an implementation SHOULD attempt to negotiate the
Interface-Identifier for its end of the PPP connection.
A summary of the Interface-Identifier Configuration Option format
is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Interface-Identifier (MS Bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Interface-Identifier (cont)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Interface-Identifier (LS Bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
1
Length
10
Interface-Identifier
The 64-bit Interface-Identifier which is very likely to be
unique on the link or zero if a good source of uniqueness
can not be found.
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
Default
If no valid interface identifier can be successfully
negotiated, no default Interface-Identifier value should be
assumed. The procedures for recovering from such a case are
unspecified. One approach is to manually configure the
interface identifier of the interface.
4.2 IPv6-Compression-Protocol
Description
This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of a
specific IPv6 packet compression protocol. The
IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option is used to indicate
the ability to receive compressed packets. Each end of the link
must separately request this option if bi-directional compression
is desired. By default, compression is not enabled.
IPv6 compression negotiated with this option is specific to IPv6
datagrams and is not to be confused with compression resulting
from negotiations via Compression Control Protocol (CCP), which
potentially effect all datagrams.
A summary of the IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option
format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to
right.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | IPv6-Compression-Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+
Type
2
Length
>= 4
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
IPv6-Compression-Protocol
The IPv6-Compression-Protocol field is two octets and indicates
the compression protocol desired. Values for this field are
always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol field
values for that same compression protocol.
No IPv6-Compression-Protocol field values are currently
assigned. Specific assignments will be made in documents that
define specific compression algorithms.
Data
The Data field is zero or more octets and contains additional
data as determined by the particular compression protocol.
Default
No IPv6 compression protocol enabled.
5. Stateless Autoconfiguration and Link-Local Addresses
The Interface Identifier of IPv6 unicast addresses [6] of a PPP
interface, SHOULD be negotiated in the IPV6CP phase of the PPP
connection setup (see section 4.1). If no valid Interface
Identifier has been successfully negotiated, procedures for
recovering from such a case are unspecified. One approach is to
manually configure the Interface-Identifier of the interface.
The negotiated Interface-Identifier is used by the local end of
the PPP link to autoconfigure IPv6 link-local unicast address for
the PPP interface. However, it SHOULD NOT be assumed that the
same Interface-Identifier is used in configuring global unicast
addresses for the PPP interface using IPv6 stateless address
autoconfiguration [3]. The PPP peer MAY generate one or more
Interface Identifiers, for instance, using a method described in
[9], to autoconfigure one or more global unicast addresses.
As long as the Interface-Identifier is negotiated in the IPV6CP
phase of the PPP connection setup, it is redundant to perform
duplicate address detection (DAD) as a part of the IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration protocol [3] on the IPv6 link-local
address generated by the PPP peer. It MAY also be redundant to
perform DAD on any global unicast addresses configured (using an
Interface-Identifier that is either negotiated during IPV6CP or
generated, for instance, as per [9]) for the interface as part of
the IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration protocol [3] provided
that the following two conditions are met:
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
1) The prefixes advertised, through the Router Advertisement
messages, by the access router terminating the PPP link are
exclusive to the PPP link.
2) The access router terminating the PPP link does not
autoconfigure any IPv6 global unicast addresses from the
prefixes that it advertises.
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that for PPP links with the IPV6CP
Interface-Identifier option enabled and satisfying the
aforementioned two conditions, the default value of the
DupAddrDetectTransmits autoconfiguration variable [3] is set to
zero by the system management. 3GPP2 networks are an example of a
technology that uses PPP to enable a host to obtain an IPv6 global
unicast address and satisfies the aforementioned two conditions
[10]. 3GPP networks are another example [11] & [13].
Link-local addresses
Link-local addresses of PPP interfaces have the following
format:
| 10 bits | 54 bits | 64 bits |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
|1111111010| 0 | Interface-Identifier |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
The most significant 10 bits of the address is the Link-Local
prefix FE80::. 54 zero bits pad out the address between the
Link-Local prefix and the Interface-Identifier fields.
6. Security Considerations
The IPv6 Control Protocol extension to PPP can be used with all
defined PPP authentication and encryption mechanisms.
The information learned via the NCP protocol SHOULD not be trusted
for making security relevant decisions.
7. Acknowledgments
This document borrows from the Magic-Number LCP option and as such
is partially based on previous work done by the PPP working group.
The editor is grateful for the input provided by members of the
IPv6 community in the spirit of updating the RFC 2472. Thanks, in
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
particular, go to Pete Barany and Karim El-malki for their
technical contributions. Also, thanks to Alex Conta for a
thorough reviewing and Pekka Savola for the nits.
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol", STD 51, RFC
1661, July 1994.
[2] Deering, S., and R. Hinden, Editors, "Internet Protocol,
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[3] Thomson, S., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[4] IANA, "Assigned Numbers", http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
[5] IEEE, "Guidelines for 64-bit Global Identifier (EUI-64)
Registration Authority", April 2004.
[6] Hinden, R., and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 3513, July 1998.
[7] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[8] Narten T., and C. Burton, "A Caution On The Canonical Ordering
Of Link-Layer Addresses,ö RFC 2469, December 1998.
[9] Narten T., and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6,ö RFC 3041, January 2001.
8.2 Informative references
[10] 3GPP2 X.S0011-002-C v1.0, "cdma2000 Wireless IP Network
Standard: Simple IP and Mobile IP Access Services,ö September
2003.
[11] 3GPP TS 29.061 V6.4.0, "Interworking between the Public Land
Mobile Network (PLMN) Supporting packet based services and
Packet Data Networks (PDN) (Release 6),ö April 2005.
[12] Droms, E., et al., ôDynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6),ö RFC 3315, July 2003.
[13] 3GPP TS 23.060 v6.8.0, ôGeneral Packet Radio Service (GPRS);
Service description; Stage 2 (Release 6),ö March 2005.
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
Appendix A: Global Scope Addresses
A node on the PPP link MUST create global unicast addresses either
through stateless or stateful address auto-configuration
mechanisms. In the stateless address auto-configuration [3], the
node relies on sub-net prefixes advertised by the router via the
Router Advertisement messages to obtain global unicast addresses
from an interface identifier. In the stateful address auto-
configuration, the host relies on a Stateful Server, like, DHCPv6
[12], to obtain global unicast addresses.
Appendix B: Changes from RFC-2472
The following changes were made from RFC-2472 "IPv6 over PPP":
- Minor updates to sections 3 and 4
- Updated the text in section 4.1 to include the reference to
Appendix A and minor text clarifications.
- Updated the text in Section 5 to: (a) option the use of one or
more Interface-Identifiers generated, other than the IPV6CP
negotiated, in the creation of global unicast addresses, and
(b) identify cases against the DAD of created non-link-local
addresses.
- Added new and updated references.
- Added the Appendix A
Authors' Addresses
Dimitry Haskin
Ed Allen
Srihari Varada (Editor)
TranSwitch Corporation
3 Enterprise Dr.
Shelton, CT 06484. US.
Phone: +1 203 929 8810
EMail: varada@txc.com
IPR Disclosure
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt June 2005
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
IPR Notice
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.
Copyright Notice and Disclaimer
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
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.
Varada et al. December 2005 [Page 15]