Network Working Group C. Huitema
Internet-Draft Microsoft Corporation
Obsoletes: 2765 (if approved) C. Bao
Intended status: Standards Track CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Expires: June 17, 2010 M. Bagnulo
UC3M
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
X. Li
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
December 14, 2009
IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-02.txt
Abstract
This document discusses the algorithmic translated 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 to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 June 17, 2010.
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Applicability Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IPv4 Embedded IPv6 Address Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Text Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Deployment Guidelines and Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Deployment Using the Well-Known Prefix . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Impact on Inter-Domain Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Choice of Prefix for Stateless Translation Deployments . . 7
3.4. Choice of Prefix for Stateful Translation Deployments . . 8
3.5. Choice of Suffix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Choice of the Well-Known Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Protection Against Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Secure Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
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.
This document reserves a "Well-Known Prefix" for use in an
algorithmic mapping. The value of this IPv6 prefix is:
64:FF9B::/96
Section 2 describes the format of "IPv4 Embedded IPv6 addresses",
i.e. - IPv6 addresses in which 32 bits contain an IPv4 address.
Section 3 discusses the choice of prefixes, the use of the Well-Known
Prefix, and the use of embedded addresses with stateless and stateful
translation.
Section 4 discusses security concerns.
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. Notations
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.
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
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. These addresses can be used to represent
IPv4 hosts to hosts in an IPv6 network. Their format is described
in Section 2.
IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses: IPv6 addresses assigned to IPv6
hosts for use with stateless translation. They are a variant of
embedded addresses, and follow the format described in Section 2.
2. IPv4 Embedded IPv6 Address Format
IPv4 Embedded IPv6 Addresses are composed of a 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) |
+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
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.
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
Various deployments justify different prefix lengths. 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 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:
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 a zero.
2.1. 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.
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
+-----------------------+------------+------------------------------+
| Prefix | IPv4 | IPv4 embedded IPv6 address |
| | address | |
+-----------------------+------------+------------------------------+
| 2001:DB8:100::/32 | 13.1.68.3 | 2001:DB8:D01:4403:: |
| 2001:DB8:100::/40 | 13.1.68.3 | 2001:DB8:10D:0144:3:: |
| 2001:DB8:102::/48 | 13.1.68.3 | 2001:DB8:102:D01:44:300:: |
| 2001:DB8:102::/48 | 13.1.68.3 | 2001:DB8:102:D01:44:300:: |
| 2001:DB8:102:300::/56 | 13.1.68.3 | 2001:DB8:102:30D:1:4403:: |
| 2001:DB8:102:304::/64 | 13.1.68.3 | 2001:DB8:102:304:D:144:300:: |
| 2001:DB8:102:304::/96 | 13.1.68.3 | 2001:DB8:102:304::13.1.68.3 |
| 64:FF9B::/96 | 13.1.68.3 | 64:FF9B::13.1.68.3 |
+-----------------------+------------+------------------------------+
Table 1: Text representation of IPv4 embedded IPv6 addresses
The Network Specific Prefixes in Table 1 are derived from the IPv6
Prefix reserved for doocumentation in [RFC3849].
3. Deployment Guidelines and Choices
3.1. Deployment Using the Well-Known Prefix
The Well-Known Prefix MAY be used by organizations deploying
translation services.
The Well-Known Prefix SHOULD NOT be used to construct IPv4
translatable addresses. The host served by IPv4 translatable IPv6
addresses should be able to receive 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, and this kind of specific prefix advertisement is not
supported with the Well-Known Prefix, as explained in Section 3.2.
The Well-Known Prefix MUST NOT be used to represent non global IPv4
addresses, such as those defined in [RFC1918]. Doing so would
introduce ambiguous IPv6 addresses.
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
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
in inter-domain routing MUST be able to provide IPv4/IPv6 address
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 IPv4 routing table into IPv6 one and therefore induces
scalability issues to the global IPv6 routing table. Adjacent BGP
speakers MUST ignore advertisements of embedded IPv6 prefixes longer
than the Well-Known Prefix. BGP speakers SHOULD be able to be
configured with the default Well-Known Prefix.
When the IPv4/IPv6 translation service relies on Network Specific
Prefixes and stateless translation is used, the IPv4-translatable
IPv6 prefixes 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
Organization may deploy translation services using stateless
translation. In these deployments, internal IPv6 hosts are addressed
using "IPv4 translatable" IPv6 addresses, which enable them to be
accessed by IPv4 hosts. The addresses of these external hosts are
then represented in "IPv4 Embedded" IPv6 addresses.
Organizations deploying stateless IPv4/IPv6 translation SHOULD assign
a Network Specific Prefix to their IPv4/IPv6 translation service.
"IPv4 translatable" and "IPv4 Embedded" addresses MUST be constructed
as specified in Section 2. IPv4 translatable IPv6 addresses MUST use
the selected Network Specific Prefix. Both types of addresses SHOULD
use the same prefix. Using the same prefix ensures that internal
IPv6 hosts will use the most efficient paths to reach the hosts
served by "IPv4 translatable" addresses.
The intra-domain routing protocol must be able to deliver packets to
the hosts 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.
Forwarding, and reverse path checks, should be performed on the
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. But routing
efficiency is not the only consideration in the choice of a prefix
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
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 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 checks limited to the most significant bits of
the IPv4 address will reduce the possibility of spoofing external
IPv4 address, but would allow IPv6 hosts to spoof internal IPv4
translatable 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 ISP,
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 IPv4 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 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.
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.
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
When these services are used, IPv6 hosts are addressed through
standard IPv6 addresses, while IPv4 hosts are represented by IPv4
embedded addresses, as specified in Section 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
mitigated 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 most 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 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.
The "neutrality checksum" option would give a chosen value to 16 of
the suffix bits to ensure that the "IPv4 embedded" IPv6 address has
the same 16 bit 1's complement checksum as the embedded IPv4 address.
There have been discussion of this checksum in the working group
mailing list, and some push to standardize a checksum format.
However, we observed that a neutral checksum alone does not eliminate
checksums computation during stateful translation, as only one of the
two addresses would be checksum neutral. In the case of stateless
translation, translators may want to recompute the checksum anyhow,
to verify the validity of the translated datagrams. In the case of
stateful translation, the Well Known Prefix was chosen to provide
checksum neutrality. We thus chose the simplest alternative, to not
specify a neutrality checksum.
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 hosts to share
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
an IPv4 address, with each host managing a different range of ports.
But these schemes are not yet specified in work group documents. 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 IPv4 translatable node 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 will require minimal
standardization efforts. However, being already defined is not just
and 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 hosts
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
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
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 complement to 1 arithmetic. An
IPv4 embedded IPv6 address constructed with this prefix will have the
same complement to 1 checksum as the embedded IPv4 address.
4. Security Considerations
4.1. Protection Against Spoofing
By and large, address 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 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
throughout the network that packets are coming from an authorized
location.
4.2. Secure Configuration
The prefixes and formats need to be the configured consistently among
multiple devices in the same network (e.g., hosts that need to prefer
native over translated addresses, DNS gateways, and IPv4/IPv6
translators). As such, the means by which they are learned/
configured MUST be secure. Specifying a default prefix and/or format
in implementations provides one way to configure them securely. Any
alternative means of configuration is responsible for specifying how
to do so securely.
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
5. IANA Considerations
The Well Known Prefix falls into the range ::/8 reserved by the IETF.
The prefix definition does not require an IANA action.
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.
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
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
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[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-dns64-02 (work in progress),
October 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.
[RFC2765] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.
[RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address
Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766,
February 2000.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, 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.
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Christian Huitema
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
U.S.A.
Email: huitema@microsoft.com
Congxiao Bao
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 10-62785983
Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
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
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators December 2009
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
3, Av Francois Chateaux
Rennes 350000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
Xing Li
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084
China
Phone: +86 10-62785983
Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
Huitema, et al. Expires June 17, 2010 [Page 16]
