Internet Engineering Task Force P. Savola Internet-Draft CSC/FUNET Expires: July 30, 2004 Jan 30, 2004 Basic Transition Mechanisms (RFC 2893bis) Implementation and Interoperability Report Template draft-savola-v6ops-mechv2-interop-impl-template-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 30, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo is a checklist and a template to verify the implementation status and the interoperability of implemented features of Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (RFC 2893bis), to gather the implementation results to advance, and revise if necessary, RFC 2893bis to Draft Standard. Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Part I: Information about the Implementation . . . . . . . . 3 3. Part II: Implementantation of the Features . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1 Support for Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.1 DNS Resolver Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2 Configured Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.1 Fragmentation and MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2 Hop Limit Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.3 ICMPv4 Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.4 IPv4 Header Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.5 Decapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.6 Link-local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.7 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3 Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Part III: Interoperability of the Features . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1 MTU and Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2 ICMP Error Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3 Encapsulation and Decapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4 Link-local Addresses and Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 12 Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 1. Introduction This memo is a checklist and a template to verify the implementation status and the interoperability of implemented features of Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (RFC 2893bis) [1], to gather the implementation results to advance, and revise if necessary, RFC 2893bis to Draft Standard [2]. This memo has three templates: the contact information and basic details of an implementation, the implementation status, and the interoperability. Hints for filling the template are given, when appropriate, in square brackets. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are used only to refer to the requirement level specified in RFC 2893bis [1]. 2. Part I: Information about the Implementation Name of the implementation: Version number, if appropriate: Organization: Origin of code: [developed from scratch, adapted, etc.?] Information from: [name and email address] 3. Part II: Implementantation of the Features 3.1 Support for Dual Stack Is a configuration switch provided to disable either stack? (MAY) * IPv4: [YES/NO] * IPv6: [YES/NO] Does DNS resolver implementation support AAAA records: [YES/NO] 3.1.1 DNS Resolver Support (Only filled if AAAA records are supported.) Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 When a query locates both AAAA and A records, Does the library filter or order (or provide the capability to do so) the results returned to the application to influence the selection of IP version? (MAY) * filter: [YES/NO] o Is this configurable on the system level? [YES/NO] * order: [YES/NO] o Is this configurable on the system level? [YES/NO] If the results are ordered, which records are ordered first: (MAY) [AAAA/A] If the results are filtered or ordered, is application allowed to control whether or not filtering takes place? (MUST): [YES/NO] 3.2 Configured Tunneling Is configured tunneling supported? [YES/NO] 3.2.1 Fragmentation and MTU Does the implementation treat the tunnel as an interface with MTU of about 64 kilobytes? (MUST NOT) [YES/NO] Does the implementation support static MTU determination? [YES/NO] Does the implementation support dynamic MTU determination? (OPTIONAL) [YES/NO] If yes to both, is it possible to choose between static and dynamic MTU on a per-tunnel basis? (SHOULD) [YES/NO] 3.2.1.1 Static MTU (Please only fill in if implemented.) Is the default MTU be between 1280 and 1480 bytes (inclusive)? (MUST) [YES/NO] Is the default MTU 1280 bytes? (SHOULD) [YES/NO] Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 Is there a configuration knob to change the MTU value? (MUST if not 1280 by default) [YES/NO] Is IPv4 Don't Fragment bit set used when encapsulating? (MUST NOT) [YES/NO] 3.2.1.2 Dynamic MTU Determination (Please only fill in if implemented.) oes dynamic MTU determination behave as described in the algorithm described in Section 3.2.2? (SHOULD) [YES/NO] In particular, * Are IPv6 packet too big messages sent if IPv6 packet is larger than 1280 and does not fit into the IPv4 path MTU? [YES/NO] * If the IPv6 packet is not larger than 1280 bytes, but the IPv4 path MTU is less than equal to 1300, is the encapsulation done without setting the Don't Fragment bit in the IPv4 header? [YES/NO] * If the IPv4 path MTU is larger than 1300, and an IPv6 packet which does not fit into the IPv4 path MTU is to be tunneled, is ICMv6 "packet too big" sent back, pointing to the maximum available MTU? [YES/NO] * If the IPv4 path MTU is larger than 1300, and the IPv6 packet fits in it, is Don't Fragment bit set in the encapsulation? [YES/NO] If "no" to any one of these, please elaborate (optional): 3.2.2 Hop Limit Handling Is Hop Limit decreased by one only when forwarding the IPv6 packet, as with any regular datalink? [YES/NO] Is it possible to administratively configure IPv4 TTL of a tunnel? [YES/NO] * If so, is it possible using IP Tunnel MIB? [YES/NO] Is the default TTL 255? [YES/NO] Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 3.2.3 ICMPv4 Errors (Do not respond if only static MTU is supported, and ICMP errors are not relayed.) Are IPv4 packet too big ICMP errors relayed as IPv6 ICMP packet too big errors? [YES/NO] Are other kind of ICMP errors relayed as ICMPv6 messages if the ICMPv4 messages include enough payload? [YES/NO] * If yes, is Destination Unreachable - Address Unreachable code used? [YES/NO] 3.2.4 IPv4 Header Construction Is ToS byte, when encapsulating, zero by default? [YES/NO] * If not, does the behaviour comply to RFC 2983 [3] and 3168 [4] section 9.1? [YES/NO] Is the source address the outgoing interface address unless otherwise configured? [YES/NO] Can the source address of be administratively set to something else (SHOULD)? [YES/NO] 3.2.5 Decapsulation Does the node receive and process tunneled packets which have not been addressed to one of its own IPv4 addresses (e.g. 255.255.255.255 or a directed broadcast address)? (must not) [YES/ NO] Is source address of the packets arriving at the interface verified to be the tunnel endpoint configured at this node? (MUST) [YES/NO] * Are packets failing that check discarded (MUST)? [YES/NO] * Are any ICMP messages generated (SHOULD NOT)? [YES/NO] * Does the implementation generate ICMP destination unreachable packets for unknown protocols? [YES/NO] Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 o If yes, is the same ICMP code used here? (MAY) [YES/NO] Is "Strict RPF" -like mechanism implemented for incoming IPv4 packets? (MAY) [YES/NO] * If so, is it disabled by default (RECOMMENDED)? [YES/NO] * Are packets failing this check discarded (SHOULD)? [YES/NO] o Are any ICMP messages generated by default (SHOULD NOT)? [YES/NO] Is the IPv6 MRU on the tunnel interfaces (at least) the maximum of 1500 bytes and the largest (IPv6) interface MTU on the decapsulator? (MUST) [YES/NO] Is IPv4 tunnel packet reassembly supported up to (at least) the maximum of 1500 bytes and the largest MTU of the IPv4 interfaces? (MUST) [YES/NO] * Is there a knob to set a larger value? [YES/NO] * Is it possible to set a smaller value (MUST NOT)? [YES/NO] Are the IPv6 ToS bits modified when decapsulating? [YES/NO] * If so, is this conformant with RFC 2983 and RFC3168 section 9.1? [YES/NO] Is the IPv6 packet length determined from the IPv6 payload length (and not e.g., IPv4 length)? (MUST) [YES/NO] After decapsulation, are packets with invalid IPv6 source addresses discarded (MUST)? [YES/NO] * Are all of the following discarded (SHOULD): [YES/NO] 1. IPv6 multicast addresses (FF00::/8) 2. The loopback address (::1) 3. IPv4 compatible addresses (::/96) except ::/128 (the unspecified address) 4. IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (::ffff:0:0/96) * If not, what's missing: * If more are discarded, please elaborate (optional): Are the resulting IPv6 packets subjected to a strict RPF -like ingress filter (should)? [YES/NO] Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 3.2.6 Link-local Addresses Does every IPv6 tunnel interface have a link-local address (MUST)? [YES/NO] What method is used to form the identifier: * IPv4 address as described in the document? [YES/NO] o If there are multiple addresses on an interface, is just one chosen in some fashion? [YES/NO] * If some other mechanism, please describe (optional): 3.2.7 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels Does the implementation at least accept and respond to NUD probes? (MUST) [YES/NO] Does the implementation send NUD probes? (SHOULD) [YES/NO] * If yes, can NUD probes be omitted on router-to-router links if a routing protocol tracks bidirectional reachability? [YES/NO] Are Source or Target Link Layer Address options sent with Neighbor Discovery? (SHOULD NOT) [YES/NO] Is the content of such options silently ignored? (MUST) [YES/NO] 3.3 Miscellaneous Are interfaces to different links treated as separate (e.g., from Discovery point-of-view)? (must) [YES/NO] 4. Part III: Interoperability of the Features (When describing the tested interoperability of a feature with another implementation, please include the name of the implementation and date, even, or place (as appropriate). Abbreviations should be used and explained as appropriate.) 4.1 MTU and Fragmentation Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 Static MTU tested against Static MTU: * same MTU at each end: * different MTUs at each end: * a lower IPv6 MTU on the path than configured: * all of these also work with IPv4 fragmentation: Static MTU tested against Dynamic MTU: * When Dynamic MTU sends larger packets than the static MTU at the other end: * all of these also work with IPv4 fragmentation: * all the four branches of the dynamic algorithm tested: Dynamic MTU tested against Dynamic MTU: * all the four branches of the dynamic algorithm tested: 4.2 ICMP Error Messages Can relay ICMPv4 Packet Too Big errors to ICMPv6 so that the other implementations process them: Can receive and process ICMPv6 messages generated from ICMPv4 Packet Too Big messages: Do both of these also work for other kind of ICMP errors? 4.3 Encapsulation and Decapsulation If implemented, has ToS byte modification been tested: * Our encapsulation is understood: * We understand what others encapsulate: If "Strict RPF" -like mechanism is implemented for IPv4, it has been tested to work with: IPv4 packet reassembly, up to the largest MTU of IPv4 interfaces, has been tested: Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 The implementation can defend its interface address with DAD (the unspecified address not filtered out): If "Strict RPF" -like mechanism is implemented for IPv6, it has been tested to work with: 4.4 Link-local Addresses and Neighbor Discovery Link-local addresses are tested to be generated in a unique-enough fashion: Does the implementation accept and respond to NUD probes: Does the implementation send NUD probes which are responded to: Does the implementation ignore the content (and not the whole message) of received SLLA/TLLA options: Does the implementation send SLLA/TLLA options, and the content is properly ignored: 5. Security Considerations This memo provides a template for checking the implementation and interoperability status of a standard, and as such has no security issues. Normative References [1] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01 (work in progress), October 2003. [2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [3] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", RFC 2983, October 2000. [4] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, September 2001. Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 Author's Address Pekka Savola CSC/FUNET Espoo Finland EMail: psavola@funet.fi Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Transmech Implementation and Interoperability Jan 2004 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Savola Expires July 30, 2004 [Page 13]