[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (RFC 6145) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 7915

v6ops                                                             C. Bao
Internet-Draft                                                     X. Li
Obsoletes: 6145 (if approved)                     CERNET Center/Tsinghua
Intended status: Standards Track                              University
Expires: September 10, 2016                                     F. Baker
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                             T. Anderson
                                                          Redpill Linpro
                                                                 F. Gont
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           March 9, 2016


               IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (rfc6145bis)
                     draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-06

Abstract

   This document describes the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
   (SIIT), which translates between IPv4 and IPv6 packet headers
   (including ICMP headers).  This document obsoletes RFC 6145.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  IPv4-IPv6 Translation Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Applicability and Limitations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.3.  Stateless vs. Stateful Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.4.  Path MTU Discovery and Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Changes from RFC 6145  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Translating from IPv4 to IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Translating IPv4 Headers into IPv6 Headers . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Translating ICMPv4 Headers into ICMPv6 Headers . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  Translating ICMPv4 Error Messages into ICMPv6  . . . . . . 13
     4.4.  Generation of ICMPv4 Error Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.5.  Transport-Layer Header Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.6.  Knowing When to Translate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.  Translating from IPv6 to IPv4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.1.  Translating IPv6 Headers into IPv4 Headers . . . . . . . . 17
       5.1.1.  IPv6 Fragment Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.2.  Translating ICMPv6 Headers into ICMPv4 Headers . . . . . . 19
     5.3.  Translating ICMPv6 Error Messages into ICMPv4  . . . . . . 22
     5.4.  Generation of ICMPv6 Error Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.5.  Transport-Layer Header Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.6.  Knowing When to Translate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   6.  Mapping of IP Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   7.  Special Considerations for ICMPv6 Packet Too Big . . . . . . . 24
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   Appendix A.  Stateless Translation Workflow Example  . . . . . . . 33
     A.1.  H6 Establishes Communication with H4 . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     A.2.  H4 Establishes Communication with H6 . . . . . . . . . . . 35










Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


1.  Introduction and Motivation

   This document obsoletes [RFC6145].

   Readers of this document are expected to have read and understood the
   framework described in [RFC6144].  Implementations of this IPv4/IPv6
   translation specification MUST support one or more address mapping
   algorithms which are defined in Section 6.

1.1.  IPv4-IPv6 Translation Model

   The translation model consists of two or more network domains
   connected by one or more IP/ICMP translators (XLATs) as shown in
   Figure 1.

                ---------          ---------
              //        \\       //         \\
            /             +----+              \
           |              |XLAT|               | XLAT: IP/ICMP
           |   IPv4       +----+   IPv6        |       Translator
           |   Domain     |    |   Domain      |
           |              |    |               |
            \             |    |              /
             \\         //      \\          //
                --------          ---------

                   Figure 1: IPv4-IPv6 Translation Model

   The scenarios of the translation model are discussed in [RFC6144].

1.2.  Applicability and Limitations

   This document specifies the translation algorithms between IPv4
   packets and IPv6 packets.

   As with [RFC6145], the translating function specified in this
   document does not translate any IPv4 options, and it does not
   translate IPv6 extension headers except the Fragment Header.

   The issues and algorithms in the translation of datagrams containing
   TCP segments are described in [RFC5382].

   Fragmented IPv4 UDP packets that do not contain a UDP checksum (i.e.,
   the UDP checksum field is zero) are not of significant use in the
   Internet, and in general will not be translated by the IP/ICMP
   translator.  However, when the translator is configured to forward
   the packet without a UDP checksum, the fragmented IPv4 UDP packets
   will be translated.



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   Fragmented ICMP/ICMPv6 packets will not be translated by IP/ICMP
   translators.

   The IP/ICMP header translation specified in this document is
   consistent with requirements of multicast IP/ICMP headers.  However,
   IPv4 multicast addresses [RFC5771] cannot be mapped to IPv6 multicast
   addresses [RFC3307] based on the unicast mapping rule [RFC6052].  An
   example of experiments of the multicast address mapping can be found
   in [RFC6219].

1.3.  Stateless vs. Stateful Mode

   An IP/ICMP translator has two possible modes of operation: stateless
   and stateful [RFC6144].  In both cases, we assume that a system (a
   node or an application) that has an IPv4 address but not an IPv6
   address is communicating with a system that has an IPv6 address but
   no IPv4 address, or that the two systems do not have contiguous
   routing connectivity, or they might have contiguous routing
   connectivity but are interacting via masking addresses (i.e.
   hairpinning) and hence are forced to have their communications
   translated.

   In the stateless mode, an IP/ICMP translator will convert IPv4
   addresses to IPv6 and vice versa solely based on the configuration of
   the stateless IP/ICMP translator and information contained within the
   packet being translated.  For example, for the default behavior
   defined in [RFC6052], a specific IPv6 address range will represent
   IPv4 systems (IPv4-converted addresses), and the IPv6 systems have
   addresses (IPv4-translatable addresses) that can be algorithmically
   mapped to a subset of the service provider's IPv4 addresses.  Other
   stateless translation algorithms are defined in Section 6.  The
   stateless translator does not keep any dynamic session or binding
   state, thus there is no requirement that the packets in a single
   session or flow traverses a single translator.

   In the stateful mode, a specific IPv6 address range (consisting of
   IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses) will typically represent IPv4 systems.
   The IPv6 nodes may use any IPv6 addresses [RFC4291] except in that
   range.  A stateful IP/ICMP translator continuously maintains a
   dynamic translation table containing bindings between the IPv4 and
   IPv6 addresses, and likely also the Layer-4 identifiers, that are
   used in the translated packets.  The exact address translations of
   any given packet thus become dependent on how packets belonging to
   the same session or flow have been translated.  For this reason,
   stateful translation generally requires that all packets belonging to
   a single flow must traverse the same translator.

   In order to be able to successfully translate a packet from IPv4 to



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   IPv6 or vice versa, the translator must implement an address mapping
   algorithm.  This document does not specify any such algorithms,
   instead these are referenced from Section 6.

1.4.  Path MTU Discovery and Fragmentation

   Due to the different sizes of the IPv4 and IPv6 header, which are 20+
   octets and 40 octets respectively, handling the maximum packet size
   is critical for the operation of the IPv4/IPv6 translator.  There are
   three mechanisms to handle this issue: path MTU discovery (PMTUD),
   fragmentation, and transport-layer negotiation such as the TCP
   Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option [RFC0879].  Note that the
   translator MUST behave as a router, i.e., the translator MUST send a
   Packet Too Big error message or fragment the packet when the packet
   size exceeds the MTU of the next-hop interface.

   Don't Fragment, ICMP Packet Too Big, and packet fragmentation are
   discussed in Sections 4 and 5 of this document.  The reassembling of
   fragmented packets in the stateful translator is discussed in
   [RFC6146], since it requires state maintenance in the translator.

2.  Changes from RFC 6145

   The changes from RFC 6145 are the following:

   1.  Insert the notes for the IPv6 extension header handling
       [Erratum].

   2.  Deprecate the algorithm which generates the IPv6 atomic
       fragments, as a result of the analysis in
       [I-D.ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation] and specification
       in [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis].

   3.  Insert the notes for stateless source address mapping for ICMPv6
       packets [RFC6791].

   4.  Support new address mapping algorithms and move the discussion of
       these algorithms to Section 6.

3.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].







Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


4.  Translating from IPv4 to IPv6

   When an IP/ICMP translator receives an IPv4 datagram addressed to a
   destination towards the IPv6 domain, it translates the IPv4 header of
   that packet into an IPv6 header.  The original IPv4 header on the
   packet is removed and replaced by an IPv6 header, and the transport
   checksum is updated as needed, if that transport is supported by the
   translator.  The data portion of the packet is left unchanged.  The
   IP/ICMP translator then forwards the packet based on the IPv6
   destination address.

              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |    IPv4     |                 |    IPv6     |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |  Transport- |                 |  Fragment   |
              |   Layer     |      ===>       |   Header    |
              |   Header    |                 | (if needed) |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |             |                 |  Transport- |
              ~    Data     ~                 |   Layer     |
              |             |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
                                              |             |
                                              ~    Data     ~
                                              |             |
                                              +-------------+

                    Figure 2: IPv4-to-IPv6 Translation

   Path MTU discovery is mandatory in IPv6, but it is optional in IPv4.
   IPv6 routers never fragment a packet -- only the sender can do
   fragmentation.

   When an IPv4 node performs path MTU discovery (by setting the Don't
   Fragment (DF) bit in the header), path MTU discovery can operate end-
   to-end, i.e., across the translator.  In this case, either IPv4 or
   IPv6 routers (including the translator) might send back ICMP Packet
   Too Big messages to the sender.  When the IPv6 routers send these
   ICMPv6 errors, they will pass through a translator that will
   translate the ICMPv6 error to a form that the IPv4 sender can
   understand.  As a result, an IPv6 Fragment Header is only included if
   the IPv4 packet is already fragmented.

   However, when the IPv4 sender does not set the DF bit, the translator
   MUST ensure that the packet does not exceed the path MTU on the IPv6
   side.  This is done by fragmenting the IPv4 packet (with Fragment
   Headers) so that it fits in 1280-byte IPv6 packets, since that is the



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   minimum IPv6 MTU.  The IPv6 Fragment Header has been shown to cause
   operational difficulties in practice due to limited firewall
   fragmentation support, etc.  In an environment where the network
   owned/operated by the same entity that owns/operates the translator,
   the translator MUST provide a configuration function for the network
   administrator to adjust the threshold of the minimum IPv6 MTU to a
   value that reflects the real value of the minimum IPv6 MTU in the
   network (greater than 1280 bytes).  This will help reduce the chance
   of including the Fragment Header in the packets.

   When the IPv4 sender does not set the DF bit, the translator MUST NOT
   include the Fragment Header for the non-fragmented IPv6 packets.

   The rules in Section 4.1 ensure that when packets are fragmented,
   either by the sender or by IPv4 routers, the low-order 16 bits of the
   fragment identification are carried end-to-end, ensuring that packets
   are correctly reassembled.

   Other than the special rules for handling fragments and path MTU
   discovery, the actual translation of the packet header consists of a
   simple translation as defined below.  Note that ICMPv4 packets
   require special handling in order to translate the content of ICMPv4
   error messages and also to add the ICMPv6 pseudo-header checksum.

   The translator SHOULD make sure that the packets belonging to the
   same flow leave the translator in the same order in which they
   arrived.

4.1.  Translating IPv4 Headers into IPv6 Headers

   If the DF flag is not set and the IPv4 packet will result in an IPv6
   packet larger than a user-defined length (hereinafter referred to as
   "lowest-ipv6-mtu", and which defaults to 1280 bytes), the packet
   SHOULD be fragmented so the resulting IPv6 packet (with Fragment
   Header added to each fragment) will be less than or equal to lowest-
   ipv6-mtu, For example, if the packet is fragmented prior to the
   translation, the IPv4 packets should be fragmented so that their
   length, excluding the IPv4 header, is at most 1232 bytes (1280 minus
   40 for the IPv6 header and 8 for the Fragment Header).  The
   translator MUST provide a configuration function for the network
   administrator to adjust the threshold of the minimum IPv6 MTU to a
   value greater than 1280-byte if the real value of the minimum IPv6
   MTU in the network is known to the administrator.  The resulting
   fragments are then translated independently using the logic described
   below.

   If the DF bit is set and the MTU of the next-hop interface is less
   than the total length value of the IPv4 packet plus 20, the



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   translator MUST send an ICMPv4 "Fragmentation Needed" error message
   to the IPv4 source address.

   The IPv6 header fields are set as follows:

   Version:  6

   Traffic Class:  By default, copied from the IP Type Of Service (TOS)
      octet.  According to [RFC2474], the semantics of the bits are
      identical in IPv4 and IPv6.  However, in some IPv4 environments
      these fields might be used with the old semantics of "Type Of
      Service and Precedence".  An implementation of a translator SHOULD
      support an administratively configurable option to ignore the IPv4
      TOS and always set the IPv6 traffic class (TC) to zero.  In
      addition, if the translator is at an administrative boundary, the
      filtering and update considerations of [RFC2475] may be
      applicable.

   Flow Label:  0 (all zero bits)

   Payload Length:  Total length value from the IPv4 header, minus the
      size of the IPv4 header and IPv4 options, if present.

   Next Header:  For ICMPv4 (1), it is changed to ICMPv6 (58);
      otherwise, the protocol field MUST be copied from the IPv4 header.

   Hop Limit:  The hop limit is derived from the TTL value in the IPv4
      header.  Since the translator is a router, as part of forwarding
      the packet it needs to decrement either the IPv4 TTL (before the
      translation) or the IPv6 Hop Limit (after the translation).  As
      part of decrementing the TTL or Hop Limit, the translator (as any
      router) MUST check for zero and send the ICMPv4 "TTL Exceeded" or
      ICMPv6 "Hop Limit Exceeded" error.

   Source Address:  Mapped to an IPv6 address based on the algorithms
      presented in Section 6.

      If the translator gets an illegal source address (e.g., 0.0.0.0,
      127.0.0.1, etc.), the translator SHOULD silently discard the
      packet (as discussed in Section 5.3.7 of [RFC1812]).  Note when
      translating ICMPv4 Error Messages into ICMPv6, the "illegal"
      source address will be translated for the purpose of trouble
      shooting.

   Destination Address:  Mapped to an IPv6 address based on the
      algorithms presented in Section 6.

   If any IPv4 options are present in the IPv4 packet, they MUST be



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   ignored and the packet translated normally; there is no attempt to
   translate the options.  However, if an unexpired source route option
   is present then the packet MUST instead be discarded, and an ICMPv4
   "Destination Unreachable, Source Route Failed" (Type 3, Code 5) error
   message SHOULD be returned to the sender.

   If there is a need to add a Fragment Header (the packet is a fragment
   or the DF bit is not set and the packet size is greater than the
   minimum IPv6 MTU in the network set by the translator configuration
   function), the header fields are set as above with the following
   exceptions:

   IPv6 fields:

      Payload Length:  Total length value from the IPv4 header, plus 8
         for the Fragment Header, minus the size of the IPv4 header and
         IPv4 options, if present.

      Next Header:  Fragment Header (44).

   Fragment Header fields:

      Next Header:  For ICMPv4 (1), it is changed to ICMPv6 (58);
         otherwise, the protocol field MUST be copied from the IPv4
         header.

      Fragment Offset:  Fragment Offset copied from the IPv4 header.

      M flag:  More Fragments bit copied from the IPv4 header.

      Identification:  The low-order 16 bits copied from the
         Identification field in the IPv4 header.  The high-order 16
         bits set to zero.

4.2.  Translating ICMPv4 Headers into ICMPv6 Headers

   All ICMPv4 messages that are to be translated require that the ICMPv6
   checksum field be calculated as part of the translation since ICMPv6,
   unlike ICMPv4, has a pseudo-header checksum just like UDP and TCP.

   In addition, all ICMPv4 packets MUST have the Type translated and,
   for ICMPv4 error messages, the included IP header also MUST be
   translated.

   The actions needed to translate various ICMPv4 messages are as
   follows:





Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   ICMPv4 query messages:

      Echo and Echo Reply (Type 8 and Type 0):  Adjust the Type values
         to 128 and 129, respectively, and adjust the ICMP checksum both
         to take the type change into account and to include the ICMPv6
         pseudo-header.

      Information Request/Reply (Type 15 and Type 16):  Obsoleted in
         ICMPv6.  Silently drop.

      Timestamp and Timestamp Reply (Type 13 and Type 14):  Obsoleted in
         ICMPv6.  Silently drop.

      Address Mask Request/Reply (Type 17 and Type 18):  Obsoleted in
         ICMPv6.  Silently drop.

      ICMP Router Advertisement (Type 9):  Single-hop message.  Silently
         drop.

      ICMP Router Solicitation (Type 10):  Single-hop message.  Silently
         drop.

      Unknown ICMPv4 types:  Silently drop.

      IGMP messages:  While the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)
         messages [RFC2710] [RFC3590] [RFC3810] are the logical IPv6
         counterparts for the IPv4 IGMP messages, all the "normal" IGMP
         messages are single-hop messages and SHOULD be silently dropped
         by the translator.  Other IGMP messages might be used by
         multicast routing protocols and, since it would be a
         configuration error to try to have router adjacencies across
         IP/ICMP translators, those packets SHOULD also be silently
         dropped.

       ICMPv4 error messages:

         Destination Unreachable (Type 3):  Translate the Code as
            described below, set the Type to 1, and adjust the ICMP
            checksum both to take the type/code change into account and
            to include the ICMPv6 pseudo-header.

            Translate the Code as follows:

            Code 0, 1 (Net Unreachable, Host Unreachable):  Set the Code
               to 0 (No route to destination).






Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


            Code 2 (Protocol Unreachable):  Translate to an ICMPv6
               Parameter Problem (Type 4, Code 1) and make the Pointer
               point to the IPv6 Next Header field.

            Code 3 (Port Unreachable):  Set the Code to 4 (Port
               unreachable).

            Code 4 (Fragmentation Needed and DF was Set):  Translate to
               an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message (Type 2) with Code set
               to 0.  The MTU field MUST be adjusted for the difference
               between the IPv4 and IPv6 header sizes, but MUST NOT be
               set to a value smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU (1280
               bytes).  That is, it should be set to maximum(1280,
               minimum((MTU value in the Packet Too Big Message)+20,
               MTU_of_IPv6_nexthop, (MTU_of_IPv4_nexthop)+20)).  Note
               that if the IPv4 router set the MTU field to zero, i.e.,
               the router does not implement [RFC1191], then the
               translator MUST use the plateau values specified in
               [RFC1191] to determine a likely path MTU and include that
               path MTU in the ICMPv6 packet.  (Use the greatest plateau
               value that is less than the returned Total Length field,
               but that is larger than or equal to 1280.)

               See also the requirements in Section 7.

            Code 5 (Source Route Failed):  Set the Code to 0 (No route
               to destination).  Note that this error is unlikely since
               source routes are not translated.

            Code 6, 7, 8:  Set the Code to 0 (No route to destination).

            Code 9, 10 (Communication with Destination Host
            Administratively Prohibited):  Set the Code to 1
               (Communication with destination administratively
               prohibited).

            Code 11, 12:  Set the Code to 0 (No route to destination).

            Code 13 (Communication Administratively Prohibited):  Set
               the Code to 1 (Communication with destination
               administratively prohibited).

            Code 14 (Host Precedence Violation):  Silently drop.

            Code 15 (Precedence cutoff in effect):  Set the Code to 1
               (Communication with destination administratively
               prohibited).




Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


            Other Code values:  Silently drop.

         Redirect (Type 5):  Single-hop message.  Silently drop.

         Alternative Host Address (Type 6):  Silently drop.

         Source Quench (Type 4):  Obsoleted in ICMPv6.  Silently drop.

         Time Exceeded (Type 11):  Set the Type to 3, and adjust the
            ICMP checksum both to take the type change into account and
            to include the ICMPv6 pseudo-header.  The Code is unchanged.

         Parameter Problem (Type 12):  Set the Type to 4, and adjust the
            ICMP checksum both to take the type/code change into account
            and to include the ICMPv6 pseudo-header.

            Translate the Code as follows:

            Code 0 (Pointer indicates the error):  Set the Code to 0
               (Erroneous header field encountered) and update the
               pointer as defined in Figure 3.  (If the Original IPv4
               Pointer Value is not listed or the Translated IPv6
               Pointer Value is listed as "n/a", silently drop the
               packet.)

            Code 1 (Missing a required option):  Silently drop.

            Code 2 (Bad length):  Set the Code to 0 (Erroneous header
               field encountered) and update the pointer as defined in
               Figure 3.  (If the Original IPv4 Pointer Value is not
               listed or the Translated IPv6 Pointer Value is listed as
               "n/a", silently drop the packet.)

            Other Code values:  Silently drop.

         Unknown ICMPv4 types:  Silently drop.















Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


     +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
     |   Original IPv4 Pointer Value  | Translated IPv6 Pointer Value  |
     +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
     |  0  | Version/IHL              |  0  | Version/Traffic Class    |
     |  1  | Type Of Service          |  1  | Traffic Class/Flow Label |
     | 2,3 | Total Length             |  4  | Payload Length           |
     | 4,5 | Identification           | n/a |                          |
     |  6  | Flags/Fragment Offset    | n/a |                          |
     |  7  | Fragment Offset          | n/a |                          |
     |  8  | Time to Live             |  7  | Hop Limit                |
     |  9  | Protocol                 |  6  | Next Header              |
     |10,11| Header Checksum          | n/a |                          |
     |12-15| Source Address           |  8  | Source Address           |
     |16-19| Destination Address      | 24  | Destination Address      |
     +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+

             Figure 3: Pointer Value for Translating from IPv4 to IPv6

         ICMP Error Payload:  If the received ICMPv4 packet contains an
            ICMPv4 Extension [RFC4884], the translation of the ICMPv4
            packet will cause the ICMPv6 packet to change length.  When
            this occurs, the ICMPv6 Extension length attribute MUST be
            adjusted accordingly (e.g., longer due to the translation
            from IPv4 to IPv6).  If the ICMPv4 Extension exceeds the
            maximum size of an ICMPv6 message on the outgoing interface,
            the ICMPv4 extension SHOULD be simply truncated.  For
            extensions not defined in [RFC4884], the translator passes
            the extensions as opaque bit strings, and those containing
            IPv4 address literals will not have their included addresses
            translated to IPv6 address literals; this may cause problems
            with processing of those ICMP extensions.

4.3.  Translating ICMPv4 Error Messages into ICMPv6

   There are some differences between the ICMPv4 and the ICMPv6 error
   message formats as detailed above.  The ICMP error messages
   containing the packet in error MUST be translated just like a normal
   IP packet (except the TTL value of the inner IPv4/IPv6 packet).  If
   the translation of this "packet in error" changes the length of the
   datagram, the Total Length field in the outer IPv6 header MUST be
   updated.










Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |    IPv4     |                 |    IPv6     |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |   ICMPv4    |                 |   ICMPv6    |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |    IPv4     |      ===>       |    IPv6     |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |   Partial   |                 |   Partial   |
              |  Transport- |                 |  Transport- |
              |   Layer     |                 |   Layer     |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+

               Figure 4: IPv4-to-IPv6 ICMP Error Translation

   The translation of the inner IP header can be done by invoking the
   function that translated the outer IP headers.  This process MUST
   stop at the first embedded header and drop the packet if it contains
   more embedded headers.

4.4.  Generation of ICMPv4 Error Message

   If the IPv4 packet is discarded, then the translator SHOULD be able
   to send back an ICMPv4 error message to the original sender of the
   packet, unless the discarded packet is itself an ICMPv4 error
   message.  The ICMPv4 message, if sent, has a Type of 3 (Destination
   Unreachable) and a Code of 13 (Communication Administratively
   Prohibited), unless otherwise specified in this document or in
   [RFC6146].  The translator SHOULD allow an administrator to configure
   whether the ICMPv4 error messages are sent, rate-limited, or not
   sent.

4.5.  Transport-Layer Header Translation

   If the address translation algorithm is not checksum neutral (see
   Section 4.1 of [RFC6052]), the recalculation and updating of the
   transport-layer headers that contain pseudo-headers need to be
   performed.  Translators MUST do this for TCP and ICMP packets and for
   UDP packets that contain a UDP checksum (i.e., the UDP checksum field
   is not zero).

   For UDP packets that do not contain a UDP checksum (i.e., the UDP
   checksum field is zero), the translator SHOULD provide a
   configuration function to allow:




Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   1.  Dropping the packet and generating a system management event that
       specifies at least the IP addresses and port numbers of the
       packet.

   2.  Calculating an IPv6 checksum and forwarding the packet (which has
       performance implications).

       A stateless translator cannot compute the UDP checksum of
       fragmented packets, so when a stateless translator receives the
       first fragment of a fragmented UDP IPv4 packet and the checksum
       field is zero, the translator SHOULD drop the packet and generate
       a system management event that specifies at least the IP
       addresses and port numbers in the packet.

       For a stateful translator, the handling of fragmented UDP IPv4
       packets with a zero checksum is discussed in [RFC6146]), Section
       3.1.

   Other transport protocols (e.g., DCCP) are OPTIONAL to support.  In
   order to ease debugging and troubleshooting, translators MUST forward
   all transport protocols as described in the "Next Header" step of
   Section 4.1.

4.6.  Knowing When to Translate

   If the IP/ICMP translator also provides a normal forwarding function,
   and the destination IPv4 address is reachable by a more specific
   route without translation, the translator MUST forward it without
   translating it.  Otherwise, when an IP/ICMP translator receives an
   IPv4 datagram addressed to an IPv4 destination representing a host in
   the IPv6 domain, the packet MUST be translated to IPv6.

5.  Translating from IPv6 to IPv4

   When an IP/ICMP translator receives an IPv6 datagram addressed to a
   destination towards the IPv4 domain, it translates the IPv6 header of
   the received IPv6 packet into an IPv4 header.  The original IPv6
   header on the packet is removed and replaced by an IPv4 header.
   Since the ICMPv6 [RFC4443], TCP [RFC0793], UDP [RFC0768], and DCCP
   [RFC4340] headers contain checksums that cover the IP header, if the
   address mapping algorithm is not checksum neutral, the checksum MUST
   be evaluated before translation and the ICMP and transport-layer
   headers MUST be updated.  The data portion of the packet is left
   unchanged.  The IP/ICMP translator then forwards the packet based on
   the IPv4 destination address.






Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |    IPv6     |                 |    IPv4     |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |  Fragment   |                 |  Transport  |
              |   Header    |      ===>       |   Layer     |
              |(if present) |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |  Transport  |                 |             |
              |   Layer     |                 ~    Data     ~
              |   Header    |                 |             |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |             |
              ~    Data     ~
              |             |
              +-------------+

                    Figure 5: IPv6-to-IPv4 Translation

   There are some differences between IPv6 and IPv4 (in the areas of
   fragmentation and the minimum link MTU) that affect the translation.
   An IPv6 link has to have an MTU of 1280 bytes or greater.  The
   corresponding limit for IPv4 is 68 bytes.  Path MTU discovery across
   a translator relies on ICMP Packet Too Big messages being received
   and processed by IPv6 hosts.

   The difference in the minimum MTUs of IPv4 and IPv6 is accommodated
   as follows:

   o  When translating an ICMPv4 "Fragmentation Needed" packet, the
      indicated MTU in the resulting ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" will never
      be set to a value lower than 1280.  This ensures that the IPv6
      nodes will never have to encounter or handle Path MTU values lower
      than the minimum IPv6 link MTU of 1280.  See Section 4.2.

   o  When the resulting IPv4 packet is smaller than or equal to 1260
      bytes, the translator MUST send the packet with a cleared Don't
      Fragment bit.  Otherwise, the packet MUST be sent with the Don't
      Fragment bit set.  See Section 5.1.

   This approach allows Path MTU Discovery to operate end-to-end for
   paths whose MTU are not smaller than minimum IPv6 MTU of 1280 (which
   corresponds to MTU of 1260 in the IPv4 domain).  On paths that have
   IPv4 links with MTU < 1260, the IPv4 router(s) connected to those
   links will fragment the packets in accordance with Section 2.3 of
   [RFC0791].

   Other than the special rules for handling fragments and path MTU



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   discovery, the actual translation of the packet header consists of a
   simple translation as defined below.  Note that ICMPv6 packets
   require special handling in order to translate the contents of ICMPv6
   error messages and also to remove the ICMPv6 pseudo-header checksum.

   The translator SHOULD make sure that the packets belonging to the
   same flow leave the translator in the same order in which they
   arrived.

5.1.  Translating IPv6 Headers into IPv4 Headers

   If there is no IPv6 Fragment Header, the IPv4 header fields are set
   as follows:

   Version:  4

   Internet Header Length:  5 (no IPv4 options)

   Type of Service (TOS) Octet:  By default, copied from the IPv6
      Traffic Class (all 8 bits).  According to [RFC2474], the semantics
      of the bits are identical in IPv4 and IPv6.  However, in some IPv4
      environments, these bits might be used with the old semantics of
      "Type Of Service and Precedence".  An implementation of a
      translator SHOULD provide the ability to ignore the IPv6 traffic
      class and always set the IPv4 TOS Octet to a specified value.  In
      addition, if the translator is at an administrative boundary, the
      filtering and update considerations of [RFC2475] may be
      applicable.

   Total Length:  Payload length value from the IPv6 header, plus the
      size of the IPv4 header.

   Identification:  Set according to a Fragment Identification generator
      at the translator.

   Flags:  The More Fragments flag is set to zero.  The Don't Fragment
      (DF) flag is set as follows: If the size of the translated IPv4
      packet is less than or equal to 1260 bytes, it is set to zero;
      otherwise, it is set to one.

   Fragment Offset:  All zeros.

   Time to Live:  Time to Live is derived from Hop Limit value in IPv6
      header.  Since the translator is a router, as part of forwarding
      the packet it needs to decrement either the IPv6 Hop Limit (before
      the translation) or the IPv4 TTL (after the translation).  As part
      of decrementing the TTL or Hop Limit the translator (as any
      router) MUST check for zero and send the ICMPv4 "TTL Exceeded" or



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


      ICMPv6 "Hop Limit Exceeded" error.

   Protocol:  The IPv6-Frag (44) header is handled as discussed in
      Section 5.1.1.  ICMPv6 (58) is changed to ICMPv4 (1), and the
      payload is translated as discussed in Section 5.2.  The IPv6
      headers HOPOPT (0), IPv6-Route (43), and IPv6-Opts (60) are
      skipped over during processing as they have no meaning in IPv4.
      For the first 'next header' that does not match one of the cases
      above, its Next Header value (which contains the transport
      protocol number) is copied to the protocol field in the IPv4
      header.  This means that all transport protocols are translated.

      Note:  Some translated protocols will fail at the receiver for
         various reasons: some are known to fail when translated (e.g.,
         IPsec Authentication Header (51)), and others will fail
         checksum validation if the address translation is not checksum
         neutral [RFC6052] and the translator does not update the
         transport protocol's checksum (because the translator doesn't
         support recalculating the checksum for that transport protocol;
         see Section 5.5).

   Header Checksum:  Computed once the IPv4 header has been created.

   Source Address:  Mapped to an IPv4 address based on the algorithms
      presented in Section 6.

      If the translator gets an illegal source address (e.g., ::1,
      etc.), the translator SHOULD silently drop the packet.

   Destination Address:  Mapped to an IPv4 address based on the
      algorithms presented in Section 6.

   If any of an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header, Destination Options
   header, or Routing header with the Segments Left field equal to zero
   are present in the IPv6 packet, those IPv6 extension headers MUST be
   ignored (i.e., there is no attempt to translate the extension
   headers) and the packet translated normally.  However, the Total
   Length field and the Protocol field are adjusted to "skip" these
   extension headers.

   If a Routing header with a non-zero Segments Left field is present,
   then the packet MUST NOT be translated, and an ICMPv6 "parameter
   problem/erroneous header field encountered" (Type 4, Code 0) error
   message, with the Pointer field indicating the first byte of the
   Segments Left field, SHOULD be returned to the sender.






Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


5.1.1.  IPv6 Fragment Processing

   If the IPv6 packet contains a Fragment Header, the header fields are
   set as above with the following exceptions:

   Total Length:  If the Next Header field of the Fragment Header is not
      an extension header (except ESP) then Total Length MUST be set to
      Payload Length value from IPv6 header, minus length of extension
      headers up to Fragmentation Header, minus 8 for the Fragment
      Header, plus the size of the IPv4 header.  If the Next Header
      field of the Fragment Header is an extension header (except ESP)
      then the packet SHOULD be dropped and logged.

   Identification:  Copied from the low-order 16 bits in the
      Identification field in the Fragment Header.

   Flags:  The IPv4 More Fragments (MF) flag is copied from the M flag
      in the IPv6 Fragment Header.  The IPv4 Don't Fragment (DF) flag is
      cleared (set to zero), allowing this packet to be further
      fragmented by IPv4 routers.

   Fragment Offset:  If the Next Header field of the Fragment Header is
      not an extension header (except ESP) then Fragment Offset MUST be
      copied from the Fragment Offset field of the IPv6 Fragment Header.
      If the Next Header field of the Fragment Header is an extension
      header (except ESP) then the packet SHOULD be dropped and logged.

   Protocol:  For ICMPv6 (58), it is changed to ICMPv4 (1); otherwise,
      extension headers are skipped, and the Next Header field is copied
      from the last IPv6 header.

   If an IPv6 packet that is smaller than or equal to 1280 bytes results
   (after translation) in an IPv4 packet that is larger than the MTU of
   the next-hop interface, then the translator MUST perform IPv4
   fragmentation on that packet such that it can be transferred over the
   constricting link.

5.2.  Translating ICMPv6 Headers into ICMPv4 Headers

   If a non-checksum-neutral translation address is being used, ICMPv6
   messages MUST have their ICMPv4 checksum field be updated as part of
   the translation since ICMPv6 (unlike ICMPv4) includes a pseudo-header
   in the checksum just like UDP and TCP.

   In addition, all ICMP packets MUST have the Type translated and, for
   ICMP error messages, the included IP header also MUST be translated.

   The actions needed to translate various ICMPv6 messages are:



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   ICMPv6 informational messages:

      Echo Request and Echo Reply (Type 128 and 129):  Adjust the Type
         values to 8 and 0, respectively, and adjust the ICMP checksum
         both to take the type change into account and to exclude the
         ICMPv6 pseudo-header.

      MLD Multicast Listener Query/Report/Done (Type 130, 131, 132):
         Single-hop message.  Silently drop.

      Neighbor Discover messages (Type 133 through 137):  Single-hop
         message.  Silently drop.

      Unknown informational messages:  Silently drop.

   ICMPv6 error messages:

      Destination Unreachable (Type 1)  Set the Type to 3, and adjust
         the ICMP checksum both to take the type/code change into
         account and to exclude the ICMPv6 pseudo-header.

         Translate the Code as follows:

         Code 0 (No route to destination):  Set the Code to 1 (Host
            unreachable).

         Code 1 (Communication with destination administratively
         prohibited):  Set the Code to 10 (Communication with
            destination host administratively prohibited).

         Code 2 (Beyond scope of source address):  Set the Code to 1
            (Host unreachable).  Note that this error is very unlikely
            since an IPv4-translatable source address is typically
            considered to have global scope.

         Code 3 (Address unreachable):  Set the Code to 1 (Host
            unreachable).

         Code 4 (Port unreachable):  Set the Code to 3 (Port
            unreachable).

         Other Code values:  Silently drop.

      Packet Too Big (Type 2):  Translate to an ICMPv4 Destination
         Unreachable (Type 3) with Code 4, and adjust the ICMPv4
         checksum both to take the type change into account and to
         exclude the ICMPv6 pseudo-header.  The MTU field MUST be
         adjusted for the difference between the IPv4 and IPv6 header



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


         sizes, taking into account whether or not the packet in error
         includes a Fragment Header, i.e., minimum((MTU value in the
         Packet Too Big Message)-20, MTU_of_IPv4_nexthop,
         (MTU_of_IPv6_nexthop)-20).

         See also the requirements in Section 7.

      Time Exceeded (Type 3):  Set the Type to 11, and adjust the ICMPv4
         checksum both to take the type change into account and to
         exclude the ICMPv6 pseudo-header.  The Code is unchanged.

      Parameter Problem (Type 4):  Translate the Type and Code as
         follows, and adjust the ICMPv4 checksum both to take the type/
         code change into account and to exclude the ICMPv6 pseudo-
         header.

         Translate the Code as follows:

         Code 0 (Erroneous header field encountered):  Set to Type 12,
            Code 0, and update the pointer as defined in Figure 6.  (If
            the Original IPv6 Pointer Value is not listed or the
            Translated IPv4 Pointer Value is listed as "n/a", silently
            drop the packet.)

         Code 1 (Unrecognized Next Header type encountered):  Translate
            this to an ICMPv4 protocol unreachable (Type 3, Code 2).

         Code 2 (Unrecognized IPv6 option encountered):  Silently drop.

      Unknown error messages:  Silently drop.



     +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
     |   Original IPv6 Pointer Value  | Translated IPv4 Pointer Value  |
     +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
     |  0  | Version/Traffic Class    |  0  | Version/IHL, Type Of Ser |
     |  1  | Traffic Class/Flow Label |  1  | Type Of Service          |
     | 2,3 | Flow Label               | n/a |                          |
     | 4,5 | Payload Length           |  2  | Total Length             |
     |  6  | Next Header              |  9  | Protocol                 |
     |  7  | Hop Limit                |  8  | Time to Live             |
     | 8-23| Source Address           | 12  | Source Address           |
     |24-39| Destination Address      | 16  | Destination Address      |
     +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+

            Figure 6: Pointer Value for Translating from IPv6 to IPv4




Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


      ICMP Error Payload:  If the received ICMPv6 packet contains an
         ICMPv6 Extension [RFC4884], the translation of the ICMPv6
         packet will cause the ICMPv4 packet to change length.  When
         this occurs, the ICMPv6 Extension length attribute MUST be
         adjusted accordingly (e.g., shorter due to the translation from
         IPv6 to IPv4).  For extensions not defined in [RFC4884], the
         translator passes the extensions as opaque bit strings and any
         IPv6 address literals contained therein will not be translated
         to IPv4 address literals; this may cause problems with
         processing of those ICMP extensions.

5.3.  Translating ICMPv6 Error Messages into ICMPv4

   There are some differences between the ICMPv4 and the ICMPv6 error
   message formats as detailed above.  The ICMP error messages
   containing the packet in error MUST be translated just like a normal
   IP packet (except the TTL value of the inner IPv4/IPv6 packet).  The
   translation of this "packet in error" is likely to change the length
   of the datagram; thus, the Total Length field in the outer IPv4
   header MUST be updated.

              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |    IPv6     |                 |    IPv4     |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |   ICMPv6    |                 |   ICMPv4    |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |    IPv6     |      ===>       |    IPv4     |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+
              |   Partial   |                 |   Partial   |
              |  Transport- |                 |  Transport- |
              |   Layer     |                 |   Layer     |
              |   Header    |                 |   Header    |
              +-------------+                 +-------------+

               Figure 7: IPv6-to-IPv4 ICMP Error Translation

   The translation of the inner IP header can be done by invoking the
   function that translated the outer IP headers.  This process MUST
   stop at the first embedded header and drop the packet if it contains
   more embedded headers.

5.4.  Generation of ICMPv6 Error Messages

   If the IPv6 packet is discarded, then the translator SHOULD send back
   an ICMPv6 error message to the original sender of the packet, unless



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   the discarded packet is itself an ICMPv6 message.

   The ICMPv6 message MUST have Type 1 (Destination Unreachable) and
   Code 1 (Communication with destination administratively prohibited),
   unless otherwise specified in this document or [RFC6146].  The
   translator SHOULD allow an administrator to configure whether the
   ICMPv6 error messages are sent, rate-limited, or not sent.

5.5.  Transport-Layer Header Translation

   If the address translation algorithm is not checksum neutral (see
   Section 4.1 of [RFC6052]), the recalculation and updating of the
   transport-layer headers that contain pseudo-headers need to be
   performed.  Translators MUST do this for TCP, UDP, and ICMP.

   Other transport protocols (e.g., DCCP) are OPTIONAL to support.  In
   order to ease debugging and troubleshooting, translators MUST forward
   all transport protocols as described in the "Protocol" step of
   Section 5.1.

5.6.  Knowing When to Translate

   If the IP/ICMP translator also provides a normal forwarding function,
   and the destination address is reachable by a more specific route
   without translation, the router MUST forward it without translating
   it.  When an IP/ICMP translator receives an IPv6 datagram addressed
   to an IPv6 address representing a host in the IPv4 domain, the IPv6
   packet MUST be translated to IPv4.

6.  Mapping of IP Addresses

   The translator MUST support stateless address mapping algorithm
   defined in [RFC6052], which is the default behavior.  A workflow
   example is shown in Appendix A of this document.  Note that [RFC7136]
   updates [RFC4291] which allows the use of unicast addresses without
   u-bit, as long as they're not derived from an IEEE MAC-layer address.
   Therefore the address mapping algorithm defined in [RFC6219] also
   complies with the IPv6 address architecture.

   The stateless translator SHOULD support explicit address mapping
   algorithm defined in [RFC7757].

   The stateless translator SHOULD support [RFC6791] for handling ICMP/
   ICMPv6 packets.

   Implementations may support both stateless and stateful translation
   modes (e.g., NAT64 [RFC6146]).




Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   Implementations may support stateless NAT64 function, e.g., MAP-T CE
   or MAP-T BR [RFC7599].

7.  Special Considerations for ICMPv6 Packet Too Big

   A number of studies [I-D.ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation]
   indicate that it not unusual for networks to drop ICMPv6 Packet Too
   Big error messages.  Such packet drops will result in PMTUD
   blackholes [RFC2923], which can only be overcome with PLPMTUD
   [RFC4821].

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests of the IANA.

9.  Security Considerations

   The use of stateless IP/ICMP translators does not introduce any new
   security issues beyond the security issues that are already present
   in the IPv4 and IPv6 protocols and in the routing protocols that are
   used to make the packets reach the translator.

   There are potential issues that might arise by deriving an IPv4
   address from an IPv6 address -- particularly addresses like broadcast
   or loopback addresses and the non-IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses,
   etc.  [RFC6052] addresses these issues.

   As with network address translation of IPv4 to IPv4, the IPsec
   Authentication Header [RFC4302] cannot be used across an IPv6-to-IPv4
   translator.

   As with network address translation of IPv4 to IPv4, packets with
   tunnel mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) can be translated
   since tunnel mode ESP does not depend on header fields prior to the
   ESP header.  Similarly, transport mode ESP will fail with IPv6-to-
   IPv4 translation unless checksum-neutral addresses are used.  In both
   cases, the IPsec ESP endpoints will normally detect the presence of
   the translator and encapsulate ESP in UDP packets [RFC3948].

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Gandhar Gokhale, Wesley Eddy and
   Fernando Gont for the errata report of [RFC6145].  Thanks to Fernando
   Gont, Will(Shucheng) Liu and Tore Anderson for the security analysis
   and the suggestions of the updates concerning atomic fragments.
   Thanks to Tore Anderson and Alberto Leiva for the proposal of the
   explicit address mapping (EAM) algorithm.




Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0768]                                      Postel, J., "User
                                                  Datagram Protocol",
                                                  STD 6, RFC 768,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC0768,
                                                  August 1980, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc768>.

   [RFC0791]                                      Postel, J., "Internet
                                                  Protocol", STD 5,
                                                  RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/
                                                  RFC0791,
                                                  September 1981, <http:
                                                  //www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc791>.

   [RFC0793]                                      Postel, J.,
                                                  "Transmission Control
                                                  Protocol", STD 7,
                                                  RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/
                                                  RFC0793,
                                                  September 1981, <http:
                                                  //www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc793>.

   [RFC1812]                                      Baker, F., Ed.,
                                                  "Requirements for IP
                                                  Version 4 Routers",
                                                  RFC 1812,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC1812,
                                                  June 1995, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc1812>.

   [RFC2119]                                      Bradner, S., "Key
                                                  words for use in RFCs
                                                  to Indicate
                                                  Requirement Levels",
                                                  BCP 14, RFC 2119,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC2119,
                                                  March 1997, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc2119>.




Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   [RFC3948]                                      Huttunen, A., Swander,
                                                  B., Volpe, V.,
                                                  DiBurro, L., and M.
                                                  Stenberg, "UDP
                                                  Encapsulation of IPsec
                                                  ESP Packets",
                                                  RFC 3948,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC3948,
                                                  January 2005, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc3948>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4340]                                      Kohler, E., Handley,
                                                  M., and S. Floyd,
                                                  "Datagram Congestion
                                                  Control Protocol
                                                  (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC4340,
                                                  March 2006, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc4340>.

   [RFC4443]                                      Conta, A., Deering,
                                                  S., and M. Gupta, Ed.,
                                                  "Internet Control
                                                  Message Protocol
                                                  (ICMPv6) for the
                                                  Internet Protocol
                                                  Version 6 (IPv6)
                                                  Specification",
                                                  RFC 4443,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC4443,
                                                  March 2006, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC4884]                                      Bonica, R., Gan, D.,
                                                  Tappan, D., and C.



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


                                                  Pignataro, "Extended
                                                  ICMP to Support Multi-
                                                  Part Messages",
                                                  RFC 4884,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC4884,
                                                  April 2007, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc4884>.

   [RFC5382]                                      Guha, S., Ed., Biswas,
                                                  K., Ford, B.,
                                                  Sivakumar, S., and P.
                                                  Srisuresh, "NAT
                                                  Behavioral
                                                  Requirements for TCP",
                                                  BCP 142, RFC 5382,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC5382,
                                                  October 2008, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc5382>.

   [RFC5771]                                      Cotton, M., Vegoda,
                                                  L., and D. Meyer,
                                                  "IANA Guidelines for
                                                  IPv4 Multicast Address
                                                  Assignments", BCP 51,
                                                  RFC 5771,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC5771,
                                                  March 2010, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc5771>.

   [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, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc6052>.

   [RFC6145]                                      Li, X., Bao, C., and
                                                  F. Baker, "IP/ICMP
                                                  Translation
                                                  Algorithm", RFC 6145,



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC6145,
                                                  April 2011, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc6145>.

   [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, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6791]                                      Li, X., Bao, C., Wing,
                                                  D., Vaithianathan, R.,
                                                  and G. Huston,
                                                  "Stateless Source
                                                  Address Mapping for
                                                  ICMPv6 Packets",
                                                  RFC 6791,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC6791,
                                                  November 2012, <http:/
                                                  /www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc6791>.

   [RFC7757]                                      Anderson, T. and A.
                                                  Leiva Popper,
                                                  "Explicit Address
                                                  Mappings for Stateless
                                                  IP/ICMP Translation",
                                                  RFC 7757,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC7757,
                                                  February 2016, <http:/
                                                  /www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc7757>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [Erratum]                                      "Erratum: http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  errata_search.php?rfc=
                                                  6145".




Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   [I-D.ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation]  Gont, F., LIU, S., and
                                                  T. Anderson,
                                                  "Generation of IPv6
                                                  Atomic Fragments
                                                  Considered Harmful", d
                                                  raft-ietf-6man-
                                                  deprecate-atomfrag-
                                                  generation-05 (work in
                                                  progress),
                                                  January 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]                     Deering, S. and B.
                                                  Hinden, "Internet
                                                  Protocol, Version 6
                                                  (IPv6) Specification",
                                                  draft-ietf-6man-
                                                  rfc2460bis-03 (work in
                                                  progress),
                                                  January 2016.

   [RFC0879]                                      Postel, J., "The TCP
                                                  Maximum Segment Size
                                                  and Related Topics",
                                                  RFC 879, DOI 10.17487/
                                                  RFC0879,
                                                  November 1983, <http:/
                                                  /www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc879>.

   [RFC1191]                                      Mogul, J. and S.
                                                  Deering, "Path MTU
                                                  discovery", RFC 1191,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC1191,
                                                  November 1990, <http:/
                                                  /www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc1191>.

   [RFC2474]                                      Nichols, K., Blake,
                                                  S., Baker, F., and D.
                                                  Black, "Definition of
                                                  the Differentiated
                                                  Services Field (DS
                                                  Field) in the IPv4 and
                                                  IPv6 Headers",
                                                  RFC 2474,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC2474,
                                                  December 1998, <http:/
                                                  /www.rfc-editor.org/



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


                                                  info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2475]                                      Blake, S., Black, D.,
                                                  Carlson, M., Davies,
                                                  E., Wang, Z., and W.
                                                  Weiss, "An
                                                  Architecture for
                                                  Differentiated
                                                  Services", RFC 2475,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC2475,
                                                  December 1998, <http:/
                                                  /www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC2710]                                      Deering, S., Fenner,
                                                  W., and B. Haberman,
                                                  "Multicast Listener
                                                  Discovery (MLD) for
                                                  IPv6", RFC 2710,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC2710,
                                                  October 1999, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc2710>.

   [RFC2923]                                      Lahey, K., "TCP
                                                  Problems with Path MTU
                                                  Discovery", RFC 2923,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC2923,
                                                  September 2000, <http:
                                                  //www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc2923>.

   [RFC3307]                                      Haberman, B.,
                                                  "Allocation Guidelines
                                                  for IPv6 Multicast
                                                  Addresses", RFC 3307,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC3307,
                                                  August 2002, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc3307>.

   [RFC3590]                                      Haberman, B., "Source
                                                  Address Selection for
                                                  the Multicast Listener
                                                  Discovery (MLD)
                                                  Protocol", RFC 3590,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC3590,
                                                  September 2003, <http:



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


                                                  //www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc3590>.

   [RFC3810]                                      Vida, R., Ed. and L.
                                                  Costa, Ed., "Multicast
                                                  Listener Discovery
                                                  Version 2 (MLDv2) for
                                                  IPv6", RFC 3810,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC3810,
                                                  June 2004, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc3810>.

   [RFC3849]                                      Huston, G., Lord, A.,
                                                  and P. Smith, "IPv6
                                                  Address Prefix
                                                  Reserved for
                                                  Documentation",
                                                  RFC 3849,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC3849,
                                                  July 2004, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc3849>.

   [RFC4302]                                      Kent, S., "IP
                                                  Authentication
                                                  Header", RFC 4302,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC4302,
                                                  December 2005, <http:/
                                                  /www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc4302>.

   [RFC4821]                                      Mathis, M. and J.
                                                  Heffner,
                                                  "Packetization Layer
                                                  Path MTU Discovery",
                                                  RFC 4821,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC4821,
                                                  March 2007, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc4821>.

   [RFC5737]                                      Arkko, J., Cotton, M.,
                                                  and L. Vegoda, "IPv4
                                                  Address Blocks
                                                  Reserved for
                                                  Documentation",
                                                  RFC 5737,



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC5737,
                                                  January 2010, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc5737>.

   [RFC6144]                                      Baker, F., Li, X.,
                                                  Bao, C., and K. Yin,
                                                  "Framework for IPv4/
                                                  IPv6 Translation",
                                                  RFC 6144,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
                                                  April 2011, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc6144>.

   [RFC6219]                                      Li, X., Bao, C., Chen,
                                                  M., Zhang, H., and J.
                                                  Wu, "The China
                                                  Education and Research
                                                  Network (CERNET) IVI
                                                  Translation Design and
                                                  Deployment for the
                                                  IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
                                                  and Transition",
                                                  RFC 6219,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC6219,
                                                  May 2011, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc6219>.

   [RFC7136]                                      Carpenter, B. and S.
                                                  Jiang, "Significance
                                                  of IPv6 Interface
                                                  Identifiers",
                                                  RFC 7136,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC7136,
                                                  February 2014, <http:/
                                                  /www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc7136>.

   [RFC7599]                                      Li, X., Bao, C., Dec,
                                                  W., Ed., Troan, O.,
                                                  Matsushima, S., and T.
                                                  Murakami, "Mapping of
                                                  Address and Port using
                                                  Translation (MAP-T)",
                                                  RFC 7599,
                                                  DOI 10.17487/RFC7599,



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


                                                  July 2015, <http://
                                                  www.rfc-editor.org/
                                                  info/rfc7599>.

Appendix A.  Stateless Translation Workflow Example

   A stateless translation workflow example is depicted in the following
   figure.  The documentation address blocks 2001:db8::/32 [RFC3849],
   192.0.2.0/24, and 198.51.100.0/24 [RFC5737] are used in this example.


            +--------------+                   +--------------+
            | IPv4 network |                   | IPv6 network |
            |              |     +-------+     |              |
            |   +----+     |-----| XLAT  |---- |  +----+      |
            |   | H4 |-----|     +-------+     |--| H6 |      |
            |   +----+     |                   |  +----+      |
            +--------------+                   +--------------+


                                 Figure 8

   A translator (XLAT) connects the IPv6 network to the IPv4 network.
   This XLAT uses the Network-Specific Prefix (NSP) 2001:db8:100::/40
   defined in [RFC6052] to represent IPv4 addresses in the IPv6 address
   space (IPv4-converted addresses) and to represent IPv6 addresses
   (IPv4-translatable addresses) in the IPv4 address space.  In this
   example, 192.0.2.0/24 is the IPv4 block of the corresponding IPv4-
   translatable addresses.

   Based on the address mapping rule, the IPv6 node H6 has an IPv4-
   translatable IPv6 address 2001:db8:1c0:2:21:: (address mapping from
   192.0.2.33).  The IPv4 node H4 has IPv4 address 198.51.100.2.

   The IPv6 routing is configured in such a way that the IPv6 packets
   addressed to a destination address in 2001:db8:100::/40 are routed to
   the IPv6 interface of the XLAT.

   The IPv4 routing is configured in such a way that the IPv4 packets
   addressed to a destination address in 192.0.2.0/24 are routed to the
   IPv4 interface of the XLAT.

A.1.  H6 Establishes Communication with H4

   The steps by which H6 establishes communication with H4 are:

   1.  H6 performs the destination address mapping, so the IPv4-
       converted address 2001:db8:1c6:3364:2:: is formed from



Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


       198.51.100.2 based on the address mapping algorithm [RFC6052].

   2.  H6 sends a packet to H4.  The packet is sent from a source
       address 2001:db8:1c0:2:21:: to a destination address 2001:db8:
       1c6:3364:2::.

   3.  The packet is routed to the IPv6 interface of the XLAT (since
       IPv6 routing is configured that way).

   4.  The XLAT receives the packet and performs the following actions:

       *  The XLAT translates the IPv6 header into an IPv4 header using
          the IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm defined in this document.

       *  The XLAT includes 192.0.2.33 as the source address in the
          packet and 198.51.100.2 as the destination address in the
          packet.  Note that 192.0.2.33 and 198.51.100.2 are extracted
          directly from the source IPv6 address 2001:db8:1c0:2:21::
          (IPv4-translatable address) and destination IPv6 address 2001:
          db8:1c6:3364:2:: (IPv4-converted address) of the received IPv6
          packet that is being translated.

   5.  The XLAT sends the translated packet out of its IPv4 interface,
       and the packet arrives at H4.

   6.  H4 node responds by sending a packet with destination address
       192.0.2.33 and source address 198.51.100.2.

   7.  The packet is routed to the IPv4 interface of the XLAT (since
       IPv4 routing is configured that way).  The XLAT performs the
       following operations:

       *  The XLAT translates the IPv4 header into an IPv6 header using
          the IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm defined in this document.

       *  The XLAT includes 2001:db8:1c0:2:21:: as the destination
          address in the packet and 2001:db8:1c6:3364:2:: as the source
          address in the packet.  Note that 2001:db8:1c0:2:21:: and
          2001:db8:1c6:3364:2:: are formed directly from the destination
          IPv4 address 192.0.2.33 and the source IPv4 address
          198.51.100.2 of the received IPv4 packet that is being
          translated.

   8.  The translated packet is sent out of the IPv6 interface to H6.

   The packet exchange between H6 and H4 continues until the session is
   finished.




Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


A.2.  H4 Establishes Communication with H6

   The steps by which H4 establishes communication with H6 are:

   1.  H4 performs the destination address mapping, so 192.0.2.33 is
       formed from the IPv4-translatable address 2001:db8:1c0:2:21::
       based on the address mapping algorithm [RFC6052].

   2.  H4 sends a packet to H6.  The packet is sent from a source
       address 198.51.100.2 to a destination address 192.0.2.33.

   3.  The packet is routed to the IPv4 interface of the XLAT (since
       IPv4 routing is configured that way).

   4.  The XLAT receives the packet and performs the following actions:

       *  The XLAT translates the IPv4 header into an IPv6 header using
          the IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm defined in this document.

       *  The XLAT includes 2001:db8:1c6:3364:2:: as the source address
          in the packet and 2001:db8:1c0:2:21:: as the destination
          address in the packet.  Note that 2001:db8:1c6:3364:2:: (IPv4-
          converted address) and 2001:db8:1c0:2:21:: (IPv4-translatable
          address) are obtained directly from the source IPv4 address
          198.51.100.2 and destination IPv4 address 192.0.2.33 of the
          received IPv4 packet that is being translated.

   5.  The XLAT sends the translated packet out its IPv6 interface, and
       the packet arrives at H6.

   6.  H6 node responds by sending a packet with destination address
       2001:db8:1c6:3364:2:: and source address 2001:db8:1c0:2:21::.

   7.  The packet is routed to the IPv6 interface of the XLAT (since
       IPv6 routing is configured that way).  The XLAT performs the
       following operations:

       *  The XLAT translates the IPv6 header into an IPv4 header using
          the IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm defined in this document.

       *  The XLAT includes 198.51.100.2 as the destination address in
          the packet and 192.0.2.33 as the source address in the packet.
          Note that 198.51.100.2 and 192.0.2.33 are formed directly from
          the destination IPv6 address 2001:db8:1c6:3364:2:: and source
          IPv6 address 2001:db8:1c0:2:21:: of the received IPv6 packet
          that is being translated.





Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   8.  The translated packet is sent out the IPv4 interface to H4.

   The packet exchange between H4 and H6 continues until the session is
   finished.

Authors' Addresses

   Congxiao Bao
   CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
   Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
   Beijing,   100084
   China

   Phone: +86 10-62785983
   EMail: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn


   Xing Li
   CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
   Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
   Beijing,   100084
   China

   Phone: +86 10-62785983
   EMail: xing@cernet.edu.cn


   Fred Baker
   Cisco Systems
   Santa Barbara, California  93117
   USA

   Phone: +1-408-526-4257
   EMail: fred@cisco.com


   Tore Anderson
   Redpill Linpro
   Vitaminveien 1A
   0485 Oslo
   Norway

   Phone: +47 959 31 212
   EMail: tore@redpill-linpro.com
   URI:   http://www.redpill-linpro.com






Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                 rfc6145bis                     March 2016


   Fernando Gont
   Huawei Technologies
   Evaristo Carriego 2644
   Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires  1706
   Argentina

   Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
   EMail: fgont@si6networks.com
   URI:   http://www.si6networks.com










































Bao, et al.            Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 37]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/