1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair
Request for Comments: 7608 France Telecom
BCP: 198 A. Petrescu
Category: Best Current Practice CEA, LIST
ISSN: 2070-1721 F. Baker
Cisco Systems
July 2015
<span class="h1">IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding</span>
Abstract
IPv6 prefix length, as in IPv4, is a parameter conveyed and used in
IPv6 routing and forwarding processes in accordance with the
Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) architecture. The length of an
IPv6 prefix may be any number from zero to 128, although subnets
using stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for address
allocation conventionally use a /64 prefix. Hardware and software
implementations of routing and forwarding should therefore impose no
rules on prefix length, but implement longest-match-first on prefixes
of any valid length.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608</a>.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7608">RFC 7608</a> July 2015</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
Discussions on the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addressing ([<a href="./rfc7421" title=""Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing"">RFC7421</a>])
revealed a need for a clear recommendation on which bits must be used
by forwarding decision-making processes. However, such a
recommendation was out of scope for that document.
Although <a href="./rfc4291#section-2.5">Section 2.5 of [RFC4291]</a> states "IPv6 unicast addresses are
aggregatable with prefixes of arbitrary bit-length, similar to IPv4
addresses under Classless Inter-Domain Routing" (CIDR, [<a href="./rfc4632" title=""Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan"">RFC4632</a>]),
there is still a misinterpretation that IPv6 prefixes can be either
/127 ([<a href="./rfc6164" title=""Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter- Router Links"">RFC6164</a>]) or any length up to /64. This misinterpretation is
mainly induced by the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addressing.
As discussed in [<a href="./rfc7421" title=""Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing"">RFC7421</a>], "the notion of a /64 boundary in the
address was introduced after the initial design of IPv6, following a
period when it was expected to be at /80". This evolution of the
IPv6 addressing architecture, resulting in [<a href="./rfc4291" title=""IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture"">RFC4291</a>], and followed
with the addition of /127 prefixes for point-to-point links, clearly
demonstrates the intent for future IPv6 developments to have the
flexibility to change this part of the architecture when justified.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7608">RFC 7608</a> July 2015</span>
It is fundamental not to link routing and forwarding to the IPv6
prefix/address semantics [<a href="./rfc4291" title=""IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture"">RFC4291</a>]. This document includes a
recommendation in order to support that goal.
Forwarding decisions rely on the longest-match-first algorithm, which
stipulates that, given a choice between two prefixes in the
Forwarding Information Base (FIB) of different length that match the
destination address in each bit up to their respective lengths, the
longer prefix is used. This document's recommendation (<a href="#section-2">Section 2</a>) is
that IPv6 forwarding must follow the longest-match-first rule,
regardless of prefix length, unless some overriding policy is
configured.
This recommendation does not conflict with the 64-bit boundary for
some schemes that based on IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration
(SLAAC) [<a href="./rfc4862" title=""IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration"">RFC4862</a>], such as [<a href="./rfc2464" title=""Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks"">RFC2464</a>]. Indeed, [<a href="./rfc7421" title=""Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing"">RFC7421</a>] clarifies
this is only a parameter in the SLAAC process, and other longer
prefix lengths are in operational use (e.g., either manually
configured or based upon DHCPv6 [<a href="./rfc3315" title=""Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)"">RFC3315</a>]).
A historical background of CIDR is documented in [<a href="./rfc1380" title=""IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing"">RFC1380</a>] and
<a href="./rfc4632#section-2">Section 2 of [RFC4632]</a>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language</span>
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 <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Recommendation</span>
IPv6 implementations MUST conform to the rules specified in
<a href="./rfc4632#section-5.1">Section 5.1 of [RFC4632]</a>.
Decision-making processes for forwarding MUST NOT restrict the length
of IPv6 prefixes by design. In particular, forwarding processes MUST
be designed to process prefixes of any length up to /128, by
increments of 1.
Policies can be enforced to restrict the length of IP prefixes
advertised within a given domain or in a given interconnection link.
These policies are deployment specific and/or driven by
administrative (interconnection) considerations.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7608">RFC 7608</a> July 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document does not introduce security issues in addition to what
is discussed in [<a href="./rfc4291" title=""IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture"">RFC4291</a>].
IPv6 security issues, including operational ones, are discussed in
[<a href="./rfc4942" title=""IPv6 Transition/ Co-existence Security Considerations"">RFC4942</a>] and [<a href="#ref-OPSEC-v6" title=""Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks"">OPSEC-v6</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4291">RFC4291</a>] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", <a href="./rfc4291">RFC 4291</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4632">RFC4632</a>] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp122">BCP 122</a>, <a href="./rfc4632">RFC 4632</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-OPSEC-v6">OPSEC-v6</a>] Chittimaneni, K., Kaeo, M., and E. Vyncke, "Operational
Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", Work in
Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-opsec-v6-06">draft-ietf-opsec-v6-06</a>, March 2015.
[<a id="ref-RFC1380">RFC1380</a>] Gross, P. and P. Almquist, "IESG Deliberations on Routing
and Addressing", <a href="./rfc1380">RFC 1380</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC1380, November
1992, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1380">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1380</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2464">RFC2464</a>] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", <a href="./rfc2464">RFC 2464</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3315">RFC3315</a>] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", <a href="./rfc3315">RFC 3315</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315</a>>.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7608">RFC 7608</a> July 2015</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4862">RFC4862</a>] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", <a href="./rfc4862">RFC 4862</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4942">RFC4942</a>] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/
Co-existence Security Considerations", <a href="./rfc4942">RFC 4942</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4942, September 2007,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4942">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4942</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6164">RFC6164</a>] Kohno, M., Nitzan, B., Bush, R., Matsuzaki, Y., Colitti,
L., and T. Narten, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-
Router Links", <a href="./rfc6164">RFC 6164</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6164, April 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6164">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6164</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7421">RFC7421</a>] Carpenter, B., Ed., Chown, T., Gont, F., Jiang, S.,
Petrescu, A., and A. Yourtchenko, "Analysis of the 64-bit
Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", <a href="./rfc7421">RFC 7421</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7421, January 2015,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7421">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7421</a>>.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7608">RFC 7608</a> July 2015</span>
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Eric Vyncke, Christian Jacquenet, Brian Carpenter, Fernando
Gont, Tatuya Jinmei, Lorenzo Colitti, Ross Chandler, David Farmer,
David Black, and Barry Leiba for their contributions and comments.
Special thanks to Randy Bush for his support.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Alexandre Petrescu
CEA, LIST
CEA Saclay
Gif-sur-Yvette, Ile-de-France 91190
France
Phone: +33169089223
Email: alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr
Fred Baker
Cisco Systems
Santa Barbara, California 93117
United States
Email: fred@cisco.com
Boucadair, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 6]
</pre>
|
