<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

<!-- OPEN ISSUES REMAINING 
  -->

<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
     There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. 
     An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->

<!ENTITY RFC0768 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0768.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC0793 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0793.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1122 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1122.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1323 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1323.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1337 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1337.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1918 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1918.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2460 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2460.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2993 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2993.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3828 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3828.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3979 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3979.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4080 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4080.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4193 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4193.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4302 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4302.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4303 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4303.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4306 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4306.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4340 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4340.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4380 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4380.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4294 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4294.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4787 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4787.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4864 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4864.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4879 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4879.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4960 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4960.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5189 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5189.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5378 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5378.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5382 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5382.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.woodyatt-ald SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.woodyatt-ald.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds
    might want to use.  (Here they are set differently than their defaults in
    xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-05"
 ipr="trust200902">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
     ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
     you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
     they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <front>
    <title abbrev="Simple Security in IPv6 Gateway CPE">
        Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment
        for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service
    </title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
    <author fullname="james woodyatt" initials="j.h" role="editor"
            surname="woodyatt">
      <organization abbrev='Apple'>Apple Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1 Infinite Loop</street>
          <city>Cupertino</city>
          <region>CA</region>
          <code>95014</code>
          <country>US</country>
        </postal>
        <email>jhw@apple.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->
    <date year="2009" />

    <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones,
        xml2rfc will fill in the current day for you. If only the current year
        is specified, xml2rfc will fill in the current day and month for you.
        If the year is not the current one, it is necessary to specify at least
        a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the purpose of
        calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally sufficient to 
        specify just the year. -->

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->
    <area>Operations and Management</area>
    <workgroup>IPv6 Operations</workgroup>
    <keyword>IPv6</keyword>
    <keyword>CPE</keyword>
    <keyword>Security</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
         files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
         output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
         keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>This document makes specific recommendations to the makers of devices
      that provide "simple security" capabilities at the perimeter of
      local-area IPv6 networks in Internet-enabled homes and small offices.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor='intro' title="Introduction">
      <t>In "Local Network Protection for IPv6" <xref target="RFC4864"/>, IETF
      recommends 'simple security' capabilities for gateway devices that enable
      delivery of Internet services in residential and small office settings.
      The principle goal of these capabilties is to improve security of the
      IPv6 Internet without increasing the perceived complexity for users who
      just want to accomplish useful work.</t>
      
      <t>There is, at best, a constructive tension between the desires of users
      for transparent end-to-end connectivity on the one hand, and the need for
      local-area network administrators to detect and prevent intrusion by
      unauthorized public Internet users on the other.  The specific
      recommendations in this document are intended to promote optimal
      local-area network security while retaining full end-to-end transparency
      for users, and to highlight reasonable limitations on transparency where
      security considerations are deemed important.</t>
      
      <t>Residential and small office network administrators are expected to
      have no expertise in Internet engineering whatsoever.  Configuration
      interfaces for simple security in router/gateway appliances marketed
      toward them should be easy to understand and even easier to ignore.
      In particular, extra care should be taken in designing the baseline
      operating modes of unconfigured devices, since the security functions
      of most devices will never be changed from their factory set default.</t>
      
      <section anchor='req-lang' title="Special Language">
        <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
        "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
        document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
        target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
        
        <t>The key word "DEFAULT" in this document is to be interpreted as the
        configuration of a device, as applied by its vendor, prior to the
        operator changing it for the first time.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor='overview' title="Overview">
      <t>For the purposes of this document, residential Internet gateways are
      assumed to be fairly simple devices with a limited subset of the full
      range of possible features.  They function as default routers
      <xref target='RFC4294'/> for a single local-area network segment, e.g. an
      ethernet, a Wi-Fi network, a bridge between two or more such segments.
      They have a single interface by which they connect to the public
      Internet, and they can obtain service by any combination of sub-IP
      mechanisms, including tunnels and transition mechanisms.  In referring to
      their security capabilities, it is reasonable to distinguish between the
      "interior" network, i.e. the local-area network, and the "exterior"
      network, i.e. the public Internet.  This document is concerned with the
      behavior of packet filters that police the flow of traffic between the
      interior and exterior networks of residential Internet gateways.</t>
      
      <t>The operational goals of security capabilities in Internet gateways
      are described with more detail in "Local Network Protection for IPv6"
      <xref target="RFC4864"/>, but they can be summarized as follows.</t>
      
      <t><list style='symbols'>
        <t>Check all traffic to and from the public Internet for basic sanity,
        e.g. anti-spoofing and "martian" filters.</t>
        
        <t>Allow tracking of application usage by source and destination
        transport addresses.</t>
      
        <t>Provide a barrier against untrusted external influences on the
        interior network by requiring filter state to be activated by traffic
        originating at interior network nodes.</t>
        
        <t>Allow manually configured exceptions to the stateful filtering rules
        according to network administration policy.</t>
        
        <t>Isolate local network DHCP and DNS proxy resolver services from the
        public Internet.</t>
      </list></t>

      <t>Prior to the widespread availability of IPv6 Internet service, homes
      and small offices often used private IPv4 network address realms
      <xref target='RFC1918'/> with Network Address Translation (NAT) functions
      deployed to present all the hosts on the interior network as a single
      host to the Internet service provider.  The stateful packet filtering
      behavior of NAT set user expectations that persist today with residential
      IPv6 service.  "Local Network Protection for IPv6" <xref
      target="RFC4864"/> recommends applying stateful packet filtering at
      residential IPv6 gateways that conforms to the user expectations already
      in place.</t>
      
      <t>As the latest revision of this document is being drafted, conventional
      stateful packet filters activate new states as a side effect of forwarding
      outbound flow initiations from interior network nodes.  This requires
      applications to have advance knowledge of the addresses of exterior nodes
      with which they expect to communicate.  Several proposals are currently
      under consideration for allowing applications to solicit inbound traffic
      from exterior nodes without advance knowledge of their addresses.  While
      consensus within the Internet engineering community has emerged that such
      protocols are necessary to implement in residential IPv6 gateways, the
      best current practice has not yet been established.</t>
                  
      <section title='Basic Sanitation'>
        <t>In addition to the functions required of all Internet routers
        <xref target='RFC4294'/>, residential gateways are expected to
        have basic stateless filters for prohibiting certains kinds of traffic
        with invalid headers, e.g. martian packets, spoofs, routing header type
        code zero, etc.</t>
        
        <t>Internet gateways that route multicast traffic are expected to
        implement appropriate filters for scoped multicast addresses.</t>
        
        <t>Conversely, simple Internet gateways are not expected to prohibit
        the development of new applications.  In particular, packets with
        end-to-end network security and routing extension headers for mobility
        are expected to pass Internet gateways freely.</t>
      </section>
      
      <section title='Internet Layer Protocols'>        
        <t>In managed, enterprise networks, virtual private networking tunnels
        are typically regarded as an additional attack surface. and they are
        often restricted or prohibited from traversing firewalls for that
        reason.  However, it would be inappropriate to restrict virtual private
        networking tunnels by default in unmanaged, residential network usage
        scenarios.  Therefore, this document recommends the DEFAULT operating
        mode for residential IPv6 simple security is to permit all virtual
        private networking tunnel protocols to pass through the stateful
        filtering function.  These include IPsec transport and tunnel modes
        as well as other IP-in-IP protocols.</t>

        <t>Where IPv6 simple security functions are integrated with an IPv4/NAT
        gateway of any of the types described in <xref target='RFC4787'/>, it's
        important to keep IPv6 flows subject to a consistent policy.  If the
        security functions of an IPv6 residential gateway can be bypassed
        through <xref target='RFC4380'>Teredo</xref>, then application
        developers will be encouraged to use it even at nodes where native IPv6
        service is available.  This will have the effect of impeding the
        completion of the transition to native IPv6.</t>
      
        <t>Residential IPv6 gateways are expected to continue operating as
        IPv4/NAT gateways for the foreseeable future.  To prevent Teredo from
        acquiring a utility that it was never meant to have on networks where
        both IPv4/NAT and native IPv6 services are available, gateways on such
        networks SHOULD impede Teredo tunnels by blocking clients from learning
        their mapped addresses and ports in the qualification procedure
        described in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of <xref target='RFC4380'/>.
        (Note: this is a necessary addition to the "automatic sunset" provision
        in section 5.5 of <xref target='RFC4380'/> because it's all too common
        that nested IPv4/NAT gateways are deployed unintentionally in
        residential settings and without consideration for Internet
        architectural implications.)</t>
      </section>
      
      <section title='Transport Layer Protocols'>
        <t>IPv6 simple security functions are principally concerned with the
        stateful filtering of transport layers like <xref target='RFC0768'>User
        Datagram Protocol (UDP)</xref> (and <xref target='RFC3828'>Lightweight
        User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)</xref>), <xref target='RFC0793'>
        Transport Control Protocol (TCP)</xref>, the <xref target='RFC4960'>
        Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)</xref>, the
        <xref target='RFC4340'>Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
        </xref>, and potentially any standards-track transport protocols to be
        defined in the future.</t>
        
        <t>The general operating principle is that transport layer traffic is
        only permitted into the interior network of a residential IPv6 gateway
        when it has been solicited explicitly by interior nodes.  All other
        traffic is expected to be discarded or rejected with an ICMPv6 error
        message to indicate the traffic is administratively prohibited.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor='details' title='Detailed Recommendations'>
      <t>This section describes the specific recommendations made by this
      document in full detail.  They are summarized into a convenient list in
      <xref target='summary'/>.</t>
      
      <t>Some recommended filters are to be applied to all traffic that passes
      through residential Internet gateways regardless of the direction they
      are to be forwarded.  However, most filters are expected to be sensitive
      to the direction that traffic is flowing.  Packets are said to be
      "outbound" if they originate from interior nodes to be forwarded to the
      Internet, and "inbound" if they originate from exterior nodes to be
      forwarded to any node or nodes on the interior prefix.  Flows, as opposed
      to packets, are said to be "outbound" if the initiator is an interior
      node and one or more of the participants are at exterior addresses.
      Flows are said to be "inbound" if the initiator is an exterior node and
      one or more of the participants are nodes on the interior network.  The
      initiator of a flow is the first node to send a packet in the context of
      a given transport association, e.g. a TCP connection, et cetera.</t>
      
      <section anchor='stateless' title='Stateless Filters'>
        <t>Certain kinds of IPv6 packets MUST NOT be forwarded in either
        direction by residential Internet gateways regardless of network state.
        These include packets with multicast source addresses, packets to
        destinations with certain non-routable and/or reserved prefixes, and
        packets with deprecated extension headers.</t>
        
        <t>Other stateless filters are recommended to guard against spoofing,
        to enforce multicast scope boundaries, and to isolate certain local
        network services from the public Internet.</t>
        
        <t>R1: Packets bearing in their outer IPv6 headers multicast source
        addresses MUST NOT be forwarded or transmitted on any interface.</t>
        
        <t>R2: Packets bearing in their outer IPv6 headers multicast
        destination addresses of equal or narrower scope than the configured
        scope boundary level of the gateway MUST NOT be forwarded in any
        direction.  The DEFAULT scope boundary level SHOULD be
        organization-local scope.</t>
        
        <t>R3: Packets bearing deprecated extension headers prior to their
        first upper-layer-protocol header SHOULD NOT be forwarded or transmitted
        on any interface.  In particular, all packets with routing extension
        header type 0 <xref target='RFC2460'/> preceding the first
        upper-layer-protocol header MUST NOT be forwarded.</t>
        
        <t>R4: Outbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source address in
        their outer IPv6 header does not have a unicast prefix configured for
        use by globally reachable nodes on the interior network.</t>
        
        <t>R5: Inbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source address in
        their outer IPv6 header has a global unicast prefix assigned for use by
        globally reachable nodes on the interior network.</t>
        
        <t>R6: By DEFAULT, packets with unique local source and/or destination addresses <xref target='RFC4193'/> SHOULD NOT be forwarded to or from the exterior network.</t>
        
        <t>R7: By DEFAULT, inbound non-recursive DNS queries received on
        exterior interfaces MUST NOT be processed by any integrated DNS proxy
        resolving server.</t>
        
        <t>R8: Inbound DHCP discovery packets received on exterior interfaces
        MUST NOT be processed by any integrated DHCP server.</t>
      </section>
      
      <section anchor='clts-filters' title='Connection-free Filters'>
        <t>Some Internet applications use connection-free transport protocols
        with no release semantics, e.g. UDP.  These protocols pose a special
        difficulty for stateful packet filters because most of the application
        state is not carried at the transport level.  State records are created
        when communication is initiated and abandoned when no further
        communication is detected after some period of time.</t>
                
        <section anchor='other' title='Upper-layer Transport Protocols'>
          <t>Residential IPv6 gateways are not expected to prohibit the use of
          applications to be developed using future upper-layer transport
          protocols.  In particular, transport protocols not otherwise
          discussed in subsequent sections of this document are expected to be
          treated consistently, i.e. as having connection-free semantics
          and no special requirements to inspect the transport headers.</t>
          
          <t>In general, upper-layer transport filter state records are
          expected to be created when an interior endpoint sends a packet to an
          exterior address.  The filter allocates (or reuses) a record for the
          duration of communications, with an idle timer to delete the state
          record when no further communications are detected.</t>
          
          <t>R9: Filter state records for generic upper-layer transport
          protocols MUST BE indexable by a 3-tuple comprising the interior node
          address, the exterior node address and the upper-layer transport
          protocol identifier.</t>
          
          <t>R10: Filter state records for generic upper-layer transport
          protocols MUST NOT be deleted or recycled until an idle timer not
          less than two minutes has expired without having forwarded a packet
          matching the state in some configurable amount of time.  By DEFAULT,
          the idle timer for such state records is five minutes.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor='udp-filter' title='UDP Filters'>
          <t><xref target='RFC4787'>"NAT Behaviorial Requirements for UDP"
          </xref> defines the terminology and best current practice for
          stateful filtering of UDP applications in IPv4 with NAT, which serves
          as the model for behaviorial requirements for simple UDP security in
          IPv6 gateways, notwithstanding the requirements related specifically
          to network address translation.</t>
          
          <t>An interior endpoint initiates a UDP exchange through a stateful
          packet filter by sending a packet to an exterior address.  The filter
          allocates (or reuses) a filter state record for the duration of the
          exchange.  The state record defines the interior and exterior IP
          addresses and ports used between all packets in the exchange.</t>
          
          <t>State records for UDP exchanges remain active while they are in
          use and only abandoned after an idle period of some time.</t>
          
          <t>R11: A state record for a UDP exchange where both interior and
          exterior ports are outside the well-known port range (ports 0-1023)
          MUST NOT expire in less than two minutes of idle time.  The value of
          the UDP state record idle timer MAY be configurable.  The DEFAULT
          is five minutes.</t>
          
          <t>R12: A state record for a UDP exchange where one or both of the
          interior and exterior ports are in the well-known port range (ports
          0-1023) MAY expire after a period of idle time shorter than two
          minutes to facilitate the operation of the IANA-registered service
          assigned to the port in question.</t>
          
          <t>As <xref target='RFC4787'/> notes, outbound refresh is necessary
          for allowing the interior endpoint to keep the state record alive.
          Inbound refresh may be useful for applications with no outbound UDP
          traffic.  However, allowing inbound refresh can allow an attacker in
          the exterior or a misbehaving application to keep a state record
          alive indefinitely.  This could be a security risk.  Also, if the
          process is repeated with different ports, over time, it could use up
          all the state record memory and resources in the filter.</t>
          
          <t>R13: A state record for a UDP exchange MUST be refreshed when a
          packet is forwarded from the interior to the exterior, and it MAY be
          refreshed when a packet is forwarded in the reverse direction.</t>
          
          <t>As described in section 5.5 of <xref target='RFC4787'/>, the
          connection-free semantics of UDP pose a difficulty for packet filters
          in trying to recognize which packets comprise an application flow and
          which are unsolicited.  Various strategies have been used in IPv4/NAT
          gateways with differing effects.</t>
          
          <t>R14: If application transparency is most important, then a
          stateful packet filter SHOULD have "Endpoint independent filter"
          behavior for UDP.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
          important, then a filter SHOULD have "Address dependent filtering"
          behavior.  The filtering behavior MAY be an option configurable by
          the network administrator, and it MAY be independent of the filtering
          behavior for TCP and other protocols.</t>

          <t>Applications mechanisms may depend on the reception of ICMP error
          messages triggered by the transmission of UDP messages.  One such
          mechanism is path MTU discovery.</t>
          
          <t>R15: If a gateway forwards a UDP exchange, it MUST also forward
          ICMP Destination Unreachable messages containing UDP headers that
          match the exchange state record.</t>
          
          <t>R16: Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT terminate the
          state record for a UDP exchange.</t>
          
          <t>R17: UDP-Lite exchanges <xref target='RFC3828'/> SHOULD be handled
          in the same way as UDP exchanges, except that the upper-layer
          transport protocol identifier for UDP-Lite is not the same as UDP,
          and therefore UDP packets MUST NOT match UDP-Lite state records, and
          vice versa.</t>
        </section>
        
        <section anchor='teredo' title='Teredo-specific Filters'>
          <t>Transitional residential IPv6 gateways that also feature
          integrated IPv4/NAT gateways require special filtering for Teredo
          tunnels.</t>
          
          <t>R18: Where a globally routed IPv6 prefix is advertised on an
          interior interface and IPv4 Internet service is provided with NAT
          <xref target='RFC4787'/>, the Teredo qualification procedure (see section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of <xref target='RFC4380'/>) for clients in the interior SHOULD be prohibited by the IPv4/NAT stateful filter.
          This SHOULD be done by blocking outbound UDP initiations to port 3544, the port reserved by IANA for Teredo servers.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor='ipsec' title='IPsec and Internet Key Exchange (IKE)'>
          <t>Internet protocol security (IPsec) offers greater flexibility and
          better overall security than the simple security of stateful packet
          filtering at network perimeters.  Therefore, residential IPv6
          gateways need not prohibit IPsec traffic flows.</t>
          
          <t>R19: In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST NOT
          prohibit the forwarding of packets, to and from legitimate node
          addresses, with destination extension headers of type
          <xref target='RFC4302'>"Authenticated Header (AH)"</xref> in their
          outer IP extension header chain.</t>
          
          <t>R20: In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST NOT
          prohibit the forwarding of packets, to and from legitimate node
          addresses, with an upper layer protocol of type
          <xref target='RFC4303'>"Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)"</xref>
          in their outer IP extension header chain.</t>
          
          <t>R21: In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST NOT
          prohibit the forwarding of any UDP packets, to and from legitimate
          node addresses, with a destination port of 500, i.e. the port
          reserved by IANA for the <xref target='RFC4306'>Internet Key Exchange
          Protocol</xref>.</t>
          
          <t>R22: In all operating modes, IPv6 gateways SHOULD use filter
          state records for <xref target='RFC4303'>Encapsulating Security
          Payload (ESP)</xref> that are indexable by a 3-tuple comprising the
          interior node address, the exterior node address and the ESP protocol
          identifier.  In particular, the IPv4/NAT method of indexing state
          records also by security parameters index (SPI) SHOULD NOT be used.
          Likewise, any mechanism that depends on detection of
          <xref target='RFC4306'>Internet Key Exchange (IKE)</xref> initiations
          SHOULD NOT be used.</t>
        </section>
        
        <section anchor='vpn' title='Other Virtual Private Network Protocols'>
          <t>Residential IPv6 gateways are not expected to prohibit the use of
          virtual private networks in residential usage scenarios.</t>
          
          <t>R23: In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST NOT
          prohibit the forwarding, to and from legitimate node addresses, with
          upper layer protocol of type IP version 6, and SHOULD NOT prohibit
          the forwarding of other tunneled networking protocols commonly used
          for virtual private networking, e.g. IP version 4, Generic Routing
          Encapsulation, etcetera.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      
      <section anchor='cots-filters' title='Connection-oriented Filters'>
        <t>Most Internet applications use connection-oriented transport
        protocols with orderly release semantics.  These protocols include the
        Transport Control Protocol (TCP) <xref target='RFC0793'/>, the Stream
        Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) <xref target='RFC4960'/>, the
        Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) <xref target='RFC4340'/>,
        and potentially any future IETF standards-track transport protocols
        that use such semantics.  Stateful packet filters track the state of
        individual transport connections and prohibit the forwarding of packets
        that do not match the state of an active connection and do not conform
        to a rule for the automatic creation of such state.</t>
        
        <section anchor='tcp-filter' title='TCP Filters'>
          <t>An interior endpoint initiates a TCP connection through a stateful
          packet filter by sending a SYN packet.  The filter allocates (or
          reuses) a filter state record for the connection.  The state record
          defines the interior and exterior IP addresses and ports used for
          forwarding all packets for that connection.</t>
          
          <t>Some peer-to-peer applications use an alternate method of
          connection initiation termed simultaneous-open (Fig. 8, <xref
          target='RFC0793'/>) to traverse stateful filters.  In the
          simultaneous-open mode of operation, both peers send SYN packets for
          the same TCP connection.  The SYN packets cross in the network.  Upon
          receiving the other end's SYN packet, each end responds with a
          SYN-ACK packet, which also cross in the network.  The connection is
          established at each endpoint once the SYN-ACK packets are
          received.</t>
          
          <t>To provide stateful packet filtering service for TCP, it is
          necessary for a filter to receive, process and forward all packets
          for a connection that conform to valid transitions of the TCP state
          machine (Fig. 6, <xref target='RFC0793'/>).</t>
          
          <t>R24: All valid sequences of TCP packets (defined in <xref
          target='RFC0793'/>) MUST be forwarded for outbound connections and
          explicitly permitted inbound connections.  In particular, both the
          normal TCP 3-way handshake mode of operation and the
          simultaneous-open modes of operation MUST be supported.</t>
          
          <t>It is possible to reconstruct enough of the state of a TCP
          connection to allow forwarding between an interior and exterior node
          even when the filter starts operating after TCP enters the
          established state.  In this case, because the filter has not seen
          the TCP window-scale option, it is not possible for the filter to
          enforce the TCP window invariant by dropping out-of-window
          segments.</t>
          
          <t>R25: The TCP window invariant MUST NOT be enforced on connections
          for which the filter did not detect whether the window-scale option
          (see <xref target='RFC1323'/>) was sent in the 3-way handshake or
          simultaneous open.</t>
          
          <t>A stateful filter can allow an existing state record to be reused
          by an externally initiated connection if its security policy permits.
          Several different policies are possible as described in <xref
          target='RFC4787'>"Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral
          Requirements for Unicast UDP</xref> and extended in <xref
          target='RFC5382'>"NAT Behaviorial Requirements for
          TCP"</xref>.</t>
          
          <t>R26: If application transparency is most important, then a
          stateful packet filter SHOULD have "Endpoint independent filter"
          behavior for TCP.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
          important, then a filter SHOULD have "Address dependent filtering"
          behavior.  The filtering behavior MAY be an option configurable by
          the network administrator, and it MAY be independent of the filtering
          behavior for UDP and other protocols.</t>
          
          <t>If an inbound SYN packet is filtered, either because a
          corresponding state record does not exist or because of the filter's
          normal behavior, a filter has two basic choices: to discard the
          packet silently, or to signal an error to the sender.  Signaling an
          error through ICMP messages allows the sender to detect that the SYN
          did not reach the intended destination.  Discarding the packet, on
          the other hand, allows applications to perform simultaneous-open more
          reliably.  A more detailed discussion of this issue can be found in
          <xref target='RFC5382'/>, but the basic outcome of it is that
          filters need to wait on signaling errors until simultaneous-open will
          not be impaired.</t>
          
          <t>R27: By DEFAULT, a gateway MUST respond with an ICMP Destination
          Unreachable error (administratively prohibited) to any unsolicited
          inbound SYN packet after waiting at least 6 seconds without first
          forwarding the associated outbound SYN or SYN/ACK from the interior
          peer.</t>
          
          <t>A TCP filter maintains state associated with in-progress and
          established connections.  Because of this, a filter is susceptible to
          a resource-exhaustion attack whereby an attacker (or virus) on the
          interior attempts to cause the filter to exhaust its capacity for
          creating state records.  To defend against such attacks, a filter
          needs to abandon unused state records after a sufficiently long
          period of idleness.</t>
          
          <t>A common method used for TCP filters in IPv4/NAT gateways is to
          abandon preferentially sessions for crashed endpoints, followed by
          closed TCP connections and partially-open connections.  A gateway can
          check if an endpoint for a session has crashed by sending a TCP
          keep-alive packet on behalf of the other endpoint and receiving a TCP
          RST packet in response.  If the gateway connot determine whether the
          endpoint is active, then the associated state record needs to be
          retained until the TCP connection has been idle for some time.  Note:
          an established TCP connection can stay idle (but live) indefinitely;
          hence, there is no fixed value for an idle-timeout that accommodates
          all applications.  However, a large idle-timeout motivated by
          recommendations in <xref target='RFC1122'/> and
          <xref target='RFC4294'/> can reduce the chances of abandoning a live
          connection.</t>
          
          <t>TCP connections can stay in the established phase indefinitely
          without exchanging packets.  Some end-hosts can be configured to send
          keep-alive packets on such idle connections; by default, such packets
          are sent every two hours, if enabled <xref target='RFC1122'/>.
          Consequently, a filter that waits for slightly over two hours can
          detect idle connections with keep-alive packets being sent at the
          default rate.  TCP connections in the partially-open or closing
          phases, on the other hand, can stay idle for at most four minutes
          while waiting for in-flight packets to be delivered <xref
          target='RFC1122'/>.</t>
          
          <t>The "established connection idle-timeout" for a stateful packet
          filter is defined as the minimum time a TCP connection in the
          established phase must remain idle before the filter considers the
          associated state record a candidate for collection.  The "transitory
          connection idle-timeout" for a filter is defined as the minimum time
          a TCP connection in the partially-open or closing phases must remain
          idle before the filter considers the associated state record a
          candidate for collection.  TCP connections in the TIME_WAIT state are
          not affected by the "transitory connection idle-timeout"
          parameter.</t>
          
          <t>R28: If a gateway cannot determine whether the endpoints of a TCP
          connection are active, then it MAY abandon the state record if it has
          been idle for some time.  In such cases, the value of the
          "established connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than two hours
          four minutes, as discussed in <xref target='RFC5382'/>.  The value of
          the "transitory connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than four
          minutes.  The value of the idle-timeouts MAY be configurable by the
          network administrator.</t>
          
          <t>Behavior for handing RST packets, or connections in the TIME_WAIT
          state is left unspecified.  A gateway MAY hold state for a connection
          in TIME_WAIT state to accommodate retransmissions of the last ACK.
          However, since the TIME_WAIT state is commonly encountered by
          interior endpoints properly closing the TCP connection, holding state
          for a closed connection can limit the throughput of connections
          through a gateway with limited resources.  <xref target='RFC1337'/>
          discusses hazards associated with TIME_WAIT assassination.</t>
          
          <t>The handling of non-SYN packets for which there is no active state
          record is left unspecified.  Such packets can be received if the
          gateway abandons a live connection, or abandons a connection in the
          TIME_WAIT state before the four minute TIME_WAIT period expires.  The
          decision either to discard or to respond with an ICMP Destination
          Unreachable error, code 1 (administratively prohibited) is left up to
          the implementation.</t>
          
          <t>Behavior for notifying endpoints when abandoning live connections
          is left unspecified.  When a gateway abandons a live connection, for
          example due to a timeout expiring, the filter MAY send a TCP RST
          packet to each endpoint on behalf of the other.  Sending a RST
          notification allows endpoint applications to recover more quickly,
          however, notifying endpoints might not always be possible if, for
          example, state records are lost due to power interruption.</t>
          
          <t>Several TCP mechanisms depend on the reception of ICMP error
          messages triggered by the transmission of TCP segments.  One such
          mechanism is path MTU discovery, which is required for correct
          operation of TCP.</t>
          
          <t>R29: If a gateway forwards a TCP connection, it MUST also forward
          ICMP Destination Unreachable messages containing TCP headers that
          match the connection state record.</t>
          
          <t>R30: Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT terminate the
          state record for a TCP connection.</t>
        </section>
        
        <section anchor='sctp-filter' title='SCTP Filters'>
          <t>Because <xref target='RFC4960'>Stream Control Transmission
          Protocol (SCTP)</xref> connections can be terminated at multiple
          network addresses, IPv6 simple security functions cannot achieve
          full transparency for SCTP applications.  In multipath traversal
          scenarios, full transparency requires coordination between
          all the packet filter processes in the various paths between the
          endpoint network addresses.  Such coordination is not "simple"
          and it is, therefore, beyond the scope of this recommendation.</t>
          
          <t>However, some SCTP applications are capable of tolerating the
          inherent unipath restriction of IPv6 simple security, even in
          multipath traversal scenarios.  They expect similar
          connection-oriented filtering behaviors as for TCP, but at the level
          of SCTP associations, not stream connections.  This section describes
          specific recommendations for SCTP filtering for such traversal
          scenarios.</t>
          
          <t>An interior endpoint initiates SCTP associations through a
          stateful packet filter by sending a packet comprising a single INIT
          chunk.  The filter allocates (or reuses) a filter state record for
          the association.  The state record defines the interior and exterior
          IP addresses and the observed verification tag used for forwarding
          packets in that association.</t>
          
          <t>Peer-to-peer applications use an alternate method of association
          initiation termed simultaneous-open to traverse stateful filters.  In
          the simultaneous-open mode of operation, both peers send INIT chunks
          at the same time to establish an association.  Upon receiving the
          other end's INIT chunk, each end responds with an INIT-ACK packet,
          which is expected to traverse the same path in reverse.  Because
          only one SCTP association may exist between any two network
          addresses, one of the peers in simultaneous-open mode of operation 
          will send an ERROR or ABORT chunk along with the INIT-ACK chunk.
          The association is established at each endpoint once an INIT-ACK
          chunks is received at one end without an ERROR or ABORT chunk.</t>
          
          <t>To provide stateful packet filtering service for SCTP, it is
          necessary for a filter to receive, process and forward all packets
          for an association that conform to valid transitions of the SCTP
          state machine (Fig. 3, <xref target='RFC4960'/>).</t>
          
          <t>R31: All valid sequences of SCTP packets (defined in <xref 
          target='RFC4960'/>) MUST be forwarded for outbound associations and
          explicitly permitted inbound associations.  In particular, both the
          normal SCTP association establishment and simultaneous-open modes of
          operation MUST be supported.</t>
          
          <t>If an inbound INIT packet is filtered, either because a 
          corresponding state record does not exist or because of the filter's
          normal behavior, a filter has two basic choices: to discard the
          packet silently, or to signal an error to the sender.  Signaling
          an error through ICMP messages allows the sender to detect that the
          INIT packet did not reach the intended destination.  Discarding the
          packet, on the other hand, allows applications to perform
          simultaneous-open more reliably.  Delays in signaling errors can
          prevent the impairment of simultaneous-open mode of operation.</t>

          <t>R32: By DEFAULT, a gateway MUST respond with an ICMP Destination
          Unreachable error (administratively prohibited) to any unsolicited
          inbound INIT packet after waiting at least 6 seconds without first
          forwarding the associated outbound INIT from the interior peer.</t>
          
          <t>An SCTP filter maintains state associated with in-progress and
          established associations.  Because of this, a filter is susceptible
          to a resource-exhaustion attack whereby an attacker (or virus) on the
          interior attempts to cause the filter to exhaust its capacity for
          creating state records.  To defend against such attacks, a filter
          needs to abandon unused state records after a sufficiently long
          period of idleness.</t>
          
          <t>A common method used for TCP filters in IPv4/NAT gateways is to
          abandon preferentially sessions for crashed endpoints, followed by
          closed associations and partially opened associations.  A similar
          method is an option for SCTP filters in IPv6 gateways.  A gateway
          can check if an endpoint for an association has crashed by sending
          HEARTBEAT chunks and looking for the HEARTBEAT ACK response.  If the
          gateway cannot determine whether the endpoint is active, then the
          associated state records needs to be retained until the SCTP 
          association has been idle for some time.  Note: an established SCTP
          association can stay idle (but live) indefinitely, hence there is no
          fixed value of an idle-timeout that accommodates all applications.
          However, a large idle-timeout motivated by <xref target="RFC4294"/>
          can reduce the chances of abandoning a live association.</t>
          
          <t>SCTP associations can stay in the ESTABLISHED state indefinitely 
          without exchanging packets.  Some end-hosts can be configured to send
          HEARTBEAT chunks on such idle associations, but <xref
          target="RFC4960"/> does not specify (or even suggest) a default time
          interval.  A filter that waits for slightly over two hours can detect
          idle associations with HEARTBEAT packets being sent at the same rate
          as most hosts use for TCP keep-alive, which is a reasonably similar
          system for this purpose.  SCTP associations in the partially-open or
          closing states, on the other hand, can stay idle for at most four
          minutes while waiting for in-flight packets to be delivered (assuming
          the suggested SCTP protocol parameter values in Section 15 of <xref
          target="RFC4960"/>).</t>
          
          <t>The "established association idle-timeout" for a stateful packet
          filter is defined as the minimum time an SCTP association in the
          established phase must remain idle before the filter considers the
          corresponding state record a candidate for collection.  The
          "transitory association idle-timeout" for a filter is defined as the
          minimum time an SCTP association in the partially-open or closing
          phases must remain idle before the filter considers the corresponding
          state record a candidate for collection.</t>
          
          <t>R33: If a gateway cannot determine whether the endpoints of an
          SCTP association are active, then it MAY abandon the state record if
          it has been idle for some time.  In such cases, the value of the
          "established association idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than two
          hours four minutes.  The value of the "transitory association
          idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than four minutes.  The value of the
          idle-timeouts MAY be configurable by the network administrator.</t>
          
          <t>Behavior for handling ERROR and ABORT packets is left unspecified.
          A gateway MAY hold state for an association after its closing phases
          have completed to accommodate retransmissions of its final SHUTDOWN
          ACK packets.  However, holding state for a closed association can
          limit the throughput of associations traversing a gateway with
          limited resources.  The discussion in <xref target="RFC1337"/>
          regarding the hazards of TIME_WAIT assassination are relevant.</t>
          
          <t>The handling of inbound non-INIT packets for which there is no
          active state record is left unspecified.  Such packets can be
          received if the gateway abandons a live connection, or abandons an
          association in the closing states before the transitory association
          idle-timeout expires.  The decision either to discard or to respond
          with an ICMP Destination Unreachable error, code 1 (administratively
          prohibited) is left to the implementation.</t>
          
          <t>Behavior for notifying endpoints when abandoning live associations
          is left unspecified.  When a gateway abandons a live association, for
          example due to a timeout expiring, the filter MAY send an ABORT
          packet to each endpoint on behalf of the other.  Sending an ABORT
          notification allows endpoint applications to recover more quickly,
          however, notifying endpoints might not always be possible if, for
          example, state records are lost due to power interruption.</t>
          
          <t>Several SCTP mechanisms depend on the reception of ICMP error
          messages triggered by the transmission of SCTP packets.</t>
          
          <t>R34: If a gateway forwards an SCTP association, it MUST also
          forward ICMP Destination Unreachable messages containing SCTP headers
          that match the association state record.</t>

          <t>R35: Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT terminate the
          state record for an SCTP association.</t>
        </section>
        
        <section anchor='dccp-filter' title='DCCP Filters'>
          <t>The connection semantics described in <xref
          target='RFC4340'>Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
          (DCCP)</xref> are very similar to those of TCP.  An interior endpoint
          initiates a DCCP connection through a stateful packet filter by
          sending a DCCP-Request packet.  Simultaneous open is not defined for
          DCCP.</t>
          
          <t>In order to provide stateful packet filtering service for DCCP, it
          is necessary for a filter to receive, process and forward all packets
          for a connection that conform to valid transitions of the DCCP state
          machine (Section 8, <xref target="RFC4340"/>).</t>
          
          <t>R36: All valid sequences of DCCP packets (defined in <xref 
          target="RFC4340"/>) MUST be forwarded for all connections to exterior
          servers and those connections to interior servers with explicitly
          permitted service codes.</t>
          
          <t>It is possible to reconstruct enough of the state of a DCCP
          connection to allow forwarding between an interior and exterior node
          even when the filter starts operating after DCCP enters the OPEN
          state.  Also, a filter can allow an existing state record to be 
          reused by an externally initiated connection if its security policy
          permits.  As with TCP, several different policies are possible, with
          a good discussion of the issue involved presented in <xref
          target="RFC4787">Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral
          Requirements for Unicast UDP</xref> and extended in <xref
          target="RFC5382">NAT Behaviorial Requirements for TCP</xref>.</t>
          
          <t>If an inbound DCCP-Request packet is filtered, either because a
          corresponding state record does not already exist for it or because
          of the filter's normal behavior of refusing connections not
          explicitly permitted, then a filter has two basic choices: to discard
          the packet silently, or to signal an error to the sender.  Signaling
          an error through ICMP messages allows the sender to detect that the
          DCCP-Request did not reach the intended destination.  Discarding the
          packet, on the other hand, only delays the failure to connect and
          provides no measurable security.</t>
          
          <t>A DCCP filter maintains state associated with in-progress and
          established connections.  Because of this, a filter is susceptible to
          a resource-exhaustion attack whereby an attacker (or virus) on the
          interior attempts to cause the filter to exhaust its capacity for
          creating state records.  To prevent such an attack, a filter needs to
          abandon unused state records after a sufficiently long period of
          idleness.</t>
          
          <t>A common method used for TCP filters in IPv4/NAT gateways is to
          abandon preferentially sessions for crashed endpoints, followed by
          closed TCP connections and partially-open connections.  No such
          method exists for DCCP, and connections can stay in the OPEN phase
          indefinitely without exchanging packets.  Hence, there is no fixed
          value for an idle-timeout that accommodates all applications.
          However, a large idle-timeout motivated by <xref target="RFC4294"/>
          can reduce the chances of abandoning a live connection.</t>
          
          <t>DCCP connections in the partially-open or closing phases can stay
          idle for at most eight minutes while waiting for in-flight packets to
          be delivered.</t>
          
          <t>The "open connection idle-timeout" for a stateful packet filter is
          defined as the minimum time a DCCP connection in the open state
          must remain idle before the filter considers the associated state
          record a candidate for collection.  The "transitory connection
          idle-timeout" for a filter is defined as the minimum time a DCCP
          connection in the partially-open or closing phases must remain idle
          before the filter considers the associated state record a candidate
          for collection.  DCCP connections in the TIMEWAIT state are not
          affected by the "transitory connection idle-timeout" parameter.</t>
          
          <t>R37: A gateway MAY abandon a DCCP state record if it has been idle
          for some time.  In such cases, the value of the "established
          connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than two hours
          four minutes.  The value of the "transitory connection idle-timeout"
          MUST NOT be less than eight minutes.  The value of the idle-timeouts
          MAY be configurable by the network administrator.</t>
          
          <t>Behavior for handing DCCP-Reset packets, or connections in the
          TIMEWAIT state is left unspecified.  A gateway MAY hold state for a
          connection in TIMEWAIT state to accommodate retransmissions of the
          last DCCP-Reset.  However, since the TIMEWAIT state is commonly
          encountered by interior endpoints properly closing the DCCP
          connection, holding state for a closed connection can limit the
          throughput of connections through a gateway with limited resources.
          [RFC1337] discusses hazards associated with TIME_WAIT
          assassination in TCP, and similar hazards exists for DCCP.</t>
          
          <t>The handling of non-SYN packets for which there is no active state
          record is left unspecified.  Such packets can be received if the
          gateway abandons a live connection, or abandons a connection in the
          TIMEWAIT state before the four minute 2MSL period expires.  The
          decision either to discard or to respond with an ICMP Destination
          Unreachable error, code 1 (administratively prohibited) is left up to
          the implementation.</t>
          
          <t>Behavior for notifying endpoints when abandoning live connections
          is left unspecified.  When a gateway abandons a live connection, for
          example due to a timeout expiring, the filter MAY send a DCCP-Reset
          packet to each endpoint on behalf of the other.  Sending a DCCP-Reset 
          notification allows endpoint applications to recover more quickly, 
          however, notifying endpoints might not always be possible if, for 
          example, state records are lost due to power interruption.</t>
          
          <t>Several DCCP mechanisms depend on the reception of ICMP error
          messages triggered by the transmission of DCCP packets.  One such
          mechanism is path MTU discovery, which is required for correct
          operation.</t>

          <t>R38: If a gateway forwards a DCCP connection, it MUST also forward
          ICMP Destination Unreachable messages containing DCCP headers that
          match the connection state record.</t>

          <t>R39: Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT terminate the
          state record for a DCCP connection.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      
      <section anchor='app-listen' title='Passive Listeners'>
        <t>Some applications expect to solicit traffic from exterior nodes
        without any advance knowledge of the exterior address.  This
        requirement is met by IPv4/NAT gateways typically by the use of either
        <xref target='I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp'/> or <xref target='UPnP-IGD'/>.</t>
        
        <t>One proposal that has been offered as an Internet Draft is the
        <xref target='I-D.woodyatt-ald'>Application Listener Discovery
        Protocol</xref>.  It remains to be seen whether the Internet Gateway
        Device profile of the Universal Plug And Play protocol will be extended
        for IPv6.  Other proposals of note include the
        <xref target='RFC5189'>Middlebox Communication Protocol</xref> and the
        <xref target='RFC4080'>Next Steps in Signaling framework</xref>.  No
        consensus has yet emerged in the Internet engineering community as to
        which proposal is most appropriate for residential IPv6 usage
        scenarios.</t>
        
        <t>R41: Gateways SHOULD implement a protocol to permit applications to
        solicit inbound traffic without advance knowledge of the addresses of
        exterior nodes with which they expect to communicate.  If implemented,
        this protocol MUST have a specification that meets the requirements of
        <xref target='RFC3979'/>, <xref target='RFC4879'/> and <xref
        target='RFC5378'/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="summary" title="Summary of Recommendations">
      <t>This section collects all of the recommendations made in this
      document into a convenient list.</t>
      
      <t><list style='hanging'>
        <t hangText='R1'>Packets bearing in their outer IPv6 headers multicast
        source addresses MUST NOT be forwarded or transmitted on any
        interface.</t>

        <t hangText='R2'>Packets bearing in their outer IPv6 headers multicast
        destination addresses of equal or narrower scope that the configured
        scope boundary level of the gateway MUST NOT be forwarded in any
        direction.  The DEFAULT scope boundary level SHOULD be
        organization-local scope.</t>

        <t hangText='R3'>Packets bearing deprecated extension headers prior to
        their first upper-layer-protocol header SHOULD NOT be forwarded or
        transmitted on any interface.  In particular, all packets with routing
        extension header type 0 <xref target='RFC2460'/> preceding the first
        upper-layer-protocol header MUST NOT be forwarded.</t>

        <t hangText='R4'>Outbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source
        address in their outer IPv6 header does not have a unicast prefix
        assigned for use by globally reachable nodes on the interior
        network.</t>

        <t hangText='R5'>Inbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source
        address in their outer IPv6 header has a global unicast prefix assigned
        for use by globally reachable nodes on the interior network.</t>

        <t hangText='R6'>By DEFAULT, packets with unique local source and/or destination addresses <xref target='RFC4193'/> SHOULD NOT be forwarded to or from the exterior network.</t>

        <t hangText='R7'>By DEFAULT, inbound non-recursive DNS queries received
        on exterior interfaces MUST NOT be processed by any integrated DNS
        proxy resolving server.</t>

        <t hangText='R8'>Inbound DHCP discovery packets received on exterior
        interfaces MUST NOT be processed by any integrated DHCP server.</t>

        <t hangText='R9'>Filter state records for generic upper-layer transport
        protocols MUST BE indexable by a 3-tuple comprising the interior node
        address, the exterior node address and the upper-layer transport
        protocol identifier.</t>

        <t hangText='R10'>Filter state records for generic upper-layer
        transport protocols MUST NOT be deleted or recycled until an idle timer
        not less than two minutes has expired without having forwarded a packet
        matching the state in some configurable amount of time.  By DEFAULT,
        the idle timer for such state records is five minutes.</t>

        <t hangText='R11'>A state record for a UDP exchange where both interior
        and exterior ports are outside the well-known port range (ports 0-1023)
        MUST NOT expire in less than two minutes of idle time.  The value of
        the UDP state record idle timer MAY be configurable.  The DEFAULT
        is five minutes.</t>

        <t hangText='R12'>A state record for a UDP exchange where one or both
        of the interior and exterior ports are in the well-known port range
        (ports 0-1023) MAY expire after a period of idle time shorter than two
        minutes to facilitate the operation of the IANA-registered service
        assigned to the port in question.</t>

        <t hangText='R13'>A state record for a UDP exchange MUST be refreshed
        when a packet is forwarded from the interior to the exterior, and it
        MAY be refreshed when a packet is forwarded in the reverse
        direction.</t>

        <t hangText='R14'>If application transparency is most important, then a
        stateful packet filter SHOULD have "Endpoint independent filter"
        behavior for UDP.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
        important, then a filter SHOULD have "Address dependent filtering"
        behavior.  The filtering behavior MAY be an option configurable by the
        network administrator, and it MAY be independent of the filtering
        behavior for TCP and other protocols.</t>

        <t hangText='R15'>If a gateway forwards a UDP exchange, it MUST also
        forward ICMP Destination Unreachable messages containing UDP headers
        that match the exchange state record.</t>

        <t hangText='R16'>Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT
        terminate the state record for a UDP exchange.</t>
          
        <t hangText='R17'>UDP-Lite exchanges <xref target='RFC3828'/> SHOULD be
        handled in the same way as UDP exchanges, except that the upper-layer
        transport protocol identifier for UDP-Lite is not the same as UDP,
        and therefore UDP packets MUST NOT match UDP-Lite state records, and
        vice versa.</t>

        <t hangText='R18'>Where a globally routed IPv6 prefix is advertised on
        an interior interface and IPv4 Internet service is provided with NAT
        <xref target='RFC4787'/>, the Teredo qualification procedure (see section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of <xref target='RFC4380'/>) for clients in the interior MUST be prohibited by the IPv4/NAT stateful filter.
        This SHOULD be done by blocking outbound UDP initiations to port 3544, the port reserved by IANA for Teredo servers.</t>

        <t hangText='R19'>In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST
        NOT prohibit the forwarding of packets, to and from legitimate node
        addresses, with destination extension headers of type
        <xref target='RFC4302'>"Authenticated Header (AH)"</xref> in their
        outer IP extension header chain.</t>

        <t hangText='R20'>In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST
        NOT prohibit the forwarding of packets, to and from legitimate node
        addresses, with an upper layer protocol of type
        <xref target='RFC4303'>"Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)"</xref>
        in their outer IP extension header chain.</t>

        <t hangText='R21'>In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST
        NOT prohibit the forwarding of any UDP packets, to and from legitimate
        node addresses, with a destination port of 500, i.e. the port
        reserved by IANA for the <xref target='RFC4306'>Internet Key Exchange
        Protocol</xref>.</t>

        <t hangText='R22'>In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST
        NOT prohibit the forwarding, to and from legitimate node addresses,
        with upper layer protocol of type IP version 6, and SHOULD NOT prohibit
        the forwarding of other tunneled networking protocols commonly used
        for virtual private networking, e.g. IP version 4, Generic Routing
        Encapsulation, etcetera.</t>

        <t hangText='R23'>In all operating modes, IPv6 gateways SHOULD use
        filter state records for <xref target='RFC4303'>Encapsulating Security
        Payload (ESP)</xref> that are indexable by a 3-tuple comprising the
        interior node address, the exterior node address and the ESP protocol
        identifier.  In particular, the IPv4/NAT method of indexing state
        records also by security parameters index (SPI) SHOULD NOT be used.
        Likewise, any mechanism that depends on detection of
        <xref target='RFC4306'>Internet Key Exchange (IKE)</xref> initiations
        SHOULD NOT be used.</t>

        <t hangText='R24'>All valid sequences of TCP packets (defined in <xref
        target='RFC0793'/>) MUST be forwarded for outbound connections and
        explicitly permitted inbound connections.  In particular, both the
        normal TCP 3-way handshake mode of operation and the
        simultaneous-open modes of operation MUST be supported.</t>

        <t hangText='R25'>The TCP window invariant MUST NOT be enforced on
        connections for which the filter did not detect whether the
        window-scale option (see <xref target='RFC1323'/>) was sent in the
        3-way handshake or simultaneous open.</t>

        <t hangText='R26'>If application transparency is most important, then a
        stateful packet filter SHOULD have "Endpoint independent filter"
        behavior for TCP.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
        important, then a filter SHOULD have "Address dependent filtering"
        behavior.  The filtering behavior MAY be an option configurable by the
        network administrator, and it MAY be independent of the filtering
        behavior for UDP and other protocols.</t>

        <t hangText='R27'>By DEFAULT, a gateway MUST respond with an ICMP
        Destination Unreachable error (administratively prohibited) to any
        unsolicited inbound SYN packet after waiting at least 6 seconds without
        first forwarding the associated outbound SYN or SYN/ACK from the
        interior peer.</t>

        <t hangText='R28'>If a gateway cannot determine whether the endpoints
        of a TCP connection are active, then it MAY abandon the state record if
        it has been idle for some time.  In such cases, the value of the
        "established connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than two hours
        four minutes, as discussed in <xref target='RFC5382'/>.  The value of
        the "transitory connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than four
        minutes.  The value of the idle-timeouts MAY be configurable by the
        network administrator.</t>

        <t hangText='R29'>If a gateway forwards a TCP connection, it MUST also
        forward ICMP Destination Unreachable messages containing TCP headers
        that match the connection state record.</t>

        <t hangText='R30'>Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT
        terminate the state record for a TCP connection.</t>

        <t hangText='R31'>All valid sequences of SCTP packets (defined in <xref 
        target='RFC4960'/>) MUST be forwarded for outbound associations and
        explicitly permitted inbound associations.  In particular, both the
        normal SCTP association establishment and simultaneous-open modes of
        operation MUST be supported.</t>

        <t hangText='R32'>By DEFAULT, a gateway MUST respond with an ICMP
        Destination Unreachable error (administratively prohibited) to any
        unsolicited inbound INIT packet after waiting at least 6 seconds
        without first forwarding the associated outbound INIT from the interior
        peer.</t>

        <t hangText='R33'>A gateway MUST NOT signal an error for an unsolicited
        inbound INIT packet for at least 6 seconds after the packet is
        received.  If during this interval the gateway receives and forwards an
        outbound INIT packet for the association, the the gateway MUST discard
        the original unsolicited inbound INIT packet without signaling an
        error.  Otherwise, the gateway SHOULD send an ICMP Destination
        Unreachable error, code 1 (administratively prohibited) for the
        original INIT-- unless sending any response violates the security
        policy of the network administrator.</t>

        <t hangText='R34'>If a gateway cannot determine whether the endpoints
        of an SCTP association are active, then it MAY abandon the state record
        if it has been idle for some time.  In such cases, the value of the
        "established association idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than two hours
        four minutes.  The value of the "transitory association idle-timeout"
        MUST NOT be less than four minutes.  The value of the idle-timeouts MAY
        be configurable by the network administrator.</t>

        <t hangText='R35'>If a gateway forwards an SCTP association, it MUST
        also forward ICMP Destination Unreachable messages containing SCTP
        headers that match the association state record.</t>

        <t hangText='R36'>Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT
        terminate the state record for an SCTP association.</t>

        <t hangText='R37'>All valid sequences of DCCP packets (defined in <xref
        target="RFC4340"/>) MUST be forwarded for all connections to exterior
        servers and those connections to interior servers with explicitly
        permitted service codes.</t>
                
        <t hangText='R38'>A gateway MAY abandon a DCCP state record if it has
        been idle for some time.  In such cases, the value of the "established
        connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than two hours four minutes.
        The value of the "transitory connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less
        than eight minutes.  The value of the idle-timeouts MAY be configurable 
        by the network administrator.</t>
        
        <t hangText='R39'>If a gateway forwards a DCCP connection, it MUST also
        forward ICMP Destination Unreachable messages containing DCCP headers
        that match the connection state record.</t>

        <t hangText='R40'>Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT
        terminate the state record for a DCCP connection.</t>

        <t hangText='R41'>Gateways SHOULD implement a protocol to permit applications to solicit inbound traffic without advance knowledge of
        the addresses of exterior nodes with which they expect to communicate.
        If implemented, this protocol MUST have a specification that meets the
        requirements of <xref target='RFC3979'/>, <xref target='RFC4879'/> and
        <xref target='RFC5378'/>.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="contrib" title="Contributors">
      <t>Comments and criticisms during the development of this document were
      received from the following IETF participants:</t>
      
      <t><list>
        <t>Fred Baker</t>
        <t>Norbert Bollow</t>
        <t>Brian Carpenter</t>
        <t>Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino</t>
        <t>Thomas Herbst</t>
        <t>Christian Huitema</t>
        <t>Cullen Jennings</t>
        <t>Suresh Krishnan</t>
        <t>Erik Kline</t>
        <t>Kurt Erik Lindqvist</t>
        <t>Iljitsch van Beijnum</t>
        <t>Yaron Sheffer</t>
        <t>Dan Wing</t>
      </list></t>
          
      <t>Much of the text describing the detailed requirements for TCP and UDP
      filtering is derived or transposed from <xref target='RFC4787'/> and
      <xref target='RFC5382'/>, and some form of attribution here may therefore
      be appopriate.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This memo includes no request to IANA.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The IPv6 stateful filtering behavior described in this document is
      intended to be similar in function to the filtering behavior of commonly
      use IPv4/NAT gateways, which have been widely sold as a security tool for
      residential and small-offce/home-office networks.  As noted in the
      security considerations section of <xref target='RFC2993'/>, the true
      impact of these tools may be a reduction in security.  It may be
      generally assumed that the impacts discussed there related to
      filtering (and not translation) are to be expected with the simple IPv6
      security mechanisms described here.</t>
      
      <t>In particular, it's worth noting that stateful filters create the
      illusion of a security barrier, but without the managed intent of a
      firewall.  Appropriate security mechanisms implemented in the end nodes,
      in conjunction with the <xref target='RFC4864'/> local network protection
      methods, function without reliance on network layer hacks and transport
      filters that may change over time.  Also, defined security barriers
      assume that threats originate in the exterior, which may lead to
      practices that result in applications being fully exposed to interior
      attack and which therefore make breaches much easier.</t>

      <t>Finally, residential gateways that implement simple security functions
      are a bastion between the interior and the exterior, and therefore are a
      target of denial of service attacks against the interior network itself
      by processes designed to consume the resources of the gateway, e.g. a
      ping or SYN flood.  Gateways should employ the same sorts of protection
      techniques as application servers on the Internet.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation
        libraries:
     1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629;
        here (as shown)
     2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc
        include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
        (for I-Ds:
            include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

     Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
     If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included
     files in the same directory as the including file. You can also define the
     XML_LIBRARY environment variable with a value containing a set of
     directories to search.  These can be either in the local filing system or
     remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

    <references title="Normative References">
      &RFC0768;
      &RFC0793;
      &RFC1323;
      &RFC2119;
      &RFC2460;
      &RFC3828;
      &RFC3979;
      &RFC4193;
      &RFC4302;
      &RFC4303;
      &RFC4306;
      &RFC4340;
      &RFC4380;
      &RFC4787;
      &RFC4879;
      &RFC4960;
      &RFC5378;
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <!-- Here we use entities that we defined at the beginning. -->
      &RFC1122;
      &RFC1337;
      &RFC1918;
      &RFC2993;
      &RFC4080;
      &RFC4294;
      &RFC4864;
      &RFC5189;
      &RFC5382;
      &I-D.woodyatt-ald;
      &I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp;

      <reference anchor='UPnP-IGD'
       target='http://www.upnp.org/standardizeddcps/igd.asp'>
        <front>
          <title>Universal Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device Standardized
          Gateway Device Protocol</title>
          <author fullname='UPnP Forum'>
            <organization>UPnP Forum</organization>
          </author>
          <date month='September' year='2006'/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <!-- A reference written by by an organization not a person. -->
    </references>

    <!-- Change Log -->
    <section anchor='changelog' title="Change Log">
      <section title='draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 to
        draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01'>
        <t><list style='symbols'>
          <t>Added requirements for sequestering DHCP and DNS proxy resolver
          services to the local network.</t>
          <t>Fixed numbering of recommendations.</t>
          <t>Local Network Protection is now <xref target='RFC4864'/>.</t>
          <t>SCTP is now <xref target='RFC4960'/>.</t>
          <t>Moved some references to informative.</t>
          <t>Corrected the reference for draft-hoagland-v6ops-teredosecconcerns.</t>
        </list></t>
      </section>

      <section title='draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01 to
        draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-02'>
        <t><list style='symbols'>
          <t>Inserted R20, i.e. do not enforce TCP window invariant unless the
             TCP window-scale is known for the state.</t>
          <t>Filled out <xref target='summary'/>.</t>
          <t>Added reference to <xref target='RFC1323'/>.</t>
          <t>Updated the reference for draft-hoagland-v6ops-teredosecconcerns.</t>
          <t>Expanded list of contributers and commenters.</t>
          <t>Mention that UDP-Lite should be handled just like UDP.</t>
          <t>Added section for generic upper layer transport protocols.</t>
          <t>Expanded on recommendations for IPsec ESP filtering.</t>
          <t>Expanded overview of recommendations with discussion about IP
          mobility and IPsec interactions.</t>
          <t>Added a security considerations section.</t>
        </list></t>
      </section>

      <section title='draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-02 to
        draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03'>
        <t><list style='symbols'>
          <t>Fixed some spelling errors.</t>
          <t>Replace "prevent such attacks" with "defend against such attacks"
          everywhere.</t>
          <t>Replace "mapping" with "state record" in the TCP filters
          section.</t>
          <t>Added recommendations for SCTP and DCCP.</t>
        </list></t>
      </section>

      <section title='draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03 to
        draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04'>
        <t><list style='symbols'>
          <t>Removed references to draft-hoagland-v6ops-teredosecconcerns.</t>
          <t>Updated reference to <xref target='RFC5382'/>.</t>
          <t>Add reference to <xref target='RFC4879'/>.</t>
          <t>Use SYSTEM resources for referencing Internet Drafts.</t>
          <t>Updated IPR boilerplate.</t>
        </list></t>
      </section>

      <section title='draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 to
        draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-05'>
        <t><list style='symbols'>
          <t>Changed category from BCP to Informational.</t>
          <t>Change text in section 3 to read "activate new states as a side effect of forwarding outbound flow initiations" to improve clarity.</t>
          <t>Qualified an informative insertion by inserting the phrase "on such networks" appropriately and relaxed the MUST to a SHOULD in the text about impeding Teredo.</t>
          <t>Changed MUST to SHOULD in R18 about impeding Teredo.</t>
          <t>Replace "that" with "than" in R2.</t>
          <t>Removed an unnecessary and incorrect paragraph about IPv6/NAT from the overview.</t>
          <t>Changed the first MUST NOT to a SHOULD NOT in R3.</t>
          <t>Renumbered the recommendations in section 3.1 to increase monotonically and match the same recommendations in the summary.</t>
          <t>Rewrote R6, R27 and R32 for clarity.</t>
          <t>Added normative reference to <xref target='RFC4193'/>.</t>
          <t>Removed R8 from the summary, which did not appear in section 3.1, and was redundant with R27.</t>
          <t>Added a reference to <xref target='RFC5382'/> in R28.</t>
          <t>Inserted R32 into the summary, which had been skipped.</t>
          <t>Removed "alongside an IPv4 private address" and inserted "globally routed" before the first use of the word "prefix" in R18.</t>
          <t>Qualify an assertion with "some" in the informative section about TCP filters.</t>
          <t>Updated obsolete references to RFC 3989 and RFC 4748.</t>
        </list></t>
      </section>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
