Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Gont
Request for Comments: 8064 SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
Updates: 2464, 2467, 2470, 2491, 2492, A. Cooper
2497, 2590, 3146, 3572, 4291, Cisco
4338, 4391, 5072, 5121 D. Thaler
Category: Standards Track Microsoft
ISSN: 2070-1721 W. Liu
Huawei Technologies
February 2017
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Gont
Request for Comments: 8064 SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
Updates: 2464, 2467, 2470, 2491, 2492, A. Cooper
2497, 2590, 3146, 3572, 4291, Cisco
4338, 4391, 5072, 5121 D. Thaler
Category: Standards Track Microsoft
ISSN: 2070-1721 W. Liu
Huawei Technologies
February 2017
Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers
关于稳定IPv6接口标识符的建议
Abstract
摘要
This document changes the recommended default Interface Identifier (IID) generation scheme for cases where Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) is used to generate a stable IPv6 address. It recommends using the mechanism specified in RFC 7217 in such cases, and recommends against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6 IIDs. It formally updates RFC 2464, RFC 2467, RFC 2470, RFC 2491, RFC 2492, RFC 2497, RFC 2590, RFC 3146, RFC 3572, RFC 4291, RFC 4338, RFC 4391, RFC 5072, and RFC 5121. This document does not change any existing recommendations concerning the use of temporary addresses as specified in RFC 4941.
对于使用无状态地址自动配置（SLAAC）生成稳定IPv6地址的情况，本文档更改了推荐的默认接口标识符（IID）生成方案。它建议在这种情况下使用RFC 7217中指定的机制，并建议不要在IPv6 IID中嵌入稳定的链路层地址。它正式更新了RFC 2464、RFC 2467、RFC 2470、RFC 2491、RFC 2492、RFC 2497、RFC 2590、RFC 3146、RFC 3572、RFC 4291、RFC 4338、RFC 4391、RFC 5072和RFC 5121。本文件不改变RFC 4941中规定的关于临时地址使用的任何现有建议。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2017 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. 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 Simplified BSD License.
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/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。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。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Generation of IPv6 Interface Identifiers with SLAAC . . . . . 5
4. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Generation of IPv6 Interface Identifiers with SLAAC . . . . . 5
4. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
[RFC4862] specifies Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for IPv6 [RFC2460], which typically results in hosts configuring one or more "stable" addresses composed of a network prefix advertised by a local router, and an Interface Identifier (IID) [RFC4291] that typically embeds a stable link-layer address (e.g., an IEEE LAN MAC address).
[RFC4862]指定IPv6[RFC2460]的无状态地址自动配置（SLAAC），这通常导致主机配置一个或多个“稳定”地址，这些地址由本地路由器公布的网络前缀和通常嵌入稳定链路层地址（例如IEEE LAN MAC地址）的接口标识符（IID）[RFC4291]组成。
In some network technologies and adaptation layers, the use of an IID based on a link-layer address may offer some advantages. For example, [RFC6282] allows for the compression of IPv6 datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-based networks [RFC4944] when the IID is based on the underlying link-layer address.
在一些网络技术和适配层中，使用基于链路层地址的IID可能提供一些优势。例如，当IID基于底层链路层地址时，[RFC6282]允许通过基于IEEE 802.15.4的网络[RFC4944]压缩IPv6数据报。
The security and privacy implications of embedding a stable link-layer address in an IPv6 IID have been known for some time now and are discussed in great detail in [RFC7721]. They include:
在IPv6 IID中嵌入一个稳定的链路层地址的安全性和隐私影响已经知道了一段时间，并在[RFC7721]中进行了详细讨论。这些措施包括：
o Network-activity correlation
o 网络活动相关性
o Location tracking
o 位置跟踪
o Address scanning
o 地址扫描
o Device-specific vulnerability exploitation
o 设备特定漏洞攻击
More generally, the reuse of identifiers that have their own semantics or properties across different contexts or scopes can be detrimental for security and privacy [NUM-IDS]. In the case of traditional stable IPv6 IIDs, some of the security and privacy implications are dependent on the properties of the underlying link-layer addresses (e.g., whether the link-layer address is ephemeral or randomly generated), while other implications (e.g., reduction of the entropy of the IID) depend on the algorithm for generating the IID itself. In standardized recommendations for stable IPv6 IID generation meant to achieve particular security and privacy properties, it is necessary to recommend against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6 IIDs.
更一般地说，在不同的上下文或范围中重用具有自己的语义或属性的标识符可能会对安全性和隐私有害[NUM-IDS]。在传统稳定IPv6 IID的情况下，一些安全和隐私影响取决于底层链路层地址的属性（例如，链路层地址是短暂的还是随机生成的），而其他影响（例如，IID熵的减少）取决于生成IID本身的算法。在旨在实现特定安全和隐私属性的稳定IPv6 IID生成的标准化建议中，有必要建议不要在IPv6 IID中嵌入稳定的链路层地址。
Furthermore, some popular IPv6 implementations have already deviated from the traditional stable IID generation scheme to mitigate the aforementioned security and privacy implications [Microsoft].
此外，一些流行的IPv6实现已经偏离了传统的稳定IID生成方案，以减轻上述安全和隐私影响[Microsoft]。
As a result of the aforementioned issues, this document changes the recommended default IID generation scheme for generating stable IPv6 addresses with SLAAC to that specified in [RFC7217] and recommends against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6 Interface
由于上述问题，本文件将使用SLAAC生成稳定IPv6地址的推荐默认IID生成方案更改为[RFC7217]中指定的方案，并建议不要在IPv6接口中嵌入稳定链路层地址
Identifiers, such that the aforementioned issues are mitigated. That is, this document simply replaces the default algorithm that is recommended to be employed when generating stable IPv6 IIDs.
标识符，从而缓解上述问题。也就是说，本文档只是替换了在生成稳定的IPv6 IID时建议使用的默认算法。
NOTE: [RFC4291] defines the "Modified EUI-64 format" for IIDs. Appendix A of [RFC4291] then describes how to transform an IEEE EUI-64 identifier, or an IEEE 802 48-bit MAC address from which an EUI-64 identifier is derived, into an IID in the Modified EUI-64 format.
注：[RFC4291]定义了IID的“修改的EUI-64格式”。[RFC4291]的附录A描述了如何将IEEE EUI-64标识符或从中派生EUI-64标识符的IEEE 802 48位MAC地址转换为修改后的EUI-64格式的IID。
In a variety of scenarios, addresses that remain stable for the lifetime of a host's connection to a single subnet are viewed as desirable. For example, stable addresses may be viewed as beneficial for network management, event logging, enforcement of access control, provision of quality of service, or for server or router interfaces. Similarly, stable addresses (as opposed to temporary addresses [RFC4941]) allow for long-lived TCP connections and are also usually desirable when performing server-like functions (i.e., receiving incoming connections).
在各种情况下，在主机连接到单个子网的整个生命周期内保持稳定的地址被视为是可取的。例如，稳定的地址可能被视为有利于网络管理、事件记录、访问控制的实施、服务质量的提供，或者服务器或路由器接口。类似地，稳定地址（与临时地址[RFC4941]相反）允许长时间的TCP连接，并且在执行类似服务器的功能（即接收传入连接）时通常也是可取的。
The recommendations in this document apply only in cases where implementations otherwise would have configured a stable IPv6 IID containing a link-layer address. For example, this document does not change any existing recommendations concerning the use of temporary addresses as specified in [RFC4941] and the recommendations do not apply to cases where SLAAC is employed to generate non-stable IPv6 addresses (e.g., by embedding a link-layer address that is periodically randomized); in addition, this document does not introduce any new requirements regarding when stable addresses are to be configured. Thus, the recommendations in this document simply improve the security and privacy properties of stable addresses.
本文档中的建议仅适用于其他实现可能已配置包含链路层地址的稳定IPv6 IID的情况。例如，本文件不会改变[RFC4941]中规定的关于临时地址使用的任何现有建议，并且这些建议不适用于使用SLAAC生成非稳定IPv6地址的情况（例如，通过嵌入定期随机的链路层地址）；此外，本文件未对何时配置稳定地址提出任何新要求。因此，本文档中的建议只是提高了稳定地址的安全性和隐私属性。
Stable address: An address that does not vary over time within the same network (as defined in [RFC7721]).
稳定地址：同一网络内不随时间变化的地址（定义见[RFC7721]）。
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
Nodes SHOULD implement and employ [RFC7217] as the default scheme for generating stable IPv6 addresses with SLAAC. A link layer MAY also define a mechanism for stable IPv6 address generation that is more efficient and does not address the security and privacy considerations discussed in Section 1. The choice of whether or not to enable the security- and privacy-preserving mechanism SHOULD be configurable in such a case.
节点应实现并使用[RFC7217]作为使用SLAAC生成稳定IPv6地址的默认方案。链路层还可以定义稳定的IPv6地址生成机制，该机制更有效，并且不解决第1节中讨论的安全和隐私问题。在这种情况下，是否启用安全和隐私保护机制的选择应该是可配置的。
By default, nodes SHOULD NOT employ IPv6 address generation schemes that embed a stable link-layer address in the IID. In particular, this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs with the schemes specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], [RFC2470], [RFC2491], [RFC2492], [RFC2497], [RFC2590], [RFC3146], [RFC3572], [RFC4338], [RFC4391], [RFC5072], and [RFC5121].
默认情况下，节点不应采用在IID中嵌入稳定链路层地址的IPv6地址生成方案。特别是，本文档建议节点不使用[RFC2464]、[RFC2467]、[RFC2470]、[RFC2491]、[RFC2492]、[RFC2497]、[RFC2590]、[RFC3146]、[RFC3572]、[RFC4338]、[RFC4391]、[RFC5072]和[RFC5121]中指定的方案生成稳定的IID。
At the time of this writing, the mechanisms specified in the following documents might require updates to be fully compatible with the recommendations in this document:
在撰写本文时，以下文件中规定的机制可能需要更新，以便与本文件中的建议完全兼容：
o "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks" [RFC6282]
o “基于IEEE 802.15.4的网络上IPv6数据报的压缩格式”[RFC6282]
o "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944]
o “通过IEEE 802.15.4网络传输IPv6数据包”[RFC4944]
o "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)" [RFC6775]
o “低功耗无线个人区域网络（6LoWPANs）上IPv6邻居发现优化”[RFC6775]
o "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks" [RFC7428]
o “通过ITU-T G.9959网络传输IPv6数据包”[RFC7428]
Future revisions or updates of these documents should consider the issues of privacy and security mentioned in Section 1 and explain any design and engineering considerations that lead to the use of stable IIDs based on a node's link-layer address.
这些文件的未来修订或更新应考虑第1节中提到的隐私和安全问题，并解释基于节点的链路层地址导致使用稳定IID的任何设计和工程考虑。
This document recommends against the (default) use of predictable Interface Identifiers in IPv6 addresses. It recommends [RFC7217] as the default scheme for generating IPv6 stable addresses with SLAAC, such that the security and privacy issues of IIDs that embed stable link-layer addresses are mitigated.
本文档建议不要（默认）在IPv6地址中使用可预测的接口标识符。它建议将[RFC7217]作为使用SLAAC生成IPv6稳定地址的默认方案，以减轻嵌入稳定链路层地址的IID的安全和隐私问题。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2460]Deering，S.和R.Hinden，“互联网协议，第6版（IPv6）规范”，RFC 2460，DOI 10.17487/RFC2460，1998年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC2464]克劳福德，M.，“通过以太网传输IPv6数据包”，RFC 2464，DOI 10.17487/RFC2464，1998年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC2467] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks", RFC 2467, DOI 10.17487/RFC2467, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2467>.
[RFC2467]克劳福德，M.，“通过FDDI网络传输IPv6数据包”，RFC 2467，DOI 10.17487/RFC2467，1998年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2467>.
[RFC2470] Crawford, M., Narten, T., and S. Thomas, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks", RFC 2470, DOI 10.17487/RFC2470, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2470>.
[RFC2470]Crawford，M.，Narten，T.，和S.Thomas，“通过令牌环网传输IPv6数据包”，RFC 2470，DOI 10.17487/RFC2470，1998年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2470>.
[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC 2491, DOI 10.17487/RFC2491, January 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>.
[RFC2491]Armitage，G.，Schulter，P.，Jork，M.，和G.Harter，“非广播多址（NBMA）网络上的IPv6”，RFC 2491，DOI 10.17487/RFC24911999年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>.
[RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM Networks", RFC 2492, DOI 10.17487/RFC2492, January 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2492>.
[RFC2492]Armitage，G.，Schulter，P.和M.Jork，“ATM网络上的IPv6”，RFC 2492，DOI 10.17487/RFC2492，1999年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2492>.
[RFC2497] Souvatzis, I., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks", RFC 2497, DOI 10.17487/RFC2497, January 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2497>.
[RFC2497]Souvatzis，I.，“通过ARCnet网络传输IPv6数据包”，RFC 2497，DOI 10.17487/RFC2497，1999年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2497>.
[RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC2590, May 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.
[RFC2590]Conta，A.，Malis，A.，和M.Mueller，“通过帧中继网络传输IPv6数据包规范”，RFC 2590，DOI 10.17487/RFC2590，1999年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.
[RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC3146, October 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>.
[RFC3146]Fujisawa，K.和A.Onoe，“通过IEEE 1394网络传输IPv6数据包”，RFC 3146，DOI 10.17487/RFC3146，2001年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4291]Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“IP版本6寻址体系结构”，RFC 4291，DOI 10.17487/RFC42912006年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, DOI 10.17487/RFC4338, January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>.
[RFC4338]DeSanti，C.，Carlson，C.，和R.Nixon，“通过光纤通道传输IPv6，IPv4和地址解析协议（ARP）数据包”，RFC 4338，DOI 10.17487/RFC4338，2006年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>.
[RFC4391] Chu, J. and V. Kashyap, "Transmission of IP over InfiniBand (IPoIB)", RFC 4391, DOI 10.17487/RFC4391, April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4391>.
[RFC4391]Chu，J.和V.Kashyap，“InfiniBand上的IP传输（IPoIB）”，RFC 4391，DOI 10.17487/RFC43912006年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4391>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC4862]Thomson，S.，Narten，T.和T.Jinmei，“IPv6无状态地址自动配置”，RFC 4862，DOI 10.17487/RFC4862，2007年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[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 4941，DOI 10.17487/RFC49411907年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC4944]黑山，G.，Kushalnagar，N.，Hui，J.，和D.Culler，“通过IEEE 802.15.4网络传输IPv6数据包”，RFC 4944，DOI 10.17487/RFC4944，2007年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.
[RFC5072]Varada，S.，Ed.，Haskins，D.，和E.Allen，“PPP上的IP版本6”，RFC 5072，DOI 10.17487/RFC5072，2007年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.
[RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>.
[RFC5121]Patil，B.，Xia，F.，Sarikaya，B.，Choi，JH.，和S.Madanapalli，“通过IEEE 802.16网络上的IPv6聚合子层传输IPv6”，RFC 5121，DOI 10.17487/RFC5121，2008年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6282]Hui，J.，Ed.和P.Thubert，“基于IEEE 802.15.4的网络上IPv6数据报的压缩格式”，RFC 6282，DOI 10.17487/RFC6282，2011年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC6775]Shelby，Z.，Ed.，Chakrabarti，S.，Nordmark，E.，和C.Bormann，“低功率无线个人区域网络（6LoWPANs）上IPv6邻居发现优化”，RFC 6775，DOI 10.17487/RFC67752012年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7217]Gont，F.“使用IPv6无状态地址自动配置（SLAAC）生成语义不透明接口标识符的方法”，RFC 7217，DOI 10.17487/RFC72172014年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7428] Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", RFC 7428, DOI 10.17487/RFC7428, February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7428>.
[RFC7428]Brandt，A.和J.Buron，“通过ITU-T G.9959网络传输IPv6数据包”，RFC 7428，DOI 10.17487/RFC7428，2015年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7428>.
[Microsoft] Davies, J., "Understanding IPv6, 3rd. ed", page 83, Microsoft Press, 2012, <http://it-ebooks.info/book/1022/>.
[Microsoft]Davies，J.，“理解IPv6，第3版”，第83页，微软出版社，2012年<http://it-ebooks.info/book/1022/>.
[NUM-IDS] Gont, F. and I. Arce, "Security and Privacy Implications of Numeric Identifiers Employed in Network Protocols", Work in Progress, February 2016.
[NUM-IDS]Gont，F.和I.Arce，“网络协议中使用的数字标识符的安全和隐私影响”，正在进行的工作，2016年2月。
[RFC3572] Ogura, T., Maruyama, M., and T. Yoshida, "Internet Protocol Version 6 over MAPOS (Multiple Access Protocol Over SONET/SDH)", RFC 3572, DOI 10.17487/RFC3572, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3572>.
[RFC3572]Ogura，T.，Maruyama，M.，和T.Yoshida，“MAPOS上的互联网协议版本6（SONET/SDH上的多址协议）”，RFC 3572，DOI 10.17487/RFC3572，2003年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3572>.
[RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.
[RFC7721]Cooper，A.，Gont，F.，和D.Thaler，“IPv6地址生成机制的安全和隐私考虑”，RFC 7721，DOI 10.17487/RFC7721，2016年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Bob Hinden, Ray Hunter, and Erik Nordmark, for providing a detailed review of this document.
作者要感谢（按字母顺序）鲍勃·欣登、雷·亨特和埃里克·诺德马克对本文件的详细评论。
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Fred Baker, Carsten Bormann, Scott Brim, Brian Carpenter, Samita Chakrabarti, Tim Chown, Lorenzo Colitti, Jean-Michel Combes, Greg Daley, Esko Dijk, Ralph Droms, David Farmer, Brian Haberman, Ulrich Herberg, Philip Homburg, Jahangir Hossain, Jonathan Hui, Christian Huitema, Ray Hunter, Erik Kline, Sheng Jiang, Roger Jorgensen, Dan Luedtke, Kerry Lynn, George Mitchel, Gabriel Montenegro, Erik Nordmark, Simon Perreault, Tom Petch, Alexandru Petrescu, Michael Richardson, Arturo Servin, Mark Smith, Tom Taylor, Ole Troan, Tina Tsou, Glen Turner, Randy Turner, James Woodyatt, and Juan Carlos Zuniga, for providing valuable comments on earlier draft versions of this document.
作者要感谢（按字母顺序排列）弗雷德·贝克、卡斯滕·鲍曼、斯科特·布里姆、布莱恩·卡彭特、萨米塔·查克拉巴蒂、蒂姆·乔恩、洛伦佐·科利蒂、让·米歇尔·库姆斯、格雷格·戴利、埃斯科·迪杰、拉尔夫·卓姆斯、大卫·法默、布莱恩·哈伯曼、乌尔里奇·赫伯格、菲利普·霍姆伯格、贾汉吉尔·侯赛因、乔纳森·许、克里斯蒂安·惠特玛、雷·亨特、，Erik Kline、盛江、Roger Jorgensen、Dan Luedtke、Kerry Lynn、George Mitchel、Gabriel Montegon、Erik Nordmark、Simon Perreault、Tom Petch、Alexandru Petrescu、Michael Richardson、Arturo Servin、Mark Smith、Tom Taylor、Ole Troan、Tina Tsou、Glen Turner、Randy Turner、James Woodyatt和Juan Carlos Zuniga，为本文件的早期草案提供有价值的意见。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Fernando Gont SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH Evaristo Carriego 2644 Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706 Argentina
Fernando Gont SI6 Networks/UTN-FRH Evaristo Carriego 2644 Haedo，布宜诺斯艾利斯省1706阿根廷
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: https://www.si6networks.com
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: https://www.si6networks.com
Alissa Cooper Cisco 707 Tasman Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 United States of America
美国加利福尼亚州米尔皮塔斯塔斯曼大道707号Alissa Cooper Cisco，邮编95035
Phone: +1-408-902-3950
Email: alcoop@cisco.com
URI: https://www.cisco.com/
Phone: +1-408-902-3950
Email: alcoop@cisco.com
URI: https://www.cisco.com/
Dave Thaler Microsoft Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052
Dave Thaler微软公司华盛顿州雷德蒙微软大道一号，邮编：98052
Phone: +1 425 703 8835
Email: dthaler@microsoft.com
Phone: +1 425 703 8835
Email: dthaler@microsoft.com
Will (Shucheng) Liu Huawei Technologies Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 China
威尔（舒城）刘华威科技有限公司深圳市龙岗区坂田518129
Email: liushucheng@huawei.com
Email: liushucheng@huawei.com