Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Anderson
Request for Comments: 8215 Redpill Linpro
Category: Standards Track August 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Anderson
Request for Comments: 8215 Redpill Linpro
Category: Standards Track August 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721
Local-Use IPv4/IPv6 Translation Prefix
本地使用IPv4/IPv6转换前缀
Abstract
摘要
This document reserves the IPv6 prefix 64:ff9b:1::/48 for local use within domains that enable IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms.
本文档保留IPv6前缀64:ff9b:1:：/48，以便在启用IPv4/IPv6转换机制的域中本地使用。
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/rfc8215.
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/rfc8215.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Why 64:ff9b:1::/48? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Prefix Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Prefix Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Checksum Neutrality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Why 64:ff9b:1::/48? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Prefix Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Prefix Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Checksum Neutrality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
This document reserves 64:ff9b:1::/48 for local use within domains that enable IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms. This facilitates the coexistence of multiple IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms in the same network without requiring the use of a Network-Specific Prefix assigned from the operator's allocated global unicast address space.
本文档保留64:ff9b:1:：/48供启用IPv4/IPv6转换机制的域内本地使用。这有助于多个IPv4/IPv6转换机制在同一网络中共存，而无需使用从运营商分配的全局单播地址空间分配的网络特定前缀。
This document uses the following terms:
本文件使用以下术语：
Network-Specific Prefix (NSP) A globally unique prefix assigned by a network operator for use with an IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanism [RFC6052].
网络特定前缀（NSP）：由网络运营商分配用于IPv4/IPv6转换机制的全局唯一前缀[RFC6052]。
Well-Known Prefix (WKP) The prefix 64:ff9b::/96, which is reserved for use with the [RFC6052] IPv4/IPv6 address translation algorithms.
众所周知的前缀（WKP）前缀64:ff9b:：/96，保留用于[RFC6052]IPv4/IPv6地址转换算法。
Since the WKP 64:ff9b::/96 was reserved by [RFC6052], several new IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms have been defined by the IETF, such as those defined in [RFC6146] and [RFC7915]. These mechanisms target various different use cases. An operator might therefore wish to make use of several of them simultaneously.
由于[RFC6052]保留了WKP 64:ff9b:：/96，IETF定义了几种新的IPv4/IPv6转换机制，如[RFC6146]和[RFC7915]中定义的转换机制。这些机制针对各种不同的用例。因此，运营商可能希望同时使用其中几个。
The WKP is reserved specifically for use with the algorithms specified in [RFC6052]. More recent RFCs describe IPv4/IPv6
WKP专门用于[RFC6052]中规定的算法。最近的RFC描述了IPv4/IPv6
translation mechanisms that use different algorithms. An operator deploying such mechanisms cannot make use of the WKP in a legitimate fashion.
使用不同算法的转换机制。部署此类机制的运营商不能以合法方式使用WKP。
Also, because the WKP is a /96, an operator preferring to use the WKP over an NSP can do so for only one of their IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms. All others must necessarily use an NSP.
此外，由于WKP是a/96，因此希望使用WKP而非NSP的运营商只能使用其中一种IPv4/IPv6转换机制。所有其他人必须使用NSP。
Section 3.1 of [RFC6052] imposes certain restrictions on the use of the WKP, such as forbidding its use in combination with private IPv4 addresses [RFC1918]. These restrictions might conflict with the operator's desired use of an IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanism.
[RFC6052]第3.1节对WKP的使用施加了某些限制，例如禁止其与专用IPv4地址结合使用[RFC1918]。这些限制可能与运营商希望使用的IPv4/IPv6转换机制相冲突。
In summary, there is a need for a local-use prefix that facilitates the coexistence of multiple IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms in a single network domain, as well as the deployment of translation mechanisms that do not use the [RFC6052] algorithms or adhere to its usage restrictions.
总之，需要一个本地使用前缀，以便于在单个网络域中共存多个IPv4/IPv6转换机制，以及部署不使用[RFC6052]算法或不遵守其使用限制的转换机制。
One of the primary goals of this document is to facilitate multiple simultaneous deployments of IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms in a single network. The first criterion is therefore that the prefix length chosen must be shorter than the prefix length used by any individual translation mechanism.
本文档的主要目标之一是促进在单个网络中同时部署IPv4/IPv6转换机制。因此，第一个标准是选择的前缀长度必须短于任何单个翻译机制使用的前缀长度。
The second criterion is that the prefix length chosen is a multiple of 16. This ensures the prefix ends on a colon boundary when representing it in text, easing operator interaction with it.
第二个标准是选择的前缀长度是16的倍数。这确保了在文本中表示前缀时前缀以冒号边界结束，从而简化了运算符与前缀的交互。
The [RFC6052] algorithms specifies IPv4/IPv6 translation prefixes as short as /32. In order to facilitate multiple instances of translation mechanisms using /32s, while at the same time aligning on a 16-bit boundary, it would be necessary to reserve a /16. Doing so, however, was considered as too wasteful by the IPv6 Operations Working Group.
[RFC6052]算法将IPv4/IPv6转换前缀指定为短至/32。为了方便使用/32s的翻译机制的多个实例，同时在16位边界上对齐，有必要保留a/16。然而，IPv6操作工作组认为这样做太浪费了。
The shortest translation prefix that was reported to the IPv6 Operations Working Group as being deployed in a live network was /64. The longest 16-bit-aligned prefix length that can accommodate multiple instances of /64 is /48. The prefix length of /48 was therefore chosen, as it satisfies both the criteria above, while at the same time avoids wasting too much of the IPv6 address space.
向IPv6操作工作组报告的部署在实时网络中的最短翻译前缀为/64。可容纳多个/64实例的最长16位对齐前缀长度为/48。因此选择前缀长度/48，因为它满足上述两个标准，同时避免浪费太多的IPv6地址空间。
It is desirable to minimise the amount of additional "pollution" in the unallocated IPv6 address space caused by the reservation made by this document. Ensuring the reserved prefix is adjacent to the 64:ff9b::/96 WKP already reserved by [RFC6052] accomplishes this.
希望尽可能减少由于本文档所做的保留而在未分配的IPv6地址空间中造成的额外“污染”。确保保留的前缀与[RFC6052]已保留的64:ff9b:：/96 WKP相邻，即可完成此操作。
Given the previous decision to use a prefix length of /48, this leaves two options: 64:ff9a:ffff::/48 and 64:ff9b:1::/48.
鉴于之前决定使用前缀长度/48，这将留下两个选项：64:ff9a:ffff:：/48和64:ff9b:1:：/48。
64:ff9a:ffff::/48 has the benefit that it is completely adjacent to the [RFC6052] WKP. That is, 64:ff9a:ffff::/48 and 64:ff9b::/96 combine to form an uninterrupted range of IPv6 addresses starting with 64:ff9a:ffff:: and ending with 64:ff9b::ffff:ffff.
64:ff9a:ffff:：/48的优点是它与[RFC6052]WKP完全相邻。也就是说，64:ff9a:ffff:：/48和64:ff9b:：/96组合形成一个不间断的IPv6地址范围，从64:ff9a:ffff：：开始，以64:ff9b：：ffff:ffff结束。
64:ff9b:1::/48 is, on the other hand, not completely adjacent to 64:ff9b::/96. The range starting with 64:ff9b::1:0:0 and ending with 64:ff9b:0:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff would remain unallocated.
另一方面，64:ff9b:1:：/48与64:ff9b:：/96不完全相邻。以64:ff9b:：1:0:0开始并以64:ff9b:0:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff结束的范围将保持未分配状态。
This particular drawback is, however, balanced by the fact that the smallest possible aggregate prefix that covers both the [RFC6052] WKP and 64:ff9a:ffff::/48 is much larger than the smallest possible aggregate prefix that covers both the [RFC6052] WKP and 64:ff9b:1::/48. These aggregate prefixes are 64:ff9a::/31 and 64:ff9b::/47, respectively. IPv6 address space is allocated using prefixes rather than address ranges, so it could be argued that 64:ff9b:1::/48 is the option that would cause special-use prefixes reserved for IPv4/IPv6 translation to "pollute" the minimum possible amount of unallocated IPv6 address space.
然而，这个特殊的缺点是，覆盖[RFC6052]WKP和64:ff9a:ffff:：/48的最小可能聚合前缀比覆盖[RFC6052]WKP和64:ff9b:1:：/48的最小可能聚合前缀大得多。这些聚合前缀分别为64:ff9a:：/31和64:ff9b:：/47。IPv6地址空间是使用前缀而不是地址范围分配的，因此可以认为64:ff9b:1:：/48是一个选项，它会导致为IPv4/IPv6转换保留的特殊用途前缀“污染”未分配的IPv6地址空间的最小可能量。
Finally, 64:ff9b:1::/48 also has the advantage that its textual representation is shorter than 64:ff9a:ffff::/48. While this might seem insignificant, the preference human network operators have for addresses that are simple to type should not be underestimated.
最后，64:ff9b:1:：/48还有一个优点，即其文本表示比64:ff9a:ffff:：/48短。虽然这似乎无关紧要，但不应低估人类网络运营商对易于键入的地址的偏好。
After weighing the above pros and cons, 64:ff9b:1::/48 was chosen.
在权衡了上述利弊之后，选择了64:ff9b:1:：/48。
64:ff9b:1::/48 is intended as a technology-agnostic and generic reservation. A network operator may freely use it in combination with any kind of IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanism deployed within their network.
64:ff9b:1:：/48旨在作为技术无关和通用保留。网络运营商可以自由地将其与部署在其网络中的任何类型的IPv4/IPv6转换机制结合使用。
By default, IPv6 nodes and applications must not treat IPv6 addresses within 64:ff9b:1::/48 differently from other globally scoped IPv6 addresses. In particular, they must not make any assumptions regarding the syntax or properties of those addresses (e.g., the
默认情况下，IPv6节点和应用程序不得将64:ff9b:1:：/48内的IPv6地址与其他全局范围的IPv6地址区别对待。特别是，他们不得对这些地址的语法或属性（例如
existence and location of embedded IPv4 addresses) or the type of associated translation mechanism (e.g., whether it is stateful or stateless).
嵌入式IPv4地址的存在和位置）或关联转换机制的类型（例如，它是有状态的还是无状态的）。
64:ff9b:1::/48 or any more-specific prefix may only be used in inter-domain routing if done in accordance with the rules described in Section 3.2 of [RFC6052].
64:ff9b:1:：/48或任何更具体的前缀只能在域间路由中使用，前提是按照[RFC6052]第3.2节中描述的规则进行。
Note that 64:ff9b:1::/48 (or any more-specific prefix) is distinct from the WKP 64:ff9b::/96. Therefore, the restrictions on the use of the WKP described in Section 3.1 of [RFC6052] do not apply to the use of 64:ff9b:1::/48.
请注意，64:ff9b:1:：/48（或任何更具体的前缀）不同于WKP 64:ff9b:：/96。因此，[RFC6052]第3.1节所述的WKP使用限制不适用于64:ff9b:1:：/48的使用。
Operators tempted to use the covering aggregate prefix 64:ff9b::/47 to refer to all special-use prefixes currently reserved for IPv4/IPv6 translation should be warned that this aggregate includes a range of unallocated addresses (see Section 4.2) that the IETF could potentially reserve in the future for entirely different purposes.
试图使用覆盖聚合前缀64:ff9b:：/47来引用当前为IPv4/IPv6转换保留的所有特殊用途前缀的运营商应得到警告，该聚合包括一系列未分配的地址（参见第4.2节），IETF将来可能会为完全不同的目的保留这些地址。
Use of 64:ff9b:1::/48 does not in itself guarantee checksum neutrality, as many of the IPv4/IPv6 translation algorithms it can be used with are fundamentally incompatible with checksum-neutral address translations.
使用64:ff9b:1:：/48本身并不能保证校验和中立性，因为它可以使用的许多IPv4/IPv6转换算法基本上与校验和中立地址转换不兼容。
Section 4.1 of [RFC6052] contains further discussion about IPv4/IPv6 translation and checksum neutrality.
[RFC6052]的第4.1节进一步讨论了IPv4/IPv6转换和校验和中立性。
The Stateless IP/ICMP Translation algorithm [RFC7915] is one well-known algorithm that can operate in a checksum-neutral manner, when using the [RFC6052] algorithms for all of its address translations. However, in order to attain checksum neutrality, it is imperative that the translation prefix be chosen carefully. Specifically, in order for a 96-bit [RFC6052] prefix to be checksum neutral, all the six 16-bit words in the prefix must add up to a multiple of 0xffff.
无状态IP/ICMP转换算法[RFC7915]是一种众所周知的算法，在对其所有地址转换使用[RFC6052]算法时，它可以以校验和中立的方式运行。然而，为了实现校验和中立性，必须仔细选择翻译前缀。具体来说，为了使96位[RFC6052]前缀是校验和中性的，前缀中的所有六个16位字的总和必须是0xffff的倍数。
The following non-exhaustive list contains examples of translation prefixes that are checksum neutral when used with the [RFC7915] and [RFC6052] algorithms:
以下非详尽列表包含与[RFC7915]和[RFC6052]算法一起使用时校验和中性的翻译前缀示例：
o 64:ff9b:1:fffe::/96
o 64:ff9b:1:fffe::/96
o 64:ff9b:1:fffd:1::/96
o 64:ff9b:1:fffd:1::/96
o 64:ff9b:1:fffc:2::/96
o 64:ff9b:1:fffc:2::/96
o 64:ff9b:1:abcd:0:5431::/96
o 64:ff9b:1:abcd:0:5431::/96
The IANA has added the following entry to the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry":
IANA已将以下条目添加到“IANA IPv6专用地址注册表”：
+----------------------+---------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+---------------------+
| Address Block | 64:ff9b:1::/48 |
| Name | IPv4-IPv6 Translat. |
| RFC | RFC 8215 |
| Allocation Date | 2017-06 |
| Termination Date | N/A |
| Source | True |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Globally Reachable | False |
| Reserved-by-Protocol | False |
+----------------------+---------------------+
+----------------------+---------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+---------------------+
| Address Block | 64:ff9b:1::/48 |
| Name | IPv4-IPv6 Translat. |
| RFC | RFC 8215 |
| Allocation Date | 2017-06 |
| Termination Date | N/A |
| Source | True |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Globally Reachable | False |
| Reserved-by-Protocol | False |
+----------------------+---------------------+
The IANA has also added the following footnote to the 0000::/8 entry of the "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space" registry:
IANA还向“Internet协议版本6地址空间”注册表的0000:：/8条目添加了以下脚注：
64:ff9b:1::/48 reserved for Local-Use IPv4/IPv6 Translation [RFC8215].
64:ff9b:1:：/48保留供本地使用IPv4/IPv6转换[RFC8215]。
The reservation of 64:ff9b:1::/48 is not known to cause any new security considerations beyond those documented in Section 5 of [RFC6052].
已知64:ff9b:1:：/48的保留不会导致[RFC6052]第5节中记录的以外的任何新的安全注意事项。
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC6052]Bao，C.，Huitema，C.，Bagnulo，M.，Boucadair，M.，和X.Li，“IPv4/IPv6转换器的IPv6寻址”，RFC 6052，DOI 10.17487/RFC6052，2010年10月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC1918]Rekhter，Y.，Moskowitz，B.，Karrenberg，D.，de Groot，G.，和E.Lear，“私人互联网地址分配”，BCP 5，RFC 1918，DOI 10.17487/RFC1918，1996年2月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6146]Bagnulo，M.，Matthews，P.，和I.van Beijnum，“有状态NAT64：从IPv6客户端到IPv4服务器的网络地址和协议转换”，RFC 6146，DOI 10.17487/RFC6146，2011年4月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915, DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.
[RFC7915]Bao，C.，Li，X.，Baker，F.，Anderson，T.，和F.Gont，“IP/ICMP翻译算法”，RFC 7915，DOI 10.17487/RFC7915，2016年6月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
The author would like to thank Fred Baker, Mohamed Boucadair, Brian E. Carpenter, Pier Carlo Chiodi, Joe Clarke, David Farmer, Suresh Krishnan, Warren Kumari, Holger Metschulat, Federico Santandrea, and David Schinazi for contributing to the creation of this document.
作者要感谢Fred Baker、Mohamed Boucadair、Brian E.Carpenter、Pier Carlo Chiodi、Joe Clarke、David Farmer、Suresh Krishnan、Warren Kumari、Holger Metschulat、Federico Santanderia和David Schinazi为本文件的创建做出的贡献。
Author's Address
作者地址
Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro Vitaminveien 1A 0485 Oslo Norway
挪威奥斯陆Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro Vitaminveien 1A 0485
Phone: +47 959 31 212
Email: tore@redpill-linpro.com
URI: http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Phone: +47 959 31 212
Email: tore@redpill-linpro.com
URI: http://www.redpill-linpro.com