rfc1631.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.


RFC 1631               Network Address Translator               May 1994


   so, 1 must be added or subtracted to satisfy the one's complement
   arithmetic. Sample code (in C) for this is as follows:

   void checksumadjust(unsigned char *chksum, unsigned char *optr,
   int olen, unsigned char *nptr, int nlen)
   /* assuming: unsigned char is 8 bits, long is 32 bits.
     - chksum points to the chksum in the packet
     - optr points to the old data in the packet
     - nptr points to the new data in the packet
   */
   {
     long x, old, new;
     x=chksum[0]*256+chksum[1];
     x=~x;
     while (olen) {
       if (olen==1) {
         old=optr[0]*256+optr[1];
         x-=old & 0xff00;
         if (x<=0) { x--; x&=0xffff; }
         break;
       }
       else {
         old=optr[0]*256+optr[1]; optr+=2;
         x-=old & 0xffff;
         if (x<=0) { x--; x&=0xffff; }
         olen-=2;
       }
     }
     while (nlen) {
       if (nlen==1) {
         new=nptr[0]*256+nptr[1];
         x+=new & 0xff00;
         if (x & 0x10000) { x++; x&=0xffff; }
         break;
       }
       else {
         new=nptr[0]*256+nptr[1]; nptr+=2;
         x+=new & 0xffff;
         if (x & 0x10000) { x++; x&=0xffff; }
         nlen-=2;
       }
     }
     x=~x;
     chksum[0]=x/256; chksum[1]=x & 0xff;
   }






Egevang & Francis                                               [Page 6]

RFC 1631               Network Address Translator               May 1994


   The arguments to the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) PORT command
   include an IP address (in ASCII!). If the IP address in the PORT
   command is local to the stub domain, then NAT must substitute this.
   Because the address is encoded in ASCII, this may result in a change
   in the size of the packet (for instance 10.18.177.42 is 12 ASCII
   characters, while 193.45.228.137 is 14 ASCII characters). If the new
   size is the same as the previous, only the TCP checksum needs
   adjustment (again). If the new size is less than the previous, ASCII
   zeroes may be inserted, but this is not guaranteed to work. If the
   new size is larger than the previous, TCP sequence numbers must be
   changed too.

   A special table is used to correct the TCP sequence and acknowledge
   numbers with source port FTP or destination port FTP. The table
   entries should have source, destination, source port, destination
   port, initial sequence number, delta for sequence numbers and a
   timestamp. New entries are created only when FTP PORT commands are
   seen. The initial sequence numbers are used to find out if the
   sequence number of a packet is before or after the last FTP PORT
   command (delta may be increased for every FTP PORT command). Sequence
   numbers are incremented and acknowledge numbers are decremented. If
   the FIN bit is set in one of the packets, the associated entry may be
   deleted soon after (1 minute should be safe). Entries that have not
   been used for e.g. 24 hours should be safe to delete too.

   The sequence number adjustment must be coded carefully, not to harm
   performance for TCP in general. Of course, if the FTP session is
   encrypted, the PORT command will fail.

   If an ICMP message is passed through NAT, it may require two address
   modifications and three checksum modifications. This is because most
   ICMP messages contain part of the original IP packet in the body.
   Therefore, for NAT to be completely transparent to the host, the IP
   address of the IP header embedded in the data part of the ICMP packet
   must be modified, the checksum field of the same IP header must
   correspondingly be modified, and the ICMP header checksum must be
   modified to reflect the changes to the IP header and checksum in the
   ICMP body. Furthermore, the normal IP header must also be modified as
   already described.

   It is not entirely clear if the IP header information in the ICMP
   part of the body really need to be modified. This depends on whether
   or not any host code actually looks at this IP header information.
   Indeed, it may be useful to provide the exact header seen by the
   router or host that issued the ICMP message to aid in debugging. In
   any event, no modifications are needed for the Echo and Timestamp
   messages, and NAT should never need to handle a Redirect message.




Egevang & Francis                                               [Page 7]

RFC 1631               Network Address Translator               May 1994


   SNMP messages could be modified, but it is even more dubious than for
   ICMP messages that it will be necessary.

Applications with IP-address Content

   Any application that carries (and uses) the IP address inside the
   application will not work through NAT unless NAT knows of such
   instances and does the appropriate translation. It is not possible or
   even necessarily desirable for NAT to know of all such applications.
   And, if encryption is used then it is impossible for NAT to make the
   translation.

   It may be possible for such systems to avoid using NAT, if the hosts
   in which they run are assigned global addresses. Whether or not this
   can work depends on the capability of the intra-domain routing
   algorithm and the internal topology. This is because the global
   address must be advertised in the intra-domain routing algorithm.
   With a low-feature routing algorithm like RIP, the host may require
   its own class C address space, that must not only be advertised
   internally but externally as well (thus hurting global scaling). With
   a high-feature routing algorithm like OSPF, the host address can be
   passed around individually, and can come from the NAT table.

Privacy, Security, and Debugging Considerations

   Unfortunately, NAT reduces the number of options for providing
   security. With NAT, nothing that carries an IP address or information
   derived from an IP address (such as the TCP-header checksum) can be
   encrypted. While most application-level encryption should be ok, this
   prevents encryption of the TCP header.

   On the other hand, NAT itself can be seen as providing a kind of
   privacy mechanism. This comes from the fact that machines on the
   backbone cannot monitor which hosts are sending and receiving traffic
   (assuming of course that the application data is encrypted).

   The same characteristic that enhances privacy potentially makes
   debugging problems (including security violations) more difficult. If
   a host is abusing the Internet is some way (such as trying to attack
   another machine or even sending large amounts of junk mail or
   something) it is more difficult to pinpoint the source of the trouble
   because the IP address of the host is hidden.









Egevang & Francis                                               [Page 8]

RFC 1631               Network Address Translator               May 1994


4. Conclusions

   NAT may be a good short term solution to the address depletion and
   scaling problems. This is because it requires very few changes and
   can be installed incrementally. NAT has several negative
   characteristics that make it inappropriate as a long term solution,
   and may make it inappropriate even as a short term solution. Only
   implementation and experimentation will determine its
   appropriateness.

The negative characteristics are:

1. It requires a sparse end-to-end traffic matrix. Otherwise, the NAT
   tables will be large, thus giving lower performance. While the
   expectation is that end-to-end traffic matrices are indeed sparse,
   experience with NAT will determine whether or not they are. In any
   event, future applications may require a rich traffic matrix (for
   instance, distributed resource discovery), thus making long-term use
   of NAT unattractive.

2. It increases the probability of mis-addressing.

3. It breaks certain applications (or at least makes them more difficult
   to run).

4. It hides the identity of hosts. While this has the benefit of
   privacy, it is generally a negative effect.

5. Problems with SNMP, DNS, ... you name it.

Current Implementations

   Paul and Tony implemented an experimental prototype of NAT on public
   domain KA9Q TCP/IP software [1]. This implementation manipulates
   addresses and IP checksums.

   Kjeld implemented NAT in a Cray Communications IP-router. The
   implementation was tested with Telnet and FTP. This implementation
   manipulates addresses, IP checksums, TCP sequence/acknowledge numbers
   and FTP PORT commands.

   The prototypes has demonstrated that IP addresses can be translated
   transparently to hosts within the limitations described in this
   paper.







Egevang & Francis                                               [Page 9]

RFC 1631               Network Address Translator               May 1994


REFERENCES

   [1] Karn, P., "KA9Q", anonymous FTP from ucsd.edu
       (hamradio/packet/ka9q/docs).

   [2] Fuller, V., Li, T., and J. Yu, "Classless Inter-Domain Routing
       (CIDR) an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1519,
       BARRNet, cisco, Merit, OARnet, September 1993.

   [3] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., and G. de Groot,
       "Address Allocation for Private Internets", RFC 1597, T.J. Watson
       Research Center, IBM Corp., Chrysler Corp., RIPE NCC, March 1994.

Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

Authors' Addresses

   Kjeld Borch Egevang
   Cray Communications
   Smedeholm 12-14
   DK-2730 Herlev
   Denmark

   Phone: [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]


   Paul Francis
   NTT Software Lab
   3-9-11 Midori-cho Musashino-shi
   Tokyo 180 Japan

   Phone: [phone]
   Fax [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]














Egevang & Francis                                              [Page 10]