IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP considerations

The File Transfer Protocol (FTP) has a very long history, and despite the fact that today, other options exist to perform file transfers, FTP is still in common use. As such, it is important that in the situation where some client computers are IPv6-only while many servers are still IPv4-only and IPv6-to-IPv4 translators are used to bridge that gap, FTP is made to work through these translators as best it can.

FTP has an active and a passive mode, both as original commands that are IPv4-specific, and as extended, IP version agnostic commands. The only FTP mode that works without changes through an IPv6-to-IPv4 translator is extended passive. However, many existing FTP servers do not support this mode, and some clients do not ask for it. This document describes server, client and middlebox (if any) behavior that minimizes this problem.

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 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 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.

1. Introduction
2. Notational Conventions
3. Terminology
4. ALG functionality
    4.1. Control channel translation
    4.2. EPSV to PASV translation
    4.3. EPRT to PORT translation
        4.3.1. Stateless EPRT translation
        4.3.2. Stateful EPRT translation
    4.4. Default port 20 translation
    4.5. Both PORT and PASV
    4.6. Default behavior
    4.7. The ALGS command
    4.8. Timeouts and translating to NOOP
5. Client recommendations
6. Server recommendations
7. IANA considerations
8. Security considerations
9. Contributors
10. Acknowledgements
11. References
    11.1. Normative References
    11.2. Informative References
§ Author's Address

1. Introduction

A survey done in April of 2009 of 25 randomly picked and/or well-known FTP sites reachable over IPv4 showed that only 12 of them supported EPSV over IPv4. Additionally, only 2 of those 12 indicated that they supported EPSV in response to the FEAT command introduced in [RFC2389] (Hethmon, P. and R. Elz, “Feature negotiation mechanism for the File Transfer Protocol,” August 1998.) that asks the server to list its supported features. One supported EPSV but not FEAT. In 5 cases, issuing the EPSV command to the server led to a significant delay, in 3 cases followed by a control channel reset. All 25 servers were able to successfully complete a transfer in traditional passive PASV mode as required by [RFC1123] (Braden, R., “Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support,” October 1989.). More tests showed that the use of an address family argument with the EPSV command is widely mis- or unimplemented in servers. The additional tests with more servers showed that approximately 65% of FTP servers support EPSV successfully and around 96% support PASV successfully. Clients were not extensively tested, but previous experience from the author suggests that most clients support PASV, with the notable exception of the command line client included with Windows, which only supports active mode. This FTP client uses the original PORT command when running over IPv4 and EPRT when running over IPv6.

Additionally, the document standardizes behavior for application layer gateway (ALG) functionality to provide connectivity between unupdated servers and/or clients. Clients that want to engage in more complex behavior, such as server-to-server transfers, may make an FTP application layer gateway (ALG) go into transparent mode by issuing an AUTH command as explained in Section 4.1 (Control channel translation).

The FTP protocol allows for complex interactions, such as the situation where a client connects to two servers and directs the servers to exchange data between them. No attempt is made to address these other than through making ALGs transparent after an AUTH command.

2. Notational Conventions

3. Terminology

Within the context of this document, the words "client" and "server" refer to FTP client and server implementations, respectively. An FTP server is understood to be an implementation of the FTP protocol running on a server system with a stable address, waiting for clients to connectand issue commands that eventually start data transfers. Clients interact with servers using the FTP protocol, and store (upload files) and retrieve (download files) to and from one or more servers. This either happens interactively under control of a user, or is done as an unattended background process. Most operating systems provide a web browser that implements a basic FTP client, as well as a command line client. Third-party FTP clients are also widely available.

Other terminology is derived from the documents listed in the reference section. Note that this document cannot be fully understood on its own; it depends on background and terminology outlined in the references.

4. ALG functionality

The most robust way to solve an IP version mismatch between FTP clients and FTP servers would be by changing clients and servers rather than using an IPv6-to-IPv4 translator for the data channel and using an application layer gateway on the control channel. As such, it is recommended to update FTP clients and servers as required for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation support where possible, to allow proper operation of the FTP protocol without the need for ALGs.

On the other hand, network operators often have little influence over the FTP clients their customers run, let alone the FTP servers used throughout the Internet. For those operators, deploying an ALG may be the only way to provide a satisfactory customer experience. So, even though not the preferred solution, this document standardizes the functionality of such an ALG in order to promote consistent behavior between ALGs in an effort to minimize their harmful effects.

Operators are encouraged to only deploy an FTP ALG for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation when the FTP ALG is clearly needed. In the presence of the ALG, EPSV commands that could be handled directly by conforming servers are translated into PASV commands, introducing unnecessary complexity and reducing robustness. As such a "set and forget" policy on ALGs is not recommended.

Note that the translation of EPSV through all translators and EPRT through a stateless translator is relatively simple but supporting translation of EPRT through a stateful translator is relatively difficult, because in the latter case a translation mapping must be set up for each data transfer using parameters that must be learned from the client/server interaction on the control channel. This needs to happen before the EPRT command can be translated into a PORT command and passed on to the server. As such, an ALG used with a stateful translator MUST support EPSV and MAY support EPRT. However, an ALG used with a stateless translator SHOULD also support EPRT.

The ALG functionality is described as a function separate from the IPv6-to-IPv4 translation function. However, in the case of EPRT translation, the ALG and translator functions need to be tightly coupled, so if EPRT translation is supported, it is assumed that the ALG and IPv6-to-IPv4 translation functions are integrated within a single device.

4.1. Control channel translation

The IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP ALG intercepts all TCP sessions towards port 21 for IPv6 destination addresses that map to IPv4 destinations reachable through an IPv6-to-IPv4 translator. The FTP ALG implements the Telnet protocol ([RFC0854] (Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, “Telnet Protocol Specification,” May 1983.)) used for control channel interactions to the degree necessary to interpret commands and responses and re-issue those commands and responses, modifying them as outlined below. Telnet option negotiation attempts by either the client or the server, except for those allowed by [RFC1123] (Braden, R., “Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support,” October 1989.), MUST be rejected by the FTP ALG without relaying those attempts. This avoids the situation where the client and the server negotiate Telnet options that are unimplemented by the FTP ALG.

As they ultimately provide the same result either implementation strategy (or any other that is functionally equivalent) MAY be used.

In the second case, an implementation MUST have the ability to track and update TCP sequence numbers when translating packets and break up packets into smaller packets after translation, as the control channel translation could modify the length of the payload portion of the packets in question. Also, FTP commands/responses or Telnet negotiations could straddle packet boundaries, so in order to be able to perform the ALG function, it can prove necessary to reconstitute Telnet negotiations and FTP commands and responses from multiple packets.

If the client issues the AUTH command, then the client is attempting to negotiate [RFC2228] (Horowitz, M., “FTP Security Extensions,” October 1997.) security mechanisms which are likely to be incompatible with the FTP ALG function. In this situation, the FTP ALG MUST switch to transparently forwarding all data on the control channel in both directions until the end of the control channel session. This requirement applies regardless of the response from the server. In other words, it is the fact that the client attempts the AUTH negotiation that requires the ALG to become transparent, whether or not the attempt is successful. The transparency requirement applies to the commands and responses flowing between the client and the server. It is possible that commands or responses that were sent through the ALG before the AUTH command was issued were changed in length so TCP sequence numbers in packets entering the ALG and packets exiting the ALG no longer match. In transparent mode, the ALG MUST continue to adjust sequence numbers if it was doing so before entering transparent mode as the result of the AUTH command. The ALGS command (Section 4.7 (The ALGS command)) MAY have a similar effect as the AUTH command, depending on the argument used.

There have been FTP ALGs for the purpose of making active FTP work through IPv4 NATs for a long time. Another type of ALG would be one that imposes restrictions required by security policies. Multiple ALGs of different types can be implemented as a single entity. If such a multi-purpose ALG forbids the use of the AUTH command for policy reasons, the side effect of making the ALG stop performing the translations described here, as well as other possible interventions related to IPv6-to-IPv4 translation, MUST be retained even if the ALG responds to the AUTH command with an error and does not propagate the command to the server. This way, any time a client issues the AUTH command, it knows that an ALG will be in transparent mode afterwards. Implementers are further advised that unlike hosts behind an IPv4 NAT, IPv6 hosts using an IPv6-to-IPv4 translator will normally have the ability to execute FTP over IPv6 without interference from the IPv6-to-IPv4 translator or the ALG, so an IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP ALG is not the best place to implement security policies.

4.2. EPSV to PASV translation

Although many IPv4 FTP servers support the EPSV command, some servers react adversely to this command, and there is no reliable way to detect in advance that this will happen. As such, an FTP ALG MUST translate all occurrences of the EPSV command issued by the client to the PASV command, and reformat a 227 response as a corresponding 229 response. However, an ALG MAY forego EPSV to PASV translation if it has positive knowledge, either through administrative configuration or learned dynamically, that EPSV will be successful without translation to PASV.

For instance, if the client issues EPSV (or EPSV 2 to indicate IPv6 as the network protocol), this is translated to the PASV command. If the server with address 192.0.2.31 then responds with:

It is important that the response is in the 4xx range to indicate a temporary condition.

If the client issues an EPSV command with a numeric argument other than 2, the ALG MUST NOT pass the command on to the server, but rather respond with a 522 error:

If the client issues EPSV ALL, the FTP ALG MUST NOT pass this command to the server, but respond with:

This avoids the situation where an FTP server reacts adversely to receiving a PASV command after the client indicated that it will only use EPSV during this session.

4.3. EPRT to PORT translation

Should the IPv6 client issue an EPRT command, the FTP ALG MAY translate this EPRT command to a PORT command. The translation is different depending on whether the translator is a stateless one-to-one translator or a stateful one-to-many translator.

4.3.1. Stateless EPRT translation

If the address specified in the EPRT command is the IPv6 address used by the client for the control channel session, then the FTP ALG reformats the EPRT command into a PORT command with the IPv4 address that maps to the client's IPv6 address. The port number must be preserved for compatibility with stateless translators. For instance, if the client with IPv6 address 2001:db8:2::31 issues the following EPRT command:

Assuming the IPv4 address that goes with 2001:db8:2::31 is 192.0.2.31, the FTP ALG reformats this as:

If the address specified in the EPRT command is an IPv4 address or an IPv6 address that is not the IPv6 address used by the client for the control session, the ALG SHOULD NOT attempt any translation, but pass along the command unchanged.

If the address specified in the EPRT command is an IPv4 address or the IPv6 address used by the client for the control session, but there is no IPv4 address that maps to the client's IPv6 address, the ALG responds as follows:

It is important that the response is in the 4xx range to indicate a temporary condition.

4.3.2. Stateful EPRT translation

If the address in the EPRT command is the IPv6 address used by the client for the control channel, the stateful translator selects an unused port number in combination with the IPv4 address used for the control channel towards the FTP server, and sets up a mapping from that transport address to the one specified by the client in the EPRT command. The PORT command with the IPv4 address and port used on the IPv4 side of the mapping is only issued towards the server once the mapping is created. Initially, the mapping is such that either any transport address or the FTP server's IPv4 address with any port number is accepted as a source, but once the three-way handshake is complete, the mapping SHOULD be narrowed to only match the negotiated TCP session.

If the address in the EPRT command is not the IPv6 address used by the client for the control channel, the ALG SHOULD NOT attempt any translation, but pass along the command unchanged.

And the stateful translator uses the address 192.0.2.31 on its IPv4 interface, a mapping with destination address 192.0.2.31 and destination port 60192 towards 2001:db8:2::31 port 5282 might be created, after which the FTP ALG reformats the EPRT command as:

4.4. Default port 20 translation

If the client does not issue an EPSV/PASV or EPRT/PORT command prior to initiating a file transfer, it is invoking the default active FTP behavior where the server sets up a TCP session towards the client. In this situation, the source port number is the default FTP data port (port 20) and the destination port is the port the client uses as the source port for the control channel session.

In the case of a stateless translator, this does not pose any problems. In the case of a stateful translator, the translator SHOULD accept incoming connection requests from the server on the IPv4 side if the transport addresses match that of an existing FTP control channel session, with the exception that the control channel session uses port 21 and the new session port 20. In this case, a mapping is set up towards the same transport address on the IPv6 side that is used for the matching FTP control channel session.

Note that if multiple clients are using the same IPv6-to-IPv4 translator to communicate with the same FTP server, and for each client the IPv6-to-IPv4 translator uses the same source address on its IPv4 side, it may not be possible to correlate incoming FTP data channel sessions with the intended IPv6 host unambiguously. In such cases, the IPv6-to-IPv4 translator SHOULD refuse the connection establishment attempt by returning a TCP reset packet. An ALG/translator MAY monitor the progress of FTP control channels and only attempt to perform a mapping when an FTP client has started a file transfer without issuing the EPSV, PASV, EPRT or PORT commands.

4.5. Both PORT and PASV

[RFC0959] (Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, “File Transfer Protocol,” October 1985.) allows a client to issue both PORT and PASV to use non-default ports on both sides of the connection. However, this is incompatible with the notion that with PASV, the data connection is made from the client to the server, while PORT reaffirms the default behavior where the server connects to the client. As such, the behavior of an ALG is undefined when a client issues both PASV and PORT. Implementations SHOULD NOT try to detect the situation where both PASV and PORT commands are issued prior to a command that initiates a transfer, but rather, apply the same translation they would have if there had not been a PASV command prior to a PORT command or a PORT command prior to a PASV command.

4.6. Default behavior

Whenever the client issues a command which the ALG is not set up to translate, either because the command is not mentioned above, the command is not part of any FTP specification, the ALG functionality is disabled administratively for the command in question, or translation does not apply for any other reason, the command MUST be passed on to the server without modification, and the server response MUST be passed on to the client without modification. For example, if the client issues the PASV command, this command is passed on to the server transparently, and the server's response to the client.

4.7. The ALGS command

ALGs SHOULD support the new ALGS (ALG status) command that allows clients to query and set the ALG's status. Note that this command MUST NOT be implemented in FTP servers. If those recognize the command, the best course of action would be to return a 202 response:

However, as FTP servers don't implement the command, there is no reason for them to specifically recognize this command, and returning any 50x response that is normally returned when commands are not recognized is appropriate. A client can use the ALGS command to request the ALG's status and to enable and disable EPSV to PASV and, if implemented, EPRT to PORT translation. There are three possible arguments to the ALGS command:

The ALG SHOULD enable or disable translation as requested. If EPRT to PORT translation is supported, ALGS ENABLE64 enables it and ALGS DISABLE64 disables it along with enabling or disabling EPSV to PASV translation. If EPRT to PORT translation is not supported, ALGS ENABLE64 only enables EPSV to PASV translation. After an ALGS command with any of the three supported arguments, the ALG returns a 216 response indicating the type of translation that will be performed. There are four possible keywords that follow the 216 response code:

The translation type MAY be followed by a space and additional descriptive text until end-of-line. Failure to set the requested translation mode is not an error condition, and is thus indicated by the applicable keyword following the 216 response, and not with an error code response.

If the ALGS command is not implemented, a 502 response SHOULD be returned. If there is no argument to the ALGS command, or the argument is not one of STATUS64, ENABLE64 or DISABLE64 (or an argument specified by a supported newer document), a 504 error SHOULD be returned.

algs-command      = "ALGS" SP algs-token CRLF
algs-token        = "STATUS64" / "ENABLE64" / "DISABLE64"
                    / algs-ext-token
algs-ext-token    = *VCHAR

algs-response     = (ok-response / error-response) CRLF
ok-response       = "216" SP response-token [ freetext ]
response-token    = "NONE" / "EPSV" / "EPRT" / "EPSVEPRT"
error-response    = not-implemented / invalid-parameter
not-implemented   = "502" [ freetext ]
invalid-parameter = "504" [ freetext ]
freetext          = (SP *VCHAR)

4.8. Timeouts and translating to NOOP

Wherever possible, control channels should not time out while there is an active data channel. A timeout of at least 30 seconds is recommended for data channel mappings created by the FTP ALG that are waiting for initial packets.

Whenever a command from the client is not propagated to the server, the FTP ALG instead issues a NOOP command in order to keep the keepalive state between the client and the server synchronized. The response to the NOOP command MUST NOT be relayed back to the client. An implementation MAY wait for the server to return the 200 response to the NOOP and translate that 200 response into the response the ALG is required to return to the client. This way, the ALG never has to create new packets to send to the client, but it can limit itself to modifying packets transmitted by the server. If the server responds with something other than 200 to the NOOP command, the ALG MUST tear down the control channel session and log an error.

5. Client recommendations

All FTP clients are encouraged to support EPSV when communicating over IPv6 and always attempt to use EPSV mode unless explicitly configured to use EPRT.

It is highly recommended that FTP clients react by retrying with PASV when the EPSV command fails, either because of an error response by the server (40x, 42x, 50x and 52x responses), because the data connection could not be created or because the control channel session was terminated. When after attempting to initiate EPSV and/or EPRT modes unsuccessfully and a client retries with PASV, the server will respond to the PASV command with an IPv4 address that the client is supposed to use to connect to for the data connection. Even if the client has IPv4 reachability, there is a higher chance of success if the client ignores the server-supplied address and sets up a data connection towards the IPv6 address of the server that is used for the control channel session. However, in this case the port number used for the data connection is taken from the 227 response to the PASV command as usual.

If a client falls back to PASV after attempting EPSV/EPRT unsuccessfully, a client could cache the name or address of the FTP server and issue PASV rather than EPSV in future sessions. In that case, the cache entry might be cleared if sufficient time has passed that the server may have been updated. The suggested time for removal of a server from this case is 7 days, 1 day when the server indicates EPSV support in its FEAT response where it previously did not. These intervals limit the exposure of the user to timeouts. Different intervals MAY be appropriate, however.

There is always a risk that an error was the result of a condition unrelated to IPv6-to-IPv4 translation. However, retrying with a PASV request has little potential for harm, so unless the error is clearly unrelated, retrying with PASV is the appropriate reaction.

The main rationale for ignoring the IPv4 address in the 227 response is that, even if the client has IPv4 connectivity, most servers will only allow a data connection from the same client address as seen for the control channel connection. See [Bernstein] (Bernstein, D., “PASV security and PORT security,” 2000.). Using IPv6 for the control channel and IPv4 for the data channel means that the source address will almost certainly be different between the control and data channel sessions, making it unlikely that the data connection can be established successfully. Also, IPv4 reachability towards the server-supplied address may or may not exist, while IPv6 reachability has been established by virtue of the control channel connection. Finally, servers residing behind a NAT may provide an [RFC1918] (Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E. Lear, “Address Allocation for Private Internets,” February 1996.) address in their 227 response, and connecting to such an address will not be successful.

Clients do best to refrain from using any arguments with the EPSV command. "EPSV 2" to request IPv6 will fail across an IPv6-to-IPv4 translator. Also, this command is often not handled properly by IPv6 servers. "EPSV ALL" indicates that the client will use EPSV for all transfers, but an ALG could translate EPSV commands to PASV commands, conflicting with the earlier "EPSV ALL", so the control channel session cannot be continued successfully.

6. Server recommendations

As EPSV works through IPv6-to-IPv4 translation transparently without additional effort on the part of the client, the server or an application layer gateway, it is highly recommended that all servers implement EPSV.

[RFC2428] (Allman, M., Ostermann, S., and C. Metz, “FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs,” September 1998.) suggests that the EPSV mode is useful both for clients with IPv6 connectivity and for clients operating behind a NAT device. Hence, it is common for IPv6-capable clients to use EPSV even when communicating over IPv4. If a server does not implement EPSV and responds with a 501 or 502 error, the client simply retries with PASV. This works well with both servers that have working EPSV and servers that do not implement EPSV. However, there is a class of servers that does implement EPSV, but is unable to use EPSV mode because the data connection cannot be established successfully. This is very likely the result of a middlebox monitoring the control channel interactions, and creating firewall or translation state according to the information 227 response after a PASV command. With the EPSV command, there is a 229 response and no 227 response, so if the server supports EPSV but the middlebox does not, the result is that the data connection cannot be established and the data transfer fails.

To avoid this, it is highly recommended that server implementations include a configuration setting that makes it possible to disable EPSV and EPRT support and respond with a 502 (command not implemented) error instead. Server operators can thus disable EPSV support in servers located behind PASV-only middleboxes so clients that issue EPSV can fall back to PASV gracefully rather than time out.

The test performed by Dan Wing showed that, at least for servers listed in a directory of FTP servers, existing implementations tend to present the address used for the server side of the control channel connection in the 227 response to a PASV command. Clients following the recommendations in this document depend on this behavior and it allows ALGs to translate a 227 PASV response to a 229 EPSV response without loss of information; as such it is highly recommended that servers continue to abide by this restriction. Later tests showed that some servers list [RFC1918] (Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E. Lear, “Address Allocation for Private Internets,” February 1996.) addresses in their 227 responses. Many of these servers were known to reside behind NAT devices. In these cases, ignoring the address in the 227 response is the desired behavior.

Many servers that support the FEAT command do not list EPSV and EPRT as a supported feature in the response to the FEAT command. It is recommended that EPSV and EPRT capability is included in the FEAT response, unless EPSV and/or EPRT are administratively disabled as outlined above.

7. IANA considerations

IANA is requested to add to the FTP Commands and Extensions registry the following entry:

[TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following location: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ftp-commands-extensions/ftp-commands-extensions.xhtml]

8. Security considerations

In the majority of cases, FTP is used without further security mechanisms. This allows an attacker with passive interception capabilities to obtain the login credentials, and an attacker that can modify packets to change the data transferred. However, FTP can be used with TLS in order to solve these issues. IPv6-to-IPv4 translation and the FTP ALG do not impact the security issues in the former case nor the use of TLS in the latter case. However, if FTP is used with TLS or another authentication mechanism, the ALG function is not performed so only passive transfers from a server that implements EPSV or a client that supports PASV will succeed.

9. Contributors

Dan Wing, Kentaro Ebisawa, Remi Denis-Courmont, Mayuresh Bakshi, Sarat Kamisetty, Reinaldo Penno, Alun Jones, Dave Thaler, Mohammed Boucadair, Mikael Abrahamsson, Dapeng Liu, Michael Liu, Andrew Sullivan, Anthony Bryan and Ed Jankiewicz contributed ideas and comments. Dan Wing ran experiments with a large number of FTP servers that were very illuminating; many of the choices underlying this document are based on his results. This document adopts several design decisions from [I‑D.liu‑behave‑ftp64] (Liu, D. and Z. Cao, “IPv6 IPv4 translation FTP considerations,” August 2009.).

10. Acknowledgements

Iljitsch van Beijnum is partly funded by Trilogy, a research project supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework Program.

[RFC0854]	Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, “Telnet Protocol Specification,” STD 8, RFC 854, May 1983 (TXT).
[RFC0959]	Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, “File Transfer Protocol,” STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985 (TXT).
[RFC1123]	Braden, R., “Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support,” STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989 (TXT).
[RFC2119]	Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2228]	Horowitz, M., “FTP Security Extensions,” RFC 2228, October 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2428]	Allman, M., Ostermann, S., and C. Metz, “FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs,” RFC 2428, September 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC5234]	Crocker, D. and P. Overell, “Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF,” STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008 (TXT).

[RFC1918]	Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E. Lear, “Address Allocation for Private Internets,” BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996 (TXT).
[RFC2389]	Hethmon, P. and R. Elz, “Feature negotiation mechanism for the File Transfer Protocol,” RFC 2389, August 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2577]	Allman, M. and S. Ostermann, “FTP Security Considerations,” RFC 2577, May 1999 (TXT).
[RFC2765]	Nordmark, E., “Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (SIIT),” RFC 2765, February 2000 (TXT).
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]	Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, “Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers,” draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-11 (work in progress), March 2010 (TXT).
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate]	Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, “IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm,” draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-05 (work in progress), December 2009 (TXT).
[I-D.liu-behave-ftp64]	Liu, D. and Z. Cao, “IPv6 IPv4 translation FTP considerations,” draft-liu-behave-ftp64-03 (work in progress), August 2009 (TXT).
[Bernstein]	Bernstein, D., “PASV security and PORT security,” 2000.

	Iljitsch van Beijnum
	IMDEA Networks
	Avda. del Mar Mediterraneo, 22
	Leganes, Madrid 28918
	Spain
Email:	iljitsch@muada.com

IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP considerations
draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-04

Abstract

Status of this Memo

Copyright Notice

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Notational Conventions

3. Terminology

4. ALG functionality

4.1. Control channel translation

4.2. EPSV to PASV translation

4.3. EPRT to PORT translation

4.3.1. Stateless EPRT translation

4.3.2. Stateful EPRT translation

4.4. Default port 20 translation

4.5. Both PORT and PASV

4.6. Default behavior

4.7. The ALGS command

4.8. Timeouts and translating to NOOP

5. Client recommendations

6. Server recommendations

7. IANA considerations

8. Security considerations

9. Contributors

10. Acknowledgements

11. References

11.1. Normative References

11.2. Informative References

Author's Address

IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP considerationsdraft-ietf-behave-ftp64-04

Abstract

Status of this Memo

Copyright Notice

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Notational Conventions

3. Terminology

4. ALG functionality

4.1. Control channel translation

4.2. EPSV to PASV translation

4.3. EPRT to PORT translation

4.3.1. Stateless EPRT translation

4.3.2. Stateful EPRT translation

4.4. Default port 20 translation

4.5. Both PORT and PASV

4.6. Default behavior

4.7. The ALGS command

4.8. Timeouts and translating to NOOP

5. Client recommendations

6. Server recommendations

7. IANA considerations

8. Security considerations

9. Contributors

10. Acknowledgements

11. References

11.1. Normative References

11.2. Informative References

Author's Address

IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP considerations
draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-04