behave X. Li, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Bao, Ed.
Intended status: Informational CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Expires: April 29, 2009 F. Baker, Ed.
Cisco Systems
October 26, 2008
IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
draft-baker-behave-v4v6-translation-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2009.
Abstract
This document specifies an update to the Stateless IP/ICMP
Translation Algorithm (SIIT) described in RFC 2765. The algorithm
translates between IPv4 and IPv6 packet headers (including ICMP
headers).
This specification addresses both a stateful and a stateless mode.
In the stateful mode, translation state is maintained between IPv4
address/transport/port tuples and IPv6 address/transport/port tuples,
enabling IPv6 systems to open sessions with IPv4 systems. In the
stateless mode, translation information is carried in the address
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
itself, permitting both IPv4->IPv6 and IPv6->IPv4 session
establishment with neither state nor configuration in the translator.
The choice of operational mode is made by the operator deploying the
network and is critical to the operation of the applications using
it.
Significant issues exist in the stateful mode that are not addressed
in this document, related to the maintenance of the translation
tables. This document confines itself to the actual translation.
Acknowledgement of previous work
This document is a product of the 2008-2009 effort to define a
replacement for NAT-PT. It is an update to and directly derivative
from Erik Nordmark's [RFC2765], which similarly provides both
stateless and stateful translation between IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6
[RFC2460], and between ICMPv4 [RFC0792] and ICMPv6 [RFC4443]. The
original document was a product of the NGTRANS working group. Some
text had been extracted from an old Internet Draft titled "IPAE: The
SIPP Interoperability and Transition Mechanism" authored by R.
Gilligan, E. Nordmark, and B. Hinden.
The changes in this document reflect five components:
1. Updating references
2. Redescribing the network model to map to present and projected
usage
3. Moving the address format to the framework document, to
coordinate with other drafts on the topic
4. Some changes in ICMP.
5. Description of both stateful and stateless operation.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Applicability and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3. Stateless vs Stateful Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4. Impact Outside the Network Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Translating from IPv4 to IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Translating IPv4 Headers into IPv6 Headers . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Translating UDP over IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. Translating ICMPv4 Headers into ICMPv6 Headers . . . . . . 16
4.4. Translating ICMPv4 Error Messages into ICMPv6 . . . . . . 18
4.5. Knowing when to Translate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Translating from IPv6 to IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. Translating IPv6 Headers into IPv4 Headers . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. Translating ICMPv6 Headers into ICMPv4 Headers . . . . . . 22
5.3. Translating ICMPv6 Error Messages into ICMPv4 . . . . . . 24
5.4. Knowing when to Translate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. Implications for IPv6-Only Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 30
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
1. Introduction and Motivation
An understanding of the framework presented in [FRAMEWORK] is
presumed in this document. With that remark...
The transition mechanisms specified in [RFC4213] handle the case of
dual IPv4/IPv6 hosts interoperating with both dual hosts and IPv4-
only hosts, which is needed early in the transition to IPv6. The
dual hosts are assigned both an IPv4 and one or more IPv6 addresses.
The number of available globally unique IPv4 addresses will become
smaller and smaller as the Internet grows; we expect that there will
be a desire to take advantage of the large IPv6 address and not
require that every new Internet node have a permanently assigned IPv4
address.
There are several different scenarios where there might be IPv6-only
hosts that need to communicate with IPv4-only hosts. These IPv6
hosts might be IPv4-capable, i.e. include an IPv4 implementation but
not be assigned an IPv4 address, or they might not even include an
IPv4 implementation. Examples include:
o A completely new network with new devices that all support IPv6.
In this case it might be beneficial to not have to configure the
routers within the new network to route IPv4 since none of the
hosts in the new network are configured with IPv4 addresses. But
these new IPv6 devices might occasionally need to communicate with
some IPv4 nodes out on the Internet.
o An existing network where a large number of IPv6 devices are
added. The IPv6 devices might have both an IPv4 and an IPv6
protocol stack but there is not enough global IPv4 address space
to give each one of them a permanent IPv4 address. In this case
it is more likely that the routers in the network already route
IPv4 and are upgraded to dual routers.
However, there are other potential solutions in this area:
o If there is no IPv4 routing inside the network i.e., the cloud
that contains the new devices, some possible solutions are to
either use the translators specified in this document at the
boundary of the cloud, or to use Application Layer Gateways (ALG)
on dual nodes at the cloud's boundary. The ALG solution is less
flexible in that it is application protocol specific and it is
also less robust since an ALG box is likely to be a single point
of failure for a connection using that box.
o Otherwise, if IPv4 routing is supported inside the cloud and the
implementations support both IPv6 and IPv4 it might suffice to
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
have a mechanism for allocating a temporary address IPv4 and use
IPv4 end to end when communicating with IPv4-only nodes. However,
it would seem that such a solution would require the pool of
temporary IPv4 addresses to be partitioned across all the subnets
in the cloud which would either require a larger pool of IPv4
addresses or result in cases where communication would fail due to
no available IPv4 address for the node's subnet.
This document specifies an algorithm that is one of the components
needed to make IPv6-only nodes interoperate with IPv4-only nodes.
The IPv4 address will be used as an IPv4-translated IPv6 address as
specified in [FRAMEWORK] and the packets will travel through an IP/
ICMP translator that will translate the packet headers between IPv4
and IPv6 and translate the addresses in those headers between IPv4
addresses on one side and IPv4-translated or IPv4-mapped IPv6
addresses on the other side. There is provision for both stateless
and stateful mappings. Translated IPv4 addresses will always use the
mapped format; the source address of an IPv6 datagram translated from
IPv4 will always use the mapped form. The use of the mapped form in
the IPv6 network is, however, at the administration's discretion.
Three obvious models emerge:
o All systems in the IPv6 domain use IPv4-mapped addresses, which
enables stateless translation for all systems in all cases and
makes all systems directly accessible by the IPv4 domain,
o No systems in the IPv6 domain use IPv4-mapped addresses, which is
a lot like IPv4 NAT behavior and prevents all IPv4 systems from
accessing servers in the IPv6 domain, or
o Some systems in the IPv6 domain (probably servers or dominant
peers in peer-to-peer applications) use IPv4-mapped addresses,
which means that those systems so addressed are accessible as
servers by systems in the IPv4 domain but others not usable as
servers accessible by the IPv4 domain.
This specification does not cover the mechanisms used for assignment
of IPv4-mapped addresses to IPv6 nodes or their registration in the
DNS. One might expect IPv4-mapped addresses to be allocated by
mechanisms similar to and derived from similar tools in IPv4
networks.
The figures below show how the IP/ICMP Translation algorithm is used
in networks that use translation. We show three cases, that of a
single translator, that of multiple translators, and that of a domain
that has both stateless and stateful translation.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
-------- --------
// IPv4 \\ // IPv6 \\
/ Domain \ / Domain \
/ +----+ +--+ \
| |XLAT| |S2| | Sn: Servers
| +--+ +----+ +--+ | Hn: Clients
| |S1| +----+ |
| +--+ |DNS | +--+ | XLAT: V4/V6 NAT
\ +--+ +----+ |H2| / DNS: DNS Server
\ |H1| / \ +--+ /
\\ +--+ // \\ //
-------- --------
Figure 1: Using translation for a single interchange point
Figure 1 shows a routing domain in which IPv4 is implemented (whether
IPv4-only or dual stack) and another domain in which only IPv6
routing, and potentially only IPv6-only hosts, are implemented.
There is a translator on the boundary between them, and a DNS server
that can serve on both sides of the translator. The translator
advertises an IPv4 route for the prefix mapped into IPv6 addresses in
the IPv4 domain, and an IPv6 route for its prefix mapping the IPv4
routing domain into the IPv6 domain.
o If H2 decides to connect to S1, it asks the DNS server for a AAAA
record, and sends its datagram to the IPv6 address in the
response. Unknown to it, routing takes it to a translator, which
emits an IPv4 datagram into the IPv4 domain.
o If H1 seeks access to S2, it similarly asks the DNS server for an
A record and is given the IPv4 address of S2. Routing takes its
data to the translator, which emits an IPv6 datagram into the IPv6
domain.
o If H1 seeks S1, is obviously gets S1's IPv4 address and
communicates with it directly; in the same way, if H2 seeks S2, it
gets the AAAA record and communicates directly with S2 even if the
address it chooses happens to be a mapped IPv4 address.
By extension, one could imagine a case in which S2 has an IPv4-mapped
address and H2 has a general IPv6 address - any legal IPv6 address
other than one that the translator recognizes as an IPv4-mapped
address. In this case, should S2 (an IPv6 device using an IPv4-
mapped address) access an IPv4 system, the behavior is as previously
described. However, should H2 seek to access S1, the behavior is
similar to the familiar IPv4 NAT; the translator saves H2's address
and source port number and an overlay IPv4 address and source port
number in a database, and
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
o for datagrams traveling H2->S1, translates the source address and
port according to the defined translation, and
o for datagrams traveling S1->H2, translates the destination address
and port according to the defined translation.
A stateful mapping of this kind requires appropriate handling of port
numbers and checksums, and of creation and deletion of state, as
described in [I-D.bagnulo-behave-nat64].
-------- --------
// IPv4 \\ // IPv6 \\
/ Domain \ / Domain \
/ +----+ +--+ \
| |XLAT| |S3| | Sn: Servers
| +--+ +----+ +--+ | Hn: Clients
| |S1| +----+ |
| +--+ |DNS | +--+ | XLAT: V4/V6 NAT
\ +--+ +----+ |H3| / DNS: DNS Server
\ |H1| / \ +--+ /
\ +--+ / \ /
/ \ / \
/ +----+ \
| +--+ |XLAT| +--+ |
| |S2| +----+ |S4| |
| +--+ +----+ +--+ |
| +--+ |DNS | +--+ |
\ |H2| +----+ |H4| /
\ +--+ / \ +--+ /
\\ // \\ //
-------- --------
Figure 2: Using translation with multiple interchange points
Figure 2 similarly shows a routing domain in which IPv4 is
implemented (whether IPv4-only or dual stack) and another domain in
which only IPv6 routing, and potentially only IPv6-only hosts, are
implemented. The difference from Figure 1 is that there are more
than one translation point on the boundary between them, and more
than one DNS server. As in the previous case, each translator
advertises an IPv4 route for the prefix mapped into IPv6 addresses in
the IPv4 domain, and an IPv6 route for its prefix mapping the IPv4
routing domain into the IPv6 domain. If these are run by the same
administration, they are likely to use the same prefix. They could
also use different prefixes at the network administration's option,
and if they have different administrations they likely would - and
might apply various policies to such routing.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
o If H4 decides to connect to S1 or S2, it asks the DNS server for a
AAAA record, and sends its datagram to the IPv6 address in the
response. Unknown to it, routing takes it to a translator, which
emits an IPv4 datagram into the IPv4 domain. If the prefixes used
by the translators are the same, the choice of translator is
immaterial; if they are different, routing will take it to the
right translator.
o If H1 seeks access to S3 or S4, it similarly asks the DNS server
for an A record and is given the relevant IPv4 address. Routing
similarly takes its data to one of the translators, which emits an
IPv6 datagram into the IPv6 domain.
o If H1 seeks S1 or S2, is obviously gets the IPv4 address and
communicates with it directly; in the same way, if H4 seeks S3 or
S4, it gets the AAAA record and communicates directly with it even
if the address it chooses happens to be a mapped IPv4 address.
In both cases, if the "IPv4 network" is in fact dual stack and
contains dual stack hosts, direct IPv6 connectivity is precisely that
- direct. There is no translation even if the addresses used are
mapped IPv4 addresses, because the routing is provided by more
specific prefixes; the only datagrams translated are those that
follow the more general route to the translator.
The protocol translators are assumed to fit around some piece of
topology that includes some IPv6-only nodes and that may also include
IPv4 nodes as well as dual nodes. There has to be a translator on
each path used by routing the "translatable" packets in and out of
this cloud to ensure that such packets always get translated. This
does not require a translator at every physical connection between
the cloud and the rest of the Internet since the routing can be used
to deliver the packets to the translator.
The IPv6-only node communicating with an IPv4 node through a
translator will see an IPv4-mapped address for the peer and use an
IPv4-translatable address for its local address for that
communication. When the IPv6-only node sends packets the IPv4-mapped
address indicates that the translator needs to translate the packets.
When the IPv4 node sends packets those will translated to have the
IPv4-translatable address as a destination; it is not possible to use
an IPv4-mapped or an IPv4-compatible address as a destination since
that would either route the packet back to the translator (for the
IPv4-mapped address) or make the packet be encapsulated in IPv4 (for
the IPv4-compatible address). Thus this specification introduces the
new notion of an IPv4-translatable address.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
1.1. Applicability and Limitations
The use of this translation algorithm assumes that the IPv6 network
is somehow well connected i.e. when an IPv6 node wants to communicate
with another IPv6 node there is an IPv6 path between them. Various
tunneling schemes exist that can provide such a path, but those
mechanisms and their use is outside the scope of this document.
The translating function as specified in this document does not
translate any IPv4 options and it does not translate IPv6 routing
headers, hop-by-hop extension headers, or destination options
headers. It could be possible to define a translation between source
routing in IPv4 and IPv6. However such a translation would not be
semantically correct due to the slight differences between the IPv4
and IPv6 source routing. Also, the usefulness of source routing when
going through a header translator might be limited since all the
IPv6-only routers would need to have an IPv4-translated IPv6 address
since the IPv4-only node will send a source route option containing
only IPv4 addresses.
[RFC5382] describes the issues and algorithms in the translation of
datagrams containing TCP segments. The considerations of that
document are applicable in this case as well.
At first sight it might appear that the IPsec functionality
[RFC4301][RFC4302][RFC4303] can not be carried across the translator.
However, since the translator does not modify any headers above the
logical IP layer (IP headers, IPv6 fragment headers, and ICMP
messages) packets encrypted using ESP in Transport-mode can be
carried through the translator. [Note that this assumes that the key
management can operate between the IPv6-only node and the IPv4-only
node.] The AH computation covers parts of the IPv4 header fields
such as IP addresses, and the identification field (fields that are
either immutable or predictable by the sender) [RFC4302]. While the
translation algorithm is specified so that those IPv4 fields can be
predicted by the IPv6 sender it is not possible for the IPv6 receiver
to determine the value of the IPv4 Identification field in packets
sent by the IPv4 node. Thus as the translation algorithm is
specified in this document it is not possible to use end-to-end AH
through the translator.
For ESP Tunnel-mode to work through the translator the IPv6 node
would have to be able to both parse and generate "inner" IPv4 headers
since the inner IP will be encrypted together with the transport
protocol.
Thus in practise, only ESP transport mode is relatively easy to make
work through a translator, unless an ESP tunnel is explicitly
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
carrying IPv4 inner and IPv6 outer headers.
IPv4 multicast addresses can not be mapped to IPv6 multicast
addresses. For instance, 224.1.2.3 is an IPv4 multicast address, but
an IPv6 address mapped to general IPv4 addresses and containing that
value is not an IPv6 multicast address. While the IP/ICMP header
translation aspect of this memo in theory works for multicast packets
this address mapping limitation makes it impossible to apply the
techniques in this memo for multicast traffic.
1.2. Assumptions
The IPv6 nodes using the translator must have an IPv4-translated IPv6
address while it is communicating with IPv4-only nodes.
Fragmented IPv4 UDP packets that do not contain a UDP checksum (i.e.
the UDP checksum field is zero) are not of significant use over wide-
areas in the Internet and will not be translated by the translator.
An informal trace [Miller] in the backbone showed that out of
34,984,468 IP packets there were 769 fragmented UDP packets with a
zero checksum. However, all of them were due to malicious or broken
behavior; a port scan and first fragments of IP packets that are not
a multiple of 8 bytes.
1.3. Stateless vs Stateful Mode
The translator has two possible modes of operation: stateless and
stateful. In both cases, we assume that a system that has an IPv4
address but not an IPv6 address is communicating with a system that
has an IPv6 address but no IPv4 address, or that the two systems do
not have contiguous routing connectivity in either domain and hence
are forced to have their communications translated.
In the stateless mode, one system has an IPv4 address and one has an
address of the form specified in [FRAMEWORK], which is explicitly
mapped to an IPv4 address. In this mode, there is no need to concern
oneself with port translation or translation tables, as the IPv4 and
IPv6 counterparts are algorithmically related.
In the stateful mode, the system with the IPv4 address will be
represented by that same address type, but the IPv6 system may use
any [RFC4291] address except one in that range. In this case, a
translation table is required.
1.4. Impact Outside the Network Layer
The potential existence of IP/ICMP translators is already taken care
of from a protocol perspective in [RFC2460]. However, an IPv6 node
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
that wants to be able to use translators needs some additional logic
in the network layer.
The network layer in an IPv6-only node, when presented by the
application with either an IPv4 destination address or an IPv4-mapped
IPv6 destination address, is likely to drop the packet and return
some error message to the application. In order to take advantage of
translators such a node should instead send an IPv6 packet where the
destination address is the IPv4-mapped address and the source address
is the node's temporarily assigned IPv4-translated address. If the
node does not have a temporarily assigned IPv4-translated address it
should acquire one using mechanisms that are not discussed in this
document.
Note that the above also applies to a dual IPv4/IPv6 implementation
node which is not configured with any IPv4 address.
There are no extra changes needed to applications to operate through
a translator beyond what applications already need to do to operate
on a dual node. The applications that have been modified to work on
a dual node already have the mechanisms to determine whether they are
communicating with an IPv4 or an IPv6 peer. Thus if the applications
need to modify their behavior depending on the type of the peer, such
as ftp determining whether to fallback to using the PORT/PASV command
when EPRT/EPSV fails (as specified in [RFC2428]), they already need
to do that when running on dual nodes and the presence of translators
does not add anything. For example, when using the socket API
[RFC3493] the applications know that the peer is IPv6 if they get an
AF_INET6 address from the name service and the address is not an
IPv4-mapped address (i.e., IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED returns false). If
this is not the case, i.e., the address is AF_INET or an IPv4-mapped
IPv6 address, the peer is IPv4.
One way of viewing the translator, which might help clarify why
applications do not need to know that a translator is used, is to
look at the information that is passed from the transport layer to
the network layer. If the transport passes down an IPv4 address
(whether or not is in the IPv4-mapped encoding) this means that at
some point there will be IPv4 packets generated. In a dual node the
generation of the IPv4 packets takes place in the sending node. In
an IPv6-only node conceptually the only difference is that the IPv4
packet is generated by the translator - all the information that the
transport layer passed to the network layer will be conveyed to the
translator in some form. That form just "happens" to be in the form
of an IPv6 header.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
2. Terminology
This documents uses the terminology defined in [RFC2460] and
[RFC4213] with these clarifications:
IPv4 capable node: A node which has an IPv4 protocol stack. In
order for the stack to be usable the node must be assigned one or
more IPv4 addresses.
IPv4 enabled node: A node which has an IPv4 protocol stack and is
assigned one or more IPv4 addresses. Both IPv4-only and IPv6/IPv4
nodes are IPv4 enabled.
IPv6 capable node: A node which has an IPv6 protocol stack. In
order for the stack to be usable the node must be assigned one or
more IPv6 addresses.
IPv6 enabled node: A node which has an IPv6 protocol stack and is
assigned one or more IPv6 addresses. Both IPv6-only and IPv6/IPv4
nodes are IPv6 enabled.
3. Requirements
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
4. Translating from IPv4 to IPv6
When an IPv4-to-IPv6 translator receives an IPv4 datagram addressed
to a destination that lies outside of the attached IPv4 island, it
translates the IPv4 header of that packet into an IPv6 header. It
then forwards the packet based on the IPv6 destination address. The
original IPv4 header on the packet is removed and replaced by an IPv6
header. Except for ICMP packets the transport layer header and data
portion of the packet are left unchanged.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
+-------------+ +-------------+
| IPv4 | | IPv6 |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Transport | | Fragment |
| Layer | ===> | Header |
| Header | |(not always) |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | | Transport |
~ Data ~ | Layer |
| | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| |
~ Data ~
| |
+-------------+
Figure 3: IPv4-to-IPv6 Translation
One of the differences between IPv4 and IPv6 is that in IPv6 path MTU
discovery is mandatory but it is optional in IPv4. This implies that
IPv6 routers will never fragment a packet - only the sender can do
fragmentation.
When the IPv4 node performs path MTU discovery (by setting the DF bit
in the header) the path MTU discovery can operate end-to-end i.e.
across the translator. In this case either IPv4 or IPv6 routers
might send back ICMP "packet too big" messages to the sender. When
these ICMP errors are sent by the IPv6 routers they will pass through
a translator which will translate the ICMP error to a form that the
IPv4 sender can understand. In this case an IPv6 fragment header is
only included if the IPv4 packet is already fragmented.
However, when the IPv4 sender does not perform path MTU discovery the
translator has to ensure that the packet does not exceed the path MTU
on the IPv6 side. This is done by fragmenting the IPv4 packet so
that it fits in 1280 byte IPv6 packet since IPv6 guarantees that 1280
byte packets never need to be fragmented. Also, when the IPv4 sender
does not perform path MTU discovery the translator MUST always
include an IPv6 fragment header to indicate that the sender allows
fragmentation. That is needed should the packet pass through an
IPv6-to-IPv4 translator.
The above rules ensure that when packets are fragmented either by the
sender or by IPv4 routers that the low-order 16 bits of the fragment
identification is carried end-end to ensure that packets are
correctly reassembled. In addition, the rules use the presence of an
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
IPv6 fragment header to indicate that the sender might not be using
path MTU discovery i.e. the packet should not have the DF flag set
should it later be translated back to IPv4.
Other than the special rules for handling fragments and path MTU
discovery the actual translation of the packet header consists of a
simple mapping as defined below. Note that ICMP packets require
special handling in order to translate the content of ICMP error
message and also to add the ICMP pseudo-header checksum.
4.1. Translating IPv4 Headers into IPv6 Headers
If the DF flag is not set and the IPv4 packet will result in an IPv6
packet larger than 1280 bytes the IPv4 packet MUST be fragmented
prior to translating it. Since IPv4 packets with DF not set will
always result in a fragment header being added to the packet the IPv4
packets must be fragmented so that their length, excluding the IPv4
header, is at most 1232 bytes (1280 minus 40 for the IPv6 header and
8 for the Fragment header). The resulting fragments are then
translated independently using the logic described below.
If the DF bit is set and the packet is not a fragment (i.e., the MF
flag is not set and the Fragment Offset is zero) then there is no
need to add a fragment header to the packet. The IPv6 header fields
are set as follows:
Version: 6
Traffic Class: By default, copied from IP Type Of Service and
Precedence field (all 8 bits are copied). According to [RFC2474]
the semantics of the bits are identical in IPv4 and IPv6.
However, in some IPv4 environments these fields might be used with
the old semantics of "Type Of Service and Precedence". An
implementation of a translator SHOULD provide the ability to
ignore the IPv4 "TOS" and always set the IPv6 traffic class to
zero.
Flow Label: 0 (all zero bits)
Payload Length: Total length value from IPv4 header, minus the size
of the IPv4 header and IPv4 options, if present.
Next Header: Protocol field copied from IPv4 header
Hop Limit: TTL value copied from IPv4 header. Since the translator
is a router, as part of forwarding the packet it needs to
decrement either the IPv4 TTL (before the translation) or the IPv6
Hop Limit (after the translation). As part of decrementing the
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
TTL or Hop Limit the translator (as any router) needs to check for
zero and send the ICMPv4 or ICMPv6 "ttl exceeded" error.
Source Address: The the address is derived from the IPv4 address as
specified in [FRAMEWORK].
Destination Address: In stateless mode, which is to say that if the
IPv4 destination address is within the range of the stateless
translation prefix described in Section 1.3, the address is
derived from the IPv4 address as specified in [FRAMEWORK].
In stateful mode, which is to say that if the IPv4 destination
address is among the statefully-translated addresses, the IPv6
address and transport layer destination port corresponding to the
IPv4 destination address and source port are derived from the
database reflecting current session state in the translator.
If IPv4 options are present in the IPv4 packet, they are ignored
i.e., there is no attempt to translate them. However, if an
unexpired source route option is present then the packet MUST instead
be discarded, and an ICMPv4 "destination unreachable/source route
failed" (Type 3/Code 5) error message SHOULD be returned to the
sender.
If there is need to add a fragment header (the DF bit is not set or
the packet is a fragment) the header fields are set as above with the
following exceptions:
IPv6 fields:
Payload Length: Total length value from IPv4 header, plus 8 for
the fragment header, minus the size of the IPv4 header and IPv4
options, if present.
Next Header: Fragment Header (44).
Fragment header fields:
Next Header: Protocol field copied from IPv4 header.
Fragment Offset: Fragment Offset copied from the IPv4 header.
M flag More Fragments bit copied from the IPv4 header.
Identification The low-order 16 bits copied from the
Identification field in the IPv4 header. The high-order 16
bits set to zero.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
4.2. Translating UDP over IPv4
If a UDP packet has a zero UDP checksum then a valid checksum must be
calculated in order to translate the packet. A stateless translator
can not do this for fragmented packets but [MILLER] indicates that
fragmented UDP packets with a zero checksum appear to only be used
for malicious purposes. Thus this is not believed to be a noticeable
limitation.
When a translator receives the first fragment of a fragmented UDP
IPv4 packet and the checksum field is zero the translator SHOULD drop
the packet and generate a system management event specifying at least
the IP addresses and port numbers in the packet. When it receives
fragments other than the first it SHOULD silently drop the packet,
since there is no port information to log.
When a translator receives an unfragmented UDP IPv4 packet and the
checksum field is zero the translator MUST compute the missing UDP
checksum as part of translating the packet. Also, the translator
SHOULD maintain a counter of how many UDP checksums are generated in
this manner.
4.3. Translating ICMPv4 Headers into ICMPv6 Headers
All ICMP messages that are to be translated require that the ICMP
checksum field be updated as part of the translation since ICMPv6
unlike ICMPv4 has a pseudo-header checksum just like UDP and TCP.
In addition all ICMP packets need to have the Type value translated
and for ICMP error messages the included IP header also needs
translation.
The actions needed to translate various ICMPv4 messages are:
ICMPv4 query messages:
Echo and Echo Reply (Type 8 and Type 0) Adjust the type to 128
and 129, respectively, and adjust the ICMP checksum both to
take the type change into account and to include the ICMPv6
pseudo-header.
Information Request/Reply (Type 15 and Type 16) Obsoleted in
ICMPv4 Silently drop.
Timestamp and Timestamp Reply (Type 13 and Type 14) Obsoleted in
ICMPv6 Silently drop.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
Address Mask Request/Reply (Type 17 and Type 18) Obsoleted in
ICMPv6 Silently drop.
ICMP Router Advertisement (Type 9) Single hop message. Silently
drop.
ICMP Router Solicitation (Type 10) Single hop message. Silently
drop.
Unknown ICMPv4 types Silently drop.
IGMP messages: While the MLD messages [RFC2710][RFC3590][RFC3810]
are the logical IPv6 counterparts for the IPv4 IGMP messages
all the "normal" IGMP messages are single-hop messages and
should be silently dropped by the translator. Other IGMP
messages might be used by multicast routing protocols and,
since it would be a configuration error to try to have router
adjacencies across IPv4/IPv6 translators those packets should
also be silently dropped.
ICMPv4 error messages:
Destination Unreachable (Type 3) For all that are not
explicitly listed below set the Type to 1.
Translate the code field as follows:
Code 0, 1 (net, host unreachable): Set Code to 0 (no route
to destination).
Code 2 (protocol unreachable): Translate to an ICMPv6
Parameter Problem (Type 4, Code 1) and make the Pointer
point to the IPv6 Next Header field.
Code 3 (port unreachable): Set Code to 4 (port
unreachable).
Code 4 (fragmentation needed and DF set): Translate to an
ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message (Type 2) with code 0. The
MTU field needs to be adjusted for the difference between
the IPv4 and IPv6 header sizes. Note that if the IPv4
router did not set the MTU field i.e. the router does not
implement [RFC1191], then the translator must use the
plateau values specified in [RFC1191] to determine a
likely path MTU and include that path MTU in the ICMPv6
packet. (Use the greatest plateau value that is less
than the returned Total Length field.)
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
Code 5 (source route failed): Set Code to 0 (no route to
destination). Note that this error is unlikely since
source routes are not translated.
Code 6,7: Set Code to 0 (no route to destination).
Code 8: Set Code to 0 (no route to destination).
Code 9, 10 (communication with destination host
administratively prohibited): Set Code to 1 (communication
with destination administratively prohibited)
Code 11, 12: Set Code to 0 (no route to destination).
Redirect (Type 5) Single hop message. Silently drop.
Source Quench (Type 4) Obsoleted in ICMPv6 Silently drop.
Time Exceeded (Type 11) Set the Type field to 3. The Code
field is unchanged.
Parameter Problem (Type 12) Set the Type field to 4. The
Pointer needs to be updated to point to the corresponding
field in the translated include IP header.
4.4. Translating ICMPv4 Error Messages into ICMPv6
There are some differences between the IPv4 and the IPv6 ICMP error
message formats as detailed above. In addition, the ICMP error
messages contain the IP header for the packet in error which needs to
be translated just like a normal IP header. The translation of this
"packet in error" is likely to change the length of the datagram thus
the Payload Length field in the outer IPv6 header might need to be
updated.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
+-------------+ +-------------+
| IPv4 | | IPv6 |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| ICMPv4 | | ICMPv6 |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| IPv4 | ===> | IPv6 |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Partial | | Partial |
| Transport | | Transport |
| Layer | | Layer |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 4: IPv4-to-IPv6 ICMP Error Translation
The translation of the inner IP header can be done by recursively
invoking the function that translated the outer IP headers.
4.5. Knowing when to Translate
The translator is assumed to know the pool(s) of IPv4 address that
are used to represent the internal IPv6-only nodes. If the
translator is implemented in a router providing both translation and
normal forwarding, and the address is reachable by a more specific
route without translation, the router should forward it without
translating it. In general, however, if the IPv4 destination field
contains an address that falls in these configured sets of prefixes
the packet needs to be translated to IPv6.
5. Translating from IPv6 to IPv4
When an IPv6-to-IPv4 translator receives an IPv6 datagram addressed
to an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, it translates the IPv6 header of that
packet into an IPv4 header. It then forwards the packet based on the
IPv4 destination address. The original IPv6 header on the packet is
removed and replaced by an IPv4 header. Except for ICMP packets the
transport layer header and data portion of the packet are left
unchanged.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
+-------------+ +-------------+
| IPv6 | | IPv4 |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Fragment | | Transport |
| Header | ===> | Layer |
|(if present) | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Transport | | |
| Layer | ~ Data ~
| Header | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| |
~ Data ~
| |
+-------------+
Figure 5: IPv6-to-IPv4 Translation
There are some differences between IPv6 and IPv4 in the area of
fragmentation and the minimum link MTU that effect the translation.
An IPv6 link has to have an MTU of 1280 bytes or greater. The
corresponding limit for IPv4 is 68 bytes. Thus, unless there were
special measures, it would not be possible to do end-to-end path MTU
discovery when the path includes an IPv6-to-IPv4 translator since the
IPv6 node might receive ICMP "packet too big" messages originated by
an IPv4 router that report an MTU less than 1280. However, [RFC2460]
requires that IPv6 nodes handle such an ICMP "packet too big" message
by reducing the path MTU to 1280 and including an IPv6 fragment
header with each packet. This allows end-to-end path MTU discovery
across the translator as long as the path MTU is 1280 bytes or
greater. When the path MTU drops below the 1280 limit the IPv6
sender will originate 1280 byte packets that will be fragmented by
IPv4 routers along the path after being translated to IPv4.
The only drawback with this scheme is that it is not possible to use
PMTU to do optimal UDP fragmentation (as opposed to completely
avoiding fragmentation) at sender since the presence of an IPv6
Fragment header is interpreted that is it OK to fragment the packet
on the IPv4 side. Thus if a UDP application wants to send large
packets independent of the PMTU, the sender will only be able to
determine the path MTU on the IPv6 side of the translator. If the
path MTU on the IPv4 side of the translator is smaller then the IPv6
sender will not receive any ICMP "too big" errors and can not adjust
the size fragments it is sending.
Other than the special rules for handling fragments and path MTU
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
discovery the actual translation of the packet header consists of a
simple mapping as defined below. Note that ICMP packets require
special handling in order to translate the content of ICMP error
message and also to add the ICMP pseudo-header checksum.
5.1. Translating IPv6 Headers into IPv4 Headers
If there is no IPv6 Fragment header the IPv4 header fields are set as
follows:
Version: 4
Internet Header Length: 5 (no IPv4 options)
Type of Service (TOS) Octet: By default, copied from the IPv6
Traffic Class (all 8 bits). According to [RFC2474] the semantics
of the bits are identical in IPv4 and IPv6. However, in some IPv4
environments these bits might be used with the old semantics of
"Type Of Service and Precedence". An implementation of a
translator SHOULD provide the ability to ignore the IPv6 traffic
class and always set the IPv4 TOS Octet to a specified value.
Total Length: Payload length value from IPv6 header, plus the size
of the IPv4 header.
Identification: All zero.
Flags: The More Fragments flag is set to zero. The Don't Fragments
flag is set to one.
Fragment Offset: All zero.
Time to Live: Hop Limit value copied from IPv6 header. Since the
translator is a router, as part of forwarding the packet it needs
to decrement either the IPv6 Hop Limit (before the translation) or
the IPv4 TTL (after the translation). As part of decrementing the
TTL or Hop Limit the translator (as any router) needs to check for
zero and send the ICMPv4 or ICMPv6 "ttl exceeded" error.
Protocol: Next Header field copied from IPv6 header.
Header Checksum: Computed once the IPv4 header has been created.
Source Address: In stateless mode, which is to say that if the IPv6
source address is within the range of the stateless translation
prefix described in Section 1.3, the address format is derived
from the IPv4 address as specified in [FRAMEWORK].
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
In stateful mode, which is to say that if the IPv6 source address
is not of the form described in [FRAMEWORK], the IPv4 source
address and transport layer source port corresponding to the IPv6
source address and source port are derived from the database
reflecting current session state in the translator as described in
[I-D.bagnulo-behave-nat64].
Destination Address: IPv6 packets that are translated have an IPv4-
mapped destination address. Thus the address is derived from the
IPv6 address as specified in [FRAMEWORK].
If any of an IPv6 hop-by-hop options header, destination options
header, or routing header with the Segments Left field equal to zero
are present in the IPv6 packet, they are ignored i.e., there is no
attempt to translate them. However, the Total Length field and the
Protocol field would have to be adjusted to "skip" these extension
headers.
If a routing header with a non-zero Segments Left field is present
then the packet MUST NOT be translated, and an ICMPv6 "parameter
problem/ erroneous header field encountered" (Type 4/Code 0) error
message, with the Pointer field indicating the first byte of the
Segments Left field, SHOULD be returned to the sender.
If the IPv6 packet contains a Fragment header the header fields are
set as above with the following exceptions:
Total Length: Payload length value from IPv6 header, minus 8 for the
Fragment header, plus the size of the IPv4 header.
Identification: Copied from the low-order 16-bits in the
Identification field in the Fragment header.
Flags: The More Fragments flag is copied from the M flag in the
Fragment header. The Don't Fragments flag is set to zero allowing
this packet to be fragmented by IPv4 routers.
Fragment Offset: Copied from the Fragment Offset field in the
Fragment Header.
Protocol: Next Header value copied from Fragment header.
5.2. Translating ICMPv6 Headers into ICMPv4 Headers
All ICMP messages that are to be translated require that the ICMP
checksum field be updated as part of the translation since ICMPv6
unlike ICMPv4 has a pseudo-header checksum just like UDP and TCP.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
In addition all ICMP packets need to have the Type value translated
and for ICMP error messages the included IP header also needs
translation.
The actions needed to translate various ICMPv6 messages are:
ICMPv6 informational messages:
Echo Request and Echo Reply (Type 128 and 129) Adjust the type to
0 and 8, respectively, and adjust the ICMP checksum both to
take the type change into account and to exclude the ICMPv6
pseudo-header.
MLD Multicast Listener Query/Report/Done (Type 130, 131, 132)
Single hop message. Silently drop.
Neighbor Discover messages (Type 133 through 137) Single hop
message. Silently drop.
Unknown informational messages Silently drop.
ICMPv6 error messages:
Destination Unreachable (Type 1) Set the Type field to 3.
Translate the code field as follows:
Code 0 (no route to destination): Set Code to 1 (host
unreachable).
Code 1 (communication with destination administratively
prohibited): Set Code to 10 (communication with destination
host administratively prohibited).
Code 2 (beyond scope of source address): Set Code to 1 (host
unreachable). Note that this error is very unlikely since
the IPv4-translatable source address is considered to have
global scope.
Code 3 (address unreachable): Set Code to 1 (host
unreachable).
Code 4 (port unreachable): Set Code to 3 (port unreachable).
Packet Too Big (Type 2) Translate to an ICMPv4 Destination
Unreachable with code 4. The MTU field needs to be adjusted
for the difference between the IPv4 and IPv6 header sizes
taking into account whether or not the packet in error includes
a Fragment header.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
Time Exceeded (Type 3) Set the Type to 11. The Code field is
unchanged.
Parameter Problem (Type 4) If the Code is 1 translate this to an
ICMPv4 protocol unreachable (Type 3, Code 2). Otherwise set
the Type to 12 and the Code to zero. The Pointer needs to be
updated to point to the corresponding field in the translated
include IP header.
Unknown error messages Silently drop.
5.3. Translating ICMPv6 Error Messages into ICMPv4
There are some differences between the IPv4 and the IPv6 ICMP error
message formats as detailed above. In addition, the ICMP error
messages contain the IP header for the packet in error which needs to
be translated just like a normal IP header. The translation of this
"packet in error" is likely to change the length of the datagram thus
the Total Length field in the outer IPv4 header might need to be
updated.
+-------------+ +-------------+
| IPv6 | | IPv4 |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| ICMPv6 | | ICMPv4 |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| IPv6 | ===> | IPv4 |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Partial | | Partial |
| Transport | | Transport |
| Layer | | Layer |
| Header | | Header |
+-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 6: IPv6-to-IPv4 ICMP Error Translation
The translation of the inner IP header can be done by recursively
invoking the function that translated the outer IP headers.
5.4. Knowing when to Translate
If the translator is implemented in a router providing both
translation and normal forwarding, and the address is reachable by a
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
more specific route without translation, the router should forward it
without translating it. Otherwise, when the translator receives an
IPv6 packet with an IPv4-mapped destination address the packet will
be translated to IPv4.
6. Implications for IPv6-Only Nodes
An IPv6-only node which works through an IPv4/IPv6 translator needs
some modifications beyond a normal IPv6-only node.
As specified in Section 1.4 the application protocols need to handle
operation on a dual stack node. In addition the protocol stack needs
to be able to:
o Determine when an IPv4-translatable address needs to be allocated
and the allocation needs to be refreshed/renewed. This can
presumably be done without involving the applications by e.g.
handling this under the socket API. For instance, when the
connect or sendto socket calls are invoked they could check if the
destination is an IPv4-mapped address and in that case allocate/
refresh the IPv4-translatable address.
o Ensure, as part of the source address selection mechanism, that
when the destination address is an IPv4-mapped address the source
address MUST be an IPv4-translatable address. And an IPv4-
translatable address MUST NOT be used with other forms of IPv6
destination addresses.
o Should the peer have AAAA/A6 address records the application (or
resolver) SHOULD never fall back to looking for A address records
even if communication fails using the available AAAA/A6 records.
The reason for this restriction is to prevent traffic between two
IPv6 nodes (which AAAA/A6 records in the DNS) from accidentally
going through IPv4/IPv6 translation twice; from IPv6 to IPv4 and
to IPv6 again. It is considered preferable to instead signal a
failure to communicate to the application. The only case in which
IPv6/IPv4/IPv6 translation makes sense is when no other route
exists.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo adds no new IANA considerations.
Note to RFC Editor: This section will have served its purpose if it
correctly tells IANA that no new assignments or registries are
required, or if those assignments or registries are created during
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
the RFC publication process. From the author's perspective, it may
therefore be removed upon publication as an RFC at the RFC Editor's
discretion.
8. Security Considerations
The use of stateless IP/ICMP translators does not introduce any new
security issues beyond the security issues that are already present
in the IPv4 and IPv6 protocols and in the routing protocols which are
used to make the packets reach the translator.
As the Authentication Header [RFC4302] is specified to include the
IPv4 Identification field and the translating function not being able
to always preserve the Identification field, it is not possible for
an IPv6 endpoint to compute AH on received packets that have been
translated from IPv4 packets. Thus AH does not work through a
translator.
Packets with ESP can be translated since ESP does not depend on
header fields prior to the ESP header. Note that ESP transport mode
is easier to handle than ESP tunnel mode; in order to use ESP tunnel
mode the IPv6 node needs to be able to generate an inner IPv4 header
when transmitting packets and remove such an IPv4 header when
receiving packets.
9. Acknowledgements
This is under development by a large group of people. Those who have
posted to the list during the discussion include Andrew Sullivan,
Andrew Yourtchenko, Brian Carpenter, Dan Wing, Ed Jankiewicz, Fred
Baker, Hiroshi Miyata, Iljitsch van Beijnum, John Schnizlein, Kevin
Yin, Magnus Westerlund, Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Margaret Wasserman,
Masahito Endo, Phil Roberts, Philip Matthews, Remi Denis-Courmont,
Remi Despres, and Xing Li.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[FRAMEWORK]
Baker, F., "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation - baker-
behave-v4v6-framework", October 2008.
[I-D.bagnulo-behave-nat64]
Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "NAT64/DNS64:
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients
to IPv4 Servers", draft-bagnulo-behave-nat64-01 (work in
progress), September 2008.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2765] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
RFC 5382, October 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.petithuguenin-behave-stun-pmtud]
Petit-Huguenin, M., "Path MTU Discovery Using Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)",
draft-petithuguenin-behave-stun-pmtud-01 (work in
progress), July 2008.
[Miller] Miller, G., "Email to the ngtrans mailing list",
March 1999.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC2428] Allman, M., Ostermann, S., and C. Metz, "FTP Extensions
for IPv6 and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
September 2003.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
Authors' Addresses
Xing Li (editor)
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 62785983
Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
Congxiao Bao (editor)
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 62785983
Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
Fred Baker (editor)
Cisco Systems
Santa Barbara, California 93117
USA
Phone: +1-408-526-4257
Email: fred@cisco.com
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IPv4/IPv6 Translation October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Li, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 30]