Network Working Group G. Tsirtsis
Request for Comments: 2766 BT
Category: Standards Track P. Srisuresh
Campio Communications
February 2000
Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document specifies an IPv4-to-IPv6 transition mechanism, in
addition to those already specified in [TRANS]. This solution
attempts to provide transparent routing, as defined in [NAT-TERM], to
end-nodes in V6 realm trying to communicate with end-nodes in V4
realm and vice versa. This is achieved using a combination of Network
Address Translation and Protocol Translation. The scheme described
does not mandate dual-stacks (i.e., IPv4 as well as V6 protocol
support) or special purpose routing requirements (such as requiring
tunneling support) on end nodes. This scheme is based on a
combination of address translation theme as described in [NAT-TERM]
and V6/V4 protocol translation theme as described in [SIIT].
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Pedro Marques for reviewing an earlier version of
this memo. Also, many thanks to Alan O'Neill and Martin Tatham, as
the mechanism described in this document was initially developed
through discussions with them.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................. 2
2. Terminology................................................... 3
2.1 Network Address Translation (NAT)......................... 4
2.2 NAT-PT flavors............................................ 4
2.2.1 Traditional-NAT-PT................................... 4
2.2.2 Bi-directional-NAT-PT................................ 5
2.3 Protocol Translation (PT)................................. 5
2.4 Application Level Gateway (ALG)........................... 5
2.5 Requirements.............................................. 5
3. Traditional-NAT-PT operation (V6 to V4)....................... 6
3.1 NAT-PT Outgoing Sessions.................................. 6
3.2 NAPT-PT Outgoing Sessions................................. 7
4. Use of DNS-ALG for Address assignment......................... 8
4.1 V4 Address Assignment for Incoming Connections (V4 to V6). 9
4.2 V4 Address Assignment for Outgoing Connections (V6 to V4). 11
5. Protocol Translation Details.................................. 12
5.1 Translating IPv4 Headers to IPv6 Headers.................. 13
5.2 Translating IPv6 Headers to IPv4 Headers.................. 13
5.3 TCP/UDP/ICMP Checksum Update.............................. 13
6. FTP Application Level Gateway (FTP-ALG) Support............... 14
6.1 Payload modifications for V4 originated FTP sessions...... 15
6.2 Payload modifications for V6 originated FTP sessions...... 16
6.3 Header updates for FTP control packets.................... 16
7. NAT-PT Limitations and Future Work............................ 17
7.1 Topology Limitations...................................... 17
7.2 Protocol Translation Limitations.......................... 17
7.3 Impact of Address Translation............................. 18
7.4 Lack of End-to-End Security............................... 18
7.5 DNS Translation and DNSSEC................................ 18
8. Applicability Statement....................................... 18
9. Security Considerations....................................... 19
10. References................................................... 19
Authors' Addresses............................................... 20
Full Copyright Statement......................................... 21
1. Introduction
IPv6 is a new version of the IP protocol designed to modernize IPv4
which was designed in the 1970s. IPv6 has a number of advantages over
IPv4 that will allow for future Internet growth and will simplify IP
configuration and administration. IPv6 has a larger address space
than IPv4, an addressing model that promotes aggressive route
aggregation and a powerful autoconfiguration mechanism. In time, it
is expected that Internet growth and a need for a plug-and-play
solution will result in widespread adoption of IPv6.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
There is expected to be a long transition period during which it will
be necessary for IPv4 and IPv6 nodes to coexist and communicate. A
strong, flexible set of IPv4-to-IPv6 transition and coexistence
mechanisms will be required during this transition period.
The SIIT proposal [SIIT] describes a protocol translation mechanism
that allows communication between IPv6-only and IPv4-only nodes via
protocol independent translation of IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams,
requiring no state information for the session. The SIIT proposal
assumes that V6 nodes are assigned a V4 address for communicating
with V4 nodes, and does not specify a mechanism for the assignment of
these addresses.
NAT-PT uses a pool of V4 addresses for assignment to V6 nodes on a
dynamic basis as sessions are initiated across V4-V6 boundaries. The
V4 addresses are assumed to be globally unique. NAT-PT with private
V4 addresses is outside the scope of this document and for further
study. NAT-PT binds addresses in V6 network with addresses in V4
network and vice versa to provide transparent routing [NAT-TERM] for
the datagrams traversing between address realms. This requires no
changes to end nodes and IP packet routing is completely transparent
[NAT-TERM] to end nodes. It does, however, require NAT-PT to track
the sessions it supports and mandates that inbound and outbound
datagrams pertaining to a session traverse the same NAT-PT router.
You will note that the topology restrictions on NAT-PT are the same
with those described for V4 NATs in [NAT-TERM]. Protocol translation
details specified in [SIIT] would be used to extend address
translation with protocol syntax/semantics translation. A detailed
applicability statement for NAT-PT may be found at the end of this
document in section 7.
By combining SIIT protocol translation with the dynamic address
translation capabilities of NAT and appropriate ALGs, NAT-PT provides
a complete solution that would allow a large number of commonly used
applications to interoperate between IPv6-only nodes and IPv4-only
A fundamental assumption for NAT-PT is only to be use when no other
native IPv6 or IPv6 over IPv4 tunneled means of communication is
possible. In other words the aim is to only use translation between
IPv6 only nodes and IPv4 only nodes, while translation between IPv6
only nodes and the IPv4 part of a dual stack node should be avoided
over other alternatives.
2. Terminology
The majority of terms used in this document are borrowed almost as is
from [NAT-TERM]. The following lists terms specific to this document.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
2.1 Network Address Translation (NAT)
The term NAT in this document is very similar to the IPv4 NAT
described in [NAT-TERM], but is not identical. IPv4 NAT translates
one IPv4 address into another IPv4 address. In this document, NAT
refers to translation of an IPv4 address into an IPv6 address and
vice versa.
While the V4 NAT [NAT-TERM] provides routing between private V4 and
external V4 address realms, NAT in this document provides routing
between a V6 address realm and an external V4 address realm.
2.2 NAT-PT flavors
Just as there are various flavors identified with V4 NAT in [NAT-
TERM], the following NAT-PT variations may be identified in this
document.
2.2.1 Traditional NAT-PT
Traditional-NAT-PT would allow hosts within a V6 network to access
hosts in the V4 network. In a traditional-NAT-PT, sessions are uni-
directional, outbound from the V6 network. This is in contrast with
Bi-directional-NAT-PT, which permits sessions in both inbound and
outbound directions.
Just as with V4 traditional-NAT, there are two variations to
traditional-NAT-PT, namely Basic-NAT-PT and NAPT-PT.
With Basic-NAT-PT, a block of V4 addresses are set aside for
translating addresses of V6 hosts as they originate sessions to the
V4 hosts in external domain. For packets outbound from the V6 domain,
the source IP address and related fields such as IP, TCP, UDP and
ICMP header checksums are translated. For inbound packets, the
destination IP address and the checksums as listed above are
translated.
NAPT-PT extends the notion of translation one step further by also
translating transport identifier (e.g., TCP and UDP port numbers,
ICMP query identifiers). This allows the transport identifiers of a
number of V6 hosts to be multiplexed into the transport identifiers
of a single assigned V4 address. NAPT-PT allows a set of V6 hosts to
share a single V4 address. Note that NAPT-PT can be combined with
Basic-NAT-PT so that a pool of external addresses are used in
conjunction with port translation.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
For packets outbound from the V6 network, NAPT-PT would translate the
source IP address, source transport identifier and related fields
such as IP, TCP, UDP and ICMP header checksums. Transport identifier
can be one of TCP/UDP port or ICMP query ID. For inbound packets, the
destination IP address, destination transport identifier and the IP
and transport header checksums are translated.
2.2.2 Bi-Directional-NAT-PT
With Bi-directional-NAT-PT, sessions can be initiated from hosts in
V4 network as well as the V6 network. V6 network addresses are bound
to V4 addresses, statically or dynamically as connections are
established in either direction. The name space (i.e., their Fully
Qualified Domain Names) between hosts in V4 and V6 networks is
assumed to be end-to-end unique. Hosts in V4 realm access V6-realm
hosts by using DNS for address resolution. A DNS-ALG [DNS-ALG] must
be employed in conjunction with Bi-Directional-NAT-PT to facilitate
name to address mapping. Specifically, the DNS-ALG must be capable
of translating V6 addresses in DNS Queries and responses into their
V4-address bindings, and vice versa, as DNS packets traverse between
V6 and V4 realms.
2.3 Protocol Translation (PT)
PT in this document refers to the translation of an IPv4 packet into
a semantically equivalent IPv6 packet and vice versa. Protocol
translation details are described in [SIIT].
2.4 Application Level Gateway (ALG)
Application Level Gateway (ALG) [NAT-TERM] is an application specific
agent that allows a V6 node to communicate with a V4 node and vice
versa. Some applications carry network addresses in payloads. NAT-PT
is application unaware and does not snoop the payload. ALG could work
in conjunction with NAT-PT to provide support for many such
applications.
2.5 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 [KEYWORDS].
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
3. Traditional-NAT-PT Operation (V6 to V4)
NAT-PT offers a straight forward solution based on transparent
routing [NAT-TERM] and address/protocol translation, allowing a large
number of applications in V6 and V4 realms to inter-operate without
requiring any changes to these applications.
In the following paragraphs we describe the operation of
traditional-NAT-PT and the way that connections can be initiated from
a host in IPv6 domain to a host in IPv4 domain through a
traditional-NAT-PT
3.1 Basic-NAT-PT Operation
[IPv6-B]-+
| +==============+
[IPv6-A]-+-[NAT-PT]---------| IPv4 network |--[IPv4-C]
| +==============+
(pool of v4 addresses)
Figure 1: IPv6 to IPv4 communication
Node IPv6-A has an IPv6 address -> FEDC:BA98::7654:3210
Node IPv6-B has an IPv6 address -> FEDC:BA98::7654:3211
Node IPv4-C has an IPv4 address -> 132.146.243.30
NAT-PT has a pool of addresses including the IPv4 subnet
120.130.26/24
The V4 addresses in the address pool could be allocated one-to-one to
the V6 addresses of the V6 end nodes in which case one needs as many
V4 addresses as V6 end points. In this document we assume that the V6
network has less V4 addresses than V6 end nodes and thus dynamic
address allocation is required for at least some of them.
Say the IPv6 Node A wants to communicate with the IPv4 Node C. Node
A creates a packet with:
Source Address, SA=FEDC:BA98::7654:3210 and Destination
Address, DA = PREFIX::132.146.243.30
NOTE: The prefix PREFIX::/96 is advertised in the stub domain by the
NAT-PT, and packets addressed to this PREFIX will be routed to the
NAT-PT. The pre-configured PREFIX only needs to be routable within
the IPv6 stub domain and as such it can be any routable prefix that
the network administrator chooses.
The packet is routed via the NAT-PT gateway, where it is translated
to IPv4.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
If the outgoing packet is not a session initialisation packet, the
NAT-PT SHOULD already have stored some state about the related
session, including assigned IPv4 address and other parameters for the
translation. If this state does not exist, the packet SHOULD be
silently discarded.
If the packet is a session initialisation packet, the NAT-PT locally
allocates an address (e.g: 120.130.26.10) from its pool of
addresses and the packet is translated to IPv4. The translation
parameters are cached for the duration of the session and the IPv6 to
IPv4 mapping is retained by NAT-PT.
The resulting IPv4 packet has SA=120.130.26.10 and DA=132.146.243.30.
Any returning traffic will be recognised as belonging to the same
session by NAT-PT. NAT-PT will use the state information to translate
the packet, and the resulting addresses will be
SA=PREFIX::132.146.243.30, DA=FEDC:BA98::7654:3210. Note that this
packet can now be routed inside the IPv6-only stub network as normal.
3.2 NAPT-PT Operation
NAPT-PT, which stands for "Network Address Port Translation +
Protocol Translation", would allow V6 nodes to communicate with the
V4 nodes transparently using a single V4 address. The TCP/UDP ports
of the V6 nodes are translated into TCP/UDP ports of the registered
V4 address.
While NAT-PT support is limited to TCP, UDP and other port
multiplexing type of applications, NAPT-PT solves a problem that is
inherent with NAT-PT. That is, NAT-PT would fall flat when the pool
of V4 addresses assigned for translation purposes is exhausted. Once
the address pool is exhausted, newer V6 nodes cannot establish
sessions with the outside world anymore. NAPT-PT, on the other hand,
will allow for a maximum of 63K TCP and 63K UDP sessions per IPv4
address before having no TCP and UDP ports left to assign.
To modify the example sited in figure 1, we could have NAPT-PT on the
border router (instead of NAT-PT) and all V6 addresses could be
mapped to a single v4 address 120.130.26.10.
IPv6 Node A would establish a TCP session with the IPv4 Node C as
follows:
Node A creates a packet with:
Source Address, SA=FEDC:BA98::7654:3210 , source TCP port = 3017 and
Destination Address, DA = PREFIX::132.146.243.30, destination TCP
port = 23.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
When the packet reaches the NAPT-PT box, NAPT-PT would assign one of
the TCP ports from the assigned V4 address to translate the tuple of
(Source Address, Source TCP port) as follows:
SA=120.130.26.10, source TCP port = 1025 and
DA=132.146.243.30, destination TCP port = 23.
The returning traffic from 132.146.243.30, TCP port 23 will be
recognised as belonging to the same session and will be translated
back to V6 as follows:
SA = PREFIX::132.146.243.30, source TCP port = 23;
DA = FEDC:BA98::7654:3210 , destination TCP port = 3017
Inbound NAPT-PT sessions are restricted to one server per service,
assigned via static TCP/UDP port mapping. For example, the Node
[IPv6-A] in figure 1 may be the only HTTP server (port 80) in the V6
domain. Node [IPv4-C] sends a packet:
SA=132.146.243.30, source TCP port = 1025 and
DA=120.130.26.10, destination TCP port = 80
NAPT-PT will translate this packet to:
SA=PREFIX::132.146.243.30, source TCP port = 1025
DA=FEDC:BA98::7654:3210, destination TCP port = 80
In the above example, note that all sessions which reach NAPT-PT with
a destination port of 80 will be redirected to the same node [IPv6-
A].
4. Use of DNS-ALG for Address Assignment
An IPv4 address is assigned by NAT-PT to a V6 node when NAT-PT
identifies the start of session, inbound or outbound. Identification
of the start of a new inbound session is performed differently than
for outbound sessions. However, the same V4 address pool is used for
assignment to V6 nodes, irrespective of whether a session is
initiated outbound from a V6 node or initiated inbound from a V4
node.
Policies determining what type of sessions are allowed and in which
direction and from/to which nodes is out of the scope of this
document.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
IPv4 name to address mappings are held in the DNS with "A" records.
IPv6 name to address mappings are at the moment held in the DNS with
"AAAA" records. "A6" records have also been defined but at the time
of writing they are neither fully standardized nor deployed.
In any case, the DNS-ALG's principle of operation described in this
section is the same with either "AAAA" or "A6" records. The only
difference is that a name resolution using "A6" records may require
more than one query - reply pairs. The DNS-ALG SHOULD, in that case,
track all the replies in the transaction before translating an "A6"
record to an "A" record.
One of the aims of NAT-PT design is to only use translation when
there is no other means of communication, such as native IPv6 or some
form of tunneling. For the following discussion NAT-PT, in addition
to the IPv4 connectivity that it has it may also have a native IPv6
and/or a tunneled IPv6 connection.
4.1 V4 Address assignment for incoming connections (V4 to V6)
[DNS]--+
| [DNS]------[DNS]-------[DNS]
[IPv6-B]-+ | |
| +==============+ |
[IPv6-A]-+----[NAT-PT]------| IPv4 network |--[IPv4-C]
| +==============+
(pool of v4 addresses)
Figure 2: IPv4 to IPv6 communication
Node IPv6-A has an IPv6 address -> FEDC:BA98::7654:3210
Node IPv6-B has an IPv6 address -> FEDC:BA98::7654:3211
Node IPv4-C has an IPv4 address -> 132.146.243.30
NAT-PT has a pool of addresses including the IPv4 subnet
120.130.26/24
In figure 2 above, when Node C's name resolver sends a name look up
request for Node A, the lookup query is directed to the DNS server on
the V6 network. Considering that NAT-PT is residing on the border
router between V4 and V6 networks, this request datagram would
traverse through the NAT-PT router. The DNS-ALG on the NAT-PT device
would modify DNS Queries for A records going into the V6 domain as
follows: (Note that a TCP/UDP DNS packet is recognised by the fact
that its source or destination port number is 53)
a) For Node Name to Node Address Query requests: Change the Query
type from "A" to "AAAA" or "A6".
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
b) For Node address to Node name query requests: Replace the
string "IN-ADDR.ARPA" with the string "IP6.INT". Replace the
V4 address octets (in reverse order) preceding the string "IN-
ADDR.ARPA" with the corresponding V6 address (if there exists a
map) octets in reverse order.
In the opposite direction, when a DNS response traverses from the DNS
server on the V6 network to the V4 node, the DNS-ALG once again
intercepts the DNS packet and would:
a) Translate DNS responses for "AAAA" or "A6" records into "A"
records, (only translate "A6" records when the name has
completely been resolved)
b) Replace the V6 address resolved by the V6 DNS with the V4
address internally assigned by the NAT-PT router.
If a V4 address is not previously assigned to this V6 node, NAT-PT
would assign one at this time. As an example say IPv4-C attempts to
initialise a session with node IPv6-A by making a name lookup ("A"
record) for Node-A . The name query goes to the local DNS and from
there it is propagated to the DNS server of the IPv6 network. The
DNS-ALG intercepts and translates the "A" query to "AAAA" or "A6"
query and then forwards it to the DNS server in the IPv6 network
which replies as follows: (The example uses AAAA records for
convenience)
Node-A AAAA FEDC:BA98::7654:3210,
this is returned by the DNS server and gets intercepted and
translated by the DNS-ALG to:
Node-A A 120.130.26.1
The DNS-ALG also holds the mapping between FEDC:BA98::7654:3210 and
120.130.26.1 in NAT-PT. The "A" record is then returned to Node-C.
Node-C can now initiate a session as follows:
SA=132.146.243.30, source TCP port = 1025 and
DA=120.130.26.1, destination TCP port = 80
the packet will be routed to NAT-PT, which since it already holds a
mapping between FEDC:BA98::7654:3210 and 120.130.26.1 can translate
the packet to:
SA=PREFIX::132.146.243.30, source TCP port = 1025
DA=FEDC:BA98::7654:3210, destination TCP port = 80
the communication can now proceed as normal.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
The TTL values on all DNS resource records (RRs) passing through
NAT-PT SHOULD be set to 0 so that DNS servers/clients do not cache
temporarily assigned RRs. Note, however, that due to some buggy DNS
client implementations a value of 1 might in some cases work better.
The TTL values should be left unchanged for statically mapped
addresses.
Address mappings for incoming sessions, as described above, are
subject to denial of service attacks since one can make multiple
queries for nodes residing in the V6 network causing the DNS-ALG to
map all V4 addresses in NAT-PT and thus block legitimate incoming
sessions. Thus, address mappings for incoming sessions should time
out to minimise the effect of denial of service attacks.
Additionally, one IPv4 address (using NAPT-PT, see 3.2) could be
reserved for outgoing sessions only to minimise the effect of such
attacks to outgoing sessions.
4.2 V4 Address assignment for outgoing connections (V6 to V4)
V6 nodes learn the address of V4 nodes from the DNS server in the V4
domain or from the DNS server internal to the V6 network. We
recommend that DNS servers internal to V6 domains maintain a mapping
of names to IPv6 addresses for internal nodes and possibly cache
mappings for some external nodes. In the case where the DNS server in
the v6 domain contains the mapping for external V4 nodes, the DNS
queries will not cross the V6 domain and that would obviate the need
for DNS-ALG intervention. Otherwise, the queries will cross the V6
domain and are subject to DNS-ALG intervention. We recommend
external DNS servers in the V4 domain cache name mapping for external
nodes (i.e., V4 nodes) only. Zone transfers across IPv4 - IPv6
boundaries are strongly discouraged.
In the case of NAPT-PT, a TCP/UDP source port is assigned from the
registered V4 address upon detection of each new outbound session.
We saw that a V6 node that needs to communicate with a V4 node needs
to use a specific prefix (PREFIX::/96) in front of the IPv4 address
of the V4 node. The above technique allows the use of this PREFIX
without any configuration in the nodes.
To create another example from Figure 2 say Node-A wants to set up a
session with Node-C. For this Node-A starts by making a name look-up
("AAAA" or "A6" record) for Node-C.
Since Node-C may have IPv6 and/or IPv4 addresses, the DNS-ALG on the
NAT-PT device forwards the original AAAA/A6 query to the external DNS
system unchanged, as well as an A query for the same node. If an
AAAA/A6 record exists for the destination, this will be returned to
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
NAT-PT which will forward it, also unchanged, to the originating
host.
If there is an A record for Node-C the reply also returns to the
NAT-PT. The DNS-ALG then, translates the reply adding the appropriate
PREFIX and forwards it to the originating device with any IPv6
addresses that might have learned. So, if the reply is
NodeC A 132.146.243.30, it is translated to
NodeC AAAA PREFIX::132.146.243.30 or to
NodeC A6 PREFIX::132.146.243.30
Now Node A can use this address like any other IPv6 address and the
V6 DNS server can even cache it as long as the PREFIX does not
change.
An issue here is how the V6 DNS server in the V6 stub domain talks to
the V4 domain outside the V6 stub domain. Remember that there are no
dual stack nodes here. The external V4 DNS server needs to point to a
V4 address, part of the V4 pool of addresses, available to NAT-PT.
NAT-PT keeps a one-to-one mapping between this V4 address and the V6
address of the internal V6 DNS server. In the other direction, the V6
DNS server points to a V6 address formed by the IPv4 address of the
external V4 DNS servers and the prefix (PREFIX::/96) that indicates
non IPv6 nodes. This mechanism can easily be extended to accommodate
secondary DNS servers.
Note that the scheme described in this section impacts DNSSEC. See
section 7.5 of this document for details.
5. Protocol Translation Details
The IPv4 and ICMPv4 headers are similar to their V6 counterparts but
a number of field are either missing, have different meaning or
different length. NAT-PT SHOULD translate all IP/ICMP headers from v4
to v6 and vice versa in order to make end-to-end IPv6 to IPv4
communication possible. Due to the address translation function and
possible port multiplexing, NAT-PT SHOULD also make appropriate
adjustments to the upper layer protocol (TCP/UDP) headers. A separate
section on FTP-ALG describes the changes FTP-ALG would make to FTP
payload as an FTP packet traverses from V4 to V6 realm or vice versa.
Protocol Translation details are described in [SIIT], but there are
some modifications required to SIIT because of the fact that NAT-PT
also performs Network Address Translation.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
5.1 Translating IPv4 headers to IPv6 headers
This is done exactly the same as in SIIT apart from the following
fields:
Source Address:
The low-order 32 bits is the IPv4 source address. The high-
order 96 bits is the designated PREFIX for all v4
communications. Addresses using this PREFIX will be routed
to the NAT-PT gateway (PREFIX::/96)
Destination Address:
NAT-PT retains a mapping between the IPv4 destination
address and the IPv6 address of the destination node. The
IPv4 destination address is replaced by the IPv6 address
retained in that mapping.
5.2 Translating IPv6 headers to IPv4 headers
This is done exactly the same as in SIIT apart from the Source
Address which should be determined as follows:
Source Address:
The NAT-PT retains a mapping between the IPv6 source address
and an IPv4 address from the pool of IPv4 addresses
available. The IPv6 source address is replaced by the IPv4
address retained in that mapping.
Destination Address:
IPv6 packets that are translated have a destination address
of the form PREFIX::IPv4/96. Thus the low-order 32 bits of
the IPv6 destination address is copied to the IPv4
destination address.
5.3 TCP/UDP/ICMP Checksum Update
NAT-PT retains mapping between IPv6 address and an IPv4 address from
the pool of IPv4 addresses available. This mapping is used in the
translation of packets that go through NAT-PT.
The following sub-sections describe TCP/UDP/ICMP checksum update
procedure in NAT-PT, as packets are translated from V4 to V6 and vice
versa.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
5.3.1 TCP/UDP/ICMP Checksum Update from IPv4 to IPv6
UDP checksums, when set to a non-zero value, and TCP checksum SHOULD
be recalculated to reflect the address change from v4 to v6. The
incremental checksum adjustment algorithm may be borrowed from [NAT].
In the case of NAPT-PT, TCP/UDP checksum should be adjusted to
account for the address and TCP/UDP port changes, going from V4 to V6
address.
When the checksum of a V4 UDP packet is set to zero, NAT-PT MUST
evaluate the checksum in its entirety for the V6-translated UDP
packet. If a V4 UDP packet with a checksum of zero arrives in
fragments, NAT-PT MUST await all the fragments until they can be
assembled into a single non-fragmented packet and evaluate the
checksum prior to forwarding the translated V6 UDP packet.
ICMPv6, unlike ICMPv4, uses a pseudo-header, just like UDP and TCP
during checksum computation. As a result, when the ICMPv6 header
checksum is computed [SIIT], the checksum needs to be adjusted to
account for the additional pseudo-header. Note, there may also be
adjustments required to the checksum due to changes in the source and
destination addresses (and changes in TCP/UDP/ICMP identifiers in the
case of NAPT-PT) of the payload carried within ICMP.
5.3.2 TCP/UDP/ICMP Checksum Update from IPv6 to IPv4
TCP and UDP checksums SHOULD be recalculated to reflect the address
change from v6 to v4. The incremental checksum adjustment algorithm
may be borrowed from [NAT]. In the case of NAPT-PT, TCP/UDP checksums
should be adjusted to account for the address and TCP/UDP port
changes, going from V6 to V4 addresses. For UDP packets, optionally,
the checksum may simply be changed to zero.
The checksum calculation for a V4 ICMP header needs to be derived
from the V6 ICMP header by running the checksum adjustment algorithm
[NAT] to remove the V6 pseudo header from the computation. Note, the
adjustment must additionally take into account changes to the
checksum as a result of updates to the source and destination
addresses (and transport ports in the case of NAPT-PT) made to the
payload carried within ICMP.
6. FTP Application Level Gateway (FTP-ALG) Support
Because an FTP control session carries, in its payload, the IP
address and TCP port information for the data session, an FTP-ALG is
required to provide application level transparency for this popular
Internet application.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
In the FTP application running on a legacy V4 node, arguments to the
FTP PORT command and arguments in PASV response(successful) include
an IP V4 address and a TCP port, both represented in ASCII as
h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2. However, [FTP-IPV6] suggests EPRT and EPSV command
extensions to FTP, with an intent to eventually retire the use of
PORT and PASV commands. These extensions may be used on a V4 or V6
node. FTP-ALG, facilitating transparent FTP between V4 and V6 nodes,
works as follows.
6.1 Payload modifications for V4 originated FTP sessions
A V4 host may or may not have the EPRT and EPSV command extensions
implemented in its FTP application. If a V4 host originates the FTP
session and uses PORT or PASV command, the FTP-ALG will translate
these commands into EPRT and EPSV commands respectively prior to
forwarding to the V6 node. Likewise, EPSV response from V6 nodes will
be translated into PASV response prior to forwarding to V4 nodes.
The format of EPRT and EPSV commands and EPSV response may be
specified as follows[FTP-IPV6].
EPRT
EPSV
(or)
EPSVALL
Format of EPSV response(Positive): 229 ()
PORT command from a V4 node is translated into EPRT command, by
setting the protocol field to AF #2 (IPV6) and translating
the V4 host Address (represented as h1,h2,h3,h4) into its NAT-PT
assigned V6 address in string notation, as defined in [V6ADDR] in the
field. TCP port represented by p1,p2 in PORT command must
be specified as a decimal in the EPRT command. Further,
translation may also be required in the case of NAPT-PT.
PASV command from a V4 node is be translated into a EPSV command with
the argument set to AF #2. EPSV response from a V6 node is
translated into PASV response prior to forwarding to the target V4
host.
If a V4 host originated the FTP session and was using EPRT and EPSV
commands, the FTP-ALG will simply translate the parameters to these
commands, without altering the commands themselves. The protocol
Number field will be translated from AF #1 to AF #2.
will be translated from the V4 address in ASCII to its
NAT-PT assigned V6 address in string notation as defined in [V6ADDR].
argument in EPSV response requires translation only in the
case of NAPT-PT.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
6.2 Payload modifications for V6 originated FTP sessions
If a V6 host originates the FTP session, however, the FTP-ALG has two
approaches to pursue. In the first approach, the FTP-ALG will leave
the command strings "EPRT" and "EPSV" unaltered and simply translate
the , and arguments from V6 to its
NAT-PT (or NAPT-PT) assigned V4 information. is translated
only in the case of NAPT-PT. Same goes for EPSV response from V4
node. This is the approach we recommend to ensure forward support for
RFC 2428. However, with this approach, the V4 hosts are mandated to
have their FTP application upgraded to support EPRT and EPSV
extensions to allow access to V4 and V6 hosts, alike.
In the second approach, the FTP-ALG will translate the command
strings "EPRT" and "EPSV" and their parameters from the V6 node into
their equivalent NAT-PT assigned V4 node info and attach to "PORT"
and "PASV" commands prior to forwarding to V4 node. Likewise, PASV
response from V4 nodes is translated into EPSV response prior to
forwarding to the target V6 nodes. However, the FTP-ALG would be
unable to translate the command "EPSVALL" issued by V6 nodes.
In such a case, the V4 host, which receives the command, may return
an error code indicating unsupported function. This error response
may cause many RFC 2428 compliant FTP applications to simply fail,
because EPSV support is mandated by RFC 2428. The benefit of this
approach, however, is that is does not impose any FTP upgrade
requirements on V4 hosts.
6.3 Header updates for FTP control packets
All the payload translations considered in the previous sections are
based on ASCII encoded data. As a result, these translations may
result in a change in the size of packet.
If the new size is the same as the previous, only the TCP checksum
needs adjustment as a result of the payload translation. If the new
size is different from the previous, TCP sequence numbers should also
be changed to reflect the change in the length of the FTP control
session payload. The IP packet length field in the V4 header or the
IP payload length field in the V6 header should also be changed to
reflect the new payload size. A table is used by the FTP-ALG to
correct the TCP sequence and acknowledgement numbers in the TCP
header for control packets in both directions.
The table entries should have the source address, source data port,
destination address and destination data port for V4 and V6 portions
of the session, sequence number delta for outbound control packets
and sequence number delta for inbound control packets.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
The sequence number for an outbound control packet is increased by
the outbound sequence number delta, and the acknowledgement number
for the same outbound packet is decreased by the inbound sequence
number delta. Likewise, the sequence number for an inbound packet is
increased by the inbound sequence number delta and the
acknowledgement number for the same inbound packet is decreased by
the outbound sequence number delta.
7. NAT-PT Limitations and Future Work
All limitations associated to NAT [NAT-TERM] are also associated to
NAT-PT. Here are the most important of them in detail, as well as
some unique to NAT-PT.
7.1 Topology limitations
There are limitations to using the NAT-PT translation method. It is
mandatory that all requests and responses pertaining to a session be
routed via the same NAT-PT router. One way to guarantee this would be
to have NAT-PT based on a border router that is unique to a stub
domain, where all IP packets are either originated from the domain or
destined to the domain. This is a generic problem with NAT and it is
fully described in [NAT-TERM].
Note, this limitation does not apply to packets originating from or
directed to dual-stack nodes that do not require packet translation.
This is because in a dual-stack set-up, IPv4 addresses implied in a
V6 address can be identified from the address format PREFIX::x.y.z.w
and a dual-stack router can accordingly route a packet between v4 and
dual-stack nodes without tracking state information.
This should also not affect IPv6 to IPv6 communication and in fact
only actually use translation when no other means of communication is
possible. For example NAT-PT may also have a native IPv6 connection
and/or some kind of tunneled IPv6 connection. Both of the above
connections should be preferred over translation when possible. The
above makes sure that NAT-PT is a tool only to be used to assist
transition to native IPv6 to IPv6 communication.
7.2 Protocol Translation Limitations
A number of IPv4 fields have changed meaning in IPv6 and translation
is not straightforward. For example, the option headers semantics and
syntax have changed significantly in IPv6. Details of IPv4 to IPv6
Protocol Translation can be found in [SIIT].
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
7.3 Impact of Address Translation
Since NAT-PT performs address translation, applications that carry
the IP address in the higher layers will not work. In this case
Application Layer Gateways (ALG) need to be incorporated to provide
support for those applications. This is a generic problem with NAT
and it is fully described in [NAT-TERM].
7.4 Lack of end-to-end security
One of the most important limitations of the NAT-PT proposal is the
fact that end-to-end network layer security is not possible. Also
transport and application layer security may not be possible for
applications that carry IP addresses to the application layer. This
is an inherent limitation of the Network Address Translation
function.
Independent of NAT-PT, end-to-end IPSec security is not possible
across different address realms. The two end-nodes that seek IPSec
network level security must both support one of IPv4 or IPv6.
7.5 DNS Translation and DNSSEC
The scheme described in section 4.2 involves translation of DNS
messages. It is clear that this scheme can not be deployed in
combination with secure DNS. I.e., an authoritative DNS name server
in the V6 domain cannot sign replies to queries that originate from
the V4 world. As a result, an V4 end-node that demands DNS replies
to be signed will reject replies that have been tampered with by
NAT-PT.
The good news, however, is that only servers in V6 domain that need
to be accessible from the V4 world pay the price for the above
limitation, as V4 end-nodes may not access V6 servers due to DNS
replies not being signed.
Also note that zone transfers between DNS-SEC servers within the same
V6 network are not impacted.
Clearly, with DNS SEC deployment in DNS servers and end-host
resolvers, the scheme suggested in this document would not work.
8. Applicability Statement
NAT-PT can be a valuable transition tool at the border of a stub
network that has been deployed as an IPv6 only network when it is
connected to an Internet that is either V4-only or a combination of
V4 and V6.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
NAT-PT, in its simplest form, without the support of DNS-ALG,
provides one way connectivity between an IPv6 stub domain and the
IPv4 world meaning that only sessions initialised by IPv6 nodes
internal to the IPv6 stub domain can be translated, while sessions
initiated by IPv4 nodes are dropped. This makes NAT-PT a useful
tool to IPv6 only stub networks that need to be able to maintain
connectivity with the IPv4 world without the need to deploy servers
visible to the IPv4 world.
NAT-PT combined with a DNS-ALG provides bi-directional connectivity
between the IPv6 stub domain and the IPv4 world allowing sessions to
be initialised by IPv4 nodes outside the IPv6 stub domain. This
makes NAT-PT useful for IPv6 only stub networks that need to deploy
servers visible to the IPv4 world.
Some applications count on a certain degree of address stability for
their operation. Dynamic address reuse by NAT-PT might not be
agreeable for these applications. For hosts running such address
critical applications, NAT-PT may be configured to provide static
address mapping between the host's V6 address and a specific V4
address. This will ensure that address related changes by NAT-PT do
not become a significant source of operational failure.
9. Security Considerations
Section 7.4 of this document states that end-to-end network and
transport layer security are not possible when a session is
intercepted by a NAT-PT. Also application layer security may not be
possible for applications that carry IP addresses in the application
layer.
Section 7.5 of this document states that the DNS-ALG can not be
deployed in combination with secure DNS.
Finally, all of the security considerations described in [NAT-TERM]
are applicable to this document as well.
10. REFERENCES
[DNS-ALG] Srisuresh, P., Tsirtsis, G., Akkiraju, P. and A.
Heffernan, "DNS extensions to Network Address Translators
(DNS_ALG)", RFC 2694, September 1999.
[DNSSEC] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
RFC 2065, March 1999.
[FTP-IPV6] Allman, M., Ostermann, S. and C. Metz, "FTP Extensions for
IPv6 and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[NAT] Egevang, K. and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address
Translator (NAT)", RFC 1631, May 1994.
[NAT-TERM] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC
2663, August 1999.
[SIIT] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translator (SIIT)", RFC
2765, February 2000.
[TRANS] Gilligan, R. and E. Nordmark, "Transition Mechanisms for
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 1933, April 1996.
[V6ADDR] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
Authors' Addresses
George Tsirtsis
Internet Futures
B29 Room 129
BT Adastral Park
IPSWICH IP5 3RE
England
Phone: +44 181 8260073
Fax: +44 181 8260073
EMail: george.tsirtsis@bt.com
EMail (alternative): gtsirt@hotmail.com
Pyda Srisuresh
630 Alder Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
U.S.A.
Phone: (408) 519-3849
EMail: srisuresh@yahoo.com
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 2766 NAT-PT February 2000
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Tsirtsis & Srisuresh Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC, FYI, BCP