Network Working Group J-S. Park
Request for Comments: 4489 M-K. Shin
Updates: 3306 H-J. Kim
Category: Standards Track ETRI
April 2006
Network Working Group J-S. Park
Request for Comments: 4489 M-K. Shin
Updates: 3306 H-J. Kim
Category: Standards Track ETRI
April 2006
A Method for Generating Link-Scoped IPv6 Multicast Addresses
一种生成链路作用域IPv6多播地址的方法
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
This document specifies an extension to the multicast addressing architecture of the IPv6 protocol. The extension allows the use of Interface Identifiers (IIDs) to allocate multicast addresses. When a link-local unicast address is configured at each interface of a node, an IID is uniquely determined. After that, each node can generate its unique multicast addresses automatically without conflicts. The alternative method for creating link-local multicast addresses proposed in this document is better than known methods like unicast-prefix-based IPv6 multicast addresses. This memo updates RFC 3306.
本文档指定了对IPv6协议的多播寻址体系结构的扩展。该扩展允许使用接口标识符（IID）来分配多播地址。当在节点的每个接口处配置链路本地单播地址时，唯一地确定IID。之后，每个节点可以自动生成其唯一的多播地址，而不会产生冲突。本文档中提出的创建链路本地多播地址的替代方法优于基于单播前缀的IPv6多播地址等已知方法。本备忘录更新了RFC3306。
Table of Contents:
目录：
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Applicability ...................................................2
3. Link-Scoped Multicast Address Format ............................3
4. Example .........................................................3
5. Consideration of Lifetime .......................................4
6. Security Considerations .........................................4
7. Acknowledgements ................................................4
8. References ......................................................5
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Applicability ...................................................2
3. Link-Scoped Multicast Address Format ............................3
4. Example .........................................................3
5. Consideration of Lifetime .......................................4
6. Security Considerations .........................................4
7. Acknowledgements ................................................4
8. References ......................................................5
This document defines an extension to the multicast portion of the IPv6 addressing architecture [RFC4291]. The current architecture does not contain any built-in support for dynamic address allocation. The extension allows for use of IIDs to allocate multicast addresses. When a link-local unicast address is configured at each interface of a node, an IID is uniquely determined. After that, each node can generate its unique multicast addresses automatically without conflicts. That is, these addresses could safely be configured at any time after Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) has completed.
本文档定义了IPv6寻址体系结构[RFC4291]的多播部分的扩展。当前体系结构不包含任何对动态地址分配的内置支持。扩展允许使用IID分配多播地址。当在节点的每个接口处配置链路本地单播地址时，唯一地确定IID。之后，每个节点可以自动生成其唯一的多播地址，而不会产生冲突。也就是说，在重复地址检测（DAD）完成后，可以随时安全地配置这些地址。
This method for the link-local scope is preferred over unicast-prefix-based IPv6 multicast addresses [RFC3306], since by delegating multicast addresses using the IID, each node can generate its multicast addresses automatically without allocation servers. This method works better than the unicast-prefix-based method with applications in serverless environments such as ad-hoc and network mobility. This document restricts the usage of defined fields such as the scop, plen, and network prefix fields of [RFC3306]. Therefore, this document specifies encoded information for link-local scope in multicast addresses.
这种用于链路本地作用域的方法优于基于单播前缀的IPv6多播地址[RFC3306]，因为通过使用IID委托多播地址，每个节点可以自动生成其多播地址，而无需分配服务器。这种方法比基于单播前缀的方法更适用于无服务器环境，如adhoc和网络移动性。本文档限制使用定义的字段，如[RFC3306]的scop、plen和网络前缀字段。因此，本文档指定了多播地址中链路本地作用域的编码信息。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
The allocation technique in this document is designed to be used in any environment in which link-local scope IPv6 multicast addresses are assigned or selected. This method goes especially well with nodes supplying multicast services in a zeroconf/serverless environment. For example, multicast addresses less than or equal to link-local scope are themselves generated by nodes supplying multicast services without conflicts. Also, hosts that are supplied multicast services from multicast servers then make multicast addresses of multicast servers using ND (address resolution) and well-known group IDs [RFC2461].
本文档中的分配技术设计用于分配或选择链路本地范围IPv6多播地址的任何环境。这种方法特别适用于在zeroconf/serverless环境中提供多播服务的节点。例如，小于或等于链路本地作用域的多播地址本身由提供多播服务的节点生成，没有冲突。使用多播地址解析的多播服务器组（RF46ND）和多播地址解析服务器也是众所周知的。
Consequently, this technique MUST only be used for link scoped multicast addresses. If you want to use multicast addresses greater than link-local scope, you need to use other methods as described in [RFC3306].
因此，这种技术只能用于链接范围的多播地址。如果要使用大于链路本地作用域的多播地址，则需要使用[RFC3306]中所述的其他方法。
This document specifies a new format that incorporates IID in the link-local scope multicast addresses.
本文档指定了一种新格式，该格式将IID合并到链路本地作用域多播地址中。
Figure 1 illustrates the new format for link-scoped multicast addresses.
图1说明了链接范围的多播地址的新格式。
| 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 64 | 32 |
+--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+
|11111111|flgs|scop|reserved| plen | IID | group ID |
+--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+
| 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 64 | 32 |
+--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+
|11111111|flgs|scop|reserved| plen | IID | group ID |
+--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+
Figure 1. Link-Scoped Multicast IPv6 Address Format
图1。链路作用域多播IPv6地址格式
The flgs, scop, and plen fields are used to identify whether an address is a multicast address, as follows:
flgs、scop和plen字段用于标识地址是否为多播地址，如下所示：
1. flgs MUST be "0011".
1. flgs必须为“0011”。
2. scop MUST be <= 2.
2. scop必须小于等于2。
3. The reserved field MUST be zero.
3. 保留字段必须为零。
4. The "plen" field is a special value, "1111 1111" (decimal 255).
4. “plen”字段是一个特殊值，“1111111”（十进制255）。
The IID field (replacing the 64-bit prefix field from [RFC3306]) is used to distinguish each node from others. Given the use of this method for link-local scope, the IID embedded in the multicast address MUST only come from the IID of the link-local unicast address on the interface after DAD has completed. That is, the creation of the multicast address MUST only occur after DAD has completed as part of the auto-configuration process.
IID字段（替换[RFC3306]中的64位前缀字段）用于区分每个节点与其他节点。如果将此方法用于链路本地作用域，则嵌入在多播地址中的IID只能来自DAD完成后接口上链路本地单播地址的IID。也就是说，多播地址的创建必须在DAD作为自动配置过程的一部分完成后进行。
Group ID is generated to indicate a multicast application and is used to guarantee its uniqueness only in the host. It may also be set on the basis of the guidelines outlined in [RFC3307].
生成组ID以指示多播应用程序，并用于保证其仅在主机中的唯一性。也可根据[RFC3307]中概述的指南进行设置。
In an Ethernet environment, if the link-local unicast address is FE80::A12:34FF:FE56:7890, the link-scoped multicast prefix of the node is FF32:00FF:A12:34FF:FE56:7890::/96.
在以太网环境中，如果链路本地单播地址为FE80:：A12:34FF:FE56:7890，则节点的链路作用域多播前缀为FF32:00FF:A12:34FF:FE56:7890:：/96。
Generally, link-scoped multicast addresses have no lifetime, because link-local unicast addresses also have no lifetime. However, this is not true in the mobile environment. Even though multicast addresses are created from the unique IIDs of unicast addresses, their useful lifetime is linked to the period during which the IID is known to be unique. Thus, conflict is possible between IIDs, due to a new node in merged network that uses the same IID as a powered node.
通常，链路范围的多播地址没有生存期，因为链路本地单播地址也没有生存期。然而，在移动环境中并非如此。尽管多播地址是从单播地址的唯一IID创建的，但它们的有效生存期与已知IID唯一的时间段相关联。因此，由于合并网络中的新节点使用与受电节点相同的IID，IID之间可能存在冲突。
In this scenario, DAD also fails to guarantee uniqueness of the unicast address, but this document does not try to address this issue.
在这种情况下，DAD也无法保证单播地址的唯一性，但本文档并没有试图解决这个问题。
The uniqueness of multicast addresses using this method is guaranteed by the DAD process. So, a secure DAD process is needed for stability of this method. This document proposes the mechanism in [RFC3041] for this purpose.
使用此方法的多播地址的唯一性由DAD进程保证。因此，需要一个安全的DAD过程来保证该方法的稳定性。本文件提出了[RFC3041]中用于此目的的机制。
[RFC3041] describes the privacy extension to IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration to configure the IID of non-link-local scope unicast addresses. [RFC3041] cannot be used for making a link-local unicast address, and hence it cannot be used to create an IID for link-scoped multicast address. However, as [RFC3041] does not protect the privacy of link-local unicast addresses, it does not seem to be required to protect the privacy of IID-based link-local multicast addresses.
[RFC3041]描述了IPv6无状态地址自动配置的隐私扩展，以配置非链路本地作用域单播地址的IID。[RFC3041]不能用于生成链接本地单播地址，因此不能用于为链接范围的多播地址创建IID。然而，由于[RFC3041]不保护链路本地单播地址的隐私，因此似乎不需要保护基于IID的链路本地多播地址的隐私。
We would like to thank Dave Thaler and Brian Haberman for their comments related to the consistency between the unicast prefix-based multicast document and this one. Special thanks are due to Erik Nordmark and Pekka Savola for valuable comments.
我们要感谢Dave Thaler和Brian Haberman就基于单播前缀的多播文档与此文档之间的一致性发表的评论。特别感谢Erik Nordmark和Pekka Savola提出的宝贵意见。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998..ti 3
[RFC2461]Narten，T.，Nordmark，E.，和W.Simpson，“IP版本6（IPv6）的邻居发现”，RFC2461，1998年12月..ti 3
[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。
[RFC3306] Haberman, B. and D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast Addresses", RFC 3306, August 2002.
[RFC3306]Haberman，B.和D.Thaler，“基于单播前缀的IPv6多播地址”，RFC3306，2002年8月。
[RFC3307] Haberman, B., "Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast Addresses", RFC 3307, August 2002.
[RFC3307]Haberman，B.，“IPv6多播地址的分配指南”，RFC3307，2002年8月。
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4291]Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“IP版本6寻址体系结构”，RFC 42912006年2月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Jung-Soo Park ETRI PEC 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-350, Korea
韩国大田裕盛谷正秀公园ETRI PEC 161号加田洞305-350
Phone: +82 42 860 6514
EMail: pjs@etri.re.kr
Phone: +82 42 860 6514
EMail: pjs@etri.re.kr
Myung-Ki Shin ETRI PEC 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-350, Korea
Myung Ki Shin ETRI PEC 161韩国大田裕祥谷关津洞305-350
Phone: +82 42 860 4847
EMail: myungki.shin@gmail.com
Phone: +82 42 860 4847
EMail: myungki.shin@gmail.com
Hyoung-Jun Kim ETRI PEC 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-350, Korea
韩国大田裕成谷加田洞161号Hyung Jun Kim ETRI PEC 305-350
Phone: +82 42 860 6576
EMail: khj@etri.re.kr
Phone: +82 42 860 6576
EMail: khj@etri.re.kr
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
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.
本文件受BCP 78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。
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 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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
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 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。