



Network Working Group                                            J. Dong
Internet-Draft                                                     Z. Li
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: 8 January 2026                                           C. Xie
                                                                   C. Ma
                                                           China Telecom
                                                               G. Mishra
                                                            Verizon Inc.
                                                             7 July 2025


  Carrying Network Resource (NR) related Information in IPv6 Extension
                                 Header
                 draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-12

Abstract

   Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) provide different customers with
   logically separated connectivity over a common network
   infrastructure.  With the introduction of 5G and also in some
   existing network scenarios, some customers may require network
   connectivity services with advanced features comparing to
   conventional VPN services.  Such kind of network service is called
   enhanced VPNs.  Enhanced VPNs can be used, for example, to deliver
   network slice services.

   A Network Resource Partition (NRP) is a subset of the network
   resources and associated policies on each of a connected set of links
   in the underlay network.  An NRP may be used as the underlay to
   support one or a group of enhanced VPN services.  For packet
   forwarding within a specific NRP, some fields in the data packet need
   to be used to identify the NRP to which the packet belongs.  In doing
   so, NRP-specific processing can be performed on each node along the
   forwarding path in the NRP.

   This document specifies a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option to carry network
   resource related information (e.g., identifier) in data packets.  The
   NR Option can be used to carry NRP Selector ID and related
   information, while it is designed to make the NR option generalized
   for other network resource semantics and functions.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.






Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 January 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  IPv6 Extension Header Option for Network Resource
           Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Adding NR Option to Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  NRP-specific Packet Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Considerations about Generalization . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12






Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


1.  Introduction

   Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) [RFC4026] provide different customers
   with logically isolated connectivity over a common network
   infrastructure.  With the introduction of 5G and also in some
   existing network scenarios, some customers may require network
   connectivity services with advanced features comparing to
   conventional VPNs, such as resource isolation from other services or
   guaranteed performance.  Such kind of network service is called
   enhanced VPN [RFC9732].  The realization of enhanced VPN services
   require the coordination and integration between the overlay VPNs and
   the capability and resources of the underlay network.  Enhanced VPNs
   can be used, for example, to deliver Network Slice Services as
   described in Section 7.4 of [RFC9543].

   Section 7.1 of [RFC9543] introduces the concept of the Network
   Resource Partition (NRP), which is "a subset of the buffer/queuing/
   scheduling resources and associated policies on each of a connected
   set of links in the underlay network".  An NRP may be associated with
   a logical network topology to select or specify the set of links and
   nodes involved.

   [RFC9732] specifies the framework of NRP-based enhanced VPN and
   describes the candidate component technologies in different network
   planes and network layers.  An NRP could be used as the underlay to
   meet the requirement of one or a group of enhanced VPN services.

   Traffic of different enhanced VPN services needs to be processed
   separately based on the network resources and the logical topology
   associated with the corresponding NRP.
   [I-D.ietf-teas-nrp-scalability] describes the scalability
   considerations and the possible optimizations for providing a
   relatively large number of NRPs.  One approach to improve the data
   plane scalability of NRPs is to introduce a dedicated NRP Selector ID
   in data packets, which is used to identify the set of network
   resources allocated to an NRP.  This way, packets mapped to an NRP
   can be processed and forwarded using the NRP-specific network
   resources, which could help to provide guaranteed performance for the
   packets.  An NRP Selector ID can be used to identify a subset of the
   resources (e.g., bandwidth, buffer, and queuing resources) allocated
   on the set of links and nodes involved in the NRP.  The logical
   topology associated with an NRP could be defined and identified using
   mechanisms such as Multi-Topology [RFC4915], [RFC5120], or Flex-Algo
   [RFC9350].

   This document specifies a mechanism to carry network resource related
   information in a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option (Section 4.3 of
   [RFC8200]) called "Network Resource (NR) option".  In networks built



Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


   with NRPs, the NR option SHOULD be parsed by every intermediate node
   along the forwarding path, and the obtained NRP Selector ID is used
   to invoke NRP-specific packet processing and forwarding using the set
   of NRP-specific resources.  This solution is designed to support a
   large number of NRPs in IPv6 networks
   [I-D.ietf-teas-nrp-scalability].

   In this document the application of the NR option is to indicate the
   NRP-specific resource information, while the NR option is considered
   as a generic mechanism to convey network-wide resource ID and
   information with different semantics and functions to meet the
   possible use cases in the future.  Some considerations about the
   generalization of the NR Option are described in Section 5.

1.1.  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
   BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  IPv6 Extension Header Option for Network Resource Information

   A new Hop-by-Hop option (Section 4.3 of [RFC8200]) type "Network
   Resource" is defined to carry the network resource related
   information.  Its format is shown in Figure 1.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                       |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Flags     | Context Type  |            Unassigned         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                     Network Resource ID                       ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 1. The format of Network Resource (NR) Option

   Option Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of option.  The type of NR
   option is TBA.  The bits of the type field are defined as shown
   below:

   *  BB 00 The highest-order 2 bits are set to 00 to indicate that a
      node which does not recognize this type will skip over it and
      continue processing the header.




Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


   *  C 0 The third highest-order bit is set to 0 to indicate this
      option does not change en route.

   *  TTTTT tba.

   Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer indicates the length of the
   option Data field of this option, in octets.

   Flags: 8-bit flags field.  The most significant bit is defined in
   this document.

                                   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                  |S|U U U U U U U|
                                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   *  S (Strict Match): The S flag is used to indicate whether the NR ID
      MUST be strictly matched for the processing of the packet.  When
      the S flag in the NR option of a received packet is set to 1, if
      the NR ID in the packet does not match with any of the network
      resources provisioned on the network node, the packet MUST be
      dropped.  When the S flag in the NR option of a received packet is
      set to 0, if the NR ID in the packet does not match with any of
      the network resources provisioned on the network node, the packet
      MUST be forwarded using the default set of resource and behavior
      as if the NR option does not exist.

   *  U (Unassigned): These flags are reserved for future use.  They
      MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   The setting of the S flag depends on the operator's policy.  Such
   policy can be NRP-specific, and may be at a fine granularity to apply
   to a subset of packets within an NRP.  Such policy needs to be
   provided to the ingress nodes to apply to packets which are mapped to
   corresponding NRPs.  For a given NRP, the suggested default policy is
   to make the S flag set.

   As an example, for OAM packets which are used to detect the
   availability of a forwarding path associated with NRP-specific
   resources, the S flag should be set to 1.  This way, only when the
   set of network resources and policies are correctly instantiated for
   the NRP on all network links along a path, the OAM packets can be
   received by an egress endpoint and the availability check can be
   passed.

   The S flag in the NR option provides an approach for fine-granular
   control of the forwarding policy of packets whose NR IDs do not match
   with the network resources provisioned on the transit network nodes.



Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


   One alternate approach is to specify the forwarding policy of packets
   in different NRPs via configuration, while additional configuration
   would be needed when non-default fine-granular policy is required for
   a given NRP.

   Context Type (CT): One-octet field used to indicate the semantics of
   the NR ID carried in the option.  The context value defined in this
   document is as follows:

   *  CT=0: The NR ID is a network-wide unique NRP Selector ID, which is
      used to identify the subset of network resources allocated to the
      NRP on the involved network links.

   Unassigned: 2-octet field reserved for future use.  They MUST be set
   to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   NR ID: The identifier of a set of network resources, the semantics of
   the ID is determined by the Context Type.  The length of the NR ID is
   the Opt Data Length minus 4.

   Note that, in the context of 5G network slicing, if a deployment
   found it useful, a four-octet NRP Selector ID field (CT=0) may be
   derived from the four-octet Single Network Slice Selection Assistance
   Information (S-NSSAI) defined in 3GPP [TS23501].

3.  Procedures

   This section describes the procedures for NR option processing when
   the value of the Context Type (CT) is set to 0.  In this case the NRP
   Selector ID is carried in the NR option.  The processing procedures
   for NR option with other CT values are out of the scope of this
   document, and will be specified in separate documents which introduce
   those CT values.

3.1.  Adding NR Option to Packets

   When an ingress node of an IPv6 domain receives a packet, according
   to the traffic classification and mapping policy, if the packet needs
   to be steered into an NRP, then the packet MUST be encapsulated in an
   outer IPv6 header with the source and destination addresses set
   according to the local policy.  The NRP Selector ID which the packet
   is mapped to according to the policy MUST be carried in the NR option
   of the Hop-by-Hop Options header, which is associated with the outer
   IPv6 header.  It is RECOMMENDED the NR option is carried as the first
   option in the Hop-by-Hop Options header.






Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


3.2.  NRP-specific Packet Forwarding

   On receipt of a packet with an NR option, each transit network nodes
   which can process the Hop-by-Hop Options header and the NR option at
   full forwarding rate [RFC9673] MUST use the NRP Selector ID to
   determine the set of local network resources which are allocated to
   the NRP.  The packet forwarding behavior is based on both the
   destination IP address and the NRP Selector ID.  More specifically,
   the destination IP address SHOULD be used to determine the next-hop
   and the outgoing interface, and the NRP Selector ID SHOULD be used to
   determine the subset of network resources on the outgoing interface
   which are allocated to the NRP for processing and sending the packet.
   If the NRP Selector ID in the packet does not match with any of the
   NRP provisioned on the outgoing interface, the S flag in the NR
   option SHOULD be used to determine whether the packet should be
   dropped or forwarded using the default set of network resources of
   the outgoing interface.  The Traffic Class field of the outer IPv6
   header MAY be used to provide differentiated treatment for packets
   which belong to the same NRP.  On the egress nodes of the IPv6
   domain, if the destination address in the outer IPv6 header of a
   received packet matches with a local address, it MUST decapsulate the
   outer IPv6 header and the Hop-by-Hop Options header which includes
   the NR option.

   There can be different approaches of partitioning the network
   resources and allocating them to different NRPs in the forwarding
   plane.  For example, on one physical interface, a subset of the
   forwarding plane resources (e.g., bandwidth and the associated buffer
   and queuing resources) can be allocated to a particular NRP and
   represented as a virtual sub-interface or a data channel with
   reserved bandwidth resource.  The IPv6 destination address of the
   received packet is used to identify the next-hop and the outgoing
   Layer 3 interface, and the NRP Selector ID is used to further
   identify the virtual sub-interface or the data channel on the
   outgoing interface which is associated with the NRP.

   According to [RFC9673], network nodes which do not support the
   processing of Hop-by-Hop Options header would ignore the Hop-by-Hop
   options header and forward the packet only based on the destination
   IP address.  Network nodes which support Hop-by-Hop Options header,
   but do not support the NR option would ignore the NR option and
   forward the packet only based on the destination IP address.  The
   network node may process the rest of the Hop-by-Hop options in the
   Hop-by-Hop Options header.







Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


4.  Operational Considerations

   As described in section 4.8 of [RFC8200], network nodes may be
   configured to ignore the Hop-by-Hop Options header, drop packets
   containing a Hop-by-Hop Options header, or assign packets containing
   a Hop-by-Hop Options header to a slow processing path.  In networks
   with such network nodes, packets mapped to an NRP may be dropped due
   to the existence of the Hop-by-Hop Options header.  Thus operators
   need to make sure that all the network nodes involved in an NRP can
   either process the Hop-by-Hop Options header in full forwarding rate,
   or ignore the Hop-by-Hop Options header.  Since an NRP is associated
   with a logical network topology, one practical approach is to ensure
   that all the network nodes involved in that logical topology support
   the processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options header and the NR option in
   the fast path, and constrain the packet forwarding path to the
   logical topology of the NRP.

   [RFC9673] specifies the modified procedures for the processing of
   IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header, with the purpose of making the Hop-
   by-Hop Options header useful.  Network nodes complying with [RFC9673]
   will not drop packets with Hop-by-Hop Options header and the NR
   option.

5.  Considerations about Generalization

   This section gives some analysis about to what extent the semantics
   of NR Option could be generalized, and how the generalization could
   be achieved with the encoding specified in section 2.

   Based on the NRP definition in [RFC9543], the concept of NRP could be
   extended as: an underlay network construct which is associated with a
   set of network-wide attributes and states maintained on each
   participating network node.  The attributes associated with an NRP
   may include but not limited to, forwarding plane resources, network
   topologies, and network functions etc.

   *  The network resource can refer to various type of forwarding plane
      resources, including link bandwidth, buffering and queueing
      resources.

   *  The network resource can refer to topologies with multipoint-to-
      multipoint, point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, or multipoint-to-
      point connectivity.

   *  The network resources may include both packet forwarding actions
      and other types network functions which can be executed on data
      packets.




Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


   Thus the semantics of network resource can be quite generic.
   Although generalization is something good to have, it would be
   important to understand and identify the boundary of generalization.
   In this document, it is anticipated that for one network attribute to
   be considered as network resource, it needs to be network-wide
   attribute rather than a single node-specific attribute.  Thus whether
   a network-wide view can be provided or not could be considered as one
   prerequisite of making one attribute part of the NR option.

   The format of the NR option contains the Flags field, the Context
   Type field, and the Unassigned field, which provide the capability
   for future extensions.  That said, since the NR option needs to be
   processed by network nodes with full forwarding rate, the capability
   of network devices need to be considered when new semantics and
   encoding are introduced.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests IANA to assign a new option type from
   "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry [IANA-HBH].

      Hex Value      Binary Value      Description      Reference
                     act chg rest
      -----------------------------------------------------------
         TBA         00   0  tba        NR Option      [this document]

   This document requests IANA to create a new registry for the "NR
   Option Context Type" under the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
   Parameters" registry.  The allocation policy of this registry is
   "Standards Action".  The initial code points are assigned by this
   document as follows:

      Value          Description            Reference
      -----------------------------------------------------
        0            NRP Selector ID      [this document]
      1-254          Unassigned
       255           Reserved             [this document]

   This document requests IANA to create a new registry for the "NR
   Option Flags" under the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
   Parameters" registry.  The allocation policy of this registry is
   "Standards Action".  The initial code points are assigned by this
   document as follows:

       Bit           Description            Reference
      -----------------------------------------------------
        0            Strict Match         [this document]
       1-7            Unassigned



Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations with IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header are
   described in [RFC8200], [RFC7045], [RFC9098] [RFC9099] and [RFC9673].
   This document introduces a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option which is either
   processed in the fast path or ignored by network nodes, thus it does
   not introduce additional security issues.

8.  Contributors

      Zhibo Hu
      Email: huzhibo@huawei.com

      Lei Bao
      Email: baolei7@huawei.com

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Juhua Xu, James Guichard, Joel
   Halpern, Tom Petch, Aijun Wang, Zhenqiang Li, Tom Herbert, Adrian
   Farrel, Eric Vyncke, Erik Kline, Mohamed Boucadair, Ketan Talaulikar
   and Vishnu Pavan Beeram for their review and valuable comments.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [IANA-HBH] "IANA, "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options"",
              2016, <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/>.

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

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.








Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


   [RFC9543]  Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Rokui, R., Homma, S.,
              Makhijani, K., Contreras, L., and J. Tantsura, "A
              Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF
              Technologies", RFC 9543, DOI 10.17487/RFC9543, March 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9543>.

   [RFC9732]  Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A
              Framework for NRP-Based Enhanced Virtual Private
              Networks", RFC 9732, DOI 10.17487/RFC9732, March 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9732>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-teas-nrp-scalability]
              Dong, J., Li, Z., Gong, L., Yang, G., and G. S. Mishra,
              "Scalability Considerations for Network Resource
              Partition", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              teas-nrp-scalability-07, 2 March 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
              nrp-scalability-07>.

   [RFC4026]  Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
              Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>.

   [RFC4915]  Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
              Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
              RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.

   [RFC7045]  Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
              of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.

   [RFC9098]  Gont, F., Hilliard, N., Doering, G., Kumari, W., Huston,
              G., and W. Liu, "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets
              with Extension Headers", RFC 9098, DOI 10.17487/RFC9098,
              September 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9098>.





Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


   [RFC9099]  Vyncke, É., Chittimaneni, K., Kaeo, M., and E. Rey,
              "Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks",
              RFC 9099, DOI 10.17487/RFC9099, August 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9099>.

   [RFC9350]  Psenak, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K.,
              and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", RFC 9350,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9350, February 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350>.

   [RFC9673]  Hinden, R. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
              Processing Procedures", RFC 9673, DOI 10.17487/RFC9673,
              October 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9673>.

   [TS23501]  "3GPP TS23.501", 2016,
              <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
              SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jie Dong
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Road
   Beijing
   100095
   China
   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Road
   Beijing
   100095
   China
   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com


   Chongfeng Xie
   China Telecom
   China Telecom Beijing Information Science & Technology, Beiqijia
   Beijing
   102209
   China
   Email: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn






Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               IPv6 NRP Option                   July 2025


   Chenhao Ma
   China Telecom
   China Telecom Beijing Information Science & Technology, Beiqijia
   Beijing
   102209
   China
   Email: machh@chinatelecom.cn


   Gyan Mishra
   Verizon Inc.
   Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com







































Dong, et al.             Expires 8 January 2026                [Page 13]
