Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers

1.1. Requirements Language

Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This document uses these keywords not strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality. As such, the document points to several other specifications (preferable in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a successful CE router that interoperates successfully with a particular subset of currently deploying and planned common IPv6 access networks.¶

3.1. Current IPv4 End-User Network Architecture

An end-user network will likely support both IPv4 and IPv6. It is not expected that an end user will change their existing network topology with the introduction of IPv6. There are some differences in how IPv6 works and is provisioned; these differences have implications for the network architecture. A typical IPv4 end-user network consists of a "plug and play" router with NAT functionality and a single link behind it, connected to the service provider network.¶

A typical IPv4 NAT deployment by default blocks all incoming connections. Opening of ports is typically allowed using a Universal Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device (UPnP IGD) [UPnP-IGD] or some other firewall control protocol.¶

Another consequence of using private address space in the end-user network is that it provides stable addressing; that is, it never changes even when you change service providers, and the addresses are always there even when the WAN interface is down or the customer edge router has not yet been provisioned.¶

Many existing routers support dynamic routing (which learns routes from other routers), and advanced end-users can build arbitrary, complex networks using manual configuration of address prefixes combined with a dynamic routing protocol.¶

3.2. IPv6 End-User Network Architecture

The end-user network architecture for IPv6 should provide equivalent or better capabilities and functionality than the current IPv4 architecture.¶

The end-user network is a stub network. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user network.¶

                  +-------+-------+                      \
                  |   Service     |                       \
                  |   Provider    |                        | Service
                  |    Router     |                        | Provider
                  +-------+-------+                        | Network
                          |                               /
                          | Customer                     /
                          | Internet Connection         /
                          |
                   +------+--------+                    \
                   |     IPv6      |                     \
                   | Customer Edge |                      \
                   |    Router     |                      /
                   +---+-------+-+-+                     /
       Network A       |       |   Network B            | End-User
 ---+-------------+----+-    --+--+-------------+---    | Network(s)
    |             |               |             |        \
+----+-----+ +-----+----+     +----+-----+ +-----+----+   \
|IPv6 Host | |IPv6 Host |     | IPv6 Host| |IPv6 Host |   /
|          | |          |     |          | |          |  /
+----------+ +-----+----+     +----------+ +----------+ /

This architecture describes the:¶

• Basic capabilities of an IPv6 CE router¶

• Provisioning of the WAN interface connecting to the service provider¶

• Provisioning of the LAN interfaces¶

For IPv6 multicast traffic, the IPv6 CE router may act as a Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) proxy [RFC4605] and may support a dynamic multicast routing protocol.¶

The IPv6 CE router may be manually configured in an arbitrary topology with a dynamic routing protocol. Automatic provisioning and configuration are described for a single IPv6 CE router only.¶

4.1. General Requirements

The IPv6 CE router is responsible for implementing IPv6 routing; that is, the IPv6 CE router must look up the IPv6 destination address in its routing table to decide to which interface it should send the packet.¶

In this role, the IPv6 CE router is responsible for ensuring that traffic using its ULA addressing does not go out the WAN interface and does not originate from the WAN interface.¶

G-1:

An IPv6 CE router is an IPv6 node according to the IPv6 Node Requirements specification [RFC8504].¶

G-2:

The IPv6 CE router MUST implement ICMPv6 according to [RFC4443]. In particular, point-to-point links MUST be handled as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC4443].¶

G-3:

The IPv6 CE router MUST NOT forward any IPv6 traffic between its LAN interface(s) and its WAN interface until the router has successfully completed the IPv6 address and the delegated prefix acquisition process.¶

G-4:

By default, an IPv6 CE router that has no default router(s) on its WAN interface MUST NOT advertise itself as an IPv6 default router on its LAN interfaces. That is, the "Router Lifetime" field is set to zero in all Router Advertisement messages it originates [RFC4861].¶

G-5:

By default, if the IPv6 CE router is an advertising router and loses its IPv6 default router(s) and/or detects loss of connectivity on the WAN interface, it MUST explicitly invalidate itself as an IPv6 default router on each of its advertising interfaces by immediately transmitting one or more Router Advertisement messages with the "Router Lifetime" field set to zero [RFC4861].¶

4.2. WAN-Side Configuration

The IPv6 CE router will need to support connectivity to one or more access network architectures. This document describes an IPv6 CE router that is not specific to any particular architecture or service provider and that supports all commonly used architectures.¶

IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and DHCPv6 protocols operate over any type of IPv6-supported link layer, and there is no need for a link-layer-specific configuration protocol for IPv6 network-layer configuration options as in, e.g., PPP IP Control Protocol (IPCP) for IPv4. This section makes the assumption that the same mechanism will work for any link layer, be it Ethernet, the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS), PPP, or others.¶

WAN-side requirements:¶

W-1:

When the router is attached to the WAN interface link, it MUST act as an IPv6 host for the purposes of stateless [RFC4862] or stateful [RFC8415] interface address assignment.¶

W-2:

The IPv6 CE router MUST generate a link-local address and finish Duplicate Address Detection according to [RFC4862] prior to sending any Router Solicitations on the interface. The source address used in the subsequent Router Solicitation MUST be the link-local address on the WAN interface.¶

W-3:

Absent other routing information, the IPv6 CE router MUST use Router Discovery as specified in [RFC4861] to discover a default router(s) and install a default route(s) in its routing table with the discovered router's address as the next hop.¶

W-4:

The router MUST act as a requesting router for the purposes of DHCPv6 prefix delegation ([RFC8415]).¶

W-5:

The IPv6 CE router MUST use a persistent DHCP Unique Identifier (DUID) for DHCPv6 messages. The DUID MUST NOT change between network-interface resets or IPv6 CE router reboots.¶

W-6:

The WAN interface of the CE router SHOULD support a Port Control Protocol (PCP) client as specified in [RFC6887] for use by applications on the CE router. The PCP client SHOULD follow the procedure specified in Section 8.1 of [RFC6887] to discover its PCP server. This document takes no position on whether such functionality is enabled by default or mechanisms by which users would configure the functionality. Handling PCP requests from PCP clients in the LAN side of the CE router is out of scope.¶

Link-layer requirements:¶

WLL-1:

If the WAN interface supports Ethernet encapsulation, then the IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over Ethernet [RFC2464].¶

WLL-2:

If the WAN interface supports PPP encapsulation, the IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over PPP [RFC5072].¶

WLL-3:

If the WAN interface supports PPP encapsulation, in a dual-stack environment with IPCP and IPV6CP running over one PPP logical channel, the Network Control Protocols (NCPs) MUST be treated as independent of each other and start and terminate independently.¶

Address assignment requirements:¶

WAA-1:

The IPv6 CE router MUST support Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862].¶

WAA-2:

The IPv6 CE router MUST follow the recommendations in Section 4 of [RFC5942], and in particular the handling of the L flag in the Router Advertisement Prefix Information option.¶

WAA-3:

The IPv6 CE router MUST support DHCPv6 [RFC8415] client behavior.¶

WAA-4:

The IPv6 CE router MUST be able to support the following DHCPv6 options: Identity Association for Non-temporary Address (IA_NA), Reconfigure Accept [RFC8415], and DNS_SERVERS [RFC3646]. The IPv6 CE router SHOULD be able to support the DNS Search List (DNSSL) option as specified in [RFC3646].¶

WAA-5:

The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement the Network Time Protocol (NTP) as specified in [RFC5905] to provide a time reference common to the service provider for other protocols, such as DHCPv6, to use. If the CE router implements NTP, it requests the NTP Server DHCPv6 option [RFC5908] and uses the received list of servers as primary time reference, unless explicitly configured otherwise. LAN side support of NTP is out of scope for this document.¶

WAA-6:

If the IPv6 CE router receives a Router Advertisement message (described in [RFC4861]) with the M flag set to 1, the IPv6 CE router MUST do DHCPv6 address assignment (request an IA_NA option).¶

WAA-7:

If the IPv6 CE router does not acquire a global IPv6 address(es) from either SLAAC or DHCPv6, then it MUST create a global IPv6 address(es) from its delegated prefix(es) and configure those on one of its internal virtual network interfaces, unless configured to require a global IPv6 address on the WAN interface.¶

WAA-8:

The CE router MUST support the SOL_MAX_RT option [RFC8415] and request the SOL_MAX_RT option in an Option Request Option (ORO).¶

WAA-9:

As a router, the IPv6 CE router MUST follow the weak host (Weak End System) model [RFC1122]. When originating packets from an interface, it will use a source address from another one of its interfaces if the outgoing interface does not have an address of suitable scope.¶

WAA-10:

The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement the Information Refresh Time option and associated client behavior as specified in [RFC8415].¶

WAA-11:

The IPv6 CE Router MUST NOT use an EUI-64 based address as discussed in [RFC7721]. IPv6 CE Router SHOULD follow [RFC8064] when generating an IPv6 address.¶

Prefix delegation requirements:¶

WPD-1:

The IPv6 CE router MUST support DHCPv6 prefix delegation requesting router behavior as specified in [RFC8415] (Identity Association for Prefix Delegation (IA_PD) option).¶

WPD-2:

The IPv6 CE router MAY indicate as a hint to the delegating router the size of the prefix it requires. If so, it MUST ask for a prefix large enough to assign one /64 for each of its interfaces, rounded up to the nearest nibble, and SHOULD be configurable to ask for more.¶

WPD-3:

The IPv6 CE router MUST be prepared to accept a delegated prefix size different from what is given in the hint. If the delegated prefix is too small to address all of its interfaces, the IPv6 CE router SHOULD log a system management error. [RFC6177] covers the recommendations for service providers for prefix allocation sizes.¶

WPD-4:

By default, the IPv6 CE router MUST initiate DHCPv6 prefix delegation when either the M or O flags are set to 1 in a received Router Advertisement (RA) message. Behavior of the CE router to use DHCPv6 prefix delegation when the CE router has not received any RA or received an RA with the M and the O bits set to zero is out of scope for this document.¶

WPD-5:

Any packet received by the CE router with a destination address in the prefix(es) delegated to the CE router but not in the set of prefixes assigned by the CE router to the LAN must be dropped. In other words, the next hop for the prefix(es) delegated to the CE router should be the null destination. This is necessary to prevent forwarding loops when some addresses covered by the aggregate are not reachable [RFC4632].¶

(a)

The IPv6 CE router SHOULD send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message in accordance with Section 3.1 of [RFC4443] back to the source of the packet, if the packet is to be dropped due to this rule.¶

WPD-6:

If the IPv6 CE router requests both an IA_NA and an IA_PD option in DHCPv6, it MUST accept an IA_PD option in DHCPv6 Advertise/Reply messages, even if the message does not contain any addresses, unless configured to only obtain its WAN IPv6 address via DHCPv6; see [RFC8415].¶

WPD-7:

By default, an IPv6 CE router MUST NOT initiate any dynamic routing protocol on its WAN interface.¶

WPD-8:

The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support the [RFC6603] Prefix Exclude option.¶

WPD-9:

IPv6 CE routers SHOULD NOT automatically send a DHCPv6 message with IA_PD RELEASE messages upon restart events. See Section 3.1 [RFC9096] for further details.¶

WPD-10:

CE routers MUST by default use a WAN-side Identity Association IDentifier (IAID) value that is stable between CE router restarts, DHCPv6 client restarts, or interface state changes (e.g., transient PPP interfaces), unless the CE router employs the IAID techniques discussed in Section 4.5 of [RFC7844]. See Section 3.2 of [RFC9096]for further details.¶

4.3. LAN-Side Configuration

The IPv6 CE router distributes configuration information obtained during WAN interface provisioning to IPv6 hosts and assists IPv6 hosts in obtaining IPv6 addresses. It also supports connectivity of these devices in the absence of any working WAN interface.¶

An IPv6 CE router is expected to support an IPv6 end-user network and IPv6 hosts that exhibit the following characteristics:¶

1. Link-local addresses may be insufficient for allowing IPv6 applications to communicate with each other in the end-user network. The IPv6 CE router will need to enable this communication by providing globally scoped unicast addresses or ULAs [RFC4193], whether or not WAN connectivity exists.¶

2. IPv6 hosts should be capable of using SLAAC and may be capable of using DHCPv6 for acquiring their addresses.¶

3. IPv6 hosts may use DHCPv6 for other configuration information, such as the DNS_SERVERS option for acquiring DNS information.¶

Unless otherwise specified, the following requirements apply to the IPv6 CE router's LAN interfaces only.¶

ULA requirements:¶

ULA-1:

The IPv6 CE router SHOULD be capable of generating a ULA prefix [RFC4193].¶

ULA-2:

An IPv6 CE router with a ULA prefix MUST maintain this prefix consistently across reboots.¶

ULA-3:

The value of the ULA prefix SHOULD be configurable.¶

ULA-4:

By default, the IPv6 CE router MUST act as a site border router according to Section 4.3 of [RFC4193] and filter packets with local IPv6 source or destination addresses accordingly.¶

ULA-5:

An IPv6 CE router MUST NOT advertise itself as a default router with a Router Lifetime greater than zero whenever all of its configured and delegated prefixes are ULA prefixes.¶

LAN requirements:¶

L-1:

The IPv6 CE router MUST support router behavior according to Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 [RFC4861].¶

L-2:

The IPv6 CE router MUST assign a separate /64 from its delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide ULA addressing) for each of its LAN interfaces.¶

L-3:

An IPv6 CE router MUST advertise itself as a router for the delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide ULA addressing) using the "Route Information Option" specified in Section 2.3 of [RFC4191]. This advertisement is independent of having or not having IPv6 connectivity on the WAN interface.¶

L-4:

An IPv6 CE router MUST NOT advertise itself as a default router with a Router Lifetime [RFC4861] greater than zero if it has no prefixes configured or delegated to it.¶

L-5:

The IPv6 CE router MUST make each LAN interface an advertising interface according to [RFC4861].¶

L-6:

In Router Advertisement messages ([RFC4861]), the Prefix Information option's A and L flags MUST be set to 1 by default.¶

L-7:

The A and L flags' ([RFC4861]) settings SHOULD be user configurable.¶

L-8:

The IPv6 CE router MUST support a DHCPv6 server capable of IPv6 address assignment according to OR a stateless DHCPv6 server according to [RFC8415] on its LAN interfaces.¶

L-9:

Unless the IPv6 CE router is configured to support the DHCPv6 IA_NA option, it SHOULD set the M flag to zero and the O flag to 1 in its Router Advertisement messages [RFC4861].¶

L-10:

The IPv6 CE router MUST support providing DNS information in the DHCPv6 DNS_SERVERS and DOMAIN_LIST options [RFC3646].¶

L-11:

The IPv6 CE router MUST support providing DNS information in the Router Advertisement Recursive DNS Server (RDNSS) and DNS Search List options. Both options are specified in [RFC8106].¶

L-12:

The IPv6 CE router SHOULD make available a subset of DHCPv6 options (as listed in Section 21 of [RFC8415]) received from the DHCPv6 client on its WAN interface to its LAN-side DHCPv6 server.¶

L-13:

The IPv6 CE routers MUST signal stale configuration information as specified in Section 3.5 of [RFC9096]¶

L-14:

The IPv6 CE router MUST send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message, code 5 (Source address failed ingress/egress policy) for packets forwarded to it that use an address from a prefix that has been invalidated.¶

L-15:

The IPv6 CE routers MUST NOT advertise prefixes via SLAAC or assign addresses or delegate prefixes via DHCPv6 on the LAN side using lifetimes that exceed the remaining lifetimes of the corresponding prefixes learned on the WAN side via DHCPv6.¶

L-16:

The IPv6 CE routers SHOULD advertise capped SLAAC option lifetimes, capped DHCPv6 IA Address option lifetimes, and capped IA Prefix option lifetimes, as specified in of Section 3.4. [RFC9096]¶

4.4. Security Considerations

It is considered a best practice to filter obviously malicious traffic (e.g., spoofed packets, "Martian" addresses, etc.). Thus, the IPv6 CE router ought to support basic stateless egress and ingress filters. The CE router is also expected to offer mechanisms to filter traffic entering the customer network; however, the method by which vendors implement configurable packet filtering is beyond the scope of this document.¶

Security requirements:¶

S-1:

The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support [RFC6092]. In particular, the IPv6 CE router SHOULD support functionality sufficient for implementing the set of recommendations in [RFC6092], Section 4. This document takes no position on whether such functionality is enabled by default or mechanisms by which users would configure it.¶

S-2:

The IPv6 CE router MUST support ingress filtering in accordance with BCP 38 [RFC2827].¶

S-3:

If the IPv6 CE router firewall is configured to filter incoming tunneled data, the firewall SHOULD provide the capability to filter decapsulated packets from a tunnel.¶

8.1. Normative References

[RFC1122]

Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

[RFC2119]

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC2464]

Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.

[RFC2827]

Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.

[RFC3646]

Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646, DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.

[RFC4191]

Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191, November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.

[RFC4193]

Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.

[RFC4443]

Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

[RFC4605]

Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick, "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605, August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.

[RFC4632]

Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.

[RFC4779]

Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola, P., and J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks", RFC 4779, DOI 10.17487/RFC4779, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4779>.

[RFC4861]

Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

[RFC4862]

Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

[RFC5072]

Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.

[RFC5905]

Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

[RFC5908]

Gayraud, R. and B. Lourdelet, "Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6", RFC 5908, DOI 10.17487/RFC5908, June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5908>.

[RFC5942]

Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>.

[RFC6092]

Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.

[RFC6144]

Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144, April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.

[RFC6177]

Narten, T., Huston, G., and L. Roberts, "IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites", BCP 157, RFC 6177, DOI 10.17487/RFC6177, March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6177>.

[RFC6603]

Korhonen, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation", RFC 6603, DOI 10.17487/RFC6603, May 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6603>.

[RFC6887]

Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.

[RFC7157]

Troan, O., Ed., Miles, D., Matsushima, S., Okimoto, T., and D. Wing, "IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation", RFC 7157, DOI 10.17487/RFC7157, March 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7157>.

[RFC7721]

Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.

[RFC7844]

Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844, DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.

[RFC8064]

Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu, "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers", RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.

[RFC8106]

Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.

[RFC8415]

Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A., Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.

[RFC8504]

Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node Requirements", BCP 220, RFC 8504, DOI 10.17487/RFC8504, January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504>.

[RFC8585]

Palet Martinez, J., Liu, H. M.-H., and M. Kawashima, "Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support IPv4-as-a-Service", RFC 8585, DOI 10.17487/RFC8585, May 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8585>.

[RFC9096]

Gont, F., Žorž, J., Patterson, R., and B. Volz, "Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to IPv6 Renumbering Events", BCP 234, RFC 9096, DOI 10.17487/RFC9096, August 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9096>.

8.2. Informative References

[UPnP-IGD]

Forum, U., "InternetGatewayDevice:2 Device Template Version 1.01", December 2010, <http://upnp.org/specs/gw/igd2/>.