分享
 
 
 

RFC2469 - A Caution On The Canonical Ordering Of Link-Layer Addresses

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group T. Narten

Request for Comments: 2469 C. Burton

Category: Informational IBM

December 1998

A Caution On The Canonical Ordering Of Link-Layer Addresses

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this

memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

Protocols sUCh as ARP and Neighbor Discovery have data fields that

contain link-layer addresses. In order to interoperate properly, a

sender setting such a field must insure that the receiver extracts

those bits and interprets them correctly. In most cases, such fields

must be in "canonical form". Unfortunately, not all LAN adaptors are

consistent in their use of canonical form, and implementations may

need to eXPlicitly bit swap individual bytes in order to oBTain the

correct format. This document provides information to implementors

to help them avoid the pitfall of using non-canonical forms when

canonical forms are required.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................. 2

2. Canonical Form........................................... 2

3. Implementors Beware: Potential Trouble Spots............. 3

3.1. Neighbor Discovery in IPv6.......................... 3

3.2. IPv4 and ARP........................................ 3

4. Security Considerations.................................. 3

5. References............................................... 4

6. Authors' Addresses....................................... 4

7. Full Copyright Statement................................. 5

1. Introduction

Protocols such as ARP [ARP] and ND [DISCOVERY] have data fields that

contain link-layer addresses. In order to interoperate properly, a

sender setting such a field must insure that the receiver extracts

those bits and interprets them correctly. In most cases, such fields

must be in "canonical form". Unfortunately, not all LAN adaptors are

consistent in their use of canonical form, and implementations may

need to explicitly bit swap individual bytes in order to obtain the

correct format.

2. Canonical Form

Canonical form (also known as "LSB format" and "Ethernet format") is

the name given to the format of a LAN adapter address as it should be

presented to the user according to the 802 LAN standard. It is best

defined as how the bit order of an adapter address on the LAN media

maps to the bit order of an adapter address in memory: The first bit

of each byte that appears on the LAN maps to the least significant

(i.e., right-most) bit of each byte in memory (the figure below

illustrates this). This puts the group address indicator (i.e., the

bit that defines whether an address is unicast or multicast) in the

least significant bit of the first byte. Ethernet and 802.3 hardware

behave consistently with this definition.

Unfortunately, Token Ring (and some FDDI) hardware does not behave

consistently with this definition; it maps the first bit of each byte

of the adapter address to the most significant (i.e., left-most) bit

of each byte in memory, which puts the group address indicator in the

most significant bit of the first byte. This mapping is variously

called "MSB format", "IBM format", "Token-Ring format", and "non-

canonical form". The figure below illustrates the difference between

canonical and non-canonical form using the canonical form address

12-34-56-78-9A-BC as an example:

In memory, 12 34 56 78 9A BC

canonical: 00010010 00110100 01010110 01111000 10011010 10111100

1st bit appearing on LAN (group address indicator)

On LAN: 01001000 00101100 01101010 00011110 01011001 00111101

In memory,

MSB format: 01001000 00101100 01101010 00011110 01011001 00111101

48 2C 6A 1E 59 3D

The implication of this inconsistency is that addresses extracted

from adaptors, assigned to adaptors, or extracted from link-layer

packet headers obtained from adaptors may need to be bit-swapped to

put them into canonical form. Likewise, addresses in canonical form

that are handed to adaptors (e.g., to set an address, to specify a

destination address in a link-layer header, etc.) may need to be

bit-swapped in order for the adaptor to process the request as

expected.

3. Implementors Beware: Potential Trouble Spots

3.1. Neighbor Discovery in IPv6

All of the IPv6 over specific link layers documents specify that

link-layer addresses must be transmitted in canonical order [IPv6-

ETHER, IPv6-FDDI, IPv6-TOKEN]. As far as the authors can tell, all

Ethernet LAN adaptors use canonical order and no special processing

by implementations is needed. In contrast, some FDDI and all Token

Ring adaptors appear to use non-canonical format. Implementors must

insure that any addresses that appear in link-layer address options

of Neighbor Discovery [DISCOVERY] messages are sent in canonical

order and that any link-layer addresses extracted from ND packets are

interpreted correctly on the local machine and its adaptors.

3.2. IPv4 and ARP

Ethernet addresses that appear in ARP packets are in canonical order.

In contrast, when running ARP over Token Ring, the de facto practice

is to transmit addresses in non-canonical order. Because all Token

Ring adaptors assume non-canonical ordering, no interoperability

problems result between communicating nodes attached to the same

Token Ring.

In some environments, however, Token Rings and Ethernets are

connected via a bridge. When a node on the Token Ring attempts to

communicate with a node on the Ethernet, communication would normally

fail, since the Ethernet will misinterpret the Token Ring address

(and vice versa). To get around this problem, bridges that forward

packets between dissimilar network types perform bit swaps of the

addresses in the address fields of ARP packets that are forwarded

from a network of one type to one of the other.

4. Security Considerations

There are no known security issues raised by this document.

5. References

[ARP] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol",

STD 37, RFC826, November 1982.

[DISCOVERY] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor

Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC2461, December

1998.

[IPv6-ETHER] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over

Ethernet Networks", RFC2464, December 1998.

[IPv6-FDDI] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI

Networks", RFC2467, December 1998.

[IPv6-TOKEN] Crawford, M., Narten, T. and S. Thomas, "Transmission of

IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks", RFC2470,

December 1998.

6. Authors' Addresses

Thomas Narten

IBM Corporation

3039 Cornwallis Ave.

PO Box 12195

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195

Phone: 919-254-7798

EMail: narten@raleigh.ibm.com

Charles F. Burton, III

IBM Corporation

3039 Cornwallis Ave.

PO Box 12195

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195

Phone: 919-254-4355

EMail: burton@rtp.vnet.ibm.com

7. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). 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.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有