processing steps and cache that information, using the source address
plus the flow label as the cache key. Subsequent packets with the
same source address and flow label may then be handled by referring
to the cached information rather than examining all those fields
that, according to the requirements of the previous paragraph, can be
assumed unchanged from the first packet seen in the flow.
Cached flow-handling state that is set up opportunistically, as
discussed in the preceding paragraph, must be discarded no more than
6 seconds after it is established, regardless of whether or not
packets of the same flow continue to arrive. If another packet with
the same source address and flow label arrives after the cached state
has been discarded, the packet undergoes full, normal processing (as
if its flow label were zero), which may result in the re-creation of
cached flow state for that flow.
The lifetime of flow-handling state that is set up explicitly, for
example by a control protocol or a hop-by-hop option, must be
specified as part of the specification of the explicit set-up
mechanism; it may exceed 6 seconds.
A source must not re-use a flow label for a new flow within the
lifetime of any flow-handling state that might have been established
for the prior use of that flow label. Since flow-handling state with
a lifetime of 6 seconds may be established opportunistically for any
flow, the minimum interval between the last packet of one flow and
the first packet of a new flow using the same flow label is 6
seconds. Flow labels used for explicitly set-up flows with longer
flow-state lifetimes must remain unused for those longer lifetimes
before being re-used for new flows.
When a node stops and restarts (e.g., as a result of a "crash"), it
must be careful not to use a flow label that it might have used for
an earlier flow whose lifetime may not have expired yet. This may be
accomplished by recording flow label usage on stable storage so that
it can be remembered across crashes, or by refraining from using any
flow labels until the maximum lifetime of any possible previously
established flows has expired (at least 6 seconds; more if explicit
flow set-up mechanisms with longer lifetimes might have been used).
If the minimum time for rebooting the node is known (often more than
6 seconds), that time can be deducted from the necessary waiting
period before starting to allocate flow labels.
There is no requirement that all, or even most, packets belong to
flows, i.e., carry non-zero flow labels. This observation is placed
here to remind protocol designers and implementors not to assume
otherwise. For example, it would be unwise to design a router whose
performance would be adequate only if most packets belonged to flows,
or to design a header compression scheme that only worked on packets
that belonged to flows.
7. Priority
The 4-bit Priority field in the IPv6 header enables a source to
identify the desired delivery priority of its packets, relative to
other packets from the same source. The Priority values are divided
into two ranges: Values 0 through 7 are used to specify the priority
of traffic for which the source is providing congestion control,
i.e., traffic that "backs off" in response to congestion, such as TCP
traffic. Values 8 through 15 are used to specify the priority of
traffic that does not back off in response to congestion, e.g.,
"real-time" packets being sent at a constant rate.
For congestion-controlled traffic, the following Priority values are
recommended for particular application categories:
0 - uncharacterized traffic
1 - "filler" traffic (e.g., netnews)
2 - unattended data transfer (e.g., email)
3 - (reserved)
4 - attended bulk transfer (e.g., FTP, NFS)
5 - (reserved)
6 - interactive traffic (e.g., telnet, X)
7 - internet control traffic (e.g., routing protocols, SNMP)
For non-congestion-controlled traffic, the lowest Priority value (8)
should be used for those packets that the sender is most willing to
have discarded under conditions of congestion (e.g., high-fidelity
video traffic), and the highest value (15) should be used for those
packets that the sender is least willing to have discarded (e.g.,
low-fidelity audio traffic). There is no relative ordering implied
between the congestion-controlled priorities and the non-congestion-
controlled priorities.
8. Upper-Layer Protocol Issues
8.1 Upper-Layer Checksums
Any transport or other upper-layer protocol that includes the
addresses from the IP header in its checksum computation must be
modified for use over IPv6, to include the 128-bit IPv6 addresses
instead of 32-bit IPv4 addresses. In particular, the following
illustration shows the TCP and UDP "pseudo-header" for IPv6:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| zero | Next Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o If the packet contains a Routing header, the Destination
Address used in the pseudo-header is that of the final
destination. At the originating node, that address will be in
the last element of the Routing header; at the recipient(s),
that address will be in the Destination Address field of the
IPv6 header.
o The Next Header value in the pseudo-header identifies the
upper-layer protocol (e.g., 6 for TCP, or 17 for UDP). It will
differ from the Next Header value in the IPv6 header if there
are extension headers between the IPv6 header and the upper-
layer header.
o The Payload Length used in the pseudo-header is the length of
the upper-layer packet, including the upper-layer header. It
will be less than the Payload Length in the IPv6 header (or in
the Jumbo Payload option) if there are extension headers
between the IPv6 header and the upper-layer header.
o Unlike IPv4, when UDP packets are originated by an IPv6 node,
the UDP checksum is not optional. That is, whenever
originating a UDP packet, an IPv6 node must compute a UDP
checksum over the packet and the pseudo-header, and, if that
computation yields a result of zero, it must be changed to hex
FFFF for placement in the UDP header. IPv6 receivers must
discard UDP packets containing a zero checksum, and should log
the error.
The IPv6 version of ICMP [RFC-1885] includes the above pseudo-header
in its checksum computation; this is a change from the IPv4 version
of ICMP, which does not include a pseudo-header in its checksum. The
reason for the change is to protect ICMP from misdelivery or
corruption of those fields of the IPv6 header on which it depends,
which, unlike IPv4, are not covered by an internet-layer checksum.
The Next Header field in the pseudo-header for ICMP contains the
value 58, which identifies the IPv6 version of ICMP.
8.2 Maximum Packet Lifetime
Unlike IPv4, IPv6 nodes are not required to enforce maximum packet
lifetime. That is the reason the IPv4 "Time to Live" field was
renamed "Hop Limit" in IPv6. In practice, very few, if any, IPv4
implementations conform to the requirement that they limit packet
lifetime, so this is not a change in practice. Any upper-layer
protocol that relies on the internet layer (whether IPv4 or IPv6) to
limit packet lifetime ought to be upgraded to provide its own
mechanisms for detecting and discarding obsolete packets.
8.3 Maximum Upper-Layer Payload Size
When computing the maximum payload size available for upper-layer
data, an upper-layer protocol must take into account the larger size
of the IPv6 header relative to the IPv4 header. For example, in
IPv4, TCP's MSS option is computed as the maximum packet size (a
default value or a value learned through Path MTU Discovery) minus 40
octets (20 octets for the minimum-length IPv4 header and 20 octets
for the minimum-length TCP header). When using TCP over IPv6, the
MSS must be computed as the maximum packet size minus 60 octets,
because the minimum-length IPv6 header (i.e., an IPv6 header with no
extension headers) is 20 octets longer than a minimum-length IPv4
header.
Appendix A. Formatting Guidelines for Options
This appendix gives some advice on how to lay out the fields when
designing new options to be used in the Hop-by-Hop Options header or
the Destination Options header, as described in section 4.2. These
guidelines are based on the following assumptions:
o One desirable feature is that any multi-octet fields within the
Option Data area of an option be aligned on their natural
boundaries, i.e., fields of width n octets should be placed at
an integer multiple of n octets from the start of the Hop-by-
Hop or Destination Options header, for n = 1, 2, 4, or 8.
o Another desirable feature is that the Hop-by-Hop or Destination
Options header take up as little space as possible, subject to
the requirement that the header be an integer multiple of 8
octets long.
o It may be assumed that, when either of the option-bearing
headers are present, they carry a very small number of options,
usually only one.
These assumptions suggest the following approach to laying out the
fields of an option: order the fields from smallest to largest, with
no interior padding, then derive the alignment requirement for the
entire option based on the alignment requirement of the largest field
(up to a maximum alignment of 8 octets). This approach is
illustrated in the following examples:
Example 1
If an option X required two data fields, one of length 8 octets and
one of length 4 octets, it would be laid out as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type=X |Opt Data Len=12|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 8-octet field +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Its alignment requirement is 8n+2, to ensure that the 8-octet field
starts at a multiple-of-8 offset from the start of the enclosing
header. A complete Hop-by-Hop or Destination Options header
containing this one option would look as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len=1 | Option Type=X |Opt Data Len=12|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 8-octet field +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example 2
If an option Y required three data fields, one of length 4 octets,
one of length 2 octets, and one of length 1 octet, it would be laid
out as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type=Y |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Opt Data Len=7 | 1-octet field | 2-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Its alignment requirement is 4n+3, to ensure that the 4-octet field
starts at a multiple-of-4 offset from the start of the enclosing
header. A complete Hop-by-Hop or Destination Options header
containing this one option would look as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len=1 | Pad1 Option=0 | Option Type=Y |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Opt Data Len=7 | 1-octet field | 2-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PadN Option=1 |Opt Data Len=2 | 0 | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example 3
A Hop-by-Hop or Destination Options header containing both options X
and Y from Examples 1 and 2 would have one of the two following
formats, depending on which option appeared first:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len=3 | Option Type=X |Opt Data Len=12|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 8-octet field +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PadN Option=1 |Opt Data Len=1 | 0 | Option Type=Y |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Opt Data Len=7 | 1-octet field | 2-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PadN Option=1 |Opt Data Len=2 | 0 | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len=3 | Pad1 Option=0 | Option Type=Y |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Opt Data Len=7 | 1-octet field | 2-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PadN Option=1 |Opt Data Len=4 | 0 | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | 0 | Option Type=X |Opt Data Len=12|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4-octet field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 8-octet field +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Security Considerations
This document specifies that the IP Authentication Header [RFC-1826]
and the IP Encapsulating Security Payload [RFC-1827] be used with
IPv6, in conformance with the Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol [RFC-1825].
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the many helpful suggestions of
the members of the IPng working group, the End-to-End Protocols
research group, and the Internet Community At Large.
Authors' Addresses
Stephen E. Deering Robert M. Hinden
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Ipsilon Networks, Inc.
3333 Coyote Hill Road 2191 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94304 Palo Alto, CA 94303
USA USA
Phone: +1 415 812 4839 Phone: +1 415 846 4604
Fax: +1 415 812 4471 Fax: +1 415 855 1414
EMail: deering@parc.xerox.com EMail: hinden@ipsilon.com
References
[RFC-1825] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC1825, Naval Research Laboratory, August
1995.
[RFC-1826] Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication Header", RFC1826,
Naval Research Laboratory, August 1995.
[RFC-1827] Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security Protocol
(ESP)", RFC1827, Naval Research Laboratory, August
1995.
[RFC-1885] Conta, A., and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message
Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC1885, Digital Equipment
Corporation, Xerox PARC, December 1995.
[RFC-1884] Hinden, R., and S. Deering, Editors, "IP Version 6
Addressing Architecture", RFC1884, Ipsilon Networks,
Xerox PARC, December 1995.
[RFC-1191] Mogul, J., and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC
1191, DECWRL, Stanford University, November 1990.
[RFC-791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC791,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.
[RFC-1700] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC1700, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October
1994.
[RFC-1661] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol
(PPP)", STD 51, RFC1661, Daydreamer, July 1994.