| Current Path : /proc/3/task/3/cwd/usr/share/doc/bind-9.8.2/draft/ |
| Current File : //proc/3/task/3/cwd/usr/share/doc/bind-9.8.2/draft/draft-ietf-behave-address-format-07.txt |
Network Working Group C. Bao
Internet-Draft CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Obsoletes: 2765 (if approved) C. Huitema
Updates: 4291 (if approved) Microsoft Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track M. Bagnulo
Expires: October 11, 2010 UC3M
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
X. Li
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
April 9, 2010
IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-07.txt
Abstract
This document discusses the algorithmic translation of an IPv6
address to a corresponding IPv4 address, and vice versa, using only
statically configured information. It defines a well-known prefix
for use in algorithmic translations, while allowing organizations to
also use network-specific prefixes when appropriate. Algorithmic
translation is used in IPv4/IPv6 translators, as well as other types
of proxies and gateways (e.g., for DNS) used in IPv4/IPv6 scenarios.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://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 October 11, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Applicability Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Address Prefix and Format . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Well Known Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Address Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Address Translation Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Text Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Deployment Guidelines and Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Restrictions on the use of the Well-Known Prefix . . . . . 7
3.2. Impact on Inter-Domain Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Choice of Prefix for Stateless Translation Deployments . . 8
3.4. Choice of Prefix for Stateful Translation Deployments . . 11
3.5. Choice of Suffix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Choice of the Well-Known Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Protection Against Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Secure Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
1. Introduction
This document is part of a series of IPv4/IPv6 translation documents.
A framework for IPv4/IPv6 translation is discussed in
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework], including a taxonomy of scenarios
that will be used in this document. Other documents specify the
behavior of various types of translators and gateways, including
mechanisms for translating between IP headers and other types of
messages that include IP addresses. This document specifies how an
individual IPv6 address is translated to a corresponding IPv4
address, and vice versa, in cases where an algorithmic mapping is
used. While specific types of devices are used herein as examples,
it is the responsibility of the specification of such devices to
reference this document for algorithmic mapping of the addresses
themselves.
Section 2 describes the prefixes and the format of "IPv4-Embedded
IPv6 addresses", i.e., IPv6 addresses in which 32 bits contain an
IPv4 address. This format is common to both "IPv4-Converted" and
"IPv4-Translatable" IPv6 addresses. This section also defines the
algorithms for translating addresses, and the text representation of
IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses.
Section 3 discusses the choice of prefixes, the conditions in which
they can be used, and the use of IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses with
stateless and stateful translation.
Section 4 discusses security concerns.
In some scenarios, a dual-stack host will unnecessarily send its
traffic through an IPv6/IPv4 translator. This can be caused by
host's default address selection algorithm [RFC3484], referrals, or
other reasons. Optimizing these scenarios for dual-stack hosts is
for future study.
1.1. Applicability Scope
This document is part of a series defining address translation
services. We understand that the address format could also be used
by other interconnection methods between IPv6 and IPv4, e.g., methods
based on encapsulation. If encapsulation methods are developed by
the IETF, we expect that their descriptions will document their
specific use of IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses.
1.2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.3. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
IPv4/IPv6 translator: an entity that translates IPv4 packets to IPv6
packets, and vice versa. It may do "stateless" translation,
meaning that there is no per-flow state required, or "stateful"
translation where per-flow state is created when the first packet
in a flow is received.
Address translator: any entity that has to derive an IPv4 address
from an IPv6 address or vice versa. This applies not only to
devices that do IPv4/IPv6 packet translation, but also to other
entities that manipulate addresses, such as name resolution
proxies (e.g. DNS64 [I-D.ietf-behave-dns64]) and possibly other
types of Application Layer Gateways (ALGs).
Well-Known Prefix: the IPv6 prefix defined in this document for use
in an algorithmic mapping.
Network-Specific Prefix: an IPv6 prefix assigned by an organization
for use in algorithmic mapping. Options for the Network Specific
Prefix are discussed in Section 3.3 and Section 3.4.
IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses: IPv6 addresses in which 32 bits
contain an IPv4 address. Their format is described in
Section 2.2.
IPv4-Converted IPv6 addresses: IPv6 addresses used to represent IPv4
nodes in an IPv6 network. They are a variant of IPv4-Embedded
IPv6 addresses, and follow the format described in Section 2.2.
IPv4-Translatable IPv6 addresses: IPv6 addresses assigned to IPv6
nodes for use with stateless translation. They are a variant of
IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses, and follow the format described in
Section 2.2.
2. IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Address Prefix and Format
2.1. Well Known Prefix
This document reserves a "Well-Known Prefix" for use in an
algorithmic mapping. The value of this IPv6 prefix is:
64:FF9B::/96
2.2. IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Address Format
IPv4-Converted IPv6 addresses and IPv4-Translatable IPv6 addresses
follow the same format, described here as the IPv4-Embedded IPv6
address Format. IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses are composed of a
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
variable length prefix, the embedded IPv4 address, and a variable
length suffix, as presented in the following diagram, in which PL
designates the prefix length:
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|PL| 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96--104-112-120-|
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|32| prefix |v4(32) | u | suffix |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|40| prefix |v4(24) | u |(8)| suffix |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|48| prefix |v4(16) | u | (16) | suffix |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|56| prefix |(8)| u | v4(24) | suffix |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|64| prefix | u | v4(32) | suffix |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|96| prefix | v4(32) |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 1
In these addresses, the prefix shall be either the "Well-Known
Prefix", or a "Network-Specific Prefix" unique to the organization
deploying the address translators. The prefixes can only have one of
the following lengths: 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 or 96. (The Well-Known
prefic is 96 bits long, and can only be used in the last form of the
table.)
Various deployments justify different prefix lengths with Network-
Specific prefixes. The tradeoff between different prefix lengths are
discussed in Section 3.3 and Section 3.4.
Bits 64 to 71 of the address are reserved for compatibility with the
host identifier format defined in the IPv6 addressing architecture
[RFC4291]. These bits MUST be set to zero. When using a /96
Network-Specific Prefix, the administrators MUST ensure that the bits
64 to 71 are set to zero. A simple way to achieve that is to
construct the /96 Network-Specific Prefix by picking a /64 prefix,
and then adding four octets set to zero.
The IPv4 address is encoded following the prefix, most significant
bits first. Depending of the prefix length, the 4 octets of the
address may be separated by the reserved octet "u", whose 8 bits MUST
be set to zero. In particular:
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
o When the prefix is 32 bits long, the IPv4 address is encoded in
positions 32 to 63.
o When the prefix is 40 bits long, 24 bits of the IPv4 address are
encoded in positions 40 to 63, with the remaining 8 bits in
position 72 to 79.
o When the prefix is 48 bits long, 16 bits of the IPv4 address are
encoded in positions 48 to 63, with the remaining 16 bits in
position 72 to 87.
o When the prefix is 56 bits long, 8 bits of the IPv4 address are
encoded in positions 56 to 63, with the remaining 24 bits in
position 72 to 95.
o When the prefix is 64 bits long, the IPv4 address is encoded in
positions 72 to 103.
o When the prefix is 96 bits long, the IPv4 address is encoded in
positions 96 to 127.
There are no remaining bits, and thus no suffix, if the prefix is 96
bits long. In the other cases, the remaining bits of the address
constitute the suffix. These bits are reserved for future
extensions, and SHOULD be set to zero.
2.3. Address Translation Algorithms
IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses are composed according to the following
algorithm:
o Concatenate the prefix, the 32 bits of the IPv4 address and the
null suffix if needed to obtain a 128 bit address.
o If the prefix length is less than 96 bits, insert the null octet
"u" at the appropriate position, thus causing the least
significant octet to be excluded, as documented in Figure 1.
The IPv4 addresses are extracted from the IPv4-Embedded IPv6
addresses according to the following algorithm:
o If the prefix is 96 bit long, extract the last 32 bits of the IPv6
address;
o for the other prefix lengths, extract the "u" octet to obtain a
120 bit sequence, then extract the 32 bits following the prefix.
2.4. Text Representation
IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses will be represented in text in
conformity with section 2.2 of [RFC4291]. IPv4-Embedded IPv6
addresses constructed using the Well-Known Prefix or a /96 Network-
Specific Prefix may be represented using the alternative form
presented in section 2.2 of [RFC4291], with the embedded IPv4 address
represented in dotted decimal notation. Examples of such
representations are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
+-----------------------+------------+------------------------------+
| Network-Specific | IPv4 | IPv4-Embedded IPv6 address |
| Prefix | address | |
+-----------------------+------------+------------------------------+
| 2001:DB8::/32 | 192.0.2.33 | 2001:DB8:C000:221:: |
| 2001:DB8:100::/40 | 192.0.2.33 | 2001:DB8:1C0:2:21:: |
| 2001:DB8:122::/48 | 192.0.2.33 | 2001:DB8:122:C000:2:2100:: |
| 2001:DB8:122:300::/56 | 192.0.2.33 | 2001:DB8:122:3C0:0:221:: |
| 2001:DB8:122:344::/64 | 192.0.2.33 | 2001:DB8:122:344:C0:2:2100:: |
| 2001:DB8:122:344::/96 | 192.0.2.33 | 2001:DB8:122:344::192.0.2.33 |
+-----------------------+------------+------------------------------+
Table 1: Text representation of IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses using
Network-Specific Prefixes
+-------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| Well Known Prefix | IPv4 address | IPv4-Embedded IPv6 address |
+-------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 64:FF9B::/96 | 192.0.2.33 | 64:FF9B::192.0.2.33 |
+-------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
Table 2: Text representation of IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses using
the Well-Known Prefix
The Network-Specific Prefix examples in Table 1 are derived from the
IPv6 prefix reserved for documentation in [RFC3849]. The IPv4
address 192.0.2.33 is part of the subnet 192.0.2.0/24 reserved for
documentation in [RFC5735].
3. Deployment Guidelines and Choices
3.1. Restrictions on the use of the Well-Known Prefix
The Well-Known Prefix MAY be used by organizations deploying
translation services, as explained in Section 3.4.
The Well-Known Prefix SHOULD NOT be used to construct IPv4-
Translatable addresses. The nodes served by IPv4-Translatable IPv6
addresses should be able to receive global IPv6 traffic bound to
their IPv4-Translatable IPv6 address without incurring intermediate
protocol translation. This is only possible if the specific prefix
used to build the IPv4-Translatable IPv6 addresses is advertized in
inter-domain routing, but the advertisement of more specific prefixes
derived from the Well-Known Prefix is not supported, as explained in
Section 3.2. Network-Specific Prefixes SHOULD be used in these
scenarios, as explained in Section 3.3.
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
The Well-Known Prefix MUST NOT be used to represent non global IPv4
addresses, such as those defined in [RFC1918].
3.2. Impact on Inter-Domain Routing
The Well-Known Prefix MAY appear in inter-domain routing tables, if
service providers decide to provide IPv6-IPv4 interconnection
services to peers. Advertisement of the Well-Known Prefix SHOULD be
controlled either by upstream and/or downstream service providers
owing to inter-domain routing policies, e.g., through configuration
of BGP [RFC4271]. Organizations that advertize the Well-Known Prefix
in inter-domain routing MUST be able to provide IPv4/IPv6 translation
service.
When the IPv4/IPv6 translation relies on the Well-Known Prefix,
embedded IPv6 prefixes longer than the Well-Known Prefix MUST NOT be
advertised in BGP (especially e-BGP) [RFC4271] because this leads to
importing the IPv4 routing table into the IPv6 one and therefore
induces scalability issues to the global IPv6 routing table.
Administrators of BGP nodes SHOULD configure filters that discard
advertisements of embedded IPv6 prefixes longer than the Well-Known
Prefix.
When the IPv4/IPv6 translation service relies on Network-Specific
Prefixes, the IPv4-Translatable IPv6 prefixes used in stateless
translation MUST be advertised with proper aggregation to the IPv6
Internet. Similarly, if translators are configured with multiple
Network-Specific Prefixes,these prefixes MUST be advertised to the
IPv6 Internet with proper aggregation.
3.3. Choice of Prefix for Stateless Translation Deployments
Organizations may deploy translation services using stateless
translation. In these deployments, internal IPv6 nodes are addressed
using IPv4-Translatable IPv6 addresses, which enable them to be
accessed by IPv4 nodes. The addresses of these external IPv4 nodes
are then represented in IPv4-Converted IPv6 addresses.
Organizations deploying stateless IPv4/IPv6 translation SHOULD assign
a Network-Specific Prefix to their IPv4/IPv6 translation service.
IPv4-Translatable and IPv4-Converted IPv6 addresses MUST be
constructed as specified in Section 2.2. IPv4-Translatable IPv6
addresses MUST use the selected Network-Specific Prefix. Both IPv4-
Translatable IPv6 addresses and IPv4-Converted IPv6 addresses SHOULD
use the same prefix.
Using the same prefix ensures that IPv6 nodes internal to the
organization will use the most efficient paths to reach the nodes
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
served by IPv4-Translatable IPv6 addresses. Specifically, if a node
learns the IPv4 address of a target internal node without knowing
that this target is in fact located behind the same translator that
the node also uses, translation rules will ensure that the IPv6
address constructed with the Network-Specific prefix is the same as
the IPv4-Translatable IPv6 address assigned to the target. Standard
routing preference (more specific wins) will then ensure that the
IPv6 packets are delivered directly, without requiring "hair-pinning"
at the translator.
The intra-domain routing protocol must be able to deliver packets to
the nodes served by IPv4-Translatable IPv6 addresses. This may
require routing on some or all of the embedded IPv4 address bits.
Security considerations detailed in Section 4 require that routers
check the validity of the IPv4-Translatable IPv6 source addresses,
using some form of reverse path check.
The management of stateless address translation can be illustrated
with a small example. We will consider an IPv6 network with the
prefix 2001:DB8:122::/48. The network administrator has selected the
Network-Specific prefix 2001:DB8:122:344::/64 for managing stateless
IPv4/IPv6 translation. The IPv4-Translatable address block is 2001:
DB8:122:344:C0:2::/96 and this block is visible in IPv4 as the subnet
192.0.2.0/24. In this network, the host A is assigned the IPv4-
Translatable IPv6 address 2001:DB8:122:344:C0:2:2100::, which
corresponds to the IPv4 address 192.0.2.33. Host A's address is
configured either manually or through DHCPv6.
In this example, host A is not directly connected to the translator,
but instead to a link managed by a router R. The router R is
configured to forward to A the packets bound to 2001:DB8:122:344:C0:
2:2100::. To receive these packets, R will advertise reachability of
the prefix 2001:DB8:122:344:C0:2:2100::/104 in the intra-domain
routing protocol -- or perhaps a shorter prefix if many hosts on link
have IPv4-Translatable IPv6 addresses derived from the same IPv4
subnet. If a packet bound to 192.0.2.33 reaches the translator, the
destination address will be translated to 2001:DB8:122:344:C0:2:
2100::, and the packet will be routed towards R and then to A.
Let's suppose now that a host B of the same domain learns the IPv4
address of A, maybe through an application-specific referral. If B
has translation-aware software, B can compose a destination address
by combining the Network-Specific Prefix 2001:DB8:122:344::/64 and
the IPv4 address 192.0.2.33, resulting in the address 2001:DB8:122:
344:C0:2:2100::. The packet sent by B will be forwarded towards R,
and then to A, avoiding protocol translation.
Forwarding, and reverse path checks, should be performed on the
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
combination of the prefix and the IPv4 address. In theory, routers
should be able to route on prefixes of any length. However, routing
on prefixes larger than 64 bits may be slower on some routers. But
routing efficiency is not the only consideration in the choice of a
prefix length. Organizations also need to consider the availability
of prefixes, and the potential impact of all-zeroes identifiers.
If a /32 prefix is used, all the routing bits are contained in the
top 64 bits of the IPv6 address, leading to excellent routing
properties. These prefixes may however be hard to obtain, and
allocation of a /32 to a small set of IPv4-Translatable IPv6
addresses may be seen as wasteful. In addition, the /32 prefix and a
zero suffix leads to an all-zeroes interface identifier, an issue
that we discuss in Section 3.5.
Intermediate prefix lengths such as /40, /48 or /56 appear as
compromises. Only some of the IPv4 bits are part of the /64
prefixes. Reverse path checks, in particular, may have a limited
efficiency. Reverse path checks limited to the most significant bits
of the IPv4 address will reduce the possibility of spoofing external
IPv4 addresses, but would allow IPv6 nodes to spoof internal IPv4-
Translatable IPv6 addresses.
We propose here a compromise, based on using no more than 1/256th of
an organization's allocation of IPv6 addresses for the IPv4/IPv6
translation service. For example, if the organization is an Internet
Service Provider with an allocated IPv6 prefix /32 or shorter, the
ISP could dedicate a /40 prefix to the translation service. An end
site with a /48 allocation could dedicate a /56 prefix to the
translation service, or possibly a /96 prefix if all IPv4-
Translatable IPv6 addresses are located on the same link.
The recommended prefix length is also a function of the deployment
scenario. The stateless translation can be used for Scenario 1,
Scenario 2, Scenario 5, and Scenario 6 defined in
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]. For different scenarios, the
prefix length recommendations are:
o For scenario 1 (an IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet) and scenario
2 (the IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network), we recommend using a /40
prefix for an ISP holding a /32 allocation, and a /56 prefix for a
site holding a /48 allocation.
o For scenario 5 (an IPv6 network to an IPv4 network) and scenario 6
(an IPv4 network to an IPv6 network), we recommend using a /64 or
a /96 prefix.
IPv4-Translatable IPv6 addresses SHOULD follow the IPv6 address
architecture and SHOULD be compatible with the IPv4 address
architecture. The first IPv4-translatable address is the subnet-
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
router anycast address in IPv6 and network identifier in IPv4, the
last IPv4-translatable address is the subnet broadcast addresses in
IPv4. Both of them SHOULD NOT be used for IPv6 nodes. In addition,
the minimum IPv4 subnet can be used for hosts is /30 (the router
interface needs a valid address for the same subnet) and this rule
SHOULD also be applied to the corresponding subnet of the IPv4-
translatable addresses.
3.4. Choice of Prefix for Stateful Translation Deployments
Organizations may deploy translation services based on stateful
translation technology. An organization may decide to use either a
Network-Specific Prefix or the Well-Known Prefix for its stateful
IPv4/IPv6 translation service.
When these services are used, IPv6 nodes are addressed through
standard IPv6 addresses, while IPv4 nodes are represented by IPv4-
Converted IPv6 addresses, as specified in Section 2.2.
The stateful nature of the translation creates a potential stability
issue when the organization deploys multiple translators. If several
translators use the same prefix, there is a risk that packets
belonging to the same connection may be routed to different
translators as the internal routing state changes. This issue can be
avoided either by assigning different prefixes to different
translators, or by ensuring that all translators using same prefix
coordinate their state.
Stateful translation can be used in scenarios defined in
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]. The Well Known Prefix SHOULD be
used in these scenarios, with two exceptions:
o In all scenarios, the translation MAY use a Network-Specific
Prefix, if deemed appropriate for management reasons.
o The Well-Known Prefix MUST NOT be used for scenario 3 (the IPv6
Internet to an IPv4 network), as this would lead to using the
Well-Known Prefix with non-global IPv4 addresses. That means a
Network-Specific Prefix MUST be used in that scenario, for example
a /96 prefix compatible with the Well-Known prefix format.
3.5. Choice of Suffix
The address format described in Section 2.2 recommends a zero suffix.
Before making this recommendation, we considered different options:
checksum neutrality; the encoding of a port range; and a value
different than 0.
In the case of stateless translation, there would be no need for the
translator to recompute a one's complement checksum if both the IPv4-
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
Translatable and the IPv4-Converted IPv6 addresses were constructed
in a "checksum-neutral" manner, that is if the IPv6 addresses would
have the same one's complement checksum as the embedded IPv4 address.
In the case of stateful translation, checksum neutrality does not
eliminate checksum computation during translation, as only one of the
two addresses would be checksum neutral. We considered reserving 16
bits in the suffix to guarantee checksum neutrality, but declined
because it would not help with stateful translation, and because
checksum neutrality can also be achieved by an appropriate choice of
the Network-Specific Prefix, as was done for example with the Well-
Known Prefix.
There have been proposals to complement stateless translation with a
port-range feature. Instead of mapping an IPv4 address to exactly
one IPv6 prefix, the options would allow several IPv6 nodes to share
an IPv4 address, with each node managing a different range of ports.
If a port range extension is needed, it could be defined later, using
bits currently reserved as null in the suffix.
When a /32 prefix is used, an all-zero suffix results in an all-zero
interface identifier. We understand the conflict with Section 2.6.1
of RFC4291, which specifies that all zeroes are used for the subnet-
router anycast address. However, in our specification, there would
be only one node with an IPv4-Translatable IPv6 address in the /64
subnet, and the anycast semantic would not create confusion. We thus
decided to keep the null suffix for now. This issue does not exist
for prefixes larger than 32 bits, such as the /40, /56, /64 and /96
prefixes that we recommend in Section 3.3.
3.6. Choice of the Well-Known Prefix
Before making our recommendation of the Well-Known Prefix, we were
faced with three choices:
o reuse the IPv4-mapped prefix, ::FFFF:0:0/96, as specified in RFC
2765 Section 2.1;
o request IANA to allocate a /32 prefix,
o or request allocation of a new /96 prefix.
We weighted the pros and cons of these choices before settling on the
recommended /96 Well-Known Prefix.
The main advantage of the existing IPv4-mapped prefix is that it is
already defined. Reusing that prefix would require minimal
standardization efforts. However, being already defined is not just
an advantage, as there may be side effects of current
implementations. When presented with the IPv4-mapped prefix, current
versions of Windows and MacOS generate IPv4 packets, but will not
send IPv6 packets. If we used the IPv4-mapped prefix, these nodes
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
would not be able to support translation without modification. This
will defeat the main purpose of the translation techniques. We thus
eliminated the first choice, and decided to not reuse the IPv4-mapped
prefix, ::FFFF:0:0/96.
A /32 prefix would have allowed the embedded IPv4 address to fit
within the top 64 bits of the IPv6 address. This would have
facilitated routing and load balancing when an organization deploys
several translators. However, such destination-address based load
balancing may not be desirable. It is not compatible with STUN in
the deployments involving multiple stateful translators, each one
having a different pool of IPv4 addresses. STUN compatibility would
only be achieved if the translators managed the same pool of IPv4
addresses and were able to coordinate their translation state, in
which case there is no big advantage to using a /32 prefix rather
than a /96 prefix.
According to Section 2.2 of [RFC4291], in the legal textual
representations of IPv6 addresses, dotted decimal can only appear at
the end. The /96 prefix is compatible with that requirement. It
enables the dotted decimal notation without requiring an update to
[RFC4291]. This representation makes the address format easier to
use, and log files easier to read.
The prefix that we recommend has the particularity of being "checksum
neutral". The sum of the hexadecimal numbers "0064" and "FF9B" is
"FFFF", i.e. a value equal to zero in one's complement arithmetic.
An IPv4-Embedded IPv6 address constructed with this prefix will have
the same one's complement checksum as the embedded IPv4 address.
4. Security Considerations
4.1. Protection Against Spoofing
By and large, IPv4/IPv6 translators can be modeled as special
routers, are subject to the same risks, and can implement the same
mitigations. There is however a particular risk that directly
derives from the practice of embedding IPv4 addresses in IPv6:
address spoofing.
An attacker could use an IPv4-Embedded IPv6 address as the source
address of malicious packets. After translation, the packets will
appear as IPv4 packets from the specified source, and the attacker
may be hard to track. If left without mitigation, the attack would
allow malicious IPv6 nodes to spoof arbitrary IPv4 addresses.
The mitigation is to implement reverse path checks, and to verify
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
throughout the network that packets are coming from an authorized
location.
4.2. Secure Configuration
The prefixes used for address translation are used by IPv6 nodes to
send packets to IPv6/IPv4 translators. Attackers could attempt to
fool nodes, DNS gateways, and IPv4/IPv6 translators into using wrong
values for these parameters, resulting in network disruption, denial
of service, and possible information disclosure. To mitigate such
attacks, network administrators need to ensure that prefixes are
configured in a secure way.
The mechanisms for achieving secure configuration of prefixes are
beyond the scope of this document.
5. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to add a note to the documentation of the
0000::/8 address block in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space to document the
assignment by the IETF of the Well Known Prefix. For example:
The "Well Known Prefix" 64:FF9B::/96 used in an algorithmic
mapping between IPv4 to IPv6 addresses is defined out of the
0000::/8 address block, per (this document).
6. Acknowledgements
Many people in the Behave WG have contributed to the discussion that
led to this document, including Andrew Sullivan, Andrew Yourtchenko,
Brian Carpenter, Dan Wing, Ed Jankiewicz, Fred Baker, Hiroshi Miyata,
Iljitsch van Beijnum, John Schnizlein, Keith Moore, Kevin Yin, Magnus
Westerlund, Margaret Wasserman, Masahito Endo, Phil Roberts, Philip
Matthews, Remi Denis-Courmont, Remi Despres and William Waites.
Marcelo Bagnulo is partly funded by Trilogy, a research project
supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework
Program.
7. Contributors
The following individuals co-authored drafts from which text has been
incorporated, and are listed in alphabetical order.
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
Congxiao Bao
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 62785983
Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
Dave Thaler
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Phone: +1 425 703 8835
Email: dthaler@microsoft.com
Fred Baker
Cisco Systems
Santa Barbara, California 93117
USA
Phone: +1-408-526-4257
Fax: +1-413-473-2403
Email: fred@cisco.com
Hiroshi Miyata
Yokogawa Electric Corporation
2-9-32 Nakacho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8750
JAPAN
Email: h.miyata@jp.yokogawa.com
Marcelo Bagnulo
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
ESPANA
Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
Xing Li
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 62785983
Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-behave-dns64]
Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum,
"DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation
from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers",
draft-ietf-behave-dns64-04 (work in progress),
December 2009.
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]
Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation",
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-03 (work in progress),
October 2009.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC5735] Cotton, M. and L. Vegoda, "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",
BCP 153, RFC 5735, January 2010.
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
Authors' Addresses
Congxiao Bao
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 10-62785983
Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
Christian Huitema
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
U.S.A.
Email: huitema@microsoft.com
Marcelo Bagnulo
UC3M
Av. Universidad 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
Spain
Phone: +34-91-6249500
Fax:
Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/marcelo
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
3, Av Francois Chateaux
Rennes 350000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators April 2010
Xing Li
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 10-62785983
Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
Bao, et al. Expires October 11, 2010 [Page 18]
Copyright 2K16 - 2K18 Indonesian Hacker Rulez
;?>)