RFC 9927: Fixing the C-Flag in the Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)
- P. Thubert,
- A. Rashid
Abstract
This document updates "Address
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://
1. Introduction
The Address
This specification updates [RFC8928] by repositioning the C-flag as bit 1 of the EARO flags field, thereby preventing conflicts.¶
2. Terminology
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
3. Updating RFC 8928
[RFC8928] incorrectly refers to the Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) as the Enhanced Address Registration Option. This specification corrects this terminology throughout the document.¶
In [RFC8928], the C-flag is specified in the EARO flags field at bit position 3 (as depicted in Figure 1 of [RFC8928]); however, [RFC8928] fails to register its position with IANA. Later, [RFC9685] defined the P-Field in bits 2 and 3 of the EARO flags field and obtained proper IANA registration, but this introduced an overlap with the representation in [RFC8928]. To resolve the conflict, this specification updates [RFC8928] by repositioning the C-flag to bit 1 of the EARO flags field, ensuring there are no overlapping definitions.¶
Figure 1 replaces Figure 1 in [RFC8928] in the case of an EARO used in an NS message.¶
Figure 2 replaces Figure 1 in [RFC8928] in the case of an EARO used in an NA message. The difference between the two formats is in the usage of bits 16 to 23.¶
Option fields of interest for this specification:¶
- Type:
- 33¶
- Length:
- Defined in [RFC8505]¶
- F:
- Defined in [RFC9926]¶
- Prefix Length
- Defined in [RFC9926]¶
- Status:
- 6-bit unsigned integer.
This field is used in NA(EARO) response messages only to indicate the status of a registration.
This field is defined in [RFC8505] and resized by [RFC9010].
The values for the Status field are available in [IANA
.ICMP ]. This field MUST be set to 0 in NS(EARO) messages unless the registration is for a prefix, in which case the F-flag is set and the prefix length is provided.¶.ARO .STAT - Opaque:
- Defined in [RFC8505]¶
- r (reserved):
- 1-bit reserved field in NS(EARO) and NA(EARO) as depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2. 2-bit reserved field (most significant bits of Status filed) in NA(EARO) as depicted in Figure 2. All reserved field MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.¶
- C:
- 1-bit flag, moved from its position in Figure 1 of [RFC8928]. It is set to indicate that the ROVR field contains a Crypto-ID and that the 6LN MAY be challenged for ownership.¶
- P:
- 2-bit field for Registered Address Type Indicator (RATInd). Indicates whether the registered address is unicast, multicast, anycast, or derived from the registered unicast prefix.
Used to transport the RATInd in different protocols. The values for the RATInd field are available in [IANA
.ICMP ].¶.ARO .P -FIELD - I:
- Defined in [RFC8505]¶
- R:
- Defined in [RFC8505]¶
- T:
- Defined in [RFC8505]¶
- TID (Transaction ID):
- Defined in [RFC8505]¶
- Registration Lifetime:
- Defined in [RFC8505]¶
- Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR):
- Defined in [RFC8505]. Variable-length field used to verify who "owns" a registered IPv6 address. When the C-flag is set, this field contains a Crypto-ID [RFC8928].¶
4. Security Considerations
This specification does not introduce any new security considerations beyond those already discussed in [RFC8928] and [RFC8505].¶
5. Operational Considerations
The updates introduced in this document are not backward compatible. However, given that there are no known implementations or deployments of [RFC8928], this document does not require any transition plan.¶
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Bit Position of the C-flag
IANA has updated the "Address Registration Option Flags" [IANA
7. References
7.1. Normative References
- [IANA
.ICMP .ARO .FLG] -
IANA, "Address Registration Option Flags", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /icmpv6 -parameters - [IANA
.ICMP .ARO .P -FIELD] -
IANA, "P-Field Values", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /icmpv6 -parameters - [IANA
.ICMP .ARO .STAT] -
IANA, "Address Registration Option Status Values", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /icmpv6 -parameters - [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC4861]
-
Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4861 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4861 - [RFC4862]
-
Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfigurati
on" , RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC4862 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4862 - [RFC6775]
-
Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6775 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6775 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8505]
-
Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8505 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8505 - [RFC8928]
-
Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik, "Address
-Protected , RFC 8928, DOI 10Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and Lossy Networks" .17487 , , <https:///RFC8928 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8928 - [RFC9010]
-
Thubert, P., Ed. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) Leaves", RFC 9010, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9010 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9010 - [RFC9685]
-
Thubert, P., Ed., "Listener Subscription for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Multicast and Anycast Addresses", RFC 9685, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9685 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9685 - [RFC9926]
-
Thubert, P., Ed., "Prefix Registration for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", RFC 9926, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9926 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9926
7.2. Informative References
- [RFC8929]
-
Thubert, P., Ed., Perkins, C.E., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6 Backbone Router", RFC 8929, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8929 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8929