RFC5214（ISATAP）

 

 

Network Working Group                                         F. Templin
Request for Comments: 5214                          Boeing Phantom Works
Obsoletes: 4214                                               T. Gleeson
Category: Informational                               Cisco Systems K.K.
                                                               D. Thaler
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                              March 2008

        Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

IESG Note

   The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
   softwires, but this does not prevent publishing.

Abstract

   The Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) connects
   dual-stack (IPv6/IPv4) nodes over IPv4 networks.  ISATAP views the
   IPv4 network as a link layer for IPv6 and supports an automatic
   tunneling abstraction similar to the Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
   (NBMA) model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Requirements ....................................................3
   3. Terminology .....................................................3
   4. Domain of Applicability .........................................4
   5. Node Requirements ...............................................4
   6. Addressing Requirements .........................................4
      6.1. ISATAP Interface Identifiers ...............................4
      6.2. ISATAP Interface Address Configuration .....................5
      6.3. Multicast/Anycast ..........................................5
   7. Automatic Tunneling .............................................5
      7.1. Encapsulation ..............................................5
      7.2. Handling ICMPv4 Errors .....................................5
      7.3. Decapsulation ..............................................6
      7.4. Link-Local Addresses .......................................6
      7.5. Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels ............................6
   8. Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces ........................6
      8.1. Conceptual Model of a Host .................................7
      8.2. Router and Prefix Discovery - Router Specification .........7
      8.3. Router and Prefix Discovery - Host Specification ...........7
           8.3.1. Host Variables ......................................7
           8.3.2. Potential Router List Initialization ................7
           8.3.3. Processing Received Router Advertisements ...........8
           8.3.4. Sending Router Solicitations ........................8
      8.4. Neighbor Unreachability Detection ..........................9
   9. Site Administration Considerations ..............................9
   10. Security Considerations ........................................9
   11. IANA Considerations ...........................................10
   12. Acknowledgments ...............................................10
   13. References ....................................................11
      13.1. Normative References .....................................11
      13.2. Informative References ...................................12
   Appendix A. Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet
             Address Block ...........................................13

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies a simple mechanism called the Intra-Site
   Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) that connects
   dual-stack (IPv6/IPv4) nodes over IPv4 networks.  Dual-stack nodes
   use ISATAP to automatically tunnel IPv6 packets in IPv4, i.e., ISATAP
   views the IPv4 network as a link layer for IPv6.

   ISATAP enables automatic tunneling whether global or private IPv4
   addresses are used, and it presents a Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
   (NBMA) abstraction similar to [RFC2491],[RFC2492],[RFC2529], and
   [RFC3056].

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

   The main objectives of this document are to: 1) describe the domain
   of applicability, 2) specify addressing requirements, 3) specify
   automatic tunneling using ISATAP, 4) specify the operation of IPv6
   Neighbor Discovery over ISATAP interfaces, and 5) discuss Site
   Administration, Security, and IANA considerations.

2.  Requirements

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
   document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This document also uses internal conceptual variables to describe
   protocol behavior and external variables that an implementation must
   allow system administrators to change.  The specific variable names,
   how their values change, and how their settings influence protocol
   behavior are provided in order to demonstrate protocol behavior.  An
   implementation is not required to have them in the exact form
   described here, as long as its external behavior is consistent with
   that described in this document.

3.  Terminology

   The terminology of [RFC2460] and [RFC4861] applies to this document.
   The following additional terms are defined:

   ISATAP node/host/router:
      A dual-stack (IPv6/IPv4) node/host/router that implements the
      specifications in this document.
ISATAP节点/主机/路由器：一种双栈节点/主机/路由器。
   ISATAP interface:
      An ISATAP node's Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) IPv6 interface,
      used for automatic tunneling of IPv6 packets in IPv4.
ISATAP接口：一种ISATAP节点的非广播多路访问IPV6接口，用于在IPV4中建立IPV6数据包的自动隧道。
   ISATAP interface identifier:
      An IPv6 interface identifier with an embedded IPv4 address
      constructed as specified in Section 6.1.
ISATAP接口标志符：一种内含IPV4地址结构的IPV6接口标识符。
   ISATAP address:
      An IPv6 unicast address that matches an on-link prefix on an
      ISATAP interface of the node, and that includes an ISATAP
      interface identifier.
ISATAP地址：一个有着站点ISATAP前缀的IPV6单播地址，这包含ISATAP接口标识符

   locator:
      An IPv4 address-to-interface mapping; i.e., a node's IPv4 address
      and its associated interface.
定位器：一种IPV4地址到接口的映射，例如：一个节点的IPV4地址和与其相关的接口。

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

   locator set:
      A set of locators associated with an ISATAP interface.  Each
      locator in the set belongs to the same site.
定位器设置：与一个ISATAP接口相关联的定位器设置。设置的每个定位器都属于同一个站点。

4.  Domain of Applicability

   The domain of applicability for this technical specification is
   automatic tunneling of IPv6 packets in IPv4 for ISATAP nodes within
   sites that observe the security considerations found in this
   document, including host-to-router, router-to-host, and host-to-host
   automatic tunneling in certain enterprise networks and 3GPP/3GPP2
   wireless operator networks.  (Other scenarios with a sufficient trust
   basis ensured by the mechanisms specified in this document also fall
   within this domain of applicability.)
域的适用性：
基于站点的安全考虑，为ISATAP所建立的IPV4中IPV6数据包的自动隧道。包含在特点企业环境和3GPP/3GPP2无线网络中的主机-路由器，路由器-主机，主机-主机自动隧道。
   Extensions to the above domain of applicability (e.g., by combining
   the mechanisms in this document with those in other technical
   specifications) are out of the scope of this document.

5.  Node Requirements

   ISATAP nodes observe the common functionality requirements for IPv6
   nodes found in [RFC4294] and the requirements for dual IP layer
   operation found in Section 2 of [RFC4213].  They also implement the
   additional features specified in this document.

节点要求：ISATAP节点遵循IPV6节点的共同功能要求和双IP层的要求。

6.  Addressing Requirements
地址要求

6.1.  ISATAP Interface Identifiers
ISATAP接口描述符：用于改进的EUI-64。24位IANA OUI,8位十六进制值0xFE，以及一个32位的IPv4网络地址。

   ISATAP interface identifiers are constructed in Modified EUI-64
   format per Section 2.5.1 of [RFC4291] by concatenating the 24-bit
   IANA OUI (00-00-5E), the 8-bit hexadecimal value 0xFE, and a 32-bit
   IPv4 address in network byte order as follows:

   |0              1|1              3|3                              6|
   |0              5|6              1|2                              3|
   +----------------+----------------+--------------------------------+
   |000000ug00000000|0101111011111110|mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm|
   +----------------+----------------+--------------------------------+

   When the IPv4 address is known to be globally unique, the "u" bit
   (universal/local) is set to 1; otherwise, the "u" bit is set to 0.
   "g" is the individual/group bit, and "m" represents the bits of the
   IPv4 address.

u:全局/本地   g：单播/组播

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

   Per Section 2.5.1 of [RFC4291], ISATAP nodes are not required to
   validate that interface identifiers created with modified EUI-64
   tokens with the "u" bit set to universal are unique.

6.2.  ISATAP Interface Address Configuration
ISATAP接口地址配置
   Each ISATAP interface configures a set of locators consisting of IPv4
   address-to-interface mappings from a single site; i.e., an ISATAP
   interface's locator set MUST NOT span multiple sites.
每一个ISATAP接口设置了一个站点里的IPv4地址-接口映射。也就是说，ISATAP接口的定位器设置不允许跨越多个站点。
   When an IPv4 address is removed from an interface, the corresponding
   locator SHOULD be removed from its associated locator set(s).  When a
   new IPv4 address is assigned to an interface, the corresponding
   locator MAY be added to the appropriate locator set(s).
当一个IPv4地址从一个接口里删除时，相应的定位器应该被从它相关联的定位器（集）中删除。当新的IPv4地址分配给一个接口时，相应的定位器也应该被添加到适当的定位器（集)中。
   ISATAP interfaces form ISATAP interface identifiers from IPv4
   addresses in their locator set and use them to create link-local
   ISATAP addresses (Section 5.3 of [RFC4862]).
ISATAP接口从ISATAP接口标识符中得到它们定位器集中的IPv4地址，并且使用他们创建本地链路ISATAP地址。
6.3.  Multicast/Anycast
多播/任播

   It is not possible to assume the general availability of wide-area
   IPv4 multicast, so (unlike 6over4 [RFC2529]) ISATAP must assume that
   its underlying IPv4 carrier network only has unicast capability.
   Support for IPv6 multicast over ISATAP interfaces is not described in
   this document.
假定广域网IPv4广播具有广泛的有效性是不可能的，因此ISATAP必须假定它底层的IPv4传输网络仅仅具有单播能力。
   Similarly, support for Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses is not
   described in this document.

7.  Automatic Tunneling
自动隧道
   ISATAP interfaces use the basic tunneling mechanisms specified in
   Section 3 of [RFC4213].  The following sub-sections describe
   additional specifications.
ISATAP使用的是基本的隧道机制。
7.1.  Encapsulation
封装
   ISATAP addresses are mapped to a link-layer address by a static
   computation; i.e., the last four octets are treated as an IPv4
   address.
ISATAP地址由一种静态的计算方式映射到一个链路层地址，也就是说，最后四个字节被视为一个IPv4地址。
7.2.  Handling ICMPv4 Errors
处理ICMPv4错误
   ISATAP interfaces SHOULD process Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
   failures and persistent ICMPv4 errors as link-specific information
   indicating that a path to a neighbor may have failed (Section 7.3.3
   of [RFC4861]).
ISATAP接口应该能够处理地址解析（ARP）失败和不断的ICMPv4错误作为表明对邻居的路径失败的链路层特定信息。

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

7.3.  Decapsulation
解除封装
   The specification in Section 3.6 of [RFC4213] is used.  Additionally,
   when an ISATAP node receives an IPv4 protocol 41 datagram that does
   not belong to a configured tunnel interface, it determines whether
   the packet's IPv4 destination address and arrival interface match a
   locator configured in an ISATAP interface's locator set.
当一个ISATAP节点接受到了一个不属于配置隧道接口的IPv4协议41数据包时，它决定数据包的IPv4源地址和目的地址是否匹配在一个ISATAP接口定位器集中的定位器配置。
   If an ISATAP interface that configures a matching locator is found,
   the decapsulator MUST verify that the packet's IPv4 source address is
   correct for the encapsulated IPv6 source address.  The IPv4 source
   address is correct if:
如果一个配置了匹配的定位器的ISATAP接口被发现，解封器必须验证数据包中的IPv4源地址是正确的，下列情况下IPv4地址是正确的：
      o  the IPv6 source address is an ISATAP address that embeds the
         IPv4 source address in its interface identifier, or
IPv6源地址是一个ISATAP地址，这个ISATAP地址描述符中包含了IPv4源地址。
      o  the IPv4 source address is a member of the Potential Router
         List (see Section 8.1).
这个IPv4地址是潜在路由列表的一个成员。
   Packets for which the IPv4 source address is incorrect for this
   ISATAP interface are checked to determine whether they belong to
   another tunnel interface.
IPv4源地址不正确的数据包，由ISATAP接口检查，确定它们是否属于另外的隧道接口。
7.4.  Link-Local Addresses
本地链路地址
   ISATAP interfaces use link-local addresses constructed as specified
   in Section 6 of this document.

7.5.  Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels
通过隧道的邻居发现
   ISATAP interfaces use the specifications for neighbor discovery found
   in the following section of this document.

8.  Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces

   ISATAP interfaces use the neighbor discovery mechanisms specified in
   [RFC4861].  The following sub-sections describe specifications that
   are also implemented.

ISATAP接口使用邻居发现机制。

 

 

 

 

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

8.1.  Conceptual Model of a Host
主机的概念模型
   To the list of Conceptual Data Structures (Section 5.1 of [RFC4861]),
   ISATAP interfaces add the following:

   Potential Router List (PRL)
潜在路由器列表
      A set of entries about potential routers; used to support router
      and prefix discovery.  Each entry ("PRL(i)") has an associated
      timer ("TIMER(i)"), and an IPv4 address ("V4ADDR(i)") that
      represents a router's advertising ISATAP interface.
潜在路由器条目集；用于支持路由器和前缀发现。每个条目（"PRL(i)"）有一个关联的定时器，和一个IPv4地址（"V4ADDR(i)"），用于代表一个路由器公告的ISATAP接口。
8.2.  Router and Prefix Discovery - Router Specification
路由器和前缀发现--路由器规格
   Advertising ISATAP interfaces send Solicited Router Advertisement
   messages as specified in Section 6.2.6 of [RFC4861] except that the
   messages are sent directly to the soliciting node; i.e., they might
   not be received by other nodes on the link.
公告的ISATAP接口发送请求路由器公告信息，除了信息是直接发送给请求节点。也就是说，他们收不到来自链路上其他节点的请求。
8.3.  Router and Prefix Discovery - Host Specification
路由器和前缀发现--主机规格
   The Host Specification in Section 6.3 of [RFC4861] is used.  The
   following sub-sections describe specifications added by ISATAP
   interfaces.
下面接受的是为ISATAP增加的规格要求。
8.3.1.  Host Variables
主机变量
   To the list of host variables (Section 6.3.2 of [RFC4861]), ISATAP
   interfaces add the following:
对与主机变量，ISATAP接口增加了：
   PrlRefreshInterval
      Time in seconds between successive refreshments of the PRL after
      initialization.  The designated value of all ones (0xffffffff)
      represents infinity.
      Default: 3600 seconds
PRL用于设置初始化之后连续两次PRL重新刷新的时间间隔秒数。设置为全1(0xffffffff)表示无穷大。默认值为：3600秒。

   MinRouterSolicitInterval  最小路由请求间隔
      Minimum time in seconds between successive solicitations of the
      same advertising ISATAP interface.  The designated value of all
      ones (0xffffffff) represents infinity.
设置为全1(0xffffffff)表示无穷大。
8.3.2.  Potential Router List Initialization
潜在路由器列表初始化
   ISATAP nodes initialize an ISATAP interface's PRL with IPv4 addresses
   acquired via manual configuration, a DNS Fully Qualified Domain Name
   (FQDN) [RFC1035], a DHCPv4 [RFC2131] vendor-specific option, or an
   unspecified alternate method.  Domain names are acquired via manual

ISATAP节点在IPv4地址的要求下通过手工配置、DNS的FQDN、DHCPv4特定选项、其他未指定的替代方法初始化一个ISATAP接口的PRL。，

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

   configuration, receipt of a DHCPv4 Domain Name option [RFC2132], or
   an unspecified alternate method.  FQDNs are resolved into IPv4
   addresses through a static host file lookup, querying the DNS
   service, querying a site-specific name service, or with an
   unspecified alternate method.
域名要求通过手工配置、DHCPv4域名设置或者其他替代方法。FQDNs解析一个IPv4地址，通过静态主机文件查询、查询DNS服务、查询一个具体站点的命名服务或其他替代方法。
   After initializing an ISATAP interface's PRL, the node sets a timer
   for the interface to PrlRefreshInterval seconds and re-initializes
   the interface's PRL as specified above when the timer expires.  When
   an FQDN is used, and when it is resolved via a service that includes
   Times to Live (TTLs) with the IPv4 addresses returned (e.g., DNS 'A'
   resource records [RFC1035]), the timer SHOULD be set to the minimum
   of PrlRefreshInterval and the minimum TTL returned.  (Zero-valued
   TTLs are interpreted to mean that the PRL is re-initialized before
   each Router Solicitation event; see Section 8.3.4.)
初始化一个ISATAP接口的PRL后，站点会为接口的PrlRefreshInterval时间和再次初始化的时间设置一个计时器。当使用FQDN，或删除包含返回的IPv4地址生存时间的服务时，这个计时器应该设置为PrlRefreshInterval和返回的生存时间（TTL）最小值中的的最小值。
8.3.3.  Processing Received Router Advertisements
处理收到的路由器公告
   To the list of checks for validating Router Advertisement messages
   (Section 6.1.2 of [RFC4861]), ISATAP interfaces add the following:
对于为验证路由器公告信息的检查表，ISATAP接口增加了：
   o  IP Source Address is a link-local ISATAP address that embeds
      V4ADDR(i) for some PRL(i).
IP源地址是一个包含了IPv4地址的链路层ISATAP地址。
   Valid Router Advertisements received on an ISATAP interface are
   processed as specified in Section 6.3.4 of [RFC4861].

8.3.4.  Sending Router Solicitations
发送路由器请求
   To the list of events after which Router Solicitation messages may be
   sent (Section 6.3.7 of [RFC4861]), ISATAP interfaces add the
   following:
路由器请求信息发送后的事件中，ISATAP接口增加了：
   o  TIMER(i) for some PRL(i) expires.
一些PRL(i)到期的计时器
   Since unsolicited Router Advertisements may be incomplete and/or
   absent, ISATAP nodes MAY schedule periodic Router Solicitation events
   for certain PRL(i)s by setting the corresponding TIMER(i).
因为一些未请求的路由器公告或许未被处理或不存在，ISATAP节点可以通过设置相应的TIMER(i)值为特定的PRL(i)来安排一些定期路由器请求事件。
   When periodic Router Solicitation events are scheduled, the node
   SHOULD set TIMER(i) so that the next event will refresh remaining
   lifetimes stored for PRL(i) before they expire, including the Router
   Lifetime, Valid Lifetimes received in Prefix Information Options, and
   Route Lifetimes received in Route Information Options [RFC4191].
   TIMER(i) MUST be set to no less than MinRouterSolicitInterval seconds
   where MinRouterSolicitInterval is configurable for the node, or for a
   specific PRL(i), with a conservative default value (e.g., 2 minutes).
处理定期路由器请求事件时，站点应该设置TIMER(i)值，使得下一个事件可以刷新保存在PRL(i)中的生存时间，包括路由器生存时间，收到的前缀信息选项中的生存时间和收到的路由器信息选项中的路由时间。TIMER(i)必须设置为不低于MinRouterSolicitInterval时间，

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

   When TIMER(i) expires, the node sends Router Solicitation messages as
   specified in Section 6.3.7 of [RFC4861] except that the messages are
   sent directly to PRL(i); i.e., they might not be received by other
   routers.  While the node continues to require periodic Router
   Solicitation events for PRL(i), and while PRL(i) continues to act as
   a router, the node resets TIMER(i) after each expiration event as
   described above.
当TIMER(i)到期时，站点发送路由请求信息，这个信息是直接发送给PRL(i)，也就是说，它们可能不会收到来自其他路由器的信息。及其站点仍然需要周期的路由请求信息，或PRL(i)仍然在使用，在以上到期事件发生时，站点还是要初始化设置TIMER(i)。
8.4.  Neighbor Unreachability Detection
邻居不可达检测
   ISATAP hosts SHOULD perform Neighbor Unreachability Detection
   (Section 7.3 of [RFC4861]).  ISATAP routers MAY perform Neighbor
   Unreachability Detection, but this might not scale in all
   environments.
ISATAP主机应该执行邻居不可达检测。ISATAP不会在所有的环境中都会执行邻居不可达检测。
   After address resolution, ISATAP hosts SHOULD perform an initial
   reachability confirmation by sending Neighbor Solicitation messages
   and receiving a Neighbor Advertisement message.  ISATAP routers MAY
   perform this initial reachability confirmation, but this might not
   scale in all environments.
地址解析后，ISATAP主机应该通过发送邻居请求信息和接受邻居宣告信息执行可达性配置的初始化（确认邻居是否可达）。但不会在所有的环境中都执行此操作。
9.  Site Administration Considerations
站点管理
   Site administrators maintain a Potential Router List (PRL) of IPv4
   addresses representing advertising ISATAP interfaces of routers.
站点管理员保持一个IPv4地址的PRL，来显示路由器的ISATAP接口。
   The PRL is commonly maintained as an FQDN for the ISATAP service in
   the site's name service (see Section 8.3.2).  There are no mandatory
   rules for the selection of the FQDN, but site administrators are
   encouraged to use the convention "isatap.domainname" (e.g.,
   isatap.example.com).
在站点命名服务方面，PRL通常为ISATAP服务包含一个FQDN。没有强制选择FQDN，但站点管理员最好使用这种形式：isatap.domainname" (例如：isatap.example.com).
   When the site's name service includes TTLs with the IPv4 addresses
   returned, site administrators SHOULD configure the TTLs with
   conservative values to minimize control traffic.

10.  Security Considerations

   Implementers should be aware that, in addition to possible 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 unless 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 ISATAP
   domain.  Therefore, implementing IPv6 security is required even if
   IPv4 security is available.
出于对IPv6的攻击，对IPv4的安全攻击也应该考虑在内。因为效率原因，可以避免IPV4层次和IPV6层次安全的同时使用。例如：如果加密IPv6，那么加密IPv4是多余的。相反，IPv4的安全不能保证IPv6在离开ISATAP域后的传输安全。因此，即使使用了IPv4的安全，也要考虑IPV6的安全。

Templin, et al.              Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

   The threats associated with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery are described in
   [RFC3756].

   There is a possible spoofing attack in which spurious ip-protocol-41
   packets are injected into an ISATAP link from outside.  Since an
   ISATAP link spans an entire IPv4 site, restricting access to the link
   can be achieved by restricting access to the site; i.e., by having
   site border routers implement IPv4 ingress filtering and ip-
   protocol-41 filtering.

   Another possible spoofing attack involves spurious ip-protocol-41
   packets injected from within an ISATAP link by a node pretending to
   be a router.  The Potential Router List (PRL) provides a list of IPv4
   addresses representing advertising ISATAP interfaces of routers that
   hosts use in filtering decisions.  Site administrators should ensure
   that the PRL is kept up to date, and that the resolution mechanism
   (see Section 9) cannot be subverted.

   The use of temporary addresses [RFC4941] and Cryptographically
   Generated Addresses [RFC3972] on ISATAP interfaces is outside the
   scope of this specification.

11.  IANA Considerations

   The IANA has specified the format for Modified EUI-64 address
   construction (Appendix A of [RFC4291]) in the IANA Ethernet Address
   Block.  The text in the Appendix of this document has been offered as
   an example specification.  The current version of the IANA registry
   for Ether Types can be accessed at:

   http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers

12.  Acknowledgments

   The ideas in this document are not original, and the authors
   acknowledge the original architects.  Portions of this work were
   sponsored through SRI International and Nokia and Boeing internal
   projects and government contracts.  Government sponsors include
   Monica Farah Stapleton and Russell Langan (U.S. Army CECOM ASEO) and
   Dr. Allen Moshfegh (U.S. Office of Naval Research).  SRI
   International sponsors include Dr. Mike Frankel, J. Peter
   Marcotullio, Lou Rodriguez, and Dr. Ambatipudi Sastry.

   The following are acknowledged for providing peer review input: Jim
   Bound, Rich Draves, Cyndi Jung, Ambatipudi Sastry, Aaron Schrader,
   Ole Troan, and Vlad Yasevich.

 

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

   The following are acknowledged for their significant contributions:
   Marcelo Albuquerque, Brian Carpenter, Alain Durand, Hannu Flinck,
   Jason Goldschmidt, Christian Huitema, Nathan Lutchansky, Karen
   Nielsen, Mohan Parthasarathy, Chirayu Patel, Art Shelest, Markku
   Savela, Pekka Savola, Margaret Wasserman, Brian Zill, and members of
   the IETF IPv6 and V6OPS working groups.  Mohit Talwar contributed to
   earlier versions of this document.

   The authors acknowledge the work done by Brian Carpenter and Cyndi
   Jung in RFC 2529 that introduced the concept of intra-site automatic
   tunneling.  This concept was later called: "Virtual Ethernet" and
   researched by Quang Nguyen under the guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC
              2131, March 1997.

   [RFC2132]  Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
              Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
              for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

 

 

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2491]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
              over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC
              2491, January 1999.

   [RFC2492]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
              Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.

   [RFC2529]  Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
              Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

   [RFC3756]  Nikander, P., Ed., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6
              Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC
              3756, May 2004.

   [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
              RFC 3972, March 2005.

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.

   [RFC4294]  Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
              April 2006.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

Appendix A.  Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet Address
             Block

   Modified EUI-64 addresses (Section 2.5.1 and Appendix A of [RFC4291])
   in the IANA Ethernet Address Block are formed by concatenating the
   24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E) with a 40-bit extension identifier and
   inverting the "u" bit; i.e., the "u" bit is set to one (1) to
   indicate universal scope and set to zero (0) to indicate local scope.
   Modified EUI-64 addresses have the following appearance in memory
   (bits transmitted right-to-left within octets, octets transmitted
   left-to-right):

   0                       23                                        63
   |        OUI            |            extension identifier         |
   000000ug00000000 01011110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   When the first two octets of the extension identifier encode the
   hexadecimal value 0xFFFE, the remainder of the extension identifier
   encodes a 24-bit vendor-supplied id as follows:

   0                       23               39                       63
   |        OUI            |     0xFFFE     |   vendor-supplied id   |
   000000ug00000000 0101111011111111 11111110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   When the first octet of the extension identifier encodes the
   hexadecimal value 0xFE, the remainder of the extension identifier
   encodes a 32-bit IPv4 address as follows:

   0                       23      31                                63
   |        OUI            |  0xFE |           IPv4 address          |
   000000ug00000000 0101111011111110 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

Authors' Addresses

   Fred L. Templin
   Boeing Phantom Works
   P.O. Box 3707 MC 7L-49
   Seattle, WA  98124
   USA

   EMail: [email protected]

   Tim Gleeson
   Cisco Systems K.K.
   Shinjuku Mitsui Building
   2-1-1 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
   Tokyo  163-0409
   Japan

   EMail: [email protected]

   Dave Thaler
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052-6399
   US

   Phone: +1 425 703 8835
   EMail: [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 5214                         ISATAP                       March 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78 and at http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html,
   and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   [email protected].

 

 

 

 

 

Templin, et al.              Informational                     [Page 15]