Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers

Jiang, Sheng; Carpenter, Brian

doi:10.17487/rfc7045

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…IANA has reserved protocol number 139 for the Host Identity Protocol and included it in the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry [RFC7045] and the "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers" registry. The reference in both of these registries has been updated from [RFC5201] to this specification.…”

Section: Iana Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)

Henderson¹,

Heer²,

Jokela³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document specifies the details of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). HIP allows consenting hosts to securely establish and maintain shared IP-layer state, allowing separation of the identifier and locator roles of IP addresses, thereby enabling continuity of communications across IP address changes. HIP is based on a DiffieHellman key exchange, using public key identifiers from a new Host Identity namespace for mutual peer authentication. The protocol is designed to be resistant to denial-of-service (DoS) and man-in-themiddle (MitM) attacks. When used together with another suitable security protocol, such as the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), it provides integrity protection and optional encryption for upperlayer protocols, such as TCP and UDP.This document obsoletes RFC 5201 and addresses the concerns raised by the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility. It also incorporates lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201.

show abstract

Section: Iana Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)

Henderson¹,

Heer²,

Jokela³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The new code point is as follows: IPv6 packets containing the MPLS OAM RAO are encapsulated with an MPLS header and are not expected to be inspected by every label switched hop within an MPLS LSP. Consequently, this value of the RAO will be processed by the appropriate router and is not subject to the problem of being ignored, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC7045].…”

Section: Iana Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

Raza¹,

Pignataro²,

Akiya³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RFC 4379 defines the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute mechanism in which the Router Alert Option (RAO) MUST be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Request messages and may conditionally be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Reply messages depending on the Reply Mode used. While a generic "Router shall examine packet" Option Value is used for the IPv4 RAO, there is no generic RAO value defined for IPv6 that can be used. This document allocates a new, generic IPv6 RAO value that can be used by MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tools, including the MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply messages for MPLS in IPv6 environments. Consequently, it updates RFC 4379.The initial motivation to request an IPv6 RAO value for MPLS OAM comes from the MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute. However, this value is applicable to all MPLS OAM and not limited to MPLS LSP Ping/ Traceroute.

show abstract

“…If ACLs are used to enforce a security policy, then the enterprise must verify whether its ACLs (but also stateful firewalls) are able to process extension headers (this means understand them enough to parse them to find the upper-layer payloads) and to block unwanted extension headers (e.g., to implement [RFC5095]). This topic is discussed further in [RFC7045].…”

Section: Specific Security Issues For Ipv6mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enterprise IPv6 Deployment Guidelines

Kuarsingh¹,

Lee²,

Vyncke³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enterprise network administrators worldwide are in various stages of preparing for or deploying IPv6 into their networks. The administrators face different challenges than operators of Internet access providers and have reasons for different priorities. The overall problem for many administrators will be to offer Internetfacing services over IPv6 while continuing to support IPv4, and while introducing IPv6 access within the enterprise IT network. The overall transition will take most networks from an IPv4-only environment to a dual-stack network environment and eventually an

show abstract

Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers

Cited by 19 publications

References 10 publications

Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)

Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)

IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

Enterprise IPv6 Deployment Guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About