| RFC 9927 | RFC 8928-Fix | January 2026 |
| Thubert & Rashid | Standards Track | [Page] |
This document updates "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and Lossy Networks" (RFC 8928) by changing the position of the C-flag in the Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) and registering it with IANA.¶
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://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9927.¶
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://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.¶
The Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (AP-ND) [RFC8928] defined the C-flag in EARO. It is used to indicate that the Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) field contains a Crypto-ID and that the 6LoWPAN Node (6LN) may be challenged for ownership of the registered address. Initially, [RFC8928] defined the C-flag in the EARO in bit position 3; later, [RFC9685] defined the P-Field in bits 2 and 3 of the EARO flags field with proper IANA registration, causing an overlap with Figure 1 of [RFC8928], which depicts the location of the C-flag.¶
This specification updates [RFC8928] by repositioning the C-flag as bit 1 of the EARO flags field, thereby preventing conflicts.¶
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.¶
[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.¶
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 |F|Prefix Length| Opaque | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |r|C| P | I |R|T| TID | Registration Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ... Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) ... | (64, 128, 192, or 256 bits) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.¶
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 | r | Status | Opaque | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |r|C| P | I |R|T| TID | Registration Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ... Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) ... | (64, 128, 192, or 256 bits) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option fields of interest for this specification:¶
This specification does not introduce any new security considerations beyond those already discussed in [RFC8928] and [RFC8505].¶
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.¶
IANA has updated the "Address Registration Option Flags" [IANA.ICMP.ARO.FLG] registry in the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" registry group as specified in Table 1 so this document is referenced in addition to [RFC8928] for bit number 1:¶
| Bit Number | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | C-Flag | RFC 9927 and [RFC8928] |