<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-10"
							updates="8505">
<!-- 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="Address Protection ND for LLN">
    Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks
</title>

    <author initials="P" surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert"
							role="editor">
          <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc</organization>
          <address>
             <postal>
                <street>Building D</street>
                <street>45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200 </street>
                <city>MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis</city>
                <code>06254</code>
                <country>FRANCE</country>
             </postal>
             <phone>+33 497 23 26 34</phone>
             <email>pthubert@cisco.com</email>
          </address>
    </author>

   <author initials="M.S." surname="Sethi" fullname="Mohit Sethi">
    <organization>Ericsson</organization>
    <address>
    <postal>
    <street></street>
    <city>Jorvas</city> <region/> <code>02420</code>
    <country>Finland</country>
    </postal>
    <email>mohit@piuha.net</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author initials="R.S." surname="Struik" fullname="Rene Struik">
    <organization>Struik Security Consultancy</organization>
    <address>
    <postal>
    <street></street>
    <city></city> <region/> <code></code>
    <country></country>
    </postal>
    <email>rstruik.ext@gmail.com</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author initials="B.S." surname="Sarikaya" fullname="Behcet Sarikaya">
    <organization></organization>
    <address>
    <postal>
    <street></street>
    <street/>
    <city>Plano</city> <region>TX</region> <code></code>
       <country>USA</country>
    </postal>
    <email>sarikaya@ieee.org</email>
    </address>
    </author>
       
   <date/>
   <workgroup>6lo</workgroup>

   <abstract>
   <t>
	   This document specifies an extension to 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (ND) defined in RFC6775 and updated in RFC8505. The new extension is called Address Protected Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) and it protects the owner of an address against address theft and impersonation attacks in a low-power and lossy network (LLN). Nodes supporting this extension compute a cryptographic identifier (Crypto-ID) and use it with one or more of their Registered Addresses. The Crypto-ID identifies the owner of the Registered Address and can be used to provide proof of ownership of the Registered Addresses. Once an address is registered with the Crypto-ID and a proof-of-ownership is provided, only the owner of that address can modify the registration information, thereby enforcing Source Address Validation.
   </t>
   </abstract>

</front>

<middle>

<section title="Introduction">
    <t>
    	Neighbor Discovery Optimizations for 6LoWPAN networks <xref target="RFC6775"/> 	(6LoWPAN ND) adapts the original IPv6 neighbor discovery (NDv6) protocols defined in <xref target="RFC4861"/> and <xref target="RFC4862"/> for constrained low-power and lossy network (LLN). In particular, 6LoWPAN ND introduces a unicast host address registration mechanism that reduces the use of multicast. 6LoWPAN ND defines a new Address Registration Option (ARO) that is carried in the unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages exchanged between a 6LoWPAN Node (6LN) and a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR).  It also defines the Duplicate Address Request (DAR) and Duplicate Address Confirmation (DAC) messages between the 6LR and the 6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR). In LLN networks, the 6LBR is the central repository of all the registered addresses in its domain.
    </t>

    <t>
    	The registration mechanism in <xref target="RFC6775">6LoWPAN ND</xref> prevents the use of an address if that address is already registered in the subnet (first come first serve). In order to validate address ownership, the registration mechanism enables the 6LR and 6LBR to validate the association between the registered address of a node, and its Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR). ROVR is defined in <xref target="RFC8505"/> and it can be derived from the MAC address of the device (using the 64-bit Extended Unique Identifier EUI-64 address format specified by IEEE). However, the EUI-64 can be spoofed, and therefore, any node connected to the subnet and aware of a registered-address-to-ROVR mapping could effectively fake the ROVR. This would allow the an attacker to steal the address and redirect traffic for that address. <xref target="RFC8505"/> defines an Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) option that allows to transport alternate forms of ROVRs, and is a pre-requisite for this specification.
    </t>

    <t>
		  In this specification, a 6LN generates a cryptographic ID (Crypto-ID) and places it in the ROVR field during the registration of one (or more) of its addresses with the 6LR(s). Proof of ownership of the Crypto-ID is passed with the first registration exchange to a new 6LR, and enforced at the 6LR. The 6LR validates ownership of the cryptographic ID before it creates any new registration state, or changes existing information.
    </t>

    <t>
		  The protected address registration protocol proposed in this document enables Source Address Validation (SAVI) <xref target="RFC7039"/>. This ensures that only the actual owner uses a registered address in the IPv6 source address field. A 6LN can only use a 6LR for forwarding packets only if it has previously registered the address used in the source field of the IPv6 packet.
    </t>

    <t>
		  The 6lo adaptation layer in <xref target="RFC4944"/> and <xref target="RFC6282"/> requires a device to form its IPv6 addresses based on its Layer-2 address to enable a better compression. This is incompatible with Secure Neighbor Discovery (SeND) <xref target="RFC3971"/> and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) <xref target="RFC3972"/>, since they derive the Interface ID (IID) in IPv6 addresses with cryptographic keys. 
    </t>

</section>

  

<section title="Terminology">
  <section anchor='bcp' title="BCP 14">
  <t>

    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
    <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
    they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

  </t>
  </section>	<!-- end section "BCP 14" -->
  
  
  
  <section anchor='lo' title="References"> 
    <t>
	Terms and concepts from the following documents are used in this specification:
	<list style="symbols">
    	<t><xref target="RFC7102">"Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs)"</xref>,</t>
    	<t> <xref target="RFC3971">"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)"</xref>,</t>
    	<t> <xref target="RFC3972">"Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)"</xref>,</t>
    	<t><xref target="RFC4861">"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6"</xref> ,</t>
    	<t><xref target="RFC4862">"IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration"</xref>, </t>
    	<t><xref target="RFC4919">"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals "</xref>,</t>
	    <!--t><xref target="RFC6606">"Problem Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing"</xref>,</t-->
    	<t><xref target="RFC6775">"Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks"</xref>, and</t>
      <t> <xref target="RFC8505">"Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery"</xref>.</t>
	</list>
    </t>
  </section>	<!-- end section "References" -->
  
  
  <section anchor='acronyms' title="Abbreviations">
    <t> This document uses the following abbreviations:
       <list hangIndent="6" style="hanging" >
       <t hangText="6BBR:">  6LoWPAN Backbone Router </t>
       <t hangText="6LBR:">6LoWPAN Border Router </t>
       <t hangText="6LN:">  6LoWPAN Node  </t>
       <t hangText="6LR:">6LoWPAN Router </t>
       <t hangText="6CIO:"> Capability Indication Option </t>
       <t hangText="ARO:"> Address Registration Option</t>
       <t hangText="CIPO:">Crypto-ID Parameters Option</t>
       <t hangText="LLN:"> Low-Power and Lossy Network </t>
       <t hangText="NA:">  Neighbor Advertisement </t>  
       <t hangText="NCE:">  Neighbor Cache Entry  </t>
       <t hangText="ND:">  Neighbor Discovery  </t>
       <t hangText="NDP:">  Neighbor Discovery Protocol </t>
       <t hangText="NDPSO:"> NDP Signature Option</t>
       <t hangText="NS:">  Neighbor Solicitation  </t>
       <t hangText="ROVR:"> Registration Ownership Verifier </t>
       <t hangText="RPL:"> IPv6 Routing Protocol for LLNs  </t>
       <t hangText="RA:"> Router Advertisement  </t>
       <t hangText="RS:"> Router Solicitation  </t>
       <t hangText="RSAO:"> RSA Signature Option</t>
       <t hangText="TID:"> Transaction ID </t>
       </list>
    </t>

  </section>	<!-- end section "Acronym Definitions" -->
</section>	<!-- end section "Terminology" -->

<section title="Updating RFC 8505">
    <t>
        This specification introduces a new	token called a cryptographic identifier (Crypto-ID) that is used to prove indirectly the ownership of an address that is being registered by means of <xref target="RFC8505"/>.
    </t>

    <t>
       	In order to prove its ownership of a Crypto-ID, the registering node needs to supply certain parameters including a nonce and a signature that will prove that the node has the private-key corresponding to the public-key used to build the Crypto-ID.  This specification adds the capability to carry new options in the NS(EARO) and the NA(EARO). The NS(EARO) carries a variation of the CGA Option (<xref target="cryptoidopt"/>), a Nonce option and a variation of the RSA Signature option (<xref target="rsaso"/>) in the NS(EARO). The NA(EARO) carries a Nonce option.
    </t>
</section>

<section anchor="cryptoifldg" title="New Fields and Options">
    <t>
    In order to avoid the need for new ND option types, this specification reuses and extends options defined in SEND <xref target="RFC3971"/> and 6LoWPAN ND <xref target="RFC6775"/> <xref target="RFC8505"/>. This applies in particular to the CGA option and the RSA Signature Option. This specification provides aliases for the specific variations of those options as used in this document. The presence of the EARO option in the NS/NA messages indicates that the options are to be processed as specified in this document, and not as defined in SEND <xref target="RFC3971"/>.
    </t>

    <section anchor="cryptoidalg" title="New Crypto-ID">
    <t>
	The Crypto-ID can be used as a replacement to the MAC address in the ROVR field of the EARO option and the EDAR message, and is associated with the Registered Address. 
	The ownership of a Crypto-ID can be demonstrated by cryptographic mechanisms, and by association, the ownership of the Registered Address can be acertained. 
	A node in possession of the necessary cryptographic primitives SHOULD use Crypto-ID by default as ROVR in its registrations. Whether a ROVR is a Crypto-ID is indicated by a new "C" flag in the NS(EARO) message.
    </t>
    <t>
	The computation of the Crypto-ID requires the support of Elliptic Curve	Cryptography (ECC) and that of a hash function as detailed in <xref target="ndpso-generation"/>. The elliptic curves and the hash functions that can be used with this specification are listed in 	<xref target="cryptotypetable"/> in	section <xref target="cryptotypereg"/>. The signature scheme that specifies which combination is used is signaled by a Crypto-Type in a new Crypto-ID Parameters Option (see <xref target="cryptoidopt"/>). 
    </t>


    </section>

    <section anchor="cryptoEARO" title="Updated EARO">
    <t>
	   This specification updates the EARO option as follows:
    </t>
    	<figure anchor="crypto-fig"
				title="Enhanced Address Registration Option">
        <artwork>
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Type      |     Length    |    Status     |    Opaque     |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |Rsvd |C| I |R|T|     TID       |     Registration Lifetime     |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
 ...            Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR)           ...
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        </artwork>
        </figure>

    <t>
    <list hangIndent="16"  style='hanging'>
    	<t hangText="Type:">
	    33
    	</t>

    	<t hangText="Length:">
      	8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (including the type and length fields) in units of 8 bytes.
    	</t>

    	<t hangText="Status:">
     	8-bit unsigned integer. Indicates the status of a registration in the NA response. MUST be set to 0 in NS messages.
       	</t>

    	<t hangText="Opaque:">
     	Defined in <xref target="RFC8505"/>.
	    </t>

    	<t hangText="Rsvd (Reserved):">
      	This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
	    </t>

	    <t hangText="C:">
      	This "C" flag is set to indicate that the ROVR field contains a Crypto-ID and that the 6LN MAY be challenged for ownership as specified in this document.
		</t>

		<t hangText="I, R, T, and TID:">
	    Defined in <xref target="RFC8505"/>.
		</t>

		<t hangText="Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR):">
	    When the "C" flag is set, this field contains a Crypto-ID.
		</t>
	</list>
	This specification uses Status values "Validation Requested" and 
	"Validation	Failed", which are defined in <xref target="RFC8505"/>. 
	No other new Status values are defined.
    </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="cryptoidopt" title="Crypto-ID Parameters Option">
    <t>
	This specification defines the Crypto-ID Parameters Option (CIPO), as a
	variation of  the CGA Option that carries the parameters used to form a 
	Crypto-ID. In order to provide cryptographic agility <xref target=
	"RFC7696"/>, this specification supports different elliptic curves, 
	indicated by a Crypto-Type field. NIST P-256 <xref target="FIPS186-4"/> 
	MUST be supported by all implementations. The Edwards-Curve Digital 
	Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) curve Ed25519 (PureEdDSA) <xref target=
	"RFC8032"/> MAY be supported as an alternate.
    </t>
	<t> 
	The type of cryptographic algorithm used in the calculation of the
	Crypto-ID is signaled by the Crypto-Type field of the CIPO as specified in
	<xref target="cryptotypetable"/> in	section <xref target="cryptotypereg"/>.
	Although the different 
	signature schemes target similar cryptographic strength, they rely on
	different curves, hash functions, signature algorithms, and/or 
	representation conventions.
    </t>

	<figure anchor="cgapar-fig" title="Crypto-ID Parameters Option">
        <artwork>
     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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |  Pad Length   |   Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Crypto-Type  | Modifier      |       Reserved                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   .                                                               .
   .                  Public Key (variable length)                 .
   .                                                               .
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   .                                                               .
   .                           Padding                             .
   .                                                               .
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        </artwork>
	</figure>
    <t>
	<list hangIndent="16"  style='hanging'>
  	<t hangText="Type:">
  	    11. This is the same value as the CGA Option, CIPO is a
  	    particular case of the CGA option
  	</t>

  	<t hangText="Length:">
  	    8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option in units of 8 octets.
  	</t>

  	<t hangText="Modifier:">
  	    8-bit unsigned integer.
  	</t>

  	<t hangText="Pad Length:">
  	    8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the Padding field.
  	</t>

  	<t hangText="Crypto-Type:">
      	The type of cryptographic algorithm used in calculation Crypto-ID (see 
		<xref target="cryptotypetable"/> in	section <xref target="cryptotypereg"/>).
  	</t>

  	<t hangText="Public Key:">
       	     JWK-Encoded Public Key <xref target="RFC7517"/>.
  	</t>

  	<t hangText="Padding:">
        A variable-length field making the option length a multiple of 8, containing as many octets as specified in the Pad Length field.
  	</t>
	</list>
    </t>
	<t> 
	The implementation of multiple hash functions in a constrained devices may 
	consume excessive amounts of program memory.
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-lwig-curve-representations"/> provides information
	on how to represent Montgomery curves and (twisted) Edwards curves as curves
	in short-Weierstrass form and illustrates how this can be used to implement
	elliptic curve computations using existing implementations that already
	provide, e.g., ECDSA and ECDH using NIST <xref target="FIPS186-4"/> prime
	curves.
	</t> 
    <t> For more details on representation conventions, we refer to
	<xref target="reprconv"></xref>.</t>
    </section>


    <section anchor="nonce" title="Nonce Option">
      <t>
  	   This document reuses the Nonce Option defined in section 5.3.2. of <xref target="RFC3971">SEND</xref> without a change.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="rsaso" title="NDP Signature Option">
      <t>
	     This document reuses the RSA Signature Option (RSAO) defined in section 5.2. of <xref target="RFC3971">SEND</xref>. Admittedly, the name is ill-chosen since the option is extended for non-RSA Signatures and this specification defines an alias to avoid the confusion.
      </t>
      <t>
	     The description of the operation on the option detailed in section 5.2. of <xref target="RFC3971">SEND</xref> apply, but for the following changes:
  	     <list style="symbols">
  	       <t>
  	         The 128-bit CGA Message Type tag <xref target="RFC3972"/> for AP-ND is 0x8701 55c8 0cca dd32 6ab7 e415 f148 84d0. (The tag value has been generated by the editor of this specification on random.org).
  	       </t>
  	       <t>
  	         The signature is computed using the hash algorithm and the digital signature indicated in the Crypto-Type field of the CIPO option using the private-key corresponding the public-key passed in the CIPO.
           </t>
  	       <t>
           	  The alias NDP Signature Option (NDPSO) can be used to refer to the RSAO when used as described in this specification. 
          </t>
  	     </list> 
      </t>  
  </section>
</section>

<section title="Protocol Scope">
    <t>
	     The scope of the protocol specified here is a 6LoWPAN Low Power Lossy Network (LLN), typically a stub network connected to a larger IP network via a Border Router called a 6LBR per <xref target="RFC6775"/>. A 6LBR has sufficient capability to satisfy the needs of duplicate address detection.
    </t>
    <t>
	     The 6LBR maintains registration state for all devices in its attached LLN.  Together with the first-hop router (the 6LR), the 6LBR assures uniqueness and grants ownership of an IPv6 address before it can be used in the LLN. This is in contrast to a traditional network that relies on IPv6 address auto-configuration <xref target="RFC4862"/>, where there is no guarantee of ownership from the network, and each IPv6 Neighbor Discovery packet must be individually secured <xref target="RFC3971"/>.
    </t>
  	<figure anchor="figco" title="Basic Configuration">
  	<artwork><![CDATA[
              ---+-------- ............
                 |      External Network
                 |
              +-----+
              |     | 6LBR
              +-----+
            o    o   o
     o     o   o     o
        o   o LLN   o    o     o
           o   o   o       (6LR)
                   o         (6LN)

           ]]></artwork>
  	</figure>
    <t>
	     In a mesh network, the 6LR is directly connected to the host device. This specification mandates that the peer-wise layer-2 security is deployed so that all the packets from a particular host are securely identifiable by the 6LR. The 6LR may be multiple hops away from the 6LBR. Packets are routed between the 6LR and the 6LBR via other 6LRs. This specification mandates that a chain of trust is established so that a packet that was validated by the first 6LR can be safely routed by other on-path 6LRs to the 6LBR.
    </t>
</section>

<section title="Protocol Flows">
    <t>
	     The 6LR/6LBR ensures first-come/first-serve by storing the EARO information including the Crypto-ID associated to the node being registered. The node can claim any address as long as it is the first to make such a claim. After a successful registration, the node becomes the owner of the registered address and the address is bound to the Crypto-ID in the 6LR/6LBR registry.
    </t>
    <t>
	     This specification enables the 6LR to verify the ownership of the binding at any time assuming that the "C" flag is set. The verification prevents other nodes from stealing the address and trying to attract traffic for that address or use it as their source address.
    </t>
    <t>
	     A node may use multiple IPv6 addresses at the same time. The node may use a same Crypto-ID, to prove the ownership of multiple IPv6 addresses.  The separation of the address and the cryptographic material avoids the constrained device to compute multiple keys for multiple addresses. The registration process allows the node to use the same Crypto-ID for all of its addresses.
    </t>

    <section anchor="first" title="First Exchange with a 6LR">
	 <t>
	    A 6LN registers to a 6LR that is one hop away from it with the "C" flag set in the EARO, indicating that the ROVR field contains a Crypto-ID. The Target Address in the NS message indicates the IPv6 address that the 6LN is trying to register. The on-link (local) protocol interactions are shown in <xref target="Dynamic-fig"/>. If the 6LR does not have a state with the 6LN that is consistent with the NS(EARO), then it replies with a challenge NA (EARO, status=Validation Requested) that contains a Nonce Option (shown as NonceLR in <xref target="Dynamic-fig"/>). The Nonce option MUST contain a random Nonce value that was never used with this device.
	</t>
	<t>
	    The 6LN replies to the challenge with an NS(EARO) that includes a new Nonce option (shown as NonceLN in <xref target="Dynamic-fig"/>), the CIPO (<xref target="cryptoidopt"/>), and the NDPSO containing the signature. The information associated to a Crypto-ID stored by the 6LR on the first NS exchange where it appears. The 6LR MUST store the CIPO parameters associated with the Crypto-ID so it can be used for more than one address. 
  </t>
	<figure anchor="Dynamic-fig" suppress-title="false"
					title="On-link Protocol Operation">
	<artwork><![CDATA[
    6LN                                                     6LR
     |                                                       |
     |<------------------------- RA -------------------------|
     |                                                       | ^
     |---------------- NS with EARO (Crypto-ID) ------------>| |
     |                                                       | option
     |<- NA with EARO (status=Validation Requested), NonceLR-| |
     |                                                       | v
     |------- NS with EARO, CIPO, NonceLN and NDPSO -------->|
     |                                                       |
     |<------------------- NA with EARO ---------------------|
     |                                                       |
                               ...
     |                                                       |
     |--------------- NS with EARO (Crypto-ID) ------------->|
     |                                                       |
     |<------------------- NA with EARO ---------------------|
     |                                                       |
                               ...
     |                                                       |
     |--------------- NS with EARO (Crypto-ID) ------------->|
     |                                                       |
     |<------------------- NA with EARO ---------------------|
     |                                                       |
 ]]></artwork>
	</figure>

	<t>The steps for the registration to the 6LR are as follows:
        <list style="symbols">
        <t>
            Upon the first exchange with a 6LR, a 6LN will be challenged to prove ownership of the Crypto-ID and the Target Address being registered in the Neighbor Solicitation message. When a 6LR receives a NS(EARO) registration with a new Crypto-ID as a ROVR, it SHOULD challenge by responding with a NA(EARO) with a status of "Validation Requested". 
        </t>
        <t>
            The challenge is triggered when the registration for a Source Link-Layer Address is not verifiable either at the 6LR or the 6LBR. In the latter case, the 6LBR returns a status of "Validation Requested" in the DAR/DAC exchange, which is echoed by the 6LR in the NA (EARO) back to the registering node. The challenge MUST NOT alter a valid registration in the 6LR or the 6LBR.
        </t>
        <t>
            Upon receiving a NA(EARO) with a status of "Validation Requested", the registering node SHOULD retry its registration with a Crypto-ID Parameters Option (CIPO) (<xref target="cryptoidopt"/>) that contains all the necessary material for building the Crypto-ID, the NonceLN that it generated, and the NDP signature (<xref target="rsaso"/>) option that proves its ownership of the Crypto-ID and intent of registering the Target Address.
        </t>
        <t>
            In order to validate the ownership, the 6LR performs the same steps as the 6LN and rebuilds the Crypto-ID based on the parameters in the CIPO. It also verifies the signature contained in the NDPSO option. If the Crypto-ID does not match with the public-key in the CIPO option, or if the signature in the NDPSO option cannot be verified, the validation fails.
        </t>
        <t>
            If the 6LR fails to validate the signed NS(EARO), it responds with a status of "Validation Failed". After receiving a NA(EARO) with a status of "Validation Failed", the registering node SHOULD try to register an alternate target address in the NS message.
        </t>
	</list>
	</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ndpso-generation" title="NDPSO generation and verification">
	
      <t>
	     The signature generated by the 6LN to provide proof-of-ownership of the
		 private-key is carried in the NDP Signature Option (NDPSO).
		 It is generated by the 6LN in a fashion that depends on the Crypto-Type
		 (see <xref target="cryptotypetable"/> in section
		 <xref target="cryptotypereg"/>) chosen by the 6LN as follows:
  	     <list style="symbols">
  	     	<t>Concatenate the following in the order listed:
  	     		<list style="numbers">
  	     		<t>128-bit type tag (in network byte order)</t>
  	     		<t>JWK-encoded public key</t>
  	     		<t>the 16-byte Target Address (in network byte order) sent in the Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message. It is the address which the 6LN is registering with the 6LR and 6LBR.</t>
  	     		<t>NonceLR received from the 6LR (in network byte order) in the Neighbor Advertisement (NA) message. The random nonce is at least 6 bytes long as defined in <xref target="RFC3971"/>.</t>
  	     		<t>NonceLN sent from the 6LN (in network byte order). The random nonce is at least 6 bytes long as defined in <xref target="RFC3971"/>.</t>
            <t>The length of the ROVR field in the NS message cotainting the Crypto-ID that was sent.</t>
            <t>1-byte (in network byte order) Crypto-Type value sent in the CIPO option.</t>
  	     		</list>
  	     	</t>
          <t>Depending on the Crypto-Type, apply the hash function on this concatenation.</t>
          <t>Depending on the Crypto-Type, sign the hash output with ECDSA (if curve P-256 is used) or sign the hash with EdDSA (if curve Ed25519 (PureEdDSA)).</t>
  	     </list> 
      </t>
      <t>
	     The 6LR on receiving the NDPSO and CIPO options first hashes the JWK encoded public-key in the CIPO option to make sure that the leftmost bits up to the size of the ROVR match. Only if the check is successful, it tries to verify the signature in the NDPSO option using the following. 
  	     <list style="symbols">
  	     	<t>Concatenate the following in the order listed:
  	     		<list style="numbers">
            <t>128-bit type tag (in network byte order)</t>
            <t>JWK-encoded public key received in the CIPO option</t>
            <t>the 16-byte Target Address (in network byte order) received in the Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message. It is the address which the 6LN is registering with the 6LR and 6LBR.</t>
            <t>NonceLR sent in the Neighbor Advertisement (NA) message. The random nonce is at least 6 bytes long as defined in <xref target="RFC3971"/>.</t>
            <t>NonceLN received from the 6LN (in network byte order) in the NS message. The random nonce is at least 6 bytes long as defined in <xref target="RFC3971"/>.</t>
            <t>The length of the ROVR field in the NS message containing the Crypto-ID that was received.</t>
            <t>1-byte (in network byte order) Crypto-Type value received in the CIPO option.</t>
  	     		</list>
  	     	</t>
          <t>Depending on the Crypto-Type indicated by the (6LN) in the CIPO, apply the hash function on this concatenation.</t>
          <t>Verify the signature with the public-key received and the locally computed values. If the verification succeeds, the 6LR and 6LBR add the state information about the Crypto-ID, public-key and Target Address being registered to their database.</t>
  	     </list> 
      </t>    
    </section>

    <section anchor="mhopo" title="Multihop Operation">
     	<t>
      	    In a multihop 6LoWPAN, the registration with Crypto-ID is propagated to 6LBR as described in this section. If the 6LR and the 6LBR maintain a security association, then there is no need to propagate the proof of ownership to the 6LBR.
      	</t>
        <t>
      	    A new device that joins the network auto-configures an address and performs an initial registration to a neighboring 6LR with an NS message that carries an Address Registration Option (EARO) <xref target="RFC8505"/>. The 6LR validates the address with an 6LBR using a DAR/DAC exchange, and the 6LR confirms (or denies) the address ownership with an NA message that also carries an Address Registration Option.
      	</t>
     	  <t>
	         <xref target="figReg"/> illustrates a registration flow all the way
			 to a 6LowPAN Backbone Router (6BBR)
			 <xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router"/>. 
      	</t>

	<figure anchor="figReg" suppress-title="false"
						title="(Re-)Registration Flow">
        <artwork><![CDATA[

     6LN              6LR             6LBR            6BBR
      |                |               |                |
      |   NS(EARO)     |               |                |
      |--------------->|               |                |
      |                | Extended DAR  |                |
      |                |-------------->|                |
      |                |               |                |
      |                |               | proxy NS(EARO) |
      |                |               |--------------->|
      |                |               |                | NS(DAD)
      |                |               |                | ------>
      |                |               |                |
      |                |               |                | <wait>
      |                |               |                |
      |                |               | proxy NA(EARO) |
      |                |               |<---------------|
      |                | Extended DAC  |                |
      |                |<--------------|                |
      |   NA(EARO)     |               |                |
      |<---------------|               |                |
      |                |               |                |

        ]]></artwork>
	</figure>

    	<t>
	       In a multihop 6LoWPAN, a 6LBR sends RAs with prefixes downstream and the 6LR receives and relays them to the nodes. 6LR and 6LBR communicate using ICMPv6 Duplicate Address Request (DAR) and Duplicate Address Confirmation (DAC) messages. The DAR and DAC use the same message format as NS and NA, but have different ICMPv6 type values.
    	</t>
    	<t>
    	    In AP-ND we extend DAR/DAC messages to carry cryptographically generated ROVR. In a multihop 6LoWPAN, the node exchanges the messages shown in <xref target="figReg"/>. The 6LBR must identify who owns an address (EUI-64) to defend it, if there is an attacker on another 6LR.
    	</t>
    	<t>
    	    <vspace blankLines="11"/>
    	</t>
    </section>

</section>

<section title="Security Considerations">
    <section title="Inheriting from RFC 3971">
	   <t>
    	   Observations regarding the following threats to the local network in <xref target="RFC3971"/> also apply to this specification. 
         <list style="hanging">
            <t hangText="Neighbor Solicitation/Advertisement Spoofing">
    	      <vspace blankLines="1"/>
		        Threats in section  9.2.1 of RFC3971 apply. AP-ND counters the threats on NS(EARO) messages by requiring that the NDP Signature and CIPO options be present in these solicitations.
            </t>
            <!--<t hangText="Neighbor Unreachability Detection Failure">
    	      <vspace blankLines="1"/>
		        With RFC6775, a Neighbor Unreadability Detection (NUD) can still be used by the endpoint to assess the liveness of a device. The NUD request may be protected by SEND in which case the provision in section 9.2 of RFC 3972 applies. The response to the NUD may be proxied by a backbone router only if it has a fresh registration state for it. For a registration being protected by this specification, the proxied NUD response provides truthful information on the original owner of the address but it cannot be proven using SEND. If the NUD response is 	not proxied, the 6LR will pass the lookup to the end device which will respond with a traditional NA. If the 6LR does not have a registration associated for the device, it can issue a NA with EARO (status=Validation Requested) upon the NA from the device, which will trigger a NS that will recreate and revalidate the ND registration.
            </t>-->
            <t hangText="Duplicate Address Detection DoS Attack">
    	     <vspace blankLines="1"/>
		       Inside the LLN, Duplicate Addresses are sorted out using the ROVR, which differentiates it from a movement. DAD coming from the backbone are not forwarded over the LLN, which provides some protection against DoS attacks inside the resource-constrained part of the network. Over the backbone, the EARO option is present in NS/NA messages. This protects against misinterpreting a movement for a duplication, and enables the backbone routers to determine which one has the freshest registration and is thus the best candidate to validate the registration for the device attached to it. But this specification does not guarantee that the backbone router claiming an address over the backbone is not an attacker.
            </t>
           <t hangText="Router Solicitation and Advertisement Attacks">
    	     <vspace blankLines="1"/>
		        This specification does not change the protection of RS and RA which can still be protected by SEND.
            </t>
            <t hangText="Replay Attacks">
    	      <vspace blankLines="1"/>
		        Nonces (NonceLR and NonceLN) generated by the 6LR and 6LN guarantees against replay attacks of the NS(EARO). 
            </t>
            <t hangText="Neighbor Discovery DoS Attack">
    	      <vspace blankLines="1"/>
		        A rogue node that managed to access the L2 network may form many addresses and register them using AP-ND. The perimeter of the attack is all the 6LRs in range of the attacker. The 6LR must protect itself against overflows and reject excessive registration with a status 2 "Neighbor Cache Full". This effectively blocks another (honest) 6LN from registering to the same 6LR, but the 6LN may register to other 6LRs that are in its range but not in that of the rogue. 
	          </t>
	       </list>
    </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Related to 6LoWPAN ND">
    	<t>
    		The threats discussed in 6LoWPAN ND <xref target="RFC6775"/><xref target="RFC8505"/> also apply here. Compared with SeND, this specification saves about 1Kbyte in every NS/NA message. Also, this specification separates the cryptographic identifier from the registered IPv6 address so that a node can have more than one IPv6 address protected by the same cryptographic identifier. SeND forces the IPv6 address to be cryptographic since it integrates the CGA as the IID in the IPv6 address. This specification frees the device to form its addresses in any fashion, thereby enabling not only 6LoWPAN compression which derives IPv6 addresses from Layer-2 addresses but also privacy addresses.
    	</t>
    </section>

    <section title="ROVR Collisions">
    	<t>
    		A collision of Registration Ownership Verifiers (ROVR) (i.e., the Crypto-ID in this specification) is possible, but it is a rare event. The formula for calculating the probability of a collision is 1 - e^{-k^2/(2n)} where n is the maximum population size (2^64 here, 1.84E19) and K is the actual population (number of nodes). If the Crypto-ID is 64-bits (the least possible size allowed), the chance of a collision is 0.01% when the network contains 66 million nodes. Moreover, the collision is only relevant when this happens within one stub network (6LBR). In the case of such a collision, an attacker may be able to claim the registered address of an another legitimate node. However for this to happen, the attacker would also need to know the address which was registered by the legitimate node. This registered address is never broadcasted on the network and therefore providing an additional 64-bits that an attacker must correctly guess. To prevent address disclosure, it is RECOMMENDED that nodes derive the address being registered independently of the ROVR.
    	</t>
    </section>
   	<section title="Implementation Attacks">
    	<t> The signature schemes referenced in this specification comply with NIST <xref target="FIPS186-4"/> or Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) standards 
		<xref target="RFC8032"/> and offer strong algorithmic security at roughly 128-bit security level. These signature schemes use elliptic curves that were either 
		specifically designed with exception-free and constant-time arithmetic in mind <xref target="RFC7748"/> or where one has extensive implementation experience of resistance 
		to timing attacks <xref target="FIPS186-4"/>. However, careless implementations of the signing operations could nevertheless leak information on private keys. For example, 
		there are micro-architectural side channel attacks that implementors should be aware of <xref target="breaking-ed25519"/>. Implementors should be particularly aware that 
		a secure implementation of Ed25519 requires a protected implementation of the hash function SHA-512, whereas this is not required with implementations of SHA-256 used with
		ECDSA. 
		</t>
    </section>
	<section title="Cross-Protocol Attacks">
    	<t> The same private key MUST NOT be reused with more than one signature scheme in this specification. 
		</t>
    </section>
</section>

  <?rfc compact="yes" ?>

<section title="IANA considerations">
    <section title="CGA Message Type" anchor="cgam">
    <t>
  	 This document defines a new 128-bit value under the CGA Message Type <xref target="RFC3972"/> name space: 0x8701 55c8 0cca dd32 6ab7 e415 f148 84d0.
    </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Crypto-Type Subregistry" anchor="cryptotypereg">
    <t>
		IANA is requested to create a new subregistry "Crypto-Type Subregistry" in the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters".  The registry is indexed by 
		an integer in the interval 0..255 and contains an Elliptic Curve, a Hash Function, a Signature Algorithm, and Representation Conventions, as shown in 
		<xref target="cryptotypetable"/>, which together specify a signature scheme. The following Crypto-Type values are defined in this document:
    </t>
		<texttable title="Crypto-Types" anchor="cryptotypetable">
          <ttcol>Crypto-Type value</ttcol>
		   <ttcol align="center"> 0 (ECDSA256) </ttcol>
		   <ttcol align="center"> 1 (Ed25519) </ttcol>
		   <ttcol align="center"> 2 (ECDSA25519) </ttcol>
			<c>Elliptic curve</c>
    			<c> NIST P-256 <xref target="FIPS186-4"/></c>
    			<c> Curve25519 <xref target="RFC7748"/></c>
    			<c> Curve25519 <xref target="RFC7748"/></c>
			<c> </c> <c></c> <c></c> <c></c>
			<c>Hash function</c>
		    	<c> SHA-256 <xref target="RFC6234"/></c>
				<c> SHA-512 <xref target="RFC6234"/></c>
			    <c> SHA-256 <xref target="RFC6234"/></c>
			<c> </c> <c></c> <c></c> <c></c>
			<c>Signature algorithm</c>
				<c> ECDSA <xref target="FIPS186-4"/></c>
			    <c> Ed25519 <xref target="RFC8032"/></c>
				<c> ECDSA <xref target="FIPS186-4"/></c>
			<c> </c> <c></c> <c></c> <c></c>
			<c>Representation conventions</c>
				<c> Weierstrass, (un)compressed, MSB/msb first </c>
			    <c> Edwards,     compressed, LSB/lsb first </c>
			    <c> Weierstrass, (un)compressed, MSB/msb first </c>	  
			<c> </c> <c></c> <c></c> <c></c>
			<c>Defining specification</c>
			    <c> RFC THIS</c>
				<c> RFC THIS</c>
				<c> RFC THIS</c> 
        </texttable>
		
	<t> 
	New Crypto-Type values providing similar or better security (with less code)
	may be defined in the future. 
    </t>
    <t>
    Assignment of new values for new Crypto-Type MUST be done through IANA with
	"Specification Required" and "IESG Approval" as defined in
	<xref target="RFC8126"/>.
    </t>
    </section>
</section>

<?rfc compact="yes" ?>

<section title="Acknowledgments">
    <t>
  	   Many thanks to Charlie Perkins for his in-depth review and constructive suggestions.  We are also especially grateful to Robert Moskowitz for his
	   comments that led to many improvements.
    </t>
</section>

</middle>

<back>

<references title="Normative References">
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>
  	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3971'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3972'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4861'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4862'?>
	<!--?rfc include='reference.RFC.6606'?-->
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6775'?>
  	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7517'?>
  	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>
  	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8505'?>

  <reference anchor="FIPS186-4">
        <front>
            <title> Digital Signature Standard (DSS), Federal Information
		    Processing Standards Publication 186-4 </title>
        <author>
	   	   <organization>
		     FIPS 186-4
		     </organization>
	     </author>
		<date month="July" year="2013"/>
         </front>
	 <seriesInfo
		name="US Department of Commerce/National Institute of Standards and Technology"
		value=""></seriesInfo>
	</reference>
	
	<reference anchor="SEC1">
        <front>
            <title>SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography, Version 2.0 </title>
        <author>
	   	   <organization>
		     SEC1
		     </organization>
	     </author>
		<date month="June" year="2009"/>
         </front>
	 <seriesInfo
		name="Standards for Efficient Cryptography"
		value=""></seriesInfo>
	</reference>
	
</references>

<references title="Informative references">
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7748'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8032'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4944'?>
  	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6282'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4919'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8126'?>
  	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6234'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7102'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7039'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7217'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7696'?>
  	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-lwig-curve-representations'?>
	<reference anchor="breaking-ed25519" target="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-76953-0_1">
        <front>
            <title>Breaking Ed25519 in WolfSSL</title>
        <author initials="N." surname="Samwel" fullname="Niels Samwel">
	   	</author>
        <author initials="L." surname="Batina" fullname="Leija Batina">
	   	</author>
        <author initials="G." surname="Bertoni" fullname="Guido Bertoni">
	   	</author>
        <author initials="J." surname="Daemen" fullname="Joan Daemen">
	   	</author>
        <author initials="R." surname="Susella" fullname="Ruggero Susella">
	   	</author>	   	
		<date year="2018"/>
         </front>
	 <seriesInfo
		name="Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference"
		value=""></seriesInfo>
	</reference>
</references>

<section anchor="ps" title="Requirements Addressed in this Document">
    <t>
	     In this section we state requirements of a secure neighbor discovery protocol for low-power and lossy networks. 
	     <list style="symbols">
	     <t>
	      The protocol MUST be based on the Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks protocol defined in <xref target="RFC6775"/>. RFC6775 utilizes optimizations such as host-initiated interactions for sleeping resource-constrained hosts and elimination of multicast address resolution.
	     </t>
	     <t>
	       New options to be added to Neighbor Solicitation messages MUST lead to small packet sizes, especially compared with existing protocols such as SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND). Smaller packet sizes facilitate low-power transmission by resource-constrained nodes on lossy links.
	     </t>
	     <t>
	       The support for this registration mechanism SHOULD be extensible to more LLN links than IEEE 802.15.4 only. Support for at least the LLN links for which a 6lo "IPv6 over foo" specification exists, as well as Low-Power Wi-Fi SHOULD be possible.
	     </t>
	     <t>
	       As part of this extension, a mechanism to compute a unique Identifier should be provided with the capability to form a Link Local Address that SHOULD be unique at least within the LLN connected to a 6LBR. 
       </t>
	     <t>
	       The Address Registration Option used in the ND registration SHOULD be extended to carry the relevant forms of Unique Interface IDentifier.
	     </t>
	     <t>
	       The Neighbour Discovery should specify the formation of a site-local address that follows the security recommendations from <xref target="RFC7217"/>.
	     </t>
	     </list>
    </t>
</section>

<section anchor="reprconv" title="Representation Conventions">

	<section title="Signature Schemes">
	<t> The signature scheme ECDSA256 corresponding to Crypto-Type 0 is ECDSA, as specified in <xref target="FIPS186-4"></xref>, instantiated with the NIST prime curve P-256, 
	as specified in Appendix B of <xref target="FIPS186-4"></xref>, and the hash function SHA-256, as specified in <xref target="RFC6234"></xref>, where points of this NIST curve are 
	represented as points of a short-Weierstrass curve (see <xref target="FIPS186-4"></xref>) and are encoded as octet strings in most-significant-bit first (msb) and
	most-significant-byte first (MSB) order. The signature itself consists of two integers (r and s), which are each encoded as fixed-size octet strings in most-significant-bit
	first and most-significant-byte first order. For details on ECDSA, see <xref target="FIPS186-4"></xref>; for details on the integer encoding, see 
	<xref target="bitrepr"></xref>.</t>
	
	<t> The signature scheme Ed25519 corresponding to Crypto-Type 1 is EdDSA, as specified in <xref target="RFC8032"></xref>, instantiated with the Montgomery curve Curve25519, as 
	specified in <xref target="RFC7748"></xref>, and the hash function SHA-512, as specified in <xref target="RFC6234"></xref>, where points of this Montgomery curve are 
	represented as points of the corresponding twisted Edwards curve (see <xref target="curves"></xref>) and are encoded as octet strings in least-significant-bit first (lsb) 
	and least-significant-byte first (LSB) order. The signature itself consists of a bit string that encodes a point of this twisted Edwards curve, in compressed format, and an
	integer encoded in least-significant-bit first and least-significant-byte first order. For details on EdDSA and on the encoding conversions, see the specification 
	of pure Ed25519 in <xref target="RFC8032">. </xref></t>
	
	<t> The signature scheme ECDSA25519 corresponding to Crypto-Type 2 is ECDSA, as specified in <xref target="FIPS186-4"></xref>, instantiated with the Montgomery curve 
	Curve25519, as specified in <xref target="RFC7748"></xref>, and the hash function SHA-256, as specified in <xref target="RFC6234"></xref>, where points of this Montgomery 
	curve are represented as points of a corresponding curve in short-Weierstrass form (see <xref target="curves"></xref>) and are encoded as octet strings in 
	most-significant-bit first and most-significant-byte first order. The signature itself consists of a bit string that encodes two integers, each encoded as fixed-size 
	octet strings in most-significant-bit first and most-significant-byte first order. For details on ECDSA, see <xref target="FIPS186-4"></xref>; for details on the integer
	encoding, see <xref target="bitrepr"></xref>
	</t> </section>
	
	<section anchor="bitrepr" title="Integer Representation for ECDSA signatures">
	<t> With ECDSA, each signature is a pair (r, s) of integers <xref target="FIPS186-4"></xref>. Each integer is encoded as a fixed-size 256-bit bit string, where each 
	integer is represented according to the Field Element to Octet String and Octet String to Bit String conversion rules in <xref target="SEC1"></xref> and where the 
	ordered pair of integers is represented as the rightconcatenation of the resulting representation values. The inverse operation follows 
	the corresponding Bit String to Octet String and Octet String to Field Element conversion rules of <xref target="SEC1"></xref>.
	</t></section>
	
	<section anchor="curves" title="Alternative Representations of Curve25519">
	<t> The elliptic curve Curve25519, as specified in <xref target="RFC7748"></xref>, is a so-called Montgomery curve. Each point of this curve can also be represented as a point 
	of a twisted Edwards curve or as a point of an elliptic curve in short-Weierstrass form, via a coordinate transformation (a so-called isomorphic mapping). The parameters of the 
	Montgomery curve and the corresponding isomorphic curves in twisted Edwards curve and short-Weierstrass form are as indicated below. Here, the domain parameters of the Montgomery
	curve Curve25519 and of the twisted Edwards curve Edwards25519 are as specified in <xref target="RFC7748"></xref>; the domain parameters of the elliptic curve Wei25519 in
	short-Weierstrass curve comply with Section 6.1.1 of <xref target="FIPS186-4"></xref>. For details of the coordinate transformation referenced above, see 
	<xref target="RFC7748"></xref> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-lwig-curve-representations"/>.  </t>

	<t> General parameters (for all curve models):
		<list hangIndent="4" style="hanging">
			<t hangText="p"> 2^{255}-19 </t>
			<t> (=0x7fffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffed) </t>
			<t hangText="h"> 8 </t>
			<t hangText="n"> 7237005577332262213973186563042994240857116359379907606001950938285454250989 </t>
			<t> (=2^{252} +  0x14def9de a2f79cd6 5812631a 5cf5d3ed) </t>
		</list> </t>
	<t> Montgomery curve-specific parameters (for Curve25519):
		<list hangIndent="4" style="hanging">	
			<t hangText="A"> 486662 </t>
			<t hangText="B"> 1 </t>
			<t hangText="Gu"> 9 (=0x9) </t>
			<t hangText="Gv"> 14781619447589544791020593568409986887264606134616475288964881837755586237401 </t>
			<t> (=0x20ae19a1 b8a086b4 e01edd2c 7748d14c 923d4d7e 6d7c61b2 29e9c5a2 7eced3d9) </t>
		</list> </t>
	<t> Twisted Edwards curve-specific parameters (for Edwards25519):
		<list hangIndent="4" style="hanging">
			<t hangText="a"> -1 (-0x01) </t>
			<t hangText="d"> -121665/121666 </t>
			<t> (=37095705934669439343138083508754565189542113879843219016388785533085940283555) </t>
			<t> (=0x52036cee 2b6ffe73 8cc74079 7779e898 00700a4d 4141d8ab 75eb4dca 135978a3) </t>
			<t hangText="Gx"> 15112221349535400772501151409588531511454012693041857206046113283949847762202 </t>
			<t> (=0x216936d3 cd6e53fe c0a4e231 fdd6dc5c 692cc760 9525a7b2 c9562d60 8f25d51a) </t>
			<t hangText="Gy"> 4/5 </t>
			<t> (=46316835694926478169428394003475163141307993866256225615783033603165251855960) </t>
			<t>(=0x66666666 66666666 66666666 66666666 66666666 66666666 66666666 66666658) </t>
		</list> </t>      
	<t> Weierstrass curve-specific parameters (for Wei25519):
		<list hangIndent="4" style="hanging">
			<t hangText="a"> 19298681539552699237261830834781317975544997444273427339909597334573241639236 </t>
			<t> (=0x2aaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaa98 4914a144) </t>
			<t hangText="b"> 55751746669818908907645289078257140818241103727901012315294400837956729358436 </t>
			<t> (=0x7b425ed0 97b425ed 097b425e d097b425 ed097b42 5ed097b4 260b5e9c 7710c864) </t>
			<t hangText="GX"> 19298681539552699237261830834781317975544997444273427339909597334652188435546 </t>
			<t> (=0x2aaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaad245a) </t>
			<t hangText="GY"> 14781619447589544791020593568409986887264606134616475288964881837755586237401 </t>
			<t> (=0x20ae19a1 b8a086b4 e01edd2c 7748d14c 923d4d7e 6d7c61b2 29e9c5a2 7eced3d9) </t>
	</list> </t>
	</section>

</section>


</back>

</rfc>
