One document matched: draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-03.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-02.txt
Behavior Engineering for Hindrance I. van Beijnum
Avoidance IMDEA Networks
Internet-Draft May 16, 2010
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 17, 2010
IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP considerations
draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-03
Abstract
The File Transfer Protocol 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 Internet-Draft will expire on November 17, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. ALG functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Control channel translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. EPSV to PASV translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. EPRT to PORT translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Stateless EPRT translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.2. Stateful EPRT translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Default port 20 translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Both PORT and PASV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Default behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7. The ALGS command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.8. Timeouts and translating to NOOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Client recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Server recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Document and discussion information . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
1. Introduction
[RFC0959] specifies two modes of operation for FTP: active mode, in
which the server connects back to the client and passive mode, where
the server opens a port for the client to connect to. Without
additional action, active mode with a client-supplied port does not
work through NATs or firewalls. With active mode, the PORT command
has an IPv4 address as its argument, and in passive mode, the server
responds to the PASV command with an IPv4 address. This makes both
the passive and active modes as originally specified in [RFC0959]
incompatible with IPv6. These issues were solved in [RFC2428], which
introduces the EPSV (extended passive) command, where the server only
responds with a port number, and the EPRT (extended port) command,
which allows the client to supply either an IPv4 or an IPv6 address
(and a port) to the server.
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] 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]. 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.
Considering the above, this document describes the following
recommendations:
Servers:
* Allow EPSV (even for IPv4-only servers)
* Use a predictable address in the response to the PASV command
Clients:
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
* Use EPSV over IPv6 rather than EPRT
* Fall back to PASV if EPSV fails (even over IPv6)
* Do not use certain modes and options that trigger server bugs
Additionally, the document standardizes behavior for application
layer gateway 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 ALG go
into transparent mode by issuing an AUTH command as explained in
Section 4.1.
The recommendations and specifications in this document apply to all
forms of IPv6-to-IPv4 translation, including stateless translation
such as [RFC2765] or [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate] as well as stateful
translation such as [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful].
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
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].
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 connect and issue commands and start data transfers. Clients
interact with servers using the FTP protocol, and store (upload
files) to or retrieve (download files) from one or more servers,
either interactively under control of a user, or 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
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
understood on its own; it depends on background and terminology
outlined in the references.
4. ALG functionality
Many within the IETF community argue that an IP version mismatch
between FTP clients and FTP servers is better solved by changing
clients and servers rather than using a translator. 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 and translation
of EPRT through a stateful translator relatively difficult because a
translation mapping must be set up. 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 in 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 IPv4
port 21 destinations. The FTP ALG implements the Telnet protocol
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
([RFC0854]) 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], MUST be rejected by the FTP
ALG without relaying those attempts. This avoids the situation where
the client and the server negotiate Telnet options unknown to the FTP
ALG.
There are two ways to implement the control channel ALG:
1. The ALG terminates the IPv6 TCP session, sets up a new IPv4 TCP
session towards the IPv4 FTP server, and relays commands and
responses back and forth between the two sessions.
2. Packets that are part of the control channel are translated
individually.
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 the client is attempting to
negotiate [RFC2228] 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) 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
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
through IPv4 NATs for a long time. Another type of ALG would be one
that imposes restrictions required by security policies. Multiple
ALGs 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. 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 trough 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:
227 Entering Passive Mode (192,0,2,31,237,19)
The FTP ALG reformats this as:
229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||60691|)
The ALG SHOULD ignore the IPv4 address in the server's 227 response.
This is the behavior that is exhibited by most clients and is needed
to work with servers that include [RFC1918] addresses in their 227
responses. However, if the 227 response contains an IPv4 address
that does not match the destination of the control channel, the FTP
ALG MAY send the following response to the client instead of the 229
response:
425 Can't open data connection.
It is important that the response is in the 4xx range to indicate a
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
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:
504 Command not implemented for that parameter.
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 client's IPv6
address, 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 EPRT the EPRT command:
EPRT |2|2001:db8:2::31|5282|
Assuming the IPv4 address that goes with 2001:db8:2::31 is
192.0.2.31, the FTP ALG reformats this as:
PORT 192,0,2,31,20,162
If the address specified in the EPRT command is an IPv4 address or an
IPv6 address that is not the client's IPv6 address, the ALG's
response is undefined. It may pass along the command unchanged,
respond with an error, or attempt to perform an appropriate
translation.
If the address specified in the EPRT command is an IPv4 address or an
IPv6 address that is the client's IPv6 address, but there is no IPv4
address that maps to the client's IPv6 address, the ALG responds as
follows:
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
425 Can't open data connection.
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 of the control
channel client's address, 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 client's IPv6 address,
the ALG's response is undefined.
If the client with IPv6 address 2001:db8:2::31 issues the EPRT
command:
EPRT |2|2001:db8:2::31|5282|
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:
PORT 192,0,2,31,235,32
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 in 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
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
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 IPv6-to-IPv4 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,
incoming FTP data channel sessions cannot be correlated to 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] 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.
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 any 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. Those SHOULD return a 202
response when encountering the ALGS command. 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:
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
ALGS STATUS64
The ALG is requested to return the EPSV and EPRT
translation status.
ALGS ENABLE64
The ALG is requested to enable translation.
ALGS DISABLE64
The ALG is requested to disable translation.
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:
216 NONE
Neither EPSV nor EPRT translation is performed.
216 EPSV
EPSV is translated to PASV, no EPRT translation is
performed.
216 EPRT
EPRT is translated to PORT, no EPSV translation is
performed.
216 EPSVEPRT
EPSV is translated to PASV, EPRT is translated to
PORT.
The four letter 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 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.
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
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, it is better to ignore the
server-supplied address and set 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.
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
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,
even if the client has IPv4 connectivity, most servers will only
allow a data connection from the same client address as seen in the
control channel connection, see [Bernstein]. Using IPv6 for the
control channel and IPv4 for the data channel means that the source
address will almost certainly be different in both cases, 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.
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] 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.
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
To avoid this, it is highly recommended that server implementers
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 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 implement this limitation.
Later tests showed that some servers list [RFC1918] 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
None.
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.
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
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 and Michael Liu 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].
10. Acknowledgements
Iljitsch van Beijnum is partly funded by Trilogy, a research project
supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework
Program.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC0854] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol
Specification", STD 8, RFC 854, May 1983.
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2389] Hethmon, P. and R. Elz, "Feature negotiation mechanism for
the File Transfer Protocol", RFC 2389, August 1998.
[RFC2228] Horowitz, M., "FTP Security Extensions", RFC 2228,
October 1997.
[RFC2428] Allman, M., Ostermann, S., and C. Metz, "FTP Extensions
for IPv6 and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6-to-IPv4 FTP May 2010
[RFC2765] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[Bernstein]
Bernstein, D., "PASV security and PORT security", 2000,
<http://cr.yp.to/ftp/security.html>.
Appendix A. Document and discussion information
Please direct questions and comments to the BEHAVE mailinglist. The
latest version of this document will always be available at
http://www.muada.com/drafts/.
Author's Address
Iljitsch van Beijnum
IMDEA Networks
Avda. del Mar Mediterraneo, 22
Leganes, Madrid 28918
Spain
Email: iljitsch@muada.com
van Beijnum Expires November 17, 2010 [Page 16]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 15:17:26 |