RFC 6741

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                          RJ Atkinson
Request for Comments: 6741                                    Consultant
Category: Experimental                                         SN Bhatti
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            U. St Andrews
                                                           November 2012

               Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)
                       Engineering Considerations


   This document describes common (i.e., version independent)
   engineering details for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
   (ILNP), which is an experimental, evolutionary enhancement to IP.
   This document is a product of the IRTF Routing Research Group.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Research Task
   Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related
   research and development activities.  These results might not be
   suitable for deployment.  This RFC represents the individual
   opinion(s) of one or more members of the Routing Research Group of
   the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for
   publication by the IRSG are not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
   be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Document Roadmap ...........................................4
      1.2. Terminology ................................................5
   2. ILNP Identifiers ................................................5
      2.1. Syntax .....................................................6
      2.2. Default Values for an Identifier ...........................6
      2.3. Local-Scoped Identifier Values .............................6
      2.4. Multicast Identifiers ......................................7
      2.5. Administration of Identifier Values ........................7
   3. Encoding of Identifiers and Locators for ILNPv6 .................7
      3.1. Encoding of I and L Values .................................7
      3.2. Network-Level Packet Formats ..............................10
      3.3. Encoding of Identifiers and Locators for ILNPv4 ...........11
   4. Transport-Layer Changes ........................................12
      4.1. End-System State ..........................................12
      4.2. TCP/UDP Checksum Handling .................................12
      4.3. ICMP Checksum Handling ....................................12
   5. ILNP Communication Cache (ILCC) ................................13
      5.1. Formal Definition .........................................13
      5.2. Ageing ILCC Entries .......................................15
      5.3. Large Numbers of Locators .................................15
      5.4. Lookups into the ILCC .....................................16
   6. Handling Location/Connectivity Changes .........................16
      6.1. Node Location/Connectivity Changes ........................16
      6.2. Network Connectivity/Locator Changes ......................17
   7. Subnetting .....................................................17
      7.1. Subnetting for ILNPv6 .....................................18
      7.2. Subnetting for ILNPv4 .....................................19
      7.3. Subnetting for Router-Router Links in IPv6/ILNPv6 .........19
   8. DNS Considerations .............................................19

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

      8.1. Secure Dynamic DNS Update .................................19
      8.2. New DNS RR Types ..........................................20
      8.4. DNS TTL Values for ILNP RRS Types .........................21
      8.5. IP/ILNP Dual Operation and Transition .....................21
   9. IP Security for ILNP ...........................................22
      9.1. IPsec Security Association Enhancements for ILNP ..........22
      9.2. IP Authentication Header Enhancements for ILNP ............23
      9.3. Key Management Considerations .............................23
   10. Backwards Compatibility and Incremental Deployment ............24
      10.1. Priorities in the Design of ILNPv6 and ILNPv4 ............24
      10.2. Infrastructure ...........................................25
      10.3. Core Protocols ...........................................25
      10.4. Scope of End-System Changes ..............................26
      10.5. Applications .............................................27
      10.6. Interworking between IP and ILNP .........................27
   11. Security Considerations .......................................28
      11.1. Authenticating ICMP Messages .............................29
      11.2. Forged Identifier Attacks ................................31
   12. Privacy Considerations ........................................31
   13. Operational Considerations ....................................31
      13.1. Session Liveness and Reachability ........................32
      13.2. Key Management Considerations ............................33
      13.3. Point-to-Point Router Links ..............................33
   14. Referrals and Application Programming Interfaces ..............34
      14.1. BSD Sockets APIs .........................................34
      14.2. Java (and Other) APIs ....................................34
      14.3. Referrals in the Future ..................................35
   15. References ....................................................35
      15.1. Normative References .....................................35
      15.2. Informative References ...................................36
   16. Acknowledgements ..............................................38

1.  Introduction

   The ILNP document set has had extensive review within the IRTF
   Routing RG.  ILNP is one of the recommendations made by the RG
   Chairs.  Separately, various refereed research papers on ILNP have
   also been published during this decade.  So, the ideas contained
   herein have had much broader review than IRTF Routing RG.  The views
   in this document were considered controversial by the Routing RG, but
   the RG reached a consensus that the document still should be
   published.  The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on
   anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered

   At present, the Internet research and development community is
   exploring various approaches to evolving the Internet Architecture to
   solve a variety of issues including, but not limited to, scalability

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   of inter-domain routing [RFC4984].  A wide range of other issues
   (e.g., site multihoming, node multihoming, site/subnet mobility, node
   mobility) are also active concerns at present.  Several different
   classes of evolution are being considered by the Internet research
   and development community.  One class is often called "Map and
   Encapsulate", where traffic would be mapped and then tunnelled
   through the inter-domain core of the Internet.  Another class being
   considered is sometimes known as "Identifier/Locator Split".  This
   document relates to a proposal that is in the latter class of
   evolutionary approaches.

   The Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) is an experimental
   network protocol that provides evolutionary enhancements to IP.  ILNP
   is backwards compatible with IP and is incrementally deployable.  The
   best starting point for learning about ILNP is the ILNP Architectural
   Description, which includes a document roadmap [RFC6740].

1.1.  Document Roadmap

   This document describes engineering and implementation considerations
   that are common to both ILNP for IPv4 (ILNPv4) and ILNP for IPv6

   The ILNP architecture can have more than one engineering
   instantiation.  For example, one can imagine a "clean-slate"
   engineering design based on the ILNP architecture.  In separate
   documents, we describe two specific engineering instances of ILNP.
   The term "ILNPv6" refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is
   based upon, and backwards compatible with, IPv6.  The term "ILNPv4"
   refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is based upon, and
   backwards compatible with, IPv4.

   Many engineering aspects common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 are
   described in this document.  A full engineering specification for
   either ILNPv6 or ILNPv4 is beyond the scope of this document.

   Readers are referred to other related ILNP documents for details not
   described here:

   a) [RFC6740] is the main architectural description of ILNP, including
      the concept of operations.

   b) [RFC6742] defines additional DNS resource records that support

   c) [RFC6743] defines a new ICMPv6 Locator Update message used by an
      ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes of any changes to its
      set of valid Locators.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   d) [RFC6744] defines a new IPv6 Nonce Destination Option used by
      ILNPv6 nodes (1) to indicate to ILNP correspondent nodes (by
      inclusion within the initial packets of an ILNP session) that the
      node is operating in the ILNP mode and (2) to prevent off-path
      attacks against ILNP ICMP messages.  This Nonce is used, for
      example, with all ILNP ICMPv6 Locator Update messages that are
      exchanged among ILNP correspondent nodes.

   e) [RFC6745] defines a new ICMPv4 Locator Update message used by an
      ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes of any changes to its
      set of valid Locators.

   f) [RFC6746] defines a new IPv4 Nonce Option used by ILNPv4 nodes to
      carry a security nonce to prevent off-path attacks against ILNP
      ICMP messages and also defines a new IPv4 Identifier Option used
      by ILNPv4 nodes.

   g) [RFC6747] describes extensions to Address Resolution Protocol
      (ARP) for use with ILNPv4.

   h) [RFC6748] describes optional engineering and deployment functions
      for ILNP.  These are not required for the operation or use of ILNP
      and are provided as additional options.

1.2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Several technical terms (e.g., "ILNP session") that are used by this
   document are defined in [RFC6740].  It is strongly recommended that
   one read [RFC6740] before reading this document.

2.  ILNP Identifiers

   All ILNP nodes must have at least one Node Identifier (or just
   "Identifier") value.  However, there are various options for
   generating those Identifier values.  We describe, in this section,
   the relevant engineering issues related to Identifier generation and

   Note well that an ILNP Node Identifier names an ILNP-capable node,
   and it is NOT bound to a specific interface of that node.  So a given
   ILNP Node Identifier is valid on all active interfaces of the node to
   which that ILNP Identifier is bound.  This is true even if the bits
   used to form the Identifier value happened to be taken from a
   specific interface as an engineering convenience.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

2.1.  Syntax

   ILNP Identifiers are always unsigned 64-bit strings, and they may be
   realised as 64-bit unsigned integers.  Both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 use the
   Modified EUI-64 [IEEE-EUI] syntax that is used by IPv6 interface
   identifiers [RFC4291], Section 2.5.1, as shown in Figure 2.1.

      |  6 id bits  | U bit | G bit |      24 id bits    |
      |                   32 id bits                     |

   Figure 2.1: Node Identifier Format as Used for IPv6, Using the
   Same Syntax as in RFC 4291, Section 2.5.1.

   That syntax contains two special reserved bit flags.  One flag (the U
   bit) indicates whether the value has "universal" (i.e., global) scope
   (1) or "local" (0) scope.  The other flag (the G bit) indicates
   whether the value is an "individual" address (1) or "group" (i.e.,
   multicast) (0) address.

   However, this format does allow other values to be set, by use of
   administrative or other policy control, as required, by setting the U
   bit to "local".

2.2.  Default Values for an Identifier

   By default, this value, including the U bit and G bit, are set as
   described in Section 2.5.1 of [RFC4291].  Where no other value of
   Identifier is available for an ILNP node, this is the value that MUST
   be used.

   Because ILNP Identifiers might have local scope, and also to handle
   the case where two nodes at different locations happen to be using
   the same global scope Identifier (e.g., due to a manufacturing fault
   in a network chipset or card), implementers must be careful in how
   ILNP Identifiers are handled within an end system's networking
   implementation.  Some details are discussed in Section 4 below.

2.3.  Local-Scoped Identifier Values

   ILNP Identifiers for a node also MAY have the Scope bit of the Node
   Identifier set to "local" scope.  Locally unique identifiers MAY be
   Cryptographically Generated, created following the procedures used
   for IPv6 Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972]
   [RFC4581] [RFC4982].

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   Also, locally unique identifiers MAY be used to create the ILNP
   equivalent to the Privacy Extensions for IPv6, generating ILNP
   Identifiers following the procedures used for IPv6 [RFC4941].

2.4.  Multicast Identifiers

   An ILNP Identifier with the G bit set to "group" names an ILNP
   multicast group, while an ILNP Identifier with the G bit set to
   "individual" names an individual ILNP node.  However, this usage of
   multicast for Identifiers for ILNP is currently undefined: ILNP uses
   IPv6 multicast for ILNPv6 and IPv4 multicast for ILNPv4 and uses the
   multicast address formats defined as appropriate.

   The use of multicast Identifiers and design of an enhanced multicast
   capability for ILNPv6 and ILNPv4 is currently work in progress.

2.5.  Administration of Identifier Values

   Note that just as IPv6 does not need global, centralised
   administrative management of its interface identifiers, so ILNPv6
   does not need global, centralised administrative management of the
   Node Identifier (NID) values.

3.  Encoding of Identifiers and Locators for ILNPv6

3.1.  Encoding of I and L Values

   With ILNPv6, the Identifier and Locator values within a packet are
   encoded in the existing space for the IPv6 address.  In general, the
   ILNPv6 Locator has the same syntax and semantics as the current IPv6
   unicast routing prefix, as shown in Figure 3.1:

   /* IPv6 */
   |            64 bits                  |         64 bits         |
   |   IPv6 Unicast Routing Prefix       |  Interface Identifier   |

   /* ILNPv6 */
   |            64 bits                  |         64 bits         |
   |             Locator                 |  Node Identifier (NID)  |

   Figure 3.1: The General Format of Encoding of I/NID and L Values
   for ILNPv6 into the IPv6 Address Bits

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   The syntactical structure of the IPv6 address spaces remains as given
   in Section 2.5.4 of [RFC4291], and an example is shown in Figure 3.2,
   which is based in part on [RFC3177] (which has since been obsoleted
   by [RFC6177]).

   /* IPv6 */
   | 3 |     45 bits         |  16 bits  |       64 bits           |
   |001|global routing prefix| subnet ID |  Interface Identifier   |

   /* ILNPv6 */
   |             64 bits                 |       64 bits           |
   |          Locator (L64)              |  Node Identifier (NID)  |

   Figure 3.2: Example of IPv6 Address Format as Used in ILNPv6

   The global routing prefix bits and subnet ID bits above are as for
   [RFC3177], but could be different, e.g., as for [RFC6177].

   The ILNPv6 Locator uses the upper 64-bits of the 128-bit IPv6 address
   space.  It has the same syntax and semantics as today's IPv6 routing
   prefix.  So, an ILNPv6 packet carrying a Locator value can be used
   just like an IPv6 packet today as far as core routers are concerned.

   The example in Figure 3.2 happens to use a /48 prefix, as was
   recommended by [RFC3177].  However, more recent advice is that
   prefixes need not be fixed at /48 and could be up to /64 [RFC6177].
   This change, however, does not impact the syntax or semantics of the
   Locator value.

   The ILNPv6 Identifier value uses the lower 64-bits of the 128-bit
   IPv6 address.  It has the same syntax as an IPv6 identifier, but
   different semantics.  This provides a fixed-length non-topological
   name for a node.  Identifiers are bound to nodes, not to interfaces
   of a node.  All ILNP Identifiers MUST comply with the modified EUI-64
   syntax already specified for IPv6's "interface identifier" values, as
   described in Section 2.1.

   IEEE EUI-64 Identifiers can have either global-scope or local-scope.
   So ILNP Identifiers also can have either global-scope or local-scope.
   A reserved bit in the modified EUI-64 syntax clearly indicates
   whether a given Identifier has global-scope or local-scope.  A node
   is not required to use a global-scope Identifier, although that is
   the recommended practice.  Note that the syntax of the Node

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   Identifier field has exactly the same syntax as that defined for IPv6
   address in Section 2.5.1 of [RFC4291].  (This is based on the IEEE
   EUI-64 syntax [IEEE-EUI], but is not the same.)

   Most commonly, Identifiers have global-scope and are derived from one
   or more IEEE 802 or IEEE 1394 'MAC Addresses' (sic) already
   associated with the node, following the procedure already defined for
   IPv6 [RFC4291].  Global-scope identifiers have a high probability of
   being globally unique.  This approach eliminates the need to manage
   Identifiers, among other benefits.

   Local-scope Identifiers MUST be unique within the context of their
   Locators.  The existing mechanisms of the IPv4 Address Resolution
   Protocol [RFC826] and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
   (SLAAC) [RFC4862] automatically enforce this constraint.

   For example, on an Ethernet-based IPv4 subnetwork the ARP Reply
   message is sent via link-layer broadcast, thereby advertising the
   current binding between an IPv4 address and a Media Access Control
   (MAC) address to all nodes on that IPv4 subnetwork.  (Note also that
   a well-known, long standing, issue with ARP is that it cannot be
   authenticated.)  Local-scope Identifiers MUST NOT be used with other
   Locators without first ensuring uniqueness in the context of those
   other Locators e.g., by using IPv6 Neighbour Discovery's Duplicate
   Address Detection mechanism when using ILNPv6 or by sending an ARP
   Request when using ILNPv4.

   Other methods might be used to generate local-scope Identifiers.  For
   example, one might derive Identifiers using some form of
   cryptographic generation or using the methods specified in the IPv6
   Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
   (SLAAC) [RFC4862].  When cryptographic generation of Identifiers
   using methods described in RFC 3972 is in use, only the Identifier is
   included, never the Locator, thereby preserving roaming capability.
   One could also imagine creating a local-scope Identifier by taking a
   cryptographic hash of a node's public key.  Of course, in the
   unlikely event of an Identifier collision, for example, when a node
   has chosen to use a local-scope Identifier value, the node remains
   free to use some other local-scope Identifier value(s).

   It is worth remembering here that an IPv6 address names a specific
   network interface on a specific node, but an ILNPv6 Identifier names
   the node itself, not a specific interface on the node.  This
   difference in definition is essential to providing seamless support
   for mobility and multihoming, which are discussed in more detail
   later in this note.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

3.2.  Network-Level Packet Formats

   ILNPv6 Locator and Identifier values are encoded into IPv6 address
   space and ILNPv6 uses directly the Classic IPv6 packet format, as
   shown in Figure 3.3.  This is also the view of an ILNPv6 packet as
   seen by core routers -- they simply use the Locator value (top
   64-bits of the address field) just as they would use an IPv6 prefix
   today (e.g., either as /48 or as /64 when using sub-network routing).

    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
   |Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
   |          Payload Length       |   Next Header |  Hop Limit    |
   |                        Source Address                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   |                        Destination  Address                   |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |

   Figure 3.3: Existing ("Classic") IPv6 Header

   In essence, the Locator names a subnetwork.  (Locators can also be
   referred to as Routing Prefixes if discussing Classic IPv6).  Of
   course, backwards compatibility requirements mean that ILNPv6
   Locators use the same number space as IPv6 routing prefixes.  This
   ensures that no changes are needed to deployed IPv6 routers when
   deploying ILNPv6.

   The low-order 64-bits of the IPv6 address become the Identifier.
   Details of the Identifier were discussed above.  The Identifier is
   only used by end-systems, so Figure 3.4 shows the view of the same
   packet format, but as viewed by an ILNPv6 node.  As this only needs
   to be parsed in this way by the end-system, so ILNPv6 deployment is
   enabled incrementally by updating end-systems as required.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

    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
   |Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
   |          Payload Length       |   Next Header |  Hop Limit    |
   |                        Source Locator                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   |                       Source Identifier                       |
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                       Destination Locator                     |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   |                     Destination Identifier                    |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |

   Figure 3.4: ILNPv6 Header as Seen by ILNPv6-Enabled End-Systems

3.3.  Encoding of Identifiers and Locators for ILNPv4

   Encoding of Identifier and Locator values for ILNPv4 is not as
   straightforward as for ILNPv6.  In analogy to ILNPv6, in ILNPv4, the
   Locator value is a routing prefix for IPv4, but is at most 30 bits.
   Source Locator values are carried in the source address field of the
   IPv4 header, and destination Locator values in the destination
   address field.  So, just like for ILNPv6, for ILNPv4, packet routing
   can be performed by routers examining existing prefix values in the
   IPv4 header.

   However, for ILNPv4, additional option headers have to be used to
   carry the Identifier value as there is not enough room in the normal
   IPv4 header fields.  A 64-bit Identifier value is carried in an
   option header.  So, the detailed explanation of the ILNPv4 packet
   header is to be found in [RFC6746].

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

4.  Transport-Layer Changes

   ILNP uses an Identifier value in order to form the invariant end-
   system state for end-to-end protocols.  Currently, transport
   protocols such as TCP and UDP use all the bits of an IP Address to
   form such state.  So, transport protocol implementations MUST be
   modified in order to operate over ILNP.

4.1.  End-System State

   Currently, TCP and UDP, for example, use the 4-tuple:

      <local port, remote port, local IP Address, remote IP Address>

   for the end-system state for a transport layer end-point.  For ILNP,
   implementations must be modified to instead use the following:

        <local port, remote port, local Identifier, remote Identifier>

4.2.  TCP/UDP Checksum Handling

   In IP-based implementations, the TCP or UDP pseudo-header checksum
   calculations include all the bits of the IP Address.  By contrast,
   when calculating the TCP or UDP pseudo-header checksums for use with
   ILNP, only the Identifier values are included in the TCP or UDP
   pseudo-header checksum calculations.

   To minimise the changes required within transport protocol
   implementations, and to maximise interoperability, current
   implementations are modified to zero the Locator fields (only for the
   purpose of TCP or UDP checksum calculations).  For example, for
   ILNPv6, this means that the existing code for IPv6 can be used, with
   the ILNPv6 Identifier bits occupying the lower 64 bits of the IPv6
   address field, and the upper 64 bits of the IPv6 address filed being
   set to zero.  For ILNPv4, the Identifier fields are carried in an
   IPv4 Option [RFC6746].

   Section 7 describes methods for incremental deployment of this ILNP-
   specific change and backwards compatibility with non-upgraded nodes
   (e.g., classic IPv4 or IPv6 nodes) in more detail.

4.3.  ICMP Checksum Handling

   To maximise backwards compatibility, the ILNPv6 ICMP checksum is
   always calculated in the same way as for IPv6 ICMP.  Similarly, the
   ILNPv4 ICMP checksum is always calculated in the same way as for IPv4

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

5.  ILNP Communication Cache (ILCC)

   For operational purposes, implementations need to have a local cache
   of state information that allow communication endpoints to be
   constructed and for communication protocols to operate.  Such cache
   information is common today, e.g., IPv4 nodes commonly maintain an
   Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) cache with information relating to
   current and recent Correspondent Nodes (CNs); IPv6 nodes maintain a
   Neighbor Discovery (ND) table with information relating to current
   and CNs.  Likewise, ILNP maintains an Identifier Locator
   Communication Cache (ILCC) with information relating to the operation
   of ILNP.

   The ILCC is a (logical) set of data values required for ILNP to
   operate.  These values are maintained by the endpoints of each ILNP

   In theory, this cache is within the ILNP network-layer.  However,
   many network protocol implementations do not have strict protocol
   separation or layering.  So there is no requirement that the ILCC be
   kept partitioned from transport-layer protocols.

   Note that, in many implementations, much of the information required
   for the ILCC may already be present.  Where some additional
   information is required for ILNP, from an engineering viewpoint, the
   ILCC could be implemented by extending or enhancing existing data
   structures within existing implementations.  For example, by adding
   appropriate flags to the data structures in existing implementations.

   Note that the ILCC does not impose any extra state maintenance
   requirements for applications or applications servers.  For example,
   in the case of, say, HTTP, there will be no additional state for a
   server to maintain, and any TCP state will be handled by the ILNP
   code in the OS just as for IP.

5.1.  Formal Definition

   The ILCC contains information about both the local node and also
   about current or recent correspondent nodes, as follows.

   Information about the local node:

      - Each currently valid Identifier value, including its Identifier
        Precedence and whether it is active at present.

      - Each currently valid Locator value, including its associated
        local interface(s), its Locator Precedence and whether it is
        active at present.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

      - Each currently valid IL Vector (I-LV), including whether it is
        active at present.

   Information about each correspondent node:

      - Most recent set of Identifiers, including lifetime and validity
        for each.

      - Most recent set of Locators, including lifetime and validity for

      - Nonce value for packets from the local host to the

      - Nonce value for packets from the correspondent to the local

   In the above list for the ILNP Communication Cache:

      - A "valid" item is usable, from an administrative point of view,
        but it might or might not be in use at present.

      - The "validity" parameter for the correspondent node indicates
        one of several different states for a datum.  These include at
        least the following:

         - "valid": data is usable and has not expired.

         - "active": data is usable, has not expired, and is in active
           use at present.

         - "expired": data is still in use at present, but is beyond its
           expiration (i.e., without a replacement value).

         - "aged": data was recently in use, but is not in active use at
           present, and is beyond its expiration.

      - The "lifetime" parameter is an implementation-specific
        representation of the validity lifetime for the associated data
        element.  In normal operation, the Lifetime for a correspondent
        node's Locator(s) are learned from the DNS Time-To-Live (DNS
        TTL) value associated with DNS records (NID, L32, L64, etc.) of
        the Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) owner name of the
        correspondent node.  For time, a node might use UTC (e.g., via
        Network Time Protocol) or perhaps some node-specific time (e.g.,
        seconds since node boot).

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

5.2.  Ageing ILCC Entries

   As a practical engineering matter, it is not sensible to flush all
   Locator values associated with an existing ILNP session's
   correspondent node even if the DNS TTL associated with those Locator
   values expires.

   In some situations, a CN might be disconnected briefly when moving
   location (e.g., immediate handover, which sometimes is called "break
   before make").  If this happens, there might be a brief pause before
   the Correspondent Node can (a) update its own L values in the DNS,
   and (b) send an ICMP Locator Update message to the local node with
   information about its new location.  Implementers ought to try to
   maintain ILNP sessions even when such events occur.

   Instead, Locator values cached for a correspondent node SHOULD be
   marked as "aged" when their TTL has expired, but retained until
   either the next Locator Update message is received, there is other
   indication that a given Locator is not working any longer, there is
   positive indication that the Correspondent Node has terminated the
   ILNP session (e.g., TCP RST if the only transport-layer session for
   this ILNP session is a TCP session), until some appropriate timeout
   (e.g., 2*MSL for TCP if the only transport-layer session for this
   ILNP session is a TCP session), or the ILNP session has been inactive
   for several minutes (e.g., no transport-layer session exists for this
   ILNP session) and the storage space associated with the aged entry
   needs to be reclaimed.

   Separately, received authenticated Locator Update messages cause the
   ILCC entries listed above to be updated.

   Similarly, if there is indication that an ILNP session with a
   Correspondent Node remains active and the DNS TTL associated with
   that Correspondent Node's active Identifier value(s) has expired,
   those remote Identifier value(s) ought to be marked as "expired", but
   retained since they are in active use.

5.3.  Large Numbers of Locators

   Implementers should keep in mind that a node or site might have a
   large number of concurrent Locators, and it should ensure that a
   system fault does not arise if the system receives an authentic ICMP
   Locator Update containing a large number of Locator values.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 15]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

5.4.  Lookups into the ILCC

   For received packets containing an ILNP Nonce Option, lookups in the
   ILCC MUST use the <remote Identifier, Nonce> tuple as the lookup key.

   For all other ILNP packets, lookups in the ILNP Correspondent Cache
   MUST use the <remote Locator, remote Identifier> tuple, i.e., the
   remote I-LV, as the lookup key.

   These two checks between them facilitate situations where, perhaps
   due to deployment of Local-scope Identifiers, more than one
   correspondent node is using the same Identifier value.

   (NOTE: Other mechanisms, such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, ensure that
   two different nodes are incapable of using a given I-LV at the same
   location, i.e., on the same link.)

   While Locators are omitted from the transport-layer checksum, an
   implementation SHOULD use Locator values to distinguish between
   correspondents coincidentally using the same Identifier value (e.g.,
   due to deployment of Local-scope Identifier values) when
   demultiplexing to determine which application(s) should receive the
   user data delivered by the transport-layer protocol.

6.  Handling Location/Connectivity Changes

   In normal operation, an ILNP node uses the DNS for initial rendezvous
   in setting up ILNP sessions.  The use of DNS for initial rendezvous
   with mobile nodes was earlier proposed by others [PHG02] and then
   separately reinvented by the current authors later on.

6.1.  Node Location/Connectivity Changes

   To handle the move of a node or a change to the upstream connectivity
   of a multihomed node, we add a new ICMP control message [RFC6745]
   [RFC6743].  The ICMP Locator Update (LU) message is used by a node to
   inform its existing CNs that the set of valid Locators for the node
   has changed.  This mechanism can be used to add newly valid Locators,
   to remove no longer valid Locators, or to do both at the same time.
   The LU mechanism is analogous to the Binding Update mechanism in
   Mobile IPv6, but in ILNP, such messages are used any time Locator
   value changes need to be notified to CNs, e.g., for multihomed hosts
   as well as for mobile hosts.

   Further, if the node wishes to be able to receive new incoming ILNP
   sessions, the node normally uses Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC3007]
   to ensure that a correct set of Locator values are present in the

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 16]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   appropriate DNS records (i.e., L32, L64) in the DNS for that node
   [RFC6742].  This enables any new correspondents to correctly initiate
   a new ILNP session with the node at its new location.

   While the Locator Update control message could be an entirely new
   protocol running over UDP, for example, there is no obvious advantage
   to creating a new protocol rather than using a new ICMP message.  So
   ILNP defines a new ICMP Locator Update message for both IPv4 and

6.2.  Network Connectivity/Locator Changes

   As a DNS performance optimisation, the LP DNS resource record MAY be
   used to avoid requiring each node on a subnetwork to update its DNS
   L64 record entries when that subnetwork's location (e.g., upstream
   connectivity) changes [RFC6742].  This can reduce the number of DNS
   updates required when a subnetwork moves from Order (number of nodes
   on subnetwork) to Order(1).

   In this case, the nodes on the subnetwork each would have an LP
   record pointing to a common FQDN used to name that subnetwork.  In
   turn, that subnetwork's domain name would have one or more L64
   record(s) in the DNS.  Since the contents of an LP record are stable,
   relatively long DNS TTL values can be associated with these records
   facilitating DNS caching.  By contrast, the DNS TTL of an L32 or L64
   record for a mobile or multihomed node should be small.  Experimental
   work at the University of St Andrews indicates that the DNS continues
   to work well even with very low (e.g., zero) DNS TTL values [BA11].

   Correspondents of a node on a mobile subnetwork using this DNS
   performance optimisation would initially perform a normal FQDN lookup
   for a node.  If that lookup returned another FQDN in an LP record as
   additional data, then the correspondent would perform a lookup on
   that FQDN and expect an L32 or L64 record returned as additional
   data, in order to learn the Locator value to use to reach that target
   node.  (Of course, a lookup that did not return any ILNP-related DNS
   records would result in an ordinary IPv4 session or ordinary IPv6
   session being initiated, instead.)

7.  Subnetting

   For ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, the Locator value includes the subnetting
   information, as that also is topological information.  As well as
   being architecturally correct, the placement of subnetting as part of
   the Locator is also convenient from an engineering point of view in
   both IPv4 and IPv6.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 17]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   We consider that a Locator value, L consists of two parts:

   - L_pp: the Locator prefix part, which occupies the most significant
     bits in the address (for both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6).

   - L_ss: Locator subnetwork selector, which occupies bits just after
     the L_pp.

   For each of ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, L_pp gets its value from the provider-
   assigned routing prefix for IPv4 and IPv6, respectively.  For L_ss,
   in each case of ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, the L_ss bits are located in the
   part of the address space which you might expect them to be located
   if IPv4 or IPv6 addresses were being used, respectively.

7.1.  Subnetting for ILNPv6

   For ILNPv6, recall that the Locator value is encoded to be
   syntactically similar to an IPv6 address prefix, as shown in Figure

   /* IPv6 */
   | 3 |     45 bits         |  16 bits  |     64 bits             |
   |001|global routing prefix| subnet ID |  Interface Identifier   |

   /* ILNPv6 */
   |             64 bits                 |     64 bits             |
   |          Locator (L64)              |  Node Identifier (NID)  |
   +<-------- L_pp --------->+<- L_ss -->+

     L_pp = Locator prefix part (assigned IPv6 prefix)
     L_ss = Locator subnet selector (locally managed subnet ID)

   Figure 7.1: IPv6 Address Format [RFC3587] as Used in ILNPv6,
   Showing How Subnets Can Be Identified

   Note that the subnet ID forms part of the Locator value.  Note also
   that [RFC6177] allows the global routing prefix to be more than 45
   bits, and for the subnet ID to be smaller, but still preserving the
   64-bit size of the Locator.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 18]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

7.2.  Subnetting for ILNPv4

   For ILNPv4, the L_pp value is an IPv4 routing prefix as used today,
   which is typically less than 32 bits.  However, the ILNPv4 Locator
   value is carried in the 32-bit IP Address space, so the bits not used
   for the routing prefix could be used for L_ss, e.g., for a /24 IPv4
   prefix, the situation would be as shown in Figure 7.2.

            24 bits           8 bits
   |         Locator (L32)             |
   +<------- L_pp --------->+<- L_ss ->+

   L_pp = Locator prefix part (assigned IPv4 prefix)
   L_ss = Locator subnet selector (locally managed subnet ID)

   Figure 7.2: IPv4 Address Format for /24 IPv4 Prefix, as Used in
   ILNPv4, Showing How Subnets Can Be Identified

   Note that the L_ss occupies bits that in an IPv4 address would
   normally be the host part of the address, which the site network
   could use for subnetting in any case.

7.3.  Subnetting for Router-Router Links in IPv6/ILNPv6

   There is a special case of /127 prefixes used in router-router,
   point-to-point links for IPv6 [RFC6164].  ILNPv6 does not preclude
   such use.

8.  DNS Considerations

   ILNP makes use of DNS for name resolution, as does IP.  Unlike IP,
   ILNP also uses DNS to support features such as mobility and
   multihoming.  While such usage is appropriate use of the DNS, it is
   important to discuss operational and engineering issues that may
   impact DNS usage.

8.1.  Secure Dynamic DNS Update

   When a host that expects incoming connections changes one or more of
   its Locator values, the host normally uses the IETF Secure Dynamic
   DNS Update protocol [RFC3007] to update the set of currently valid
   Locator values associated with its FQDN.  This ensures that the
   authoritative DNS server for its FQDN will be able to generate an
   accurate set of Locator values if the DNS server receives DNS name
   resolution request for its FQDN.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 19]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   Liu and Albitz [LA06] report that Secure Dynamic DNS Update has been
   supported on the client-side for several years now in widely deployed
   operating systems (e.g., MS Windows, Apple Mac OS X, UNIX, and Linux)
   and also in DNS server software (e.g., BIND).  Publicly available
   product data sheets indicate that some other DNS server software
   packages, such as that from Nominum, also support this capability.

   For example, Microsoft Windows XP (and later versions), the freely
   distributable BIND DNS software package (used in Apple Mac OS X and
   in most UNIX systems), and the commercial Nominum DNS server all
   implement support for Secure Dynamic DNS Update and are known to
   interoperate [LA06].  There are credible reports that when a site
   deploys Microsoft's Active Directory, the site (silently)
   automatically deploys Secure Dynamic DNS Update [LA06].  So, many
   sites have already deployed Secure Dynamic DNS Update even though
   they are not actively using it (and might not be aware they have
   already deployed that protocol) [LA06].

   So DNS update via Secure Dynamic DNS Update is not only standards-
   based, but also readily available in widely deployed systems today.

8.2.  New DNS RR Types

   As part of this proposal, additional DNS resource records have been
   proposed in a separate document [RFC6742].  These new records are
   summarised in Table 6.1.

    new DNS RR type |  Purpose
          NID       | store the value of a Node Identifier
          L32       | store the value of a 32-bit Locator for ILNPv4
          L64       | store the value of a 64-bit Locator for ILNPv6
          LP        | points to a (several) L32 and/or L64 record(s)

   Table 6.1. Summary of new DNS RR Types for ILNP

   With this proposal, mobile or multihomed nodes and sites are expected
   to use the existing "Secure Dynamic DNS Update" protocol to keep
   their Node Identifier (NID) and Locator (L32 and/or L43) records
   correct in their authoritative DNS server(s) [RFC3007] [RFC6742].

   Reverse DNS lookups, to find a node's FQDN from the combination of a
   Locator and related Identifier value, can be performed as at present.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 20]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

8.3.  DNS TTL Values for ILNP RRS Types

   Existing DNS specifications require that DNS clients and DNS
   resolvers honour the TTL values provided by the DNS servers.  In the
   context of this proposal, short DNS TTL values are assigned to
   particular DNS records to ensure that the ubiquitous DNS caching
   resolvers do not cache volatile values (e.g., Locator records of a
   mobile node) and consequently return stale information to new

   The TTL values for L32 and L64 records may have to be relatively low
   (perhaps a few seconds) in order to support mobility and multihoming.
   Low TTL values may be of concern to administrators who might think
   that this would reduce efficacy of DNS caching increase DNS load

   Previous research by others indicates that DNS caching is largely
   ineffective, with the exception of NS records and the addresses of
   DNS servers referred to by NS records [SBK02].  This means DNS
   caching performance and DNS load will not be adversely affected by
   assigning very short TTL values (down to zero) to the Locator records
   of typical nodes for an edge site [BA11].  It also means that it is
   preferable to deploy the DNS server function on nodes that have
   longer DNS TTL values, rather than on nodes that have shorter DNS TTL

   LP records normally are stable and will have relatively long TTL
   values, even if the L32 or L64 records they point to have values that
   have relatively low TTL values.

   Identifier values might be very long-lived (e.g., days) when they
   have been generated from an IEEE MAC address on the system.
   Identifier values might have a shorter lifetime (e.g., hours or
   minutes) if they have been cryptographically generated [RFC3972],
   have been created by the IPv6 Privacy Extensions [RFC4941], or
   otherwise have the EUI-64 scope bit set to "local-scope".  Note that
   when ILNP is used, the cryptographic generation method described in
   RFC 3972 is used only for the Identifier, omitting the Locator,
   thereby preserving roaming capability.  Note that a given ILNP
   session normally will use a single Identifier value for the lifetime
   of that ILNP session.

8.4.  IP/ILNP Dual Operation and Transition

   During a long transition period, a node that is ILNP-capable SHOULD
   have not only NID and L32/L64 (or NID and LP) records present in its
   authoritative DNS server but also SHOULD have A/AAAA records in the
   DNS for the benefit of non-upgraded nodes.  Then, when any CN

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 21]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   performs an FQDN lookup for that node, it will receive the A/AAAA
   with the appropriate NID, L32/L64 records, and/or LP records as
   "additional data".

   Existing DNS specifications require that a DNS resolver or DNS client
   ignore unrecognised DNS record types.  So, gratuitously appending NID
   and Locator (i.e., L32, L64, or LP) records as "additional data" in
   DNS responses to A/AAAA queries ought not to create any operational
   issues.  So, IP only nodes would use the A/AAAA RRs, but ILNP-capable
   nodes would be able to use the NID, L32/L64 and/or LP records are

   There is nothing to prevent this capability being implemented
   strictly inside a DNS server, whereby the DNS server synthesises a
   set of A/AAAA records to advertise from the NID and Locator (i.e.,
   L32, L64, or LP) values that the node has kept updated in that DNS
   server.  Indeed, such a capability may be desirable, reducing the
   amount of manual configuration required for a site, and reducing the
   potential for errors as the A/AAAA records would be automatically

9.  IP Security for ILNP

   The primary conceptual difference from ordinary IP security (IPsec)
   is that ILNP IP Security omits all use of, and all reference to,
   Locator values.  This leads to several small, but important, changes
   to IPsec when it is used with ILNP sessions.

9.1.  IPsec Security Association Enhancements for ILNP

   IPsec Security Associations for ILNP only include the Identifier
   values for the endpoints, and omit the Locator values.  As an
   implementation detail, ILNP implementations MUST be able to
   distinguish between different Security Associations with ILNP
   correspondents (at different locations, with different ILNP Nonce
   values in use) that happen to use the same Identifier values (e.g.,
   due to an inadvertent Identifier collision when using identifier
   values generated by using the IPv6 Privacy Addressing extension).
   One possible way to distinguish between such different ILNP sessions
   is to maintain a mapping between the IPsec Security Association
   Database (SAD) entry and the corresponding ILCC entry.

   Consistent with this enhancement to the definition of an IPsec
   Security Association, when processing received IPsec packets
   associated with an ILNP session, ILNP implementations ignore the
   Locator bits of the received packet and only consider the Identifier
   bits.  This means, for example, that if an ILNP correspondent node

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 22]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   moves to a different subnetwork, and thus is using a different Source
   Locator in the header of its ILNP IPsec packets, the ILNP session
   will continue to work and will continue to be secure.

   Since implementations of ILNP are also required to support IP,
   implementers need to ensure that ILNP IPsec Security Associations can
   be distinguished from ordinary IPsec Security Associations.  The
   details of this are left to the implementer.  As an example, one
   possible implementation strategy would be to retain a single IPsec
   Security Association Database (SAD), but add an internal flag bit to
   each entry of that IPsec SAD to indicate whether ILNP is in use for
   that particular IPsec Security Association.

9.2.  IP Authentication Header Enhancements for ILNP

   Similarly, for an ILNP session using IPsec, the IPsec Authentication
   Header (AH) only includes the Identifier values for the endpoints in
   its authentication calculations, and it omits the Source Locator and
   Destination Locator fields from its authentication calculations.
   This enables IPsec AH to work well even when used with ILNP localised
   numbering [RFC6748] or other situations where a Locator value might
   change while the packet travels from origin to destination.

9.3.  Key Management Considerations

   In order to distinguish at the network-layer between multiple ILNP
   nodes that happen to be using the same Node Identifier values (e.g.,
   because the identifier values were generated using the IPv6 Privacy
   Addressing method), key management packets being used to set up an
   ILNP IPsec session MUST include the ILNP Nonce Option.

   Similarly, key management protocols used with IPsec are enhanced to
   deprecate use of IP Addresses as identifiers and to substitute the
   use of the new Node Identifier values for that purpose.  This results
   in an ILNP IPsec Security Association that is independent of the
   Locator values that might be used.

   For ILNPv6 implementations, the ILNP Node Identifier (64-bits) is
   smaller than the IPv6 Address (128-bits).  So support for ILNPv6
   IPsec is accomplished by zeroing the upper-64 bits of the IPv6
   Address fields in the application-layer key management protocol,
   while retaining the Node Identifier value in the lower-64 bits of the
   application-layer key management protocol.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 23]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   For ILNPv4 implementations, enhancements to the key management
   protocol likely will be needed, because existing key management
   protocols rely on 32-bit IPv4 addresses, while ILNP Node Identifiers
   are 64-bits.  Such enhancements are beyond the scope of this

10.  Backwards Compatibility and Incremental Deployment

   Experience with IPv6 deployment over the past many years has shown
   that it is important for any new network protocol to provide
   backwards compatibility with the deployed IP base and should be
   incrementally deployable, ideally requiring modification of only
   those nodes that wish to use ILNP and not requiring the modification
   of nodes that do not intend to use ILNP.  The two instances of ILNP,
   ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, are intended to be, respectively, backwards
   compatible with, and incrementally deployable on, the existing IPv4
   and IPv6 installed bases.  Indeed, ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 can each be
   seen, from an engineering viewpoint, as supersets of the IPv4 and
   IPv6, respectively.

   However, in some cases, ILNP introduces functions that supersede
   equivalent functions available in IP.  For example, ILNP has a
   mobility model, and so it does not need to use the models for Mobile
   IPv4 or Mobile IPv6.

   As ILNP changes, the use of end-to-end namespaces, for the most part,
   it is only end-systems that need to be modified.  However, in order
   to leverage existing engineering (e.g., existing protocols), in some
   cases, there is a compromise, and these are highlighted in this

10.1.  Priorities in the Design of ILNPv6 and ILNPv4

   In the engineering design of ILNPv6 and ILNPv4, we have used the
   following priorities.  In some ways, this choice is arbitrary, and it
   may be equally valid to "invert" these priorities for a different
   architectural and engineering design.

   1.  Infrastructure

   As much of the deployed IP network infrastructure should be used
   without change.  That is, routers and switches should require minimal
   or zero modifications in order to run ILNP.  As much as possible of
   the existing installed base of core protocols should be reused.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 24]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   2.  Core protocols

   As much of the deployed network control protocols, such as routing,
   should be used without change.  That is, existing routing protocols
   and switch configuration should require minimal or zero modifications
   in order to run ILNP.

   3.  Scope of end-system changes

   Any nodes that do not need to run ILNP should not need to be
   upgraded.  It should be possible to have a site network that has a
   mix of IP-only and ILNP-capable nodes without any changes required to
   the IP-only nodes.

   4.  Applications

   There should be minimal impact on applications, even though ILNP
   requires end-to-end protocols to be upgraded.  Indeed, for those
   applications that are "well behaved" (e.g., do not use IP Address
   values directly for application state or application configuration),
   there should be little or no effort required in enabling them to
   operate over ILNP.

   Each of these items is discussed in its own section below.

10.2.  Infrastructure

   ILNP is designed to be deployed on existing infrastructure.  No new
   infrastructure is required to run ILNP as it will be implemented as a
   software upgrade impacting only end-to-end protocols.  Existing
   routing protocols can be reused: no new routing protocols are
   required.  This means that network operators and service providers do
   not need to learn about, test, and deploy new protocols, or change
   the structure of their network in order for ILNP to be deployed.
   Exceptionally, edge routers supporting ILNPv4 hosts will need to
   support an enhanced version of ARP.

10.3.  Core Protocols

   Existing routing and other control protocols should not need to
   change in devices such as switches and routers.  We believe this to
   be true for ILNPv6.  However, for ILNPv4, we believe that ARP will
   need to be enhanced in edge routers (or Layer 3 switches) that
   support ILNPv4 hosts.  Backbone and transit routers still ought not
   require changes for either ILNPv4 or ILNPv6.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 25]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   For both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, the basic packet format for packets
   reuses that format that is seen by routers for IPv4 and IPv6,
   respectively.  Specifically, as the ILNP Locator value is always a
   routing prefix (either IPv4 or IPv6), routing protocols should work

   Both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 introduce new header options (e.g., Nonce
   Option messages) and ICMP messages (e.g., Locator Update messages)
   that are used to enable end-to-end signalling.  For packet
   forwarding, depending on the forwarding policies used by some
   providers or site border routers, there may need to be modifications
   to those policies to allow the new header options and new ICMP
   messages to be forwarded.  However, as the header options and new
   ICMP messages are end-to-end, such modifications are likely to be in
   configuration files (or firewall policy on edge routers), as core
   routers do NOT need to parse and act upon the information contained
   in the header options or ICMP messages.

10.4.  Scope of End-System Changes

   Only end-systems that need to use ILNP need to be updated in order
   for ILNP to be used at a site.

   There are three exceptions to this statement as follows:

   a) ILNPv4 ARP: as the Identifier value for IPv4 cannot fit into the
      normal 20-byte IPv4 packet header (a header extension is used),
      ARP must be modified.  This only impacts end-systems that use
      ILNPv4 and those switches or site border routers that are the
      first hop from an ILNPv4 node.  For ILNPv6, as the I and L values
      fit into the existing basic IPv6 packet, IPv6 Neighbour Discovery
      can operate without modification.

   b) Use of IP NAT: Where IP NAT or NAPT is in use for a site, existing
      NAT/NAPT device will rewrite address fields in ILNPv4 packets or
      ILNPv6 packets.  To avoid this, the NAT should either (i) be
      configured to allow the pass-through of packets originating from
      ILNP-capable nodes (e.g., by filtering on source address fields in
      the IP header); or (ii) should be enhanced to recognise ILNPv4 or
      ILNPv6 packets (e.g., by looking for the ILNP Nonce Option).

   c) Site Border Routers (SBRs) in ILNP Advanced Deployment scenarios:
      There are options to use an ILNP-capable Site Border Router (SBR)
      as described in another document [RFC6748].  In such scenarios,
      the SBR(s) need to be ILNP-capable.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 26]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   Other than these exceptions, it is entirely possible to have a site
   that uses a mix of IP and ILNP nodes and requires no changes to nodes
   other than the nodes that wish to use ILNP.  For example, if a user
   on a site wishes to have his laptop use ILNPv6, only that laptop
   would need to have an upgraded stack: no other devices (end-systems,
   Layer 2 switches or routers) at that site would need to be upgraded.

10.5.  Applications

   As noted, in the Architecture Description [RFC6740], those
   applications that do not use IP Address values in application state
   or configuration data are considered to be "well behaved".
   Applications that work today through a NAT or Network Address Port
   Translation (NAPT) device without application-specific support are
   also considered "well behaved".  Such applications might use DNS
   FQDNs or application-specific name spaces.  (Note Well: application-
   specific name spaces should not be derived from IP Address values.)

   For well-behaved applications, replacing IP with ILNP should have no
   impact.  That is, well-behaved applications should work unmodified
   over ILNP.

   Those applications that directly use IP Address values in application
   state or configuration will need to be modified for operation over
   ILNP.  Examples of such applications include the following:

   - FTP: which uses IP Address values in the application-layer
     protocol.  In practice, use of Secure Copy (SCP) is growing, while
     use of FTP is either flat or declining, in part due to the improved
     security provided by SCP.

   - SNMP: which uses IP Address values in MIB definitions, and values
     derived from IP Address values in SNMP object names.

   Further experimentation in this area is planned to validate these

10.6.  Interworking between IP and ILNP

   A related topic is interworking: for example, how would an IPv6 node
   communicate with an ILNPv6 node?  Currently, we make the assumption
   that ILNP nodes "drop down" to using IP when communicating with a
   non-ILNP capable node, i.e., there is no interworking as such.  In
   the future, it may be beneficial to define interworking scenarios
   that do not rely on having ILNP nodes fall back to IP, for example,
   by the use of suitable protocol translation gateways or middleboxes.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 27]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   For now, a simplified summary of the process for interaction between
   ILNP hosts and non-ILNP hosts is as follows:

   a) For a host initiating communication using DNS, the resolution of
      the FQDN for the remote host will return at least one NID record
      and at least one of an L32 record (for ILNPv4) or an L64 record
      (for ILNPv6).  Then, the host knows that the remote host supports

   b) When a host has I and L values for a remote host, the initial
      packet to initiate communication MUST contain a Nonce Header
      [RFC6746] [RFC6744] that indicates to the remote host that this
      packet is attempting to set up an ILNP session.

   c) When a receiving host sees a Nonce Header, if it DOES support ILNP
      it will proceed to set up an ILNP session.

   d) When a receiving host sees a Nonce Header, if it DOES NOT support
      ILNP, it will reject the packet and this will be indicated to the
      sender through an ICMP message [RFC6743] [RFC6745].  Upon
      receiving the ICMP messages, the sender will re-initiate
      communication using standard IPv4 or IPv6.

   Many observers in the community expect IPv4 to remain in place for a
   long time even though IPv6 has been available for over a decade.
   With a similar anticipation, it is likely that in the future there
   will be a mixed environment of both IP and ILNP hosts.  Until there
   is a better understanding of the deployment and usage scenarios that
   will develop, it is not clear what interworking scenarios would be
   useful to define and focus on between IP and ILNP.

11.  Security Considerations

   There are numerous security considerations for ILNP from an
   engineering viewpoint.  Overall, ILNP and its capabilities are no
   less secure than IP and equivalent IP capabilities.  In some cases,
   ILNP has the potential to be more secure, or offer security
   capability in a more harmonised manner, for example, with ILNP's use
   of IPsec in conjunction with multihoming and mobility.  [RFC6740]
   describes several security considerations that apply to ILNP and is
   included here by reference.

   ILNP offers an enhanced version of IP security (IPsec).  The details
   of IP Security for ILNP were described separately above.  All ILNP
   implementations MUST support the use of the IP Authentication Header
   (AH) for ILNP and also the IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)
   for ILNP, but deployment and use of IPsec for ILNP remains a matter
   for local operational security policy.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 28]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

11.1.  Authenticating ICMP Messages

   Separate documents propose a new IPv4 Option [RFC6746] and a new IPv6
   Destination Option [RFC6744].  Each of these options can be used to
   carry an ILNP Nonce value end-to-end between communicating nodes.
   That nonce provides protection against off-path attacks on an ILNP
   session.  These ILNP Nonce Options are used ONLY for ILNP and not for
   IP.  The nonce values are exchanged in the initial packets of an ILNP
   session by including them in those initial/handshake packets.

   ALL ICMP Locator Update messages MUST include an ILNP Nonce Option
   and MUST include the correct ILNP Nonce value for the claimed sender
   and intended recipient of that ICMP Locator Update message.  There
   are no exceptions to this rule.  ICMP Locator Update messages MAY be
   protected by IPsec, but they still MUST include an ILNP Nonce Option
   and the ILNP Nonce Option still MUST include the correct ILNP Nonce

   When a node has an active ILNP session, and that node changes its
   Locator set, it SHOULD include the appropriate ILNP Nonce Option in
   the first few data packets sent using a new Locator value so that the
   recipient can validate the received data packets as valid (despite
   having an unexpected Source Locator value).

   Any ILNP Locator Update messages received without an ILNP Nonce
   Option MUST be discarded as forgeries.

   Any ILNP Locator Update messages received with an ILNP Nonce Option,
   but that do NOT have the correct ILNP Nonce value inside the ILNP
   Nonce Option, MUST be discarded as forgeries.

   When the claimed sender of an ICMP message is known to be a current
   ILNP correspondent of the recipient (e.g., has a valid, non-expired,
   ILCC entry), then any ICMP error messages from that claimed sender
   MUST include the ILNP Nonce Option and MUST include the correct ILNP
   Nonce value (i.e., correct for that sender recipient pair) in that
   ILNP Nonce Option.

   When the claimed sender of an ICMP error message is known to be a
   current ILNP correspondent of the recipient (e.g., has a valid, non-
   expired, ILCC entry), then any ICMP error messages from that claimed
   sender that are received without an ILNP Nonce Option MUST be
   discarded as forgeries.

   When the claimed sender of an ICMP error message is known to be a
   current ILNP correspondent of the recipient (e.g., has a valid, non-
   expired, ILCC entry), then any ICMP error messages from that claimed

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 29]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   sender that contain an ILNP Nonce Option, but that do NOT have the
   correct ILNP Nonce value inside the ILNP Nonce Option, MUST be
   discarded as forgeries.

   ICMP messages (not including ICMP Locator Update messages) with a
   claimed sender that is NOT known to be a current ILNP correspondent
   of the recipient (e.g., does not have a valid, non-expired, ILCC
   entry) MAY include the ILNP Nonce Option, but, in this case, the ILNP
   Nonce Option is ignored by the recipient upon receipt, since the
   recipient has no way to authenticate the received ILNP Nonce value.

   Received ICMP messages (not including ICMP Locator Update messages)
   with a claimed sender that is NOT known to be a current ILNP
   correspondent of the recipient (e.g., does not have a valid, non-
   expired, ILCC entry) do NOT require the ILNP Nonce Option because the
   security risks are no different than for deployed IPv4 and IPv6 --
   provided that the received ICMP message is not an ICMP Locator Update
   message.  Such ICMP messages (e.g., Destination Unreachable, Packet
   Too Big) might legitimately originate in an intermediate system along
   the path of an ILNP session.  That intermediate system might not be
   ILNP capable.  Even if ILNP capable itself, that intermediate system
   might not know which of the packets it forwards are part of ILNP

   When ILNP is in use, IP Security for ILNP also MAY be used to protect
   stronger protections for ICMP packets associated with an ILNP
   session.  Even in this case, the ILNP Nonce Option also MUST be
   present and MUST contain the correct ILNP Nonce value.  This
   simplifies packet processing and enables rapid discard of any forged
   packets from an off-path attacker that lack either the ILNP Nonce
   Option or the correct ILNP Nonce value -- without requiring
   computationally expensive IPsec processing.  Received ICMP messages
   that are protected by ILNP IP Security, but fail the recipient's
   IPsec checks, MUST be dropped as forgeries.  If a deployment chooses
   to use ILNP IPsec ESP to protect its ICMP messages and is NOT also
   using ILNP IPsec AH with those messages, then the ILNP Nonce Option
   MUST be placed in the ILNP packet after the ILNP IPsec ESP header,
   rather than before the ILNP IPsec ESP header, to ensure that the
   Nonce Option is protected in transit.

   Receipt of any ICMP message that is dropped or discarded as a forgery
   SHOULD cause the details of the received forged ICMP packet (e.g.,
   Source and Destination Locators / Source and Destination Identifiers
   / Source and Destination IP Addresses, ICMP message type, receiving
   interface, receive date, receive time) to be logged in the receiving
   system's security logs.  Implementations MAY rate-limit such logging

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 30]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   in order to reduce operational risk of denial-of-service attacks on
   the system logging functions.  The details of system logging are
   implementation specific.

11.2.  Forged Identifier Attacks

   The ILNP Communication Cache (ILCC) contains two unidirectional nonce
   values (one used in control messages sent by this node, a different
   one used to authenticate messages from the other node) for each
   active or recent ILNP session.  The ILCC also contains the currently
   valid set of Locators and set of Identifiers for each correspondent

   If a received ILNP packet contains valid Identifier values and a
   valid Destination Locator, but contains a Source Locator value that
   is not present in the ILCC, the packet MUST be dropped as an invalid
   packet and a security event SHOULD be logged, UNLESS the packet also
   contains a Nonce Destination Option with the correct value used for
   packets from the node with that Source Identifier to this node.  This
   prevents an off-path attacker from stealing an existing ILNP session.

12.  Privacy Considerations

   There are no additional privacy issues created by ILNP compared to
   IP.  Please see Section 10 of [RFC6740] for more detailed discussion
   of Privacy Considerations.

   ILNPv6 supports use of the IPv6 Privacy Extensions for Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 [RFC4941] to enable identity
   privacy (see also Section 2).

   Location Privacy can be provided by locator rewriting techniques as
   described in Section 7 of [RFC6748].

   A description of various possibilities for obtaining both identity
   privacy and location privacy with ILNP can be found in [BAK11].

13.  Operational Considerations

   This section covers various operational considerations relating to
   ILNP, including potential session liveness and reachability
   considerations and Key Management considerations.  Again, the
   situation is similar to IP, but it is useful to explain the issues in
   relation to ILNP nevertheless.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 31]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

13.1.  Session Liveness and Reachability

   For bidirectional flows, such as a TCP/ILNP session, each node knows
   whether the current path in use is working by the reception of data
   packets, acknowledgements, or both.  Therefore, as with TCP/IP,
   TCP/ILNP does not need special path probes.  UDP/ILNP sessions with
   acknowledgements work similarly and do not need special path probes.

   In the deployed Internet, the sending node for a UDP/IP session
   without acknowledgements does not know for certain that all packets
   are received by the intended receiving node.  Such UDP/ILNP sessions
   have the same properties as UDP/IP sessions in this respect.  The
   receiver(s) of such an UDP/ILNP session SHOULD send a gratuitous IP
   packet containing an ILNP Nonce Option to the sender, in order to
   enable the receiver to subsequently send ICMP Locator Updates if
   appropriate [RFC6744].  In this case, UDP/ILNP sessions fare better
   than UDP/IP sessions, still without using network path probes.

   A mobile (or multihomed) node may change its connectivity more
   quickly than DNS can be updated.  This situation is unlikely,
   particularly given the widespread use of link-layer mobility
   mechanisms (e.g., GSM, IEEE 802 bridging) in combination with
   network-layer mobility.  However, the situation is equivalent to the
   situation where a traditional IP node is moving faster than the
   Mobile IPv4 or Mobile IPv6 agents/servers can be updated with the
   mobile node's new location.  So the issue is not new in any way to
   ILNP.  In all cases, Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 and ILNP, a node
   moving that quickly might be temporarily unreachable until it remains
   at a given network-layer location (e.g., IP subnetwork, ILNP Locator
   value) long enough for the location update mechanisms (for Mobile
   IPv4, for Mobile IPv6, or ILNP) to catch up.

   Another potential issue for IP is what is sometimes called "Path
   Liveness" or, in the case of ILNP, "Locator Liveness".  This refers
   to the question of whether an IP packet with a particular destination
   Locator value will be able to reach the intended destination network
   or not, given that some otherwise valid paths might be unusable by
   the sending node (e.g., due to security policy or other
   administrative choice).  In fact, this issue has existed in the IPv4
   Internet for decades.

   For example, an IPv4 server might have multiple valid IP Addresses,
   each advertised to the world via a DNS A record.  However, at a given
   moment in time, it is possible that a given sending node might not be
   able to use a given (otherwise valid) destination IPv4 address in an
   IP packet to reach that IPv4 server.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 32]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   Indeed, for ILNPv6, as the ILNP packet reuses the IPv6 packet header
   and uses IPv6 routing prefixes as Locator values, such liveness
   considerations are no worse than they are for IPv6 today.  For
   example, for IPv6, if a host, H, performs a DNS lookup for an FQDN
   for remote host F, and receives a AAAA RR with IPv6 address F_A, this
   does not mean necessarily that H can reach F on its F_A using its
   current connectivity, i.e., an IPv6 path may not be available from H
   to F at that point in time.

   So we see that using an Identifier/Locator Split architecture does
   not create this issue, nor does it make this issue worse than it is
   with the deployed IPv4 Internet.

   In ILNP, the same conceptual approach described in [RFC5534] (Locator
   Pair Exploration for SHIM6) can be reused.  Alternatively, an ILNP
   node can reuse the existing IPv4 methods for determining whether a
   given path to the target destination is currently usable, for which
   existing methods leverage transport-layer session state information
   that the communicating end systems are already keeping for transport-
   layer protocol reasons.

   Lastly, it is important to note that the ICMP Locator Update
   mechanism described in [RFC6743] [RFC6745] is a performance
   optimisation, significantly shortening the network-layer handoff time
   if/when a correspondent changes location.  Architecturally, using
   ICMP is no different from using UDP, of course.

13.2.  Key Management Considerations

   ILNP potentially has advantages over either form of Mobile IP with
   respect to key management, given that ILNP is using Secure Dynamic
   DNS Update -- which capability is much more widely available today in
   deployed desktop and server environments (e.g., Microsoft Windows,
   Mac OS X, Linux, other UNIX), as well as being widely available today
   in deployed DNS server software (e.g., Microsoft and the freely
   available BIND) and appliances [LA06], than the security enhancements
   needed by either Mobile IPv4 or Mobile IPv6.

   In the IESG, there is work in progress that addresses use of DNS to
   support key management for entities having DNS Fully Qualified Domain

13.3.  Point-to-Point Router Links

   As a special case, for the operational reasons described in
   [RFC6164], ILNPv6 deployments MAY continue to use classic IPv6 with a
   /127 routing prefix on router to router point-to-point links (e.g.,
   SONET/SDH).  Because an ILNPv6 packet and an IPv6 packet are

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 33]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   indistinguishable for forwarding purposes to a transit router, this
   should not create any operational difficulty for ILNPv6 traffic
   travelling over such links.

14.  Referrals and Application Programming Interfaces

   This section is concerned with support for using existing ("legacy")
   applications over ILNP, including both referrals and Application
   Programming Interfaces (APIs).

   ILNP does NOT require that well-behaved applications be modified to
   use a new networking API, nor does it require applications be
   modified to use extensions to an existing API.  Existing well-behaved
   IP applications should work over ILNP without modification using
   existing networking APIs.

14.1.  BSD Sockets APIs

   The existing BSD Sockets API can continue to be used with ILNP
   underneath the API.  That API can be implemented in a manner that
   hides the underlying protocol changes from the applications.  For
   example, the combination of a Locator and an Identifier can be used
   with the API in the place of an IPv6 address.

   So it is believed that existing IP address referrals can continue to
   work properly in most cases.  For a rapidly moving target node,
   referrals might break in at least some cases.  The potential for
   referral breakage is necessarily dependent upon the specific
   application and implementation being considered.

   It is suggested, however, that a new, optional, more abstract, C
   language API be created so that new applications may avoid delving
   into low-level details of the underlying network protocols.  Such an
   API would be useful today, even with the existing IPv4 and IPv6
   Internet, whether or not ILNP were ever widely deployed.

14.2.  Java (and Other) APIs

   Most existing Java APIs already use abstracted network programming
   interfaces, for example, in the java.Net.URL class.  Because these
   APIs already hide the low-level network-protocol details from the
   applications, the applications using these APIs (and the APIs
   themselves) don't need any modification to work equally well with
   IPv4, IPv6, ILNP, and probably also HIP.

   Other programming languages, such as C++, python and ruby, also
   provide higher-level APIs that abstract away from sockets, even
   though sockets may be used beneath those APIs.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 34]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

14.3.  Referrals in the Future

   The approach proposed in [REFERRAL] appears to be very suitable for
   use with ILNP, in addition to being suitable for use with the
   deployed Internet.  Protocols using that approach would not need
   modification to have their referrals work well with IPv4, IPv6, ILNP,
   and probably also other network protocols (e.g., HIP).

   A sensible approach to referrals is to use FQDNs, as is commonly done
   today with web URLs.  This approach is highly portable across
   different network protocols, even with both the IPv4 Internet or the
   IPv6 Internet.

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [IEEE-EUI]   IEEE, "Guidelines for 64-bit Global Identifier (EUI-64)
                Registration Authority", <http://standards.ieee.org/
                regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html>, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ,
                USA, March 1997.

   [RFC2119]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3007]    Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
                Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.

   [RFC3177]    IAB and IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address
                Allocations to Sites", RFC 3177, September 2001.

   [RFC3587]    Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global
                Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003.

   [RFC4862]    Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
                Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC4984]    Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed.,
                "Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and
                Addressing", RFC 4984, September 2007.

   [RFC6177]    Narten, T., Huston, G., and L. Roberts, "IPv6 Address
                Assignment to End Sites", BCP 157, RFC 6177, March 2011.

   [RFC6740]    Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
                Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740,
                November 2012.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 35]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   [RFC6742]    Atkinson, R., Bhatti, S. and S. Rose, "DNS Resource
                Records for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
                (ILNP)", RFC 6742, November 2012.

   [RFC6743]    Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "ICMPv6 Locator Update
                Message", RFC 6743, November 2012.

   [RFC6744]    Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "IPv6 Nonce Destination
                Option for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for
                IPv6 (ILNPv6)", RFC 6744, November 2012.

   [RFC6745]    Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti,  "ICMP Locator Update
                Message for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for
                IPv4 (ILNPv4)", RFC 6745, November 2012.

   [RFC6746]    Atkinson, R. and S.Bhatti, "IPv4 Options for the
                Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)", RFC 6746,
                November 2012.

   [RFC6747]    Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Address Resolution Protocol
                (ARP) Extension for the Identifier-Locator Network
                Protocol for IPv4 (ILNPv4)", RFC 6747, November 2012.

15.2.  Informative References

   [BA11]       Bhatti, S. and R. Atkinson, "Reducing DNS Caching",
                Proceedings of IEEE Global Internet Symposium (GI2011),
                Shanghai, P.R. China, 15 April 2011.

   [BAK11]      Bhatti, S.N., Atkinson, R., and J. Klemets, "Integrating
                Challenged Networks", Proceedings of IEEE Military
                Communications Conference (MILCOM), IEEE, Baltimore, MD,
                USA, Nov 2011.

   [LA06]       Liu, C. and P. Albitz, "DNS and Bind", 5th Edition,
                O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2006.  ISBN

   [PHG02]      Pappas, A., Hailes, S. and R. Giaffreda, "Mobile Host
                Location Tracking through DNS", Proceedings of IEEE
                London Communications Symposium, IEEE, September 2002,
                London, England, UK.

   [SBK02]      Snoeren, A., Balakrishnan, H. and M. Frans Kaashoek,
                "Reconsidering Internet Mobility", Proceedings of 8th
                Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, IEEE,
                Elmau, Germany, May 2001.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 36]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

   [REFERRAL]   Carpenter, B., Boucadair, M., Halpern, J., Jiang, S.,
                and K. Moore, "A Generic Referral Object for Internet
                Entities", Work in Progress, October 2009.

   [RFC826]     Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
                Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
                Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
                RFC 826, November 1982.

   [RFC3972]    Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
                RFC 3972, March 2005.

   [RFC4291]    Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
                Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4581]    Bagnulo, M. and J. Arkko, "Cryptographically Generated
                Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format", RFC 4581,
                October 2006.

   [RFC4941]    Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
                Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
                IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.

   [RFC4982]    Bagnulo, M. and J. Arkko, "Support for Multiple Hash
                Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated Addresses
                (CGAs)", RFC 4982, July 2007.

   [RFC5534]    Arkko, J. and I. van Beijnum, "Failure Detection and
                Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming",
                RFC 5534, June 2009.

   [RFC6164]    Kohno, M., Nitzan, B., Bush, R., Matsuzaki, Y., Colitti,
                L., and T. Narten, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on
                Inter-Router Links", RFC 6164, April 2011.

   [RFC6748]    Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Optional Advanced
                Deployment Scenarios for the Identifier-Locator Network
                Protocol (ILNP)", RFC 6748, November 2012.

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 37]

RFC 6741                    ILNP Engineering               November 2012

16.  Acknowledgements

   Steve Blake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Mohamed Boucadair, Noel Chiappa,
   Wes George, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley, Volker Hilt,
   Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter, Bruce Simpson,
   Robin Whittle and John Wroclawski (in alphabetical order) provided
   review and feedback on earlier versions of this document.  Steve
   Blake provided an especially thorough review of an early version of
   the entire ILNP document set, which was extremely helpful.  We also
   wish to thank the anonymous reviewers of the various ILNP papers for
   their feedback.

   Roy Arends provided expert guidance on technical and procedural
   aspects of DNS issues.

Authors' Addresses

   RJ Atkinson
   San Jose, CA 95125

   EMail: rja.lists@gmail.com

   SN Bhatti
   School of Computer Science
   University of St Andrews
   North Haugh, St Andrews
   Fife  KY16 9SX
   Scotland, UK

   EMail: saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk

Atkinson & Bhatti             Experimental                     [Page 38]