EARO C-flag fix: Fixing the C-Flag in the Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        P. Thubert
Request for Comments: 9927
Updates: 8928                                                  A. Rashid
Category: Standards Track                            Politecnico di Bari
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            February 2026


  Fixing the C-Flag in the Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)

Abstract

   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.

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://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9927.

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://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
   2.  Terminology
     2.1.  Requirements Language
     2.2.  Related Documents
     2.3.  Acronyms
   3.  Updating RFC 8928
   4.  Security Considerations
   5.  Operational Considerations
   6.  IANA Considerations
     6.1.  Bit Position of the C-flag
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   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.

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.

2.2.  Related Documents

   This document uses terms and concepts that are discussed in IPv6
   Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC4861], [RFC4862], as well as 6LoWPAN-ND
   [RFC6775], [RFC8505], [RFC8928], [RFC8929], [RFC9685], and [RFC9926].

2.3.  Acronyms

   This document uses the following abbreviations:

   6LN:  6LoWPAN Node

   EARO:  Extended Address Registration Option

   ND:  Neighbor Discovery

   RATInd:  Registered Address Type Indicator

   ROVR:  Registration Ownership Verifier

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.

      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 1: Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) Format for
                             Use in NS Messages

   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)                  |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 2: Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) Format for
                             Use in NA Messages

   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.ARO.STAT].
      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.

   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.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] |
           +------------+-------------+------------------------+

                    Table 1: Bit Position of the C-flag

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/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://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/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://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/RFC6775, November 2012,
              <https://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/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://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/RFC8505, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.

   [RFC8928]  Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik,
              "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November
              2020, <https://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/RFC9010, April 2021,
              <https://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/RFC9685, November 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9685>.

   [RFC9926]  Thubert, P., Ed., "Prefix Registration for IPv6 Neighbor
              Discovery", RFC 9926, DOI 10.17487/RFC9926, February 2026,
              <https://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/RFC8929,
              November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8929>.

Authors' Addresses

   Pascal Thubert
   06330 Roquefort-les-Pins
   France
   Email: pascal.thubert@gmail.com


   Adnan Rashid
   Politecnico di Bari
   Via Edoardo Orabona 4
   70126 Bari
   Italy
   Email: adnan.rashid@poliba.it