Network Working Group S. Krishnan
Request for Comments: 5453 Ericsson
Category: Standards Track February 2009
Network Working Group S. Krishnan
Request for Comments: 5453 Ericsson
Category: Standards Track February 2009
Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers
保留IPv6接口标识符
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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2009 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/ 许可证信息）在本文件发布之日生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Abstract
摘要
Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique within a subnet. Several RFCs have specified interface identifiers or identifier ranges that have a special meaning attached to them. An IPv6 node autoconfiguring an interface identifier in these ranges will encounter unexpected consequences. Since there is no centralized repository for such reserved identifiers, this document aims to create one.
IPv6单播地址中的接口标识符用于标识链路上的接口。它们在子网中必须是唯一的。一些RFC具有指定的接口标识符或标识符范围，这些标识符或范围具有特殊含义。IPv6节点在这些范围内自动配置接口标识符将遇到意外后果。由于没有此类保留标识符的集中存储库，本文档旨在创建一个。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Applicability ..............................................2
1.2. Requirements Notation ......................................3
2. Issues with Reusing Reserved Interface Identifiers ..............3
2.1. Possible Solutions .........................................3
3. IANA Considerations .............................................3
4. Acknowledgements ................................................4
5. Security Considerations .........................................4
6. References ......................................................5
6.1. Normative References .......................................5
6.2. Informative References .....................................5
Appendix A. List of Potentially Affected RFCs ......................6
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Applicability ..............................................2
1.2. Requirements Notation ......................................3
2. Issues with Reusing Reserved Interface Identifiers ..............3
2.1. Possible Solutions .........................................3
3. IANA Considerations .............................................3
4. Acknowledgements ................................................4
5. Security Considerations .........................................4
6. References ......................................................5
6.1. Normative References .......................................5
6.2. Informative References .....................................5
Appendix A. List of Potentially Affected RFCs ......................6
An IPv6 unicast address is composed of two parts: a subnet prefix and an interface identifier (IID) that identifies a unique interface within the subnet prefix. The structure of an IPv6 unicast address is depicted in "IPv6 Addressing Architecture" [RFC4291] and is replicated here for clarity.
IPv6单播地址由两部分组成：子网前缀和标识子网前缀内唯一接口的接口标识符（IID）。IPv6单播地址的结构在“IPv6寻址体系结构”[RFC4291]中进行了描述，为清晰起见，此处对其进行了复制。
| n bits | 128-n bits |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| subnet prefix | interface ID |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| n bits | 128-n bits |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| subnet prefix | interface ID |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Figure 1: IPv6 Unicast Address Format
图1:IPv6单播地址格式
For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format [RFC4291]. Examples of mechanisms that generate interface identifiers without a unique token include Cryptographically Generated Addresses [RFC3972], Privacy Addresses [RFC4941], Hash-Based Addresses [HBA], etc. Non-unique interface identifiers can also be allocated using managed address assignment mechanisms like DHCPv6 (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6) [RFC3315].
对于所有单播地址（以二进制值000开头的地址除外），接口ID要求为64位长，并以修改的EUI-64格式构造[RFC4291]。生成无唯一令牌的接口标识符的机制示例包括加密生成的地址[RFC3972]、隐私地址[RFC4941]、基于哈希的地址[HBA]等。非唯一接口标识符也可以使用托管地址分配机制（如DHCPv6）进行分配（IPv6的动态主机配置协议）[RFC3315]。
This document applies only to interface identifiers that are formed in the modified EUI-64 format as defined in Appendix A of [RFC4291]. All other types of interface identifiers are out of its scope.
本文件仅适用于以[RFC4291]附录A中定义的修改EUI-64格式形成的接口标识符。所有其他类型的接口标识符都超出其范围。
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。
Let us assume a node comes up with an interface identifier that has been reserved for use in some other capacity, e.g., an IPv6 node that uses temporary IPv6 addresses [RFC4941] comes up with an IID of fdff:ffff:ffff:ffff. This node will receive requests from all nodes that are requesting a service from a Mobile IPv6 home agent since the above-mentioned interface identifier has been reserved in [RFC2526] to serve as a MIPv6 home agent's anycast address. At best, this is an annoyance to the node that came up with this address. At worst, another node on the link would be denied service and may not look for other methods of acquiring a home agent. Thus, such reserved interface identifiers MUST NOT be used for autonomous autoconfiguration or for managed address configuration.
让我们假设一个节点产生了一个接口标识符，该标识符已被保留用于某些其他容量，例如，使用临时IPv6地址[RFC4941]的IPv6节点产生了一个fdff:ffff:ffff:ffff的IID。由于[RFC2526]中已保留了上述接口标识符，以用作MIPv6归属代理的选播地址，因此该节点将接收所有从移动IPv6归属代理请求服务的节点发出的请求。充其量，这对产生此地址的节点来说是一个麻烦。在最坏的情况下，链路上的另一个节点将被拒绝服务，并且可能不会寻找获取归属代理的其他方法。因此，此类保留接口标识符不得用于自动配置或托管地址配置。
There are two possible ways to go about avoiding usage of these reserved interface identifiers. One of them would be to add a normative reference to each specification that reserves an interface identifier. The other would be to create an IANA registry for such interface identifiers. There are two disadvantages to the normative reference approach. Firstly, this approach does not scale well because the number of such specifications that would need to be updated is large. Secondly, the maturity level of the document reserving the IID might be lower than the one prohibited from using it; this will cause a downward reference problem. Therefore, the better solution is to create an IANA registry for this purpose.
有两种可能的方法可以避免使用这些保留的接口标识符。其中之一是为保留接口标识符的每个规范添加一个规范性引用。另一种方法是为此类接口标识符创建IANA注册表。规范性参考方法有两个缺点。首先，这种方法不能很好地扩展，因为需要更新的此类规范数量很大。第二，保留IID的文件的成熟度可能低于禁止使用IID的文件的成熟度；这将导致向下参考问题。因此，更好的解决方案是为此目的创建IANA注册表。
This document creates an IANA registry for reserved IPv6 interface identifiers. Initial values for the reserved IPv6 interface identifiers are given below.
本文档为保留的IPv6接口标识符创建IANA注册表。保留IPv6接口标识符的初始值如下所示。
+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Interface Identifier Range | Description |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| 0000:0000:0000:0000 | Subnet-Router Anycast |
| | [RFC4291] |
| | |
| FDFF:FFFF:FFFF:FF80-FDFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF | Reserved Subnet Anycast |
| | Addresses[RFC2526] |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Interface Identifier Range | Description |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| 0000:0000:0000:0000 | Subnet-Router Anycast |
| | [RFC4291] |
| | |
| FDFF:FFFF:FFFF:FF80-FDFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF | Reserved Subnet Anycast |
| | Addresses[RFC2526] |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+
Table 1: Current Assignments
表1：目前的任务
It is possible that implementations might predate a specific assignment from this registry and hence not be cognizant of the reserved nature of the interface identifier. Hence, future assignments from this registry are discouraged. Future assignments, if any, are to be made through Standards Action [RFC5226]. Assignments consist of a single interface identifier or a range of interface identifiers.
实现可能早于来自此注册表的特定分配，因此不知道接口标识符的保留性质。因此，不鼓励将来从此注册表分配任务。未来的任务（如有）将通过标准行动[RFC5226]进行。分配由单个接口标识符或一系列接口标识符组成。
NOTE: The address :: (all zeros in the interface identifier field) is used as the unspecified address and ::/0 is used as a default route indicator, as specified in [RFC5156]. These uses do not conflict with the reserved interface identifiers defined here, since the reserved identifiers defined in this document are used for avoiding conflicts with stateless address autoconfiguration that utilizes a 64-bit prefix length.
注：地址：：（接口标识符字段中的所有零）用作未指定的地址，并且：：/0用作默认路由指示器，如[RFC5156]中所述。这些使用不会与此处定义的保留接口标识符冲突，因为本文档中定义的保留标识符用于避免与使用64位前缀长度的无状态地址自动配置冲突。
The author would like to thank Alain Durand, Alex Petrescu, Bernie Volz, Bob Hinden, Christian Huitema, Fred Templin, Jordi Palet Martinez, Pekka Savola, Remi Denis-Courmount, Tim Enos, Ed Jankiewicz, Brian Carpenter, Alfred Hoenes, Jari Arkko, Pasi Eronen, Tim Polk, Lars Eggert, Derek Atkins, and Robert Sparks for reviewing this document and suggesting changes.
作者要感谢阿兰·杜兰德、亚历克斯·彼得雷斯库、伯尼·沃尔兹、鲍勃·欣登、克里斯蒂安·惠特马、弗雷德·坦普林、乔迪·帕莱特·马丁内斯、佩卡·萨沃拉、雷米·丹尼斯·库尔蒙、蒂姆·埃诺斯、埃德·詹基维茨、布赖恩·卡彭特、阿尔弗雷德·霍恩斯、贾里·阿尔·阿克科、帕西·埃隆、蒂姆·波尔克、拉尔斯·艾格特、德里克·阿特金斯、，罗伯特·斯帕克斯（Robert Sparks）回顾了这份文件并提出了修改建议。
By utilizing one of the reserved interface identifiers, an IPv6 node might receive requests that it is not authorized to receive. Information that creates or updates a registration in this registry needs to be authenticated and authorized by the IANA based on the instructions set forth by [RFC5226].
通过利用一个保留的接口标识符，IPv6节点可能会接收未经授权接收的请求。创建或更新此注册表中注册的信息需要IANA根据[RFC5226]规定的说明进行身份验证和授权。
[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。
[RFC2526] Johnson, D. and S. Deering, "Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses", RFC 2526, March 1999.
[RFC2526]Johnson，D.和S.Deering，“保留的IPv6子网选播地址”，RFC 25261999年3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。
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，2008年5月。
[HBA] Bagnulo, M., "Hash Based Addresses (HBA)", Work in Progress, October 2006.
[HBA]Bagnulo，M.，“基于哈希的地址（HBA）”，正在进行的工作，2006年10月。
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3315]Droms，R.，Ed.，Bound，J.，Volz，B.，Lemon，T.，Perkins，C.，和M.Carney，“IPv6的动态主机配置协议（DHCPv6）”，RFC3315，2003年7月。
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC 3972, March 2005.
[RFC3972]Aura，T.，“加密生成地址（CGA）”，RFC 39722005年3月。
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC4941]Narten，T.，Draves，R.，和S.Krishnan，“IPv6中无状态地址自动配置的隐私扩展”，RFC 49412007年9月。
[RFC5156] Blanchet, M., "Special-Use IPv6 Addresses", RFC 5156, April 2008.
[RFC5156]Blanchet，M.，“特殊用途IPv6地址”，RFC 5156，2008年4月。
Implementations of the following RFCs need to be aware of the reserved interface identifier ranges when they allocate new addresses. Future revisions of these RFCs should ensure that this is either already sufficiently clear or that the text is amended to take this into account.
以下RFC的实现在分配新地址时需要知道保留的接口标识符范围。这些RFC的未来修订应确保这一点已经足够清楚，或者对文本进行修订以考虑到这一点。
o RFC 2590 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification
o RFC 2590-通过帧中继网络传输IPv6数据包规范
o RFC 3315 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
o RFC 3315-IPv6的动态主机配置协议（DHCPv6）
o RFC 3972 - Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)
o RFC 3972-加密生成地址（CGA）
o RFC 4489 - A Method for Generating Link-Scoped IPv6 Multicast Addresses
o RFC 4489-一种生成链路作用域IPv6多播地址的方法
o RFC 4862 - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
o RFC 4862-IPv6无状态地址自动配置
o RFC 4941 - Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6
o RFC 4941-IPv6中无状态地址自动配置的隐私扩展
o RFC 4982 - Support for Multiple Hash Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
o RFC 4982-支持加密生成地址（CGA）中的多个哈希算法
o RFC 5072 - IP Version 6 over PPP
o RFC 5072-PPP上的IP版本6
Author's Address
作者地址
Suresh Krishnan Ericsson 8400 Decarie Blvd. Town of Mount Royal, QC Canada
苏雷什·克里希南·爱立信德卡里大道8400号。加拿大皇家山镇
Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871
EMail: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871
EMail: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com