📄 rfc2529.txt
字号:
RFC 2529 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 March 1999 During transition, routers may need to advertise at least two IPv6 prefixes, one for the native LAN (e.g. Ethernet) and one for "6over4". As with any IPv6 prefix assigned to an IPv6 subnet, the latter MUST be unique within its scope, whether site-local or global addressing is used. Also note that when a router is handling both native LAN and "6over4" on the same physical interface, during stateless autoconfiguration, there is a period when IPv6 link-local addresses are used, in both cases with the prefix FE80::/64. Note that the prefix-length for these link-local adddress MUST then be 128 so that the two cases can be distinguished. As the site installs additional IPv6 routers, "6over4" hosts which become physically adjacent to IPv6 routers can be changed to run as native IPv6 hosts, with the the only impact on IPv6 applications being a slight increase in MTU size. At some stage during transition, it might be convenient to dual home hosts in both native LAN and "6over4" mode, but this is not required.8. IANA Considerations No assignments by the IANA are required beyond those in [ADMIN].9. Security Considerations Implementors should be aware that, in addition to posssible attacks against IPv6, security attacks against IPv4 must also be considered. Use of IP security at both IPv4 and IPv6 levels should nevertheless be avoided, for efficiency reasons. For example, if IPv6 is running encrypted, encryption of IPv4 would be redundant except if traffic analysis is felt to be a threat. If IPv6 is running authenticated, then authentication of IPv4 will add little. Conversely, IPv4 security will not protect IPv6 traffic once it leaves the IPv6-over- IPv4 domain. Therefore, implementing IPv6 security is required even if IPv4 security is available. There is a possible spoofing attack in which spurious 6over4 packets are injected into a 6over4 domain from outside. Thus, boundary routers MUST discard multicast IPv4 packets with source or destination multicast addresses of organisation local scope as defined in section 6 above, if they arrive on physical interfaces outside that scope. To defend against spurious unicast 6over4 packets, boundary routers MUST discard incoming IPv4 packets with protocol type 41 from unknown sources, i.e. IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels must only be accepted from trusted sources. Unless IPSECCarpenter & Jung Standards Track [Page 6]RFC 2529 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 March 1999 authentication is available, the RECOMMENDED technique for this is to configure the boundary router only to accept protocol type 41 packets from source addresses within a trusted range or ranges.Acknowledgements The basic idea presented above is not original, and we have had invaluable comments from Matt Crawford, Steve Deering, Dan Harrington, Rich Draves, Erik Nordmark, Quang Nguyen, Thomas Narten, and other members of the IPNG and NGTRANS working groups. This document is seriously ripped off from RFC 1972 written by Matt Crawford. Brian Carpenter was at CERN when the work was started.References [AARCH] Hinden, R., and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. [ADMIN] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23, RFC 2365, July 1998. [CONF] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. [DISC] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. [IPV6] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC 791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC 1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", RFC 1918, February 1996. [RFC 1933] Gilligan, R. and E. Nordmark, "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 1933, April 1996. [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC 1972] Crawford, M., "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks", RFC 1972, August 1996.Carpenter & Jung Standards Track [Page 7]RFC 2529 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 March 1999APPENDIX A: IPv4 Multicast Addresses for Neighbor Discovery The following IPv4 multicast groups are used to support Neighbor Discovery with this specification. The IPv4 addresses listed in this section were obtained by looking at the IPv6 multicast addresses that Neigbour Discovery uses, and deriving the resulting IPv4 "virtual link-layer" addresses that are generated from them using the algorithm given in Section 6. all-nodes multicast address - the administratively-scoped IPv4 multicast address used to reach all nodes in the local IPv4 domain supporting this specification. 239.OLS.0.1 all-routers multicast address - the administratively-scoped IPv4 multicast address to reach all routers in the local IPv4 domain supporting this specification. 239.OLS.0.2 solicited-node multicast address - an administratively scoped multicast address that is computed as a function of the solicited target's address by taking the low-order 24 bits of the IPv4 address used to form the IPv6 address, and prepending the prefix FF02:0:0:0:0:1:FF00::/104 [AARCH]. This is then mapped to the IPv4 multicast address by the method described in this document. For example, if the IPv4 address used to form the IPv6 address is W.X.Y.Z, then the IPv6 solicited node multicast address is FF02::1:255.X.Y.Z and the corresponding IPv4 multicast address is 239.OLS.Y.ZCarpenter & Jung Standards Track [Page 8]RFC 2529 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 March 1999Authors' Addresses Brian E. Carpenter Internet Division IBM United Kingdom Laboratories MP 185, Hursley Park Winchester, Hampshire S021 2JN, UK EMail: brian@hursley.ibm.com Cyndi Jung 3Com Corporation 5400 Bayfront Plaza, Mailstop 3219 Santa Clara, California 95052-8145 EMail: cmj@3Com.comCarpenter & Jung Standards Track [Page 9]RFC 2529 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 March 1999Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Carpenter & Jung Standards Track [Page 10]
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -