Network Working Group                                         F. Templin
Request for Comments: 4214                                         Nokia
Category: Experimental                                        T. Gleeson
                                                      Cisco Systems K.K.
                                                               M. Talwar
                                                               D. Thaler
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                            October 2005
Network Working Group                                         F. Templin
Request for Comments: 4214                                         Nokia
Category: Experimental                                        T. Gleeson
                                                      Cisco Systems K.K.
                                                               M. Talwar
                                                               D. Thaler
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                            October 2005

Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)


Status of This Memo


This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.


Copyright Notice


Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).




The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF, and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a published IETF work. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose, and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this RFC should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.

IETF曾考虑过本RFC的内容,因此它可能类似于当前正在进行的IETF工作或已发布的IETF工作。本RFC不适用于任何级别的互联网标准。IETF不承认本RFC适用于任何目的的任何知识,特别注意到,发布决定并非基于IETF对安全、拥塞控制或与已部署协议的不当交互等事项的审查。RFC编辑已自行决定发布本文件。本RFC的读者应谨慎评估其实施和部署价值。有关更多信息,请参阅RFC 3932。



The Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) connects IPv6 hosts/routers over IPv4 networks. ISATAP views the IPv4 network as a link layer for IPv6 and views other nodes on the network as potential IPv6 hosts/routers. ISATAP supports an automatic tunneling abstraction similar to the Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) model.


1. Introduction
1. 介绍

This document specifies a simple mechanism called the Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) that connects IPv6 hosts/routers over IPv4 networks. Dual-stack (IPv6/IPv4) nodes use ISATAP to automatically tunnel IPv6 packets in IPv4, i.e., ISATAP views the IPv4 network as a link layer for IPv6 and views other nodes on the network as potential IPv6 hosts/routers.


ISATAP enables automatic tunneling whether global or private IPv4 addresses are used, and presents a Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) abstraction similar to [RFC2491][RFC2492][RFC2529][RFC3056].


The main objectives of this document are to: 1) describe the domain of applicability, 2) specify addressing requirements, 3) specify automatic tunneling using ISATAP, 4) specify the operation of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery over ISATAP interfaces, and 5) discuss Site Administration, Security, and IANA considerations.


2. Requirements
2. 要求

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 [BCP14].


This document also uses internal conceptual variables to describe protocol behavior and external variables that an implementation must allow system administrators to change. The specific variable names, how their values change, and how their settings influence protocol behavior are provided in order to demonstrate protocol behavior. An implementation is not required to have them in the exact form described here, as long as its external behavior is consistent with that described in this document.


3. Terminology
3. 术语

The terminology of [RFC2460][RFC2461] applies to this document. The following additional terms are defined:


ISATAP node: A node that implements the specifications in this document.


ISATAP interface: An ISATAP node's Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) IPv6 interface, used for automatic tunneling of IPv6 packets in IPv4.


ISATAP interface identifier: An IPv6 interface identifier with an embedded IPv4 address constructed as specified in Section 6.1.


ISATAP address: An IPv6 unicast address that matches an on-link prefix on an ISATAP interface of the node, and that includes an ISATAP interface identifier.


locator: An IPv4 address-to-interface mapping; i.e., a node's IPv4 address and its associated interface.

定位器:IPv4地址到接口的映射;i、 例如,节点的IPv4地址及其关联接口。

locator set: A set of locators associated with an ISATAP interface. Each locator in the set belongs to the same site.


4. Domain of Applicability
4. 适用范围

The domain of applicability for this technical specification is automatic tunneling of IPv6 packets in IPv4 for ISATAP nodes within sites that observe the security considerations found in this document, including host-to-router, router-to-host, and host-to-host automatic tunneling in certain enterprise networks and 3GPP/3GPP2 wireless operator networks. (Other scenarios with a sufficient trust basis ensured by the mechanisms specified in this document also fall within this domain of applicability.)


Extensions to the above domain of applicability (e.g., by combining the mechanisms in this document with those in other technical specifications) are out of the scope of this document.


5. Node Requirements
5. 节点要求

ISATAP nodes observe the common functionality requirements for IPv6 nodes found in [NODEREQ] and the requirements for dual IP layer operation found in ([MECH], Section 2). They also implement the additional features specified in this document.


6. Addressing Requirements
6. 满足要求
6.1. ISATAP Interface Identifiers
6.1. ISATAP接口标识符

ISATAP interface identifiers are constructed in Modified EUI-64 format ([RFC3513], Section 2.5.1 and Appendix A) by concatenating the 24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E), the 8-bit hexadecimal value 0xFE, and a 32-bit IPv4 address in network byte order as follows:

ISATAP接口标识符采用修改后的EUI-64格式([RFC3513],第2.5.1节和附录A)构建,通过按网络字节顺序连接24位IANA OUI(00-00-5E)、8位十六进制值0xFE和32位IPv4地址,如下所示:

   |0              1|1              3|3                              6|
   |0              5|6              1|2                              3|
   |0              1|1              3|3                              6|
   |0              5|6              1|2                              3|

When the IPv4 address is known to be globally unique, the "u" bit (universal/local) is set to 1; otherwise, the "u" bit is set to 0. "g" is the individual/group bit, and "m" are the bits of the IPv4 address.


6.2. ISATAP Interface Address Configuration
6.2. ISATAP接口地址配置

Each ISATAP interface configures a set of locators consisting of IPv4 address-to-interface mappings from a single site; i.e., an ISATAP interface's locator set MUST NOT span multiple sites.

每个ISATAP接口配置一组定位器,由单个站点的IPv4地址到接口映射组成;i、 例如,ISATAP接口的定位器集不得跨越多个站点。

When an IPv4 address is removed from an interface, the corresponding locator SHOULD be removed from its associated locator set(s). When a new IPv4 address is assigned to an interface, the corresponding locator MAY be added to the appropriate locator set(s).


ISATAP interfaces form ISATAP interface identifiers from IPv4 addresses in their locator set and use them to create link-local ISATAP addresses ([RFC2462], Section 5.3).


6.3. Multicast/Anycast
6.3. 多播/选播

It is not possible to assume the general availability of wide-area IPv4 multicast, so (unlike 6over4 [RFC2529]) ISATAP must assume that its underlying IPv4 carrier network only has unicast capability. Support for IPv6 multicast over ISATAP interfaces is not described in this document.


Similarly, support for Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses is not described in this document.


7. Automatic Tunneling
7. 自动隧道

ISATAP interfaces use the basic tunneling mechanisms specified in ([MECH], Section 3). The following sub-sections describe additional specifications.


7.1. Encapsulation
7.1. 封装

ISATAP addresses are mapped to a link-layer address by a static computation; i.e., the last four octets are treated as an IPv4 address.

ISATAP地址通过静态计算映射到链路层地址;i、 例如,最后四个八位字节被视为IPv4地址。

7.2. Handling ICMPv4 Errors
7.2. 处理ICMPv4错误

ISATAP interfaces SHOULD process ARP failures and persistent ICMPv4 errors as link-specific information indicating that a path to a neighbor may have failed ([RFC2461], Section 7.3.3).


7.3. Decapsulation
7.3. 脱封

The specification in ([MECH], Section 3.6) is used. Additionally, when an ISATAP node receives an IPv4 protocol 41 datagram that does not belong to a configured tunnel interface, it determines whether the packet's IPv4 destination address and arrival interface match a locator configured in an ISATAP interface's locator set.


If an ISATAP interface that configures a matching locator is found, the decapsulator MUST verify that the packet's IPv4 source address is correct for the encapsulated IPv6 source address. The IPv4 source address is correct if:


- the IPv6 source address is an ISATAP address that embeds the IPv4 source address in its interface identifier, or

- IPv6源地址是将IPv4源地址嵌入其接口标识符的ISATAP地址,或

- the IPv4 source address is a member of the Potential Router List (see Section 8.1).

- IPv4源地址是潜在路由器列表的成员(参见第8.1节)。

Packets for which the IPv4 source address is incorrect for this ISATAP interface are checked to determine whether they belong to another tunnel interface.


7.4. Link-Local Addresses
7.4. 链接本地地址

ISATAP interfaces use link-local addresses constructed as specified in Section 6 of this document.


7.5. Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels
7.5. 隧道上的邻居发现

ISATAP interfaces use the specifications for neighbor discovery found in the following section of this document.


8. Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces
8. ISATAP接口的邻居发现

ISATAP interfaces use the neighbor discovery mechanisms specified in [RFC2461]. The following sub-sections describe specifications that are also implemented.


8.1. Conceptual Model of a Host
8.1. 主机的概念模型

To the list of Conceptual Data Structures ([RFC2461], Section 5.1), ISATAP interfaces add the following:


Potential Router List (PRL) A set of entries about potential routers; used to support router and prefix discovery. Each entry ("PRL(i)") has an associated timer ("TIMER(i)"), and an IPv4 address ("V4ADDR(i)") that represents a router's advertising ISATAP interface.


8.2. Router and Prefix Discovery - Router Specification
8.2. 路由器和前缀发现.路由器规范

Advertising ISATAP interfaces send Solicited Router Advertisement messages as specified in ([RFC2461], Section 6.2.6) except that the messages are sent directly to the soliciting node; i.e., they might not be received by other nodes on the link.

广告ISATAP接口发送([RFC2461],第6.2.6节)中规定的请求路由器广告消息,除非消息直接发送到请求节点;i、 例如,它们可能不会被链路上的其他节点接收。

8.3. Router and Prefix Discovery - Host Specification
8.3. 路由器和前缀发现-主机规范

The Host Specification in ([RFC2461], Section 6.3) is used. The following sub-sections describe specifications added by ISATAP interfaces.


8.3.1. Host Variables
8.3.1. 主变量

To the list of host variables ([RFC2461], Section 6.3.2), ISATAP interfaces add the following:


PrlRefreshInterval Time in seconds between successive refreshments of the PRL after initialization. The designated value of all ones (0xffffffff) represents infinity. Default: 3600 seconds


MinRouterSolicitInterval Minimum time in seconds between successive solicitations of the same advertising ISATAP interface. The designated value of all ones (0xffffffff) represents infinity.


8.3.2. Potential Router List Initialization
8.3.2. 潜在路由器列表初始化

ISATAP nodes initialize an ISATAP interface's PRL with IPv4 addresses discovered via manual configuration, a DNS Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) [STD13], a DHCPv4 option, a DHCPv4 vendor-specific option, or an unspecified alternate method. FQDNs are established via manual configuration or an unspecified alternate method. FQDNs are resolved into IPv4 addresses through a static host file lookup,


querying the DNS service, querying a site-specific name service, or with an unspecified alternate method.


After initializing an ISATAP interface's PRL, the node sets a timer for the interface to PrlRefreshInterval seconds and re-initializes the interface's PRL as specified above when the timer expires. When an FQDN is used, and when it is resolved via a service that includes TTLs with the IPv4 addresses returned (e.g., DNS 'A' resource records [STD13]), the timer SHOULD be set to the minimum of PrlRefreshInterval and the minimum TTL returned. (Zero-valued TTLs are interpreted to mean that the PRL is re-initialized before each Router Solicitation event; see Section 8.3.4.)


8.3.3. Processing Received Router Advertisements
8.3.3. 处理收到的路由器广告

To the list of checks for validating Router Advertisement messages ([RFC2461], Section 6.1.1), ISATAP interfaces add the following:


- IP Source Address is a link-local ISATAP address that embeds V4ADDR(i) for some PRL(i).

- IP源地址是一个链接本地ISATAP地址,它为某些PRL(i)嵌入了V4ADDR(i)。

Valid Router Advertisements received on an ISATAP interface are processed as specified in ([RFC2461], Section 6.3.4).


8.3.4. Sending Router Solicitations
8.3.4. 发送路由器请求

To the list of events after which Router Solicitation messages may be sent ([RFC2461], Section 6.3.7), ISATAP interfaces add the following:


- TIMER(i) for some PRL(i) expires.

- 某些PRL(i)的计时器(i)过期。

Since unsolicited Router Advertisements may be incomplete and/or absent, ISATAP nodes MAY schedule periodic Router Solicitation events for certain PRL(i)s by setting the corresponding TIMER(i).


When periodic Router Solicitation events are scheduled, the node SHOULD set TIMER(i) so that the next event will refresh remaining lifetimes stored for PRL(i) before they expire, including the Router Lifetime, Valid Lifetimes received in Prefix Information Options, and Route Lifetimes received in Route Information Options [DEFLT]. TIMER(i) MUST be set to no less than MinRouterSolicitInterval seconds where MinRouterSolicitInterval is configurable for the node, or for a specific PRL(i), with a conservative default value (e.g., 2 minutes).


When TIMER(i) expires, the node sends Router Solicitation messages as specified in ([RFC2461], Section 6.3.7) except that the messages are sent directly to PRL(i); i.e., they might not be received by other routers. While the node continues to require periodic Router

当计时器(i)到期时,节点发送([RFC2461],第6.3.7节)中规定的路由器请求消息,但消息直接发送给PRL(i);i、 例如,它们可能不会被其他路由器接收。而节点继续需要定期路由器

Solicitation events for PRL(i), and while PRL(i) continues to act as a router, the node resets TIMER(i) after each expiration event as described above.


8.4. Neighbor Unreachability Detection
8.4. 邻居不可达性检测

Hosts SHOULD perform Neighbor Unreachability Detection ([RFC2461], Section 7.3). Routers MAY perform neighbor unreachability detection, but this might not scale in all environments.


After address resolution, hosts SHOULD perform an initial reachability confirmation by sending Neighbor Solicitation messages and receiving a Neighbor Advertisement message. Routers MAY perform this initial reachability confirmation, but this might not scale in all environments.


9. Site Administration Considerations
9. 现场管理注意事项

Site administrators maintain a Potential Router List (PRL) of IPv4 addresses representing advertising ISATAP interfaces of routers.


The PRL is commonly maintained as an FQDN for the ISATAP service in the site's name service (see Section 8.3.2). There are no mandatory rules for the selection of the FQDN, but site administrators are encouraged to use the convention "isatap.domainname" (e.g.,


When the site's name service includes TTLs with the IPv4 addresses returned, site administrators SHOULD configure the TTLs with conservative values to minimize control traffic.


10. Security Considerations
10. 安全考虑

Implementors should be aware that, in addition to possible attacks against IPv6, security attacks against IPv4 must also be considered. Use of IP security at both IPv4 and IPv6 levels should nevertheless be avoided, for efficiency reasons. For example, if IPv6 is running encrypted, encryption of IPv4 would be redundant unless traffic analysis is felt to be a threat. If IPv6 is running authenticated, then authentication of IPv4 will add little. Conversely, IPv4 security will not protect IPv6 traffic once it leaves the ISATAP domain. Therefore, implementing IPv6 security is required even if IPv4 security is available.


The threats associated with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery are described in [RFC3756].


There is a possible spoofing attack in which spurious ip-protocol-41 packets are injected into an ISATAP link from outside. Since an ISATAP link spans an entire IPv4 site, restricting access to the link can be achieved by restricting access to the site; i.e., by having site border routers implement IPv4 ingress filtering and ip-protocol-41 filtering.

存在一种可能的欺骗攻击,其中虚假ip-protocol-41数据包从外部注入ISATAP链路。由于ISATAP链路跨越整个IPv4站点,因此可以通过限制对该站点的访问来限制对该链路的访问;i、 例如,通过让站点边界路由器实现IPv4入口过滤和ip协议41过滤。

Another possible spoofing attack involves spurious ip-protocol-41 packets injected from within an ISATAP link by a node pretending to be a router. The Potential Router List (PRL) provides a list of IPv4 addresses representing advertising ISATAP interfaces of routers that hosts use in filtering decisions. Site administrators should ensure that the PRL is kept up to date, and that the resolution mechanism (see Section 9) cannot be subverted.


The use of temporary addresses [RFC3041] and Cryptographically Generated Addresses [CGA] on ISATAP interfaces is outside the scope of this specification.


11. IANA Considerations
11. IANA考虑

The IANA has specified the format for Modified EUI-64 address construction ([RFC3513], Appendix A) in the IANA Ethernet Address Block. The text in Appendix A of this document has been offered as an example specification. The current version of the IANA registry for Ether Types can be accessed at:

12. Acknowledgements
12. 致谢

The ideas in this document are not original, and the authors acknowledge the original architects. Portions of this work were sponsored through SRI International internal projects and government contracts. Government sponsors include Monica Farah-Stapleton and Russell Langan (U.S. Army CECOM ASEO), and Dr. Allen Moshfegh (U.S. Office of Naval Research). SRI International sponsors include Dr. Mike Frankel, J. Peter Marcotullio, Lou Rodriguez, and Dr. Ambatipudi Sastry.

本文件中的想法并非原创,作者承认原创建筑师。这项工作的一部分是通过SRI国际内部项目和政府合同赞助的。政府赞助商包括莫妮卡·法拉·斯泰普顿(Monica Farah Stapleton)和拉塞尔·兰根(Russell Langan)(美国陆军CECOM ASEO)以及艾伦·莫斯菲格(Allen Moshfegh)博士(美国海军研究办公室)。SRI国际赞助商包括Mike Frankel博士、J.Peter Marcotullio、Lou Rodriguez和Ambatipudi Sastry博士。

The following are acknowledged for providing peer review input: Jim Bound, Rich Draves, Cyndi Jung, Ambatipudi Sastry, Aaron Schrader, Ole Troan, and Vlad Yasevich.


The following are acknowledged for their significant contributions: Alain Durand, Hannu Flinck, Jason Goldschmidt, Nathan Lutchansky, Karen Nielsen, Mohan Parthasarathy, Chirayu Patel, Art Shelest, Markku Savela, Pekka Savola, Margaret Wasserman, and Brian Zill.


The authors acknowledge the work of Quang Nguyen on "Virtual Ethernet", under the guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang, that proposed very similar ideas to those that appear in this document. This work was first brought to the authors' attention on September 20, 2002.


Appendix A. Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet Address Block


Modified EUI-64 addresses ([RFC3513], Section 2.5.1 and Appendix A) in the IANA Ethernet Address Block are formed by concatenating the 24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E) with a 40-bit extension identifier and inverting the "u" bit; i.e., the "u" bit is set to one (1) to indicate universal scope and set to zero (0) to indicate local scope.

IANA以太网地址块中修改的EUI-64地址([RFC3513],第2.5.1节和附录A)通过将24位IANA OUI(00-00-5E)与40位扩展标识符连接并反转“u”位形成;i、 例如,“u”位设置为一(1)表示通用范围,设置为零(0)表示局部范围。

Modified EUI-64 addresses have the following appearance in memory (bits transmitted right-to-left within octets, octets transmitted left-to-right):


0 23 63 | OUI | extension identifier | 000000ug00000000 01011110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


When the first two octets of the extension identifier encode the hexadecimal value 0xFFFE, the remainder of the extension identifier encodes a 24-bit vendor-supplied id as follows:


0 23 39 63 | OUI | 0xFFFE | vendor-supplied id | 000000ug00000000 0101111011111111 11111110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

0 23 39 63 | OUI | 0xFFFE |供应商提供的id | 000000 UG00000000 0101111111111111111111111111 0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When the first octet of the extension identifier encodes the hexadecimal value 0xFE, the remainder of the extension identifier encodes a 32-bit IPv4 address as follows:


0 23 31 63 | OUI | 0xFE | IPv4 address | 000000ug00000000 0101111011111110 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

0 23 31 63 | OUI | 0xFE | IPv4地址| 000000 UG00000000 01011111111110 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Normative References


[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[BCP14]Bradner,S.,“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”,BCP 14,RFC 2119,1997年3月。

[STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

[STD13]Mockapetris,P.,“域名-实现和规范”,STD 13,RFC 1035,1987年11月。

[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

[RFC2460]Deering,S.和R.Hinden,“互联网协议,第6版(IPv6)规范”,RFC 2460,1998年12月。

[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.


[RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.


[RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

[RFC3513]Hinden,R.和S.Deering,“互联网协议版本6(IPv6)寻址体系结构”,RFC 3513,2003年4月。

[MECH] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

[MECH]Nordmark,E.和R.Gilligan,“IPv6主机和路由器的基本转换机制”,RFC 4213,2005年10月。

Informative References


[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC 2491, January 1999.

[RFC2491]Armitage,G.,Schulter,P.,Jork,M.,和G.Harter,“非广播多址(NBMA)网络上的IPv6”,RFC 2491,1999年1月。

[RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.

[RFC2492]Armitage,G.,Schulter,P.,和M.Jork,“ATM网络上的IPv6”,RFC 2492,1999年1月。

[RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.

[RFC2529]Carpenter,B.和C.Jung,“在没有明确隧道的IPv4域上传输IPv6”,RFC 2529,1999年3月。

[RFC3041] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001.

[RFC3041]Narten,T.和R.Draves,“IPv6中无状态地址自动配置的隐私扩展”,RFC 3041,2001年1月。

[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

[RFC3056]Carpenter,B.和K.Moore,“通过IPv4云连接IPv6域”,RFC 3056,2001年2月。

[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 2004.

[RFC3756]Nikander,P.,Kempf,J.,和E.Nordmark,“IPv6邻居发现(ND)信任模型和威胁”,RFC 37562004年5月。

[CGA] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC 3972, March 2005.

[CGA]Aura,T.,“加密生成地址(CGA)”,RFC 39722005年3月。

[DEFLT] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes", Work in Progress, December 2003.


[NODEREQ] Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", Work in Progress, May 2004.


Authors' Addresses


Fred L. Templin Nokia 313 Fairchild Drive Mountain View, CA 94110 US

Fred L.Templin诺基亚313飞兆半导体山景大道,加利福尼亚州94110美国


Tim Gleeson Cisco Systems K.K. Shinjuku Mitsui Building 2-1-1 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 163-0409 Japan

Tim Gleeson Cisco Systems K.K.新宿三井大厦2-1-1-1号,新宿东京163-0409


Mohit Talwar Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-6399 US

Mohit Talwar微软公司美国华盛顿州雷德蒙微软大道一号,邮编:98052-6399

   Phone: +1 425 705 3131
   Phone: +1 425 705 3131

Dave Thaler Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-6399 US

Dave Thaler微软公司美国华盛顿州雷德蒙微软大道一号98052-6399

   Phone: +1 425 703 8835
   Phone: +1 425 703 8835

Full Copyright Statement


Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).


This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and at, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

本文件受BCP 78和中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束,除其中规定外,作者保留其所有权利。



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.

IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围,或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度,不采取任何立场;它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息,请参见BCP 78和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


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




Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.