Skip to main content
  • New Internet Architecture Board, IETF Trust, IETF LLC and Internet Engineering Task Force Leadership Announced

    Members of the incoming Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the IETF Trust, the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) Board of Directors, and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)—which provides leadership for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)—have been officially announced, with new members selected by the 2021-2023 IETF Nominating Committee.

      13 Feb 2023
    • Informing the community on third-party correspondence regarding the W3C

      In accordance with our policy of transparency, this blog post is being published in order to keep the community informed about recent correspondence with lawyers acting on behalf of the Movement for an Open Web.

      • Lars EggertIETF Chair
      8 Feb 2023
    • Six Applied Networking Research Prizes Awarded for 2023

      Six network researchers have received Internet Research Task Force Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP), an award focused on recent results in applied networking research and on interesting new research of potential relevance to the Internet standards community.

      • Grant GrossIETF Blog Reporter
      9 Jan 2023
    • Travel grants allow Ph.D. students to participate at IETF meeting in-person

      Sergio Aguilar Romero and Martine Sophie Lenders, both Ph.D. students in technology fields, attended and participated in the IETF 115 meeting in London with assistance through travel grants from the Internet Research Task Force.

      • Grant GrossIETF Blog Reporter
      7 Jan 2023
    • Impressions from the Internet Architecture Board E-Impact Workshop

      The IAB ran an online workshop in December 2022 to begin to explore and understand the environmental impacts of the Internet. The discussion was active, and it will take time to summarise and produce the workshop report – but the topic is important, so we wanted to share some early impressions of the outcomes.

      • Colin PerkinsIAB Member
      • Jari ArkkoIAB Member
      6 Jan 2023

    Filter by topic and date

    Filter by topic and date

    IPv6 is an Internet Standard

    • Bob Hinden
    • Suresh Krishnan

    17 Oct 2018

    RFC8200 (STD86) was published a year ago and this elevates the IPv6 protocol to Internet Standard. This has been the long-awaited end result of the decades-long experience of deploying and collecting feedback about the previous version of the IPv6 protocol specification (RFC2460) published in 1998.

    IPv6 logo

    With IPv6 adoption accelerating over the past 6 years, from being a negligible fraction of the Internet (<1%) to recently topping 25%, moving IPv6 a full Internet Standard could not have come at a better time

    The Internet Standard designation represents the highest level of technical maturity and usefulness in the IETF standardization process. As the relative numbering of the RFC (RFC 8200) and STD (STD86) suggests, there are many protocols that make their way through the IETF standards process to be published as RFCs, but are not Internet Standards. The Internet Standard designation means those implementing and deploying a protocol can be assured it has undergone even more technical review by the IETF community than the typical RFC, and has benefitted from experience gained through running code and real-world experience. This is definitely true in the case of IPv6.

    The IPv6 Maintenance started the process of elevating IPv6 to Internet Standard in July 2015. Early in this process, the WG decided to fold in several of the key updating RFCs into the new version of the IPv6 specification while maintaining interoperability with legacy implementations. The RFCs that have been subsumed are summarized in Appendix B. of STD86. Several of these updates were related to handling security issues (e.g. the deprecation of the type 0 Routing Header that could be used for traffic amplification attacks), fragment handling, extension header processing, and more precise specification of the usage of the flow label field. Also, as required by RFC 6410, all the verified errata filed against RFC2460 were evaluated and necessary changes were made to RFC8200 in order to fix these. One of the key changes made in this regard was to clarify the text regarding the handling of extension headers in intermediate nodes. This ended up being a very controversial topic with strongly held and justifiable opinions on both sides of the debate. After contentious working group and IETF-wide last calls, the current text in the RFC gained rough consensus as it was the safer choice that ensured interoperability. 

    In addition to the main protocol specification, some of the other key IPv6 specifications were also elevated to Internet Standard. Path MTU discovery for IPv6 (PMTUD) was also published alongside RFC8200/STD86 as RFC 8201/STD87. This version has been greatly revised based on deployment feedback acknowledging the relative fragility of ICMPv6 based mechanisms due to filtering on the Internet as well as incorporating extensive review and input from the IETF Transport Area. It also suggests the use of Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) [RFC 4821] in order to improve robustness in the presence of ICMPv6 filtering. 

    In addition to these two revised documents, two other key IPv6 related specifications, the ICMPv6 specification (RFC 4443/STD89) and the DNS Extensions for IPv6 (RFC 3596/STD88), were elevated to Internet Standard in place. i.e. their status was changed without any further text changes. These specifications have been widely implemented and deployed, and there were no errata filed on these that would cause any interoperability issues. 

    Moving these IPv6-related specifications to full Internet Standards matches the increasing level of IPv6 use around the Internet. The IETF community has steadily worked to ensure that the Internet is ready for the time when IPv6 is the dominant Internet Protocol.  Work in a variety of IPv6-related IETF working groups, such as 6man and 6ops, continues, striving to make the Internet work better.


    • [1]RFC 8200

      Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification

      This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). It obsoletes RFC 2460.

    • [2]IPv6 Maintenance

      IPv6 Maintenance

    • [3]RFC 6410

      Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels

      This document updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026. Primarily, it reduces the Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

    • [4]RFC 8201

      Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6

      This document describes Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) for IP version 6. It is largely derived from RFC 1191, which describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 4. It obsoletes RFC 1981.

    • [5]RFC 4821

      Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery

      This document describes a robust method for Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) that relies on TCP or some other Packetization Layer to probe an Internet path with progressively larger packets. This method is described as an extension to RFC 1191 and RFC 1981, which specify ICMP-based Path MTU Discovery fo…

    • [6]RFC 4443

      Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification

      This document describes the format of a set of control messages used in ICMPv6 (Internet Control Message Protocol). ICMPv6 is the Internet Control Message Protocol for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). [STANDARDS-TRACK]

    • [7]RFC 3596

      DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6

      This document defines the changes that need to be made to the Domain Name System (DNS) to support hosts running IP version 6 (IPv6). The changes include a resource record type to store an IPv6 address, a domain to support lookups based on an IPv6 address, and updated definitions of existing query …

    Share this page