Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Bonica
Request for Comments: 8190 Juniper Networks
BCP: 153 M. Cotton
Updates: 6890 PTI
Category: Best Current Practice B. Haberman
ISSN: 2070-1721 Johns Hopkins University
L. Vegoda
ICANN
June 2017
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Bonica
Request for Comments: 8190 Juniper Networks
BCP: 153 M. Cotton
Updates: 6890 PTI
Category: Best Current Practice B. Haberman
ISSN: 2070-1721 Johns Hopkins University
L. Vegoda
ICANN
June 2017
Updates to the Special-Purpose IP Address Registries
特殊用途IP地址注册的更新
Abstract
摘要
This memo updates the IANA IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries to address issues raised by the definition of a "global" prefix. It also corrects several errors in registry entries to ensure the integrity of the IANA Special-Purpose Address Registries.
本备忘录更新了IANA IPv4和IPv6专用地址注册表，以解决“全局”前缀定义引起的问题。它还纠正了注册表项中的几个错误，以确保IANA专用地址注册表的完整性。
This memo updates RFC 6890.
本备忘录更新了RFC 6890。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
本备忘录记录了互联网最佳实践。
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 BCPs 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BCP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/rfc8190.
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/rfc8190.
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. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Definition of Globally Reachable . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Updates to the IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry . . 4
2.3. Updates to the IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Definition of Globally Reachable . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Updates to the IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry . . 4
2.3. Updates to the IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
In order to support new protocols and practices, the IETF occasionally reserves an address block for a special purpose. For example, [RFC1122] reserves an IPv4 address block (0.0.0.0/8) to represent the local (i.e., "this") network. Likewise, [RFC4291] reserves an IPv6 address block (fe80::/10) for link-local unicast addresses.
为了支持新的协议和实践，IETF偶尔会为特殊目的保留一个地址块。例如，[RFC1122]保留IPv4地址块（0.0.0.0/8）以表示本地（即“此”）网络。同样，[RFC4291]为链路本地单播地址保留IPv6地址块（fe80:：/10）。
Several issues have been raised with the documentation of some of the special-purpose address blocks in [RFC6890]. Specifically, the definition of "global" provided in [RFC6890] was misleading as it slightly differed from the generally accepted definition of "global scope" (i.e., the ability to forward beyond the boundaries of an administrative domain, described as "global unicast" in the IPv6 addressing architecture [RFC4291]).
[RFC6890]中的一些特殊用途地址块的文档记录提出了几个问题。具体而言，[RFC6890]中提供的“全局”的定义具有误导性，因为它与普遍接受的“全局范围”的定义略有不同（即，在IPv6寻址体系结构[RFC4291]中描述为“全局单播”的管理域边界之外的转发能力）。
This memo updates the definition of "global" from [RFC6890] for the IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries, augments the fields contained within the registries in order to address the confusion raised by the definition of "global", and corrects some errors in some of the entries in the Special-Purpose Address Registries.
本备忘录更新了IPv4和IPv6专用地址注册中心[RFC6890]中“全局”的定义，增加了注册中心内包含的字段，以解决“全局”定义引起的混淆，并更正了专用地址注册中心某些条目中的一些错误。
This memo updates [RFC6890].
此备忘录更新了[RFC6890]。
[RFC6890] defined the term "global" without taking into consideration the multiple uses of the term. Specifically, IP addresses can be global in terms of allocation scope as well as global in terms of routing/reachability. To address this ambiguity, the use of the term "global" defined in [RFC6890] is replaced with "globally reachable". The following definition replaces the definition of "global" in the IANA Special-Purpose Address Registries:
[RFC6890]定义了术语“全局”，但未考虑该术语的多种用途。具体而言，IP地址在分配范围方面可以是全局的，在路由/可达性方面也可以是全局的。为了解决这种歧义，将[RFC6890]中定义的术语“全局”替换为“全局可到达”。以下定义取代IANA专用地址注册中的“全局”定义：
o Globally Reachable - A boolean value indicating whether an IP datagram whose destination address is drawn from the allocated special-purpose address block is forwardable beyond a specified administrative domain.
o 全局可访问-一个布尔值，指示目标地址来自分配的专用地址块的IP数据报是否可转发到指定的管理域之外。
The same relationship between the value of "Destination" and the values of "Forwardable" and "Global" described in [RFC6890] holds for "Globally Reachable". If the value of "Destination" is FALSE, the values of "Forwardable" and "Globally Reachable" must also be FALSE.
[RFC6890]中描述的“目的地”的值与“可转发”和“全局”的值之间的相同关系适用于“全局可到达”。如果“Destination”的值为FALSE，“Forwardable”和“global Reachable”的值也必须为FALSE。
The "Global" columns in the IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry) and the IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry) have been renamed to "Globally Reachable".
IPv4专用地址注册表中的“全局”列(https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry)和IPv6专用地址注册表(https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry)已重命名为“全球可访问”。
o Limited Broadcast prefix (255.255.255.255/32) - The Reserved-by-Protocol value has changed from False to True. This change was made to align the registry with reservation of the limited broadcast address with Section 7 of [RFC919].
o 有限广播前缀（255.255.255.255/32）-协议保留值已从False更改为True。做出此更改是为了使注册表与[RFC919]第7节规定的有限广播地址保留保持一致。
The following changes to the "IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry" involved the insertion of two new footnotes. These additions required that the footnotes be renumbered.
“IPv6专用地址注册表”的以下更改涉及插入两个新脚注。这些增补要求对脚注重新编号。
o TEREDO prefix (2001::/32) - The Globally Reachable value has changed from False to "N/A [2]". The [2] footnote now states:
o TEREDO前缀（2001:：/32）-全局可访问值已从False更改为“N/A[2]”。[2]脚注现在指出：
* See Section 5 of [RFC4380] for details.
* 详见[RFC4380]第5节。
o EID Space for LISP (2001:5::/32) - All footnotes have been incremented by 1.
o LISP的EID空格（2001:5:：/32）-所有脚注都增加了1。
o 6to4 (2002::/16) - All footnotes have been incremented by 1.
o 6to4（2002:：/16）-所有脚注都增加了1。
o Unique-Local (fc00::/7) - The Globally Reachable value has changed from False to "False [7]". The [7] footnote now states:
o 唯一本地（fc00:：/7）-全局可访问值已从False更改为“False[7]”。[7]脚注现在指出：
* See [RFC4193] for more details on the routability of Unique-Local addresses. The Unique-Local prefix is drawn from the IPv6 Global Unicast Address range but is specified as not globally routed.
* 有关唯一本地地址可路由性的更多详细信息，请参阅[RFC4193]。唯一本地前缀取自IPv6全局单播地址范围，但指定为非全局路由。
This document does not raise any security issues beyond those discussed in [RFC6890].
除[RFC6890]中讨论的安全问题外，本文件不会提出任何安全问题。
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman, "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
[RFC6890]Cotton，M.，Vegoda，L.，Bonica，R.，Ed.，和B.Haberman，“特殊用途IP地址注册”，BCP 153，RFC 6890，DOI 10.17487/RFC6890，2013年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
[RFC919] Mogul, J., "Broadcasting Internet Datagrams", STD 5, RFC 919, DOI 10.17487/RFC0919, October 1984, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc919>.
[RFC919]Mogul，J.，“广播互联网数据报”，STD 5，RFC 919，DOI 10.17487/RFC0919，1984年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc919>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1122]Braden，R.，Ed.“互联网主机的要求-通信层”，STD 3，RFC 1122，DOI 10.17487/RFC1122，1989年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[RFC4193]Hinden，R.和B.Haberman，“唯一本地IPv6单播地址”，RFC 4193，DOI 10.17487/RFC4193，2005年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[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>.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.
[RFC4380]Huitema，C.，“Teredo：通过网络地址转换（NAT）通过UDP传输IPv6”，RFC 4380，DOI 10.17487/RFC4380，2006年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
Brian Carpenter and C.M. Heard provided useful comments on initial draft versions of this document. Daniel Migault provided an in-depth review that helped strengthen the text within the document. Amanda Baber and Sabrina Tanamal asked questions which resulted in the authors simplifying the document.
Brian Carpenter和C.M.Heard就本文件的初稿提供了有用的意见。Daniel Migault进行了深入审查，有助于加强文件中的文本。Amanda Baber和Sabrina Tanamal提出了一些问题，这使得作者简化了文档。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Ronald Bonica Juniper Networks
罗纳德·博尼卡·杜松网络
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Michelle Cotton PTI, an affiliate of ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 United States of America
Michelle Cotton PTI，ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive的附属公司，美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶300号套房，邮编90094-2536
Phone: +1-424-254-5300
Email: michelle.cotton@iana.org
Phone: +1-424-254-5300
Email: michelle.cotton@iana.org
Brian Haberman Johns Hopkins University
布莱恩·哈伯曼·约翰·霍普金斯大学
Email: brian@innovationslab.net
Email: brian@innovationslab.net
Leo Vegoda ICANN
利奥·维戈达·伊坎
Email: leo.vegoda@icann.org
Email: leo.vegoda@icann.org