[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-bagnulo-behave-dns64) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 6147

BEHAVE WG                                                     M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft                                                      UC3M
Intended status: Standards Track                             A. Sullivan
Expires: June 20, 2010                                          Shinkuro
                                                             P. Matthews
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                          I. van Beijnum
                                                          IMDEA Networks
                                                       December 17, 2009


DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients
                            to IPv4 Servers
                       draft-ietf-behave-dns64-05

Abstract

   DNS64 is a mechanism for synthesizing AAAA records from A records.
   DNS64 is used with an IPv6/IPv4 translator to enable client-server
   communication between an IPv6-only client and an IPv4-only server,
   without requiring any changes to either the IPv6 or the IPv4 node,
   for the class of applications that work through NATs.  This document
   specifies DNS64, and provides suggestions on how it should be
   deployed in conjunction with IPv6/IPv4 translators.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2010.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   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 BSD License.





































Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Background to DNS64 - DNSSEC interaction . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  DNS64 Normative Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Resolving AAAA queries and the answer section  . . . . . .  9
       5.1.1.  The answer when there is AAAA data available . . . . .  9
       5.1.2.  The answer when there is an error  . . . . . . . . . .  9
       5.1.3.  Special exclusion set for AAAA records . . . . . . . . 10
       5.1.4.  Dealing with CNAME and DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       5.1.5.  Data for the answer when performing synthesis  . . . . 11
       5.1.6.  Performing the synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       5.1.7.  Querying in parallel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  Generation of the IPv6 representations of IPv4
           addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.3.  Handling other RRs and the Additional Section  . . . . . . 13
       5.3.1.  PTR queries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.3.2.  Handling the additional section  . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.3.3.  Other records  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4.  Assembling a synthesized response to a AAAA query  . . . . 14
     5.5.  DNSSEC processing: DNS64 in recursive server mode  . . . . 15
   6.  Deployment notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.1.  DNS resolvers and DNS64  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.2.  DNSSEC validators and DNS64  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.3.  DNS64 and multihomed and dual-stack hosts  . . . . . . . . 16
       6.3.1.  IPv6 multihomed hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       6.3.2.  Accidental dual-stack DNS64 use  . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       6.3.3.  Intentional dual-stack DNS64 use . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Appendix A.  Deployment scenarios and examples . . . . . . . . . . 21
     A.1.  Example of IPv6/IPv4 address transformation algorithm  . . 22
     A.2.  Example of An-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup with
           DNS64 in DNS server mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     A.3.  An example of an-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup
           with DNS64 in stub-resolver mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     A.4.  Example of IPv6-Internet-to-an-IPv4-network setup
           DNS64 in DNS server mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Appendix B.  Motivations and Implications of synthesizing AAAA
                RR when real AAAA RR exists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies DNS64, a mechanism that is part of the
   toolbox for IPv6-IPv4 transition and co-existence.  DNS64, used
   together with an IPv6/IPv4 translator such as NAT64
   [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful], allows an IPv6-only client to
   initiate communications by name to an IPv4-only server.

   DNS64 is a mechanism for synthesizing AAAA resource records (RRs)
   from A RRs.  A synthetic AAAA RR created by the DNS64 from an
   original A RR contains the same FQDN of the original A RR but it
   contains an IPv6 address instead of an IPv4 address.  The IPv6
   address is an IPv6 representation of the IPv4 address contained in
   the original A RR.  The IPv6 representation of the IPv4 address is
   algorithmically generated from the IPv4 address returned in the A RR
   and a set of parameters configured in the DNS64 (typically, an IPv6
   prefix used by IPv6 representations of IPv4 addresses and optionally
   other parameters).

   Together with a IPv6/IPv4 translator, these two mechanisms allow an
   IPv6-only client to initiate communications to an IPv4-only server
   using the FQDN of the server.

   These mechanisms are expected to play a critical role in the IPv4-
   IPv6 transition and co-existence.  Due to IPv4 address depletion, it
   is likely that in the future, many IPv6-only clients will want to
   connect to IPv4-only servers.  In the typical case, the approach only
   requires the deployment of IPv6/IPv4 translators that connect an
   IPv6-only network to an IPv4-only network, along with the deployment
   of one or more DNS64-enabled name servers.  However, some advanced
   features require performing the DNS64 function directly by the end-
   hosts themselves.


2.  Overview

   This section provides a non-normative introduction to the DNS64
   mechanism.

   We assume that we have an IPv6/IPv4 translator box connecting an IPv4
   network and an IPv6 network.  The IPv6/IPv4 translator device
   provides translation services between the two networks enabling
   communication between IPv4-only hosts and IPv6-only hosts.  (NOTE: By
   IPv6-only hosts we mean hosts running IPv6-only applications, hosts
   that can only use IPv6, as well as the cases where only IPv6
   connectivity is available to the client.  By IPv4-only servers we
   mean servers running IPv4-only applications, servers that can only
   use IPv4, as well as the cases where only IPv4 connectivity is



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   available to the server).  The IPv6/IPv4 translator used in
   conjunction with DNS64 must allow communications initiated from the
   IPv6-only host to the IPv4-only host.

   To allow an IPv6 initiator to do a standard AAAA RR DNS lookup to
   learn the address of the responder, DNS64 is used to synthesize a
   AAAA record from an A record containing a real IPv4 address of the
   responder, whenever the DNS64 service cannot retrieve a AAAA record
   for the requested host name.  The DNS64 device appears as a regular
   recursive resolver for the IPv6 initiator.  The DNS64 box receives an
   AAAA DNS query generated by the IPv6 initiator.  It first attempts a
   recursive resolution for the requested AAAA records.  If there is no
   AAAA record available for the target node (which is the normal case
   when the target node is an IPv4-only node), DNS64 performs a query
   for A records.  If any A records are discovered, DNS64 creates a
   synthetic AAAA RR from the information retrieved in each A RR.

   The FQDN of a synthetic AAAA RR is the same as that of the original A
   RR, but an IPv6 representation of the IPv4 address contained in the
   original A RR is included in the AAAA RR.  The IPv6 representation of
   the IPv4 address is algorithmically generated from the IPv4 address
   and additional parameters configured in the DNS64.  Among those
   parameters configured in the DNS64, there is at least one IPv6
   prefix, called Pref64::/n.  The IPv6 address representing IPv4
   addresses included in the AAAA RR synthesized by the DNS64 function
   contain Pref64::/n and they also embed the original IPv4 address.

   The same algorithm and the same Pref64::/n prefix or prefixes must be
   configured both in the DNS64 device and the IPv6/IPv4 translator, so
   that both can algorithmically generate the same IPv6 representation
   for a given IPv4 address.  In addition, it is required that IPv6
   packets addressed to an IPv6 destination that contains the Pref64::/n
   be delivered to the IPv6/IPv4 translator, so they can be translated
   into IPv4 packets.

   Once the DNS64 has synthesized the AAAA RR, the synthetic AAAA RR is
   passed back to the IPv6 initiator, which will initiate an IPv6
   communication with the IPv6 address associated with the IPv4
   receiver.  The packet will be routed to the IPv6/IPv4 translator
   which will forward it to the IPv4 network .

   In general, the only shared state between the DNS64 and the IPv6/IPv4
   translator is the Pref64::/n and an optional set of static
   parameters.  The Pref64::/n and the set of static parameters must be
   configured to be the same on both; there is no communication between
   the DNS64 device and IPv6/IPv4 translator functions.  The mechanism
   to be used for configuring the parameters of the DNS64 is beyond the
   scope of this memo.



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   The prefixes to be used as Pref64::/n and their applicability are
   discussed in [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format].  There are two types
   of prefixes that can be used as Pref64::/n.

      The Pref64::/n can be the Well-Known prefix 64:FF9B::/96 reserved
      by [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] for the purpose of
      representing IPv4 addresses in IPv6 address space.

      The Pref64::/n can be a Network Specific Prefix (NSP).  An NSP is
      an IPv6 prefix assigned by an organization for to create IPv6
      representations of IPv4 addresses.

   The main different in the nature of the two types of prefixes is that
   the NSP is a locally assigned prefix that is under control of the
   organization that is providing the translation services, while the
   Well-Known prefix is a prefix that has a global meaning since it has
   been assigned for the specific purpose of representing IPv4 addresses
   in IPv6 address space.

   The DNS64 function can be performed in two places.

      One option is to locate the DNS64 function in recursive name
      servers serving end hosts.  In this case, when an IPv6-only host
      queries the name server for AAAA RRs for an IPv4-only host, the
      name server can perform the synthesis of AAAA RRs and pass them
      back to the IPv6 only initiator.  The main advantage of this mode
      is that current IPv6 nodes can use this mechanism without
      requiring any modification.  This mode is called "DNS64 in DNS
      server mode".

      The other option is to place the DNS64 function in the end hosts
      themselves, coupled to the local stub resolver.  In this case, the
      stub resolver will try to obtain (real) AAAA RRs and in case they
      are not available, the DNS64 function will synthesize AAAA RRs for
      internal usage.  This mode is compatible with some advanced
      functions like DNSSEC validation in the end host.  The main
      drawback of this mode is its deployability, since it requires
      changes in the end hosts.  This mode is called "DNS64 in stub-
      resolver mode"".


3.  Background to DNS64 - DNSSEC interaction

   DNSSEC presents a special challenge for DNS64, because DNSSEC is
   designed to detect changes to DNS answers, and DNS64 may alter
   answers coming from an authoritative server.

   A recursive resolver can be security-aware or security-oblivious.



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   Moreover, a security-aware recursive name server can be validating or
   non-validating, according to operator policy.  In the cases below,
   the recursive server is also performing DNS64, and has a local policy
   to validate.  We call this general case vDNS64, but in all the cases
   below the DNS64 functionality should be assumed needed.

   DNSSEC includes some signaling bits that offer some indicators of
   what the query originator understands.

   If a query arrives at a vDNS64 device with the DO bit set, the query
   originator is signaling that it understands DNSSEC.  The DO bit does
   not indicate that the query originator will validate the response.
   It only means that the query originator can understand responses
   containing DNSSEC data.  Conversely, if the DO bit is clear, that is
   evidence that the querying agent is not aware of DNSSEC.

   If a query arrives at a vDNS64 device with the CD bit set, it is an
   indication that the querying agent wants all the validation data so
   it can do checking itself.  By local policy, vDNS64 could still
   validate, but it must return all data to the querying agent anyway.

   Here are the possible cases:

   1.  A security-oblivious DNS64 node receives a query with the DO bit
       clear.  In this case, DNSSEC is not a concern, because the
       querying agent does not understand DNSSEC responses.

   2.  A security-oblivious DNS64 node receives a query with the DO bit
       set, and the CD bit clear.  This is just like the case of a non-
       DNS64 case: the server doesn't support it, so the querying agent
       is out of luck.

   3.  A security-aware and non-validating DNS64 node receives a query
       with the DO bit set and the CD bit clear.  Such a resolver is not
       validating responses, likely due to local policy (see [RFC4035],
       section 4.2).  For that reason, this case amounts to the same as
       the previous case, and no validation happens.

   4.  A security-aware and non-validating DNS64 node receives a query
       with the DO bit set and the CD bit set.  In this case, the
       resolver is supposed to pass on all the data it gets to the query
       initiator (see section 3.2.2 of [RFC4035]).  This case will be
       problematic with DNS64.  If the DNS64 server modifies the record,
       the client will get the data back and try to validate it, and the
       data will be invalid as far as the client is concerned.

   5.  A security-aware and validating DNS64 node receives a query with
       the DO bit clear and CD clear.  In this case, the resolver



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


       validates the data.  If it fails, it returns RCODE 2 (SERVFAIL);
       otherwise, it returns the answer.  This is the ideal case for
       vDNS64.  The resolver validates the data, and then synthesizes
       the new record and passes that to the client.  The client, which
       is presumably not validating (else it would have set DO and CD),
       cannot tell that DNS64 is involved.

   6.  A security-aware and validating DNS64 node receives a query with
       the DO bit set and CD clear.  In principle, this ought to work
       like the previous case, except that the resolver should also set
       the AD bit on the response.

   7.  A security-aware and validating DNS64 node receives a query with
       the DO bit set and CD set.  This is effectively the same as the
       case where a security-aware and non-validating recursive resolver
       receives a similar query, and the same thing will happen: the
       downstream validator will mark the data as invalid if DNS64 has
       performed synthesis.


4.  Terminology

   This section provides definitions for the special terms used in the
   document.

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   Authoritative server:  A DNS server that can answer authoritatively a
      given DNS question.

   DNS64:  A logical function that synthesizes DNS resource records (e.g
      AAAA records containing IPv6 addresses) from DNS resource records
      actually contained in the global DNS (e.g.  A records containing
      IPv4 addresses).

   DNS64 recursor:  A recursive resolver that provides the DNS64
      functionality as part of its operation.

   Recursive resolver:  A DNS server that accepts requests from one
      resolver, and asks another resolver for the answer on behalf of
      the first resolver.

   Synthetic RR:  A DNS resource record (RR) that is not contained in
      any zone data file, but has been synthesized from other RRs.  An
      example is a synthetic AAAA record created from an A record.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   IPv6/IPv4 translator:  A device that translates IPv6 packets to IPv4
      packets and vice-versa.  It is only required that the
      communication initiated from the IPv6 side be supported.

   For a detailed understanding of this document, the reader should also
   be familiar with DNS terminology from [RFC1034],[RFC1035] and current
   NAT terminology from [RFC4787].  Some parts of this document assume
   familiarity with the terminology of the DNS security extensions
   outlined in [RFC4035].


5.  DNS64 Normative Specification

   A DNS64 is a logical function that synthesizes AAAA records from A
   records.  The DNS64 function may be implemented in a stub resolver,
   in a recursive resolver, or in an authoritative name server.

   The implementation SHOULD support mapping of IPv4 address ranges to
   separate IPv6 prefixes for AAAA record synthesis.  This allows
   handling of special use IPv4 addresses [I-D.iana-rfc3330bis].
   Multicast address handling is further specified in
   [I-D.venaas-behave-mcast46].

5.1.  Resolving AAAA queries and the answer section

   When the DNS64 receives a query for RRs of type AAAA and class IN, it
   first attempts to retrieve non-synthetic RRs of this type and class,
   either by performing a query or, in the case of an authoritative
   server, by examining its own results.

5.1.1.  The answer when there is AAAA data available

   If the query results in one or more AAAA records in the answer
   section, the result is returned to the requesting client as per
   normal DNS semantics, except in the case where any of the AAAA
   records match a special exclusion set of prefixes, considered in
   Section 5.1.3.  If there is (non-excluded) AAAA data available, DNS64
   SHOULD NOT include synthetic AAAA RRs in the response (see Appendix B
   for an analysis of the motivations for and the implications of not
   complying with this recommendation).  By default DNS64
   implementations MUST NOT synthesize AAAA RRs when real AAAA RRs
   exist.

5.1.2.  The answer when there is an error

   If the query results in a response with RCODE other than 0, then
   there are two possibilities.  A result with RCODE=3 is handled
   according to normal DNS operation (which is normally to return the



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   error to the client).  This stage is still prior to any synthesis
   having happened, so a response to be returned to the client does not
   need any special assembly than would usually happen in DNS operation.

   Any other RCODE is treated as though the RCODE were 0 and the answer
   section were empty.  This is because of the large number of different
   responses from deployed name servers when they receive AAAA queries
   without a AAAA record being available.

   It is important to note that, as of this writing, some servers
   respond with RCODE=3 to a AAAA query even if there is an A record
   available for that owner name.  Those servers are in clear violation
   of the meaning of RCODE 3, and it is expected that they will decline
   in use as IPv6 deployment increases.

5.1.3.  Special exclusion set for AAAA records

   Some IPv6 addresses are not actually usable by IPv6-only hosts.  If
   they are returned to IPv6-only querying agents as AAAA records,
   therefore, the goal of decreasing the number of failure modes will
   not be attained.  Examples include AAAA records with addresses in the
   ::ffff/96 network, and possibly (depending on the context) AAAA
   records with the site's Pref::64/n or the Well-Known prefix (see
   below for more about the Well-Known prefix).  A DNS64 implementation
   SHOULD provide a mechanism to specify IPv6 prefix ranges to be
   treated as though the AAAA containing them were an empty answer.  An
   implementation SHOULD include the ::ffff/96 network in that range by
   default.  Failure to provide this facility will mean that clients
   querying the DNS64 function may not be able to communicate with hosts
   that would be reachable from a dial-stack host.

   When the DNS64 performs its initial AAAA query, if it receives an
   answer with only AAAA records containing addresses in the target
   range(s), then it MUST treat the answer as though it were an empty
   answer, and proceed accordingly.  If it receives an answer with at
   least one AAAA record containing an address outside any of the target
   ranges, then it MAY build an answer section for a response including
   only the AAAA record(s) that do not contain any of the addresses
   inside the excluded ranges.  That answer section is used in the
   assembly of a response as detailed in Section 5.4.  Alternatively, it
   MAY treat the answer as though it were an empty answer, and proceed
   accordingly.  It MUST NOT return the offending AAAA records as part
   of a response.

5.1.4.  Dealing with CNAME and DNAME

   If the response contains a CNAME or a DNAME, then the CNAME or DNAME
   chain is followed until the first terminating A or AAAA record is



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   reached.  This may require the DNS64 to ask for an A record, in case
   the response to the original AAAA query is a CNAME or DNAME without
   an AAAA record to follow.  The resulting AAAA or A record is treated
   like any other AAAA or A case, as appropriate.

   When assembling the answer section, the original CNAME or DNAME RR is
   included as part of the answer, and the synthetic AAAA, if
   appropriate, is included.

5.1.5.  Data for the answer when performing synthesis

   If the query results in no error but an empty answer section in the
   response, the DNS64 resolver attempts to retrieve A records for the
   name in question.  If this new A RR query results in an empty answer
   or in an error, then the empty result or error is used as the basis
   for the answer returned to the querying client.  (Transient errors
   may result in retrying the query, depending on the operation of the
   resolver; this is just as in Section 5.1.2.)  If instead the query
   results in one or more A RRs, the DNS64 synthesizes AAAA RRs based on
   the A RRs according to the procedure outlined in Section 5.1.6.  The
   DNS64 resolver then returns the synthesized AAAA records in the
   answer section to the client, removing the A records that form the
   basis of the synthesis.

5.1.6.  Performing the synthesis

   A synthetic AAAA record is created from an A record as follows:

   o  The NAME field is set to the NAME field from the A record

   o  The TYPE field is set to 28 (AAAA)

   o  The CLASS field is set to 1 (IN)

   o  The TTL field is set to the minimum of the TTL of the original A
      RR and the SOA RR for the queried domain.  (Note that in order to
      obtain the TTL of the SOA RR the DNS64 does not need to perform a
      new query, but it can remember the TTL from the SOA RR in the
      negative response to the AAAA query).

   o  The RDLENGTH field is set to 16

   o  The RDATA field is set to the IPv6 representation of the IPv4
      address from the RDATA field of the A record.  The DNS64 SHOULD
      check each A RR against IPv4 address ranges and select the
      corresponding IPv6 prefix to use in synthesizing the AAAA RR.  See
      Section 5.2 for discussion of the algorithms to be used in
      effecting the transformation.



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


5.1.7.  Querying in parallel

   DNS64 MAY perform the query for the AAAA RR and for the A RR in
   parallel, in order to minimize the delay.  However, this would result
   in performing unnecessary A RR queries in the case no AAAA RR
   synthesis is required.  A possible trade-off would be to perform them
   sequentially but with a very short interval between them, so if we
   obtain a fast reply, we avoid doing the additional query.  (Note that
   this discussion is relevant only if the DNS64 function needs to
   perform external queries to fetch the RR.  If the needed RR
   information is available locally, as in the case of an authoritative
   server, the issue is no longer relevant.)

5.2.  Generation of the IPv6 representations of IPv4 addresses

   DNS64 supports multiple algorithms for the generation of the IPv6
   representation of an IPv4 address.  The constraints imposed on the
   generation algorithms are the following:

      The same algorithm to create an IPv6 address from an IPv4 address
      MUST be used by both the DNS64 to create the IPv6 address to be
      returned in the synthetic AAAA RR from the IPv4 address contained
      in original A RR, and by the IPv6/IPv4 translator to create the
      IPv6 address to be included in the destination address field of
      the outgoing IPv6 packets from the IPv4 address included in the
      destination address field of the incoming IPv4 packet.

      The algorithm MUST be reversible, i.e. it MUST be possible to
      extract the original IPv4 address from the IPv6 representation.

      The input for the algorithm MUST be limited to the IPv4 address,
      the IPv6 prefix (denoted Pref64::/n) used in the IPv6
      representations and optionally a set of stable parameters that are
      configured in the DNS64 (such as fixed string to be used as a
      suffix).

         If we note n the length of the prefix Pref64::/n, then n MUST
         the less or equal than 96.  If a Pref64::/n is configured
         through any means in the DNS64 (such as manually configured, or
         other automatic mean not specified in this document), the
         default algorithm MUST use this prefix.  If no prefix is
         available, the algorithm MUST use the Well-Known prefix 64:
         FF9B::/96 defined in [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]

      [[anchor9: Note in document: The value 64:FF9B::/96 is proposed as
      the value for the Well-Known prefix and needs to be confirmed
      whenis published as RFC.]][I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   DNS64 MUST support the algorithm for generating IPv6 representations
   of IPv4 addresses defined Section 2 of
   [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format].  Moreover, the aforementioned
   algorithm MUST be the default algorithm used by DNS64.  While the
   normative description of the algorithm is provided in
   [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format], an sample description of the
   algorithm and its application to different scenarios is provided in
   Appendix A for illustration purposes.

5.3.  Handling other RRs and the Additional Section

5.3.1.  PTR queries

   If a DNS64 nameserver receives a PTR query for a record in the
   IP6.ARPA domain, it MUST strip the IP6.ARPA labels from the QNAME,
   reverse the address portion of the QNAME according to the encoding
   scheme outlined in section 2.5 of [RFC3596] , and examine the
   resulting address to see whether its prefix matches the locally-
   configured Pref64::/n.  There are two alternatives for a DNS64
   nameserver to respond to such PTR queries.  A DNS64 node MUST provide
   one of these, and SHOULD NOT provide both at the same time unless
   different IP6.ARPA zones require answers of different sorts.

   The first option is for the DNS64 nameserver to respond
   authoritatively for its prefixes.  If the address prefix matches any
   Pref64::/n used in the site, either a NSP prefix or the Well-Known
   prefix used for NAT64 (i.e. 64:FF9B::/96) as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format], then the DNS64 server MAY answer
   the query using locally-appropriate RDATA.  The DNS64 server MAY use
   the same RDATA for all answers.  Note that the requirement is to
   match any Pref64::/n used at the site, and not merely the locally-
   configured Pref64::/n.  This is because end clients could ask for a
   PTR record matching an address received through a different (site-
   provided) DNS64, and if this strategy is in effect, those queries
   should never be sent to the global DNS.  The advantage of this
   strategy is that it makes plain to the querying client that the
   prefix is one operated by the DNS64 site, and that the answers the
   client is getting are generated by the DNS64.  The disadvantage is
   that any useful reverse-tree information that might be in the global
   DNS is unavailable to the clients querying the DNS64.

   The second option is for the DNS64 nameserver to synthesize a CNAME
   mapping the IP6.ARPA namespace to the corresponding IN-ADDR.ARPA
   name.  The rest of the response would be the normal DNS processing.
   The CNAME can be signed on the fly if need be.  The advantage of this
   approach is that any useful information in the reverse tree is
   available to the querying client.  The disadvantage is that it adds
   additional load to the DNS64 (because CNAMEs have to be synthesized



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   for each PTR query that matches the Pref64::/n), and that it may
   require signing on the fly.  In addition, the generated CNAME could
   correspond to an unpopulated in-addr.arpa zone, so the CNAME would
   provide a reference to a non-existent record.

   If the address prefix does not match any of the Pref64::/n, then the
   DNS64 server MUST process the query as though it were any other query
   -- i.e. a recursive nameserver MUST attempt to resolve the query as
   though it were any other (non-A/AAAA) query, and an authoritative
   server MUST respond authoritatively or with a referral, as
   appropriate.

5.3.2.  Handling the additional section

   DNS64 synthesis MUST NOT be performed on any records in the
   additional section of synthesized answers.  The DNS64 MUST pass the
   additional section unchanged.

5.3.3.  Other records

   If the DNS64 is in recursive resolver mode, then it SHOULD also serve
   the zones specified in [I-D.ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones], rather
   than forwarding those queries elsewhere to be handled.

   All other RRs MUST be returned unchanged.

5.4.  Assembling a synthesized response to a AAAA query

   The DNS64 uses different pieces of data to build the response
   returned to the querying client.

   The query that is used as the basis for synthesis results either in
   an error, an answer that can be used as a basis for synthesis, or an
   empty (authoritative) answer.  If there is an empty answer, then the
   DNS64 responds to the original querying client with the answer the
   DNS64 received to the original AAAA query.  Otherwise, the response
   is assembled as follows.

   The header fields are set according to the usual rules for recursive
   or authoritative servers, depending on the role that the DNS64 is
   serving.  The question section is copied from the original AAAA
   query.  The answer section is populated according to the rules in
   Section 5.1.6.  The authority and additional sections are copied from
   the response to the A query that the DNS64 performed.







Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


5.5.  DNSSEC processing: DNS64 in recursive server mode

   We consider the case where the recursive server that is performing
   DNS64 also has a local policy to validate the answers according to
   the procedures outlined in [RFC4035] Section 5.  We call this general
   case vDNS64.

   The vDNS64 uses the presence of the DO and CD bits to make some
   decisions about what the query originator needs, and can react
   accordingly:

   1.  If CD is not set and DO is not set, vDNS64 SHOULD perform
       validation and do synthesis as needed.

   2.  If CD is not set and DO is set, then vDNS64 SHOULD perform
       validation.  Whenever vDNS64 performs validation, it MUST
       validate the negative answer for AAAA queries before proceeding
       to query for A records for the same name, in order to be sure
       that there is not a legitimate AAAA record on the Internet.
       Failing to observe this step would allow an attacker to use DNS64
       as a mechanism to circumvent DNSSEC.  If the negative response
       validates, and the response to the A query validates, then the
       vDNS64 MAY perform synthesis and SHOULD set the AD bit in the
       answer to the client.  This is acceptable, because [RFC4035],
       section 3.2.3 says that the AD bit is set by the name server side
       of a security-aware recursive name server if and only if it
       considers all the RRSets in the Answer and Authority sections to
       be authentic.  In this case, the name server has reason to
       believe the RRSets are all authentic, so it SHOULD set the AD
       bit.  If the data does not validate, the vDNS64 MUST respond with
       RCODE=2 (server failure).
       A security-aware end point might take the presence of the AD bit
       as an indication that the data is valid, and may pass the DNS
       (and DNSSEC) data to an application.  If the application attempts
       to validate the synthesized data, of course, the validation will
       fail.  One could argue therefore that this approach is not
       desirable.  But security aware stub resolvers MUST NOT place any
       reliance on data received from resolvers and validated on their
       behalf without certain criteria established by [RFC4035], section
       4.9.3.  An application that wants to perform validation on its
       own should use the CD bit.

   3.  If the CD bit is set and DO is set, then vDNS64 MAY perform
       validation, but MUST NOT perform synthesis.  It MUST hand the
       data back to the query initiator, just like a regular recursive
       resolver, and depend on the client to do the validation and the
       synthesis itself.
       The disadvantage to this approach is that an end point that is



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


       translation-oblivious but security-aware and validating will not
       be able to use the DNS64 functionality.  In this case, the end
       point will not have the desired benefit of NAT64.  In effect,
       this strategy means that any end point that wishes to do
       validation in a NAT64 context must be upgraded to be translation-
       aware as well.


6.  Deployment notes

   While DNS64 is intended to be part of a strategy for aiding IPv6
   deployment in an internetworking environment with some IPv4-only and
   IPv6-only networks, it is important to realise that it is
   incompatible with some things that may be deployed in an IPv4-only or
   dual-stack context.

6.1.  DNS resolvers and DNS64

   Full-service resolvers that are unaware of the DNS64 function can be
   (mis)configured to act as mixed-mode iterative and forwarding
   resolvers.  In a native-IPv4 context, this sort of configuration may
   appear to work.  It is impossible to make it work properly without it
   being aware of the DNS64 function, because it will likely at some
   point obtain IPv4-only glue records and attempt to use them for
   resolution.  The result that is returned will contain only A records,
   and without the ability to perform the DNS64 function the resolver
   will simply be unable to answer the necessary AAAA queries.

6.2.  DNSSEC validators and DNS64

   Existing DNSSEC validators (i.e. that are unaware of DNS64) will
   reject all the data that comes from the DNS64 as having been tampered
   with.  If it is necessary to have validation behind the DNS64, then
   the validator must know how to perform the DNS64 function itself.
   Alternatively, the validating host may establish a trusted connection
   with the DNS64, and allow the DNS64 to do all validation on its
   behalf.

6.3.  DNS64 and multihomed and dual-stack hosts

6.3.1.  IPv6 multihomed hosts

   Synthetic AAAA records may be constructed on the basis of the network
   context in which they were constructed.  If a host sends DNS queries
   to resolvers in multiple networks, it is possible that some of them
   will receive answers from a DNS64 without all of them being connected
   via a NAT64.  For instance, suppose a system has two interfaces, i1
   and i2.  Whereas i1 is connected to the IPv4 Internet via NAT64, i2



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   has native IPv6 connectivity only.  I1 might receive a AAAA answer
   from a DNS64 that is configured for a particular NAT64; the IPv6
   address contained in that AAAA answer will not connect with anything
   via i2.

   This example illustrates why it is generally preferable that hosts
   treat DNS answers from one interface as local to that interface.  The
   answer received on one interface will not work on the other
   interface.  Hosts that attempt to use DNS answers globally may
   encounter surprising failures in these cases.  For more discussion of
   this topic, see [I-D.savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection].

   Note that the issue is not that there are two interfaces, but that
   there are two networks involved.  The same results could be achieved
   with a single interface routed to two different networks.

6.3.2.  Accidental dual-stack DNS64 use

   Similarly, suppose that i1 has IPv6 connectivity and can connect to
   the IPv4 Internet through NAT64, but i2 has IPv4 native transit.  In
   this case, i1 could receive an IPv6 address from a synthetic AAAA
   that would better be reached via native IPv4 transit.  Again, it is
   worth emphasising that this arises because there are two networks
   involved.

   Since it is most likely that the host will attempt AAAA resolution
   first, in this arrangement the host will often use the NAT64 when a
   native IPv4 would be preferable.  For this reason, hosts with IPv4
   connectivity to the Internet should avoid using DNS64.  This can be
   partly resolved by ISPs when providing DNS resolvers to clients, but
   that is not a guarantee that the NAT64 will never be used when a
   native IPv4 connection should be used.  There is no general-purpose
   mechanism to ensure that native IPv4 transit will always be
   preferred, because to a DNS64-oblivious host, the DNS64 looks just
   like an ordinary DNS server.  Operators of a NAT64 should expect
   traffic to pass through the NAT64 even when it is not necessary.

6.3.3.  Intentional dual-stack DNS64 use

   Finally, consider the case where the IPv4 connectivity on i2 is only
   to a LAN, with an IPv6-only connection on i1 to the Internet,
   connecting to the IPv4 Internet via NAT64.  Traffic to the LAN may
   not be routable from the global Internet, as is often the case (for
   instance) with LANs using RFC1918 addresses.  In this case, it is
   critical that the DNS64 not synthesize AAAA responses for hosts in
   the LAN, or else that the DNS64 be aware of hosts in the LAN and
   provide context-sensitive answers ("split view" DNS answers) for
   hosts inside the LAN.  As with any split view DNS arrangement,



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   operators must be prepared for data to leak from one context to
   another, and for failures to occur because nodes accessible from one
   context are not accessible from the other.


7.  Security Considerations

   See the discussion on the usage of DNSSEC and DNS64 described in the
   document.


8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo makes no request of IANA.


9.  Contributors

      Dave Thaler

      Microsoft

      dthaler@windows.microsoft.com


10.  Acknowledgements

   This draft contains the result of discussions involving many people,
   including the participants of the IETF BEHAVE Working Group.  The
   following IETF participants made specific contributions to parts of
   the text, and their help is gratefully acknowledged: Mark Andrews,
   Jari Arkko, Rob Austein, Timothy Baldwin, Fred Baker, Marc Blanchet,
   Cameron Byrne, Brian Carpenter, Hui Deng, Francis Dupont, Ed
   Jankiewicz, Peter Koch, Suresh Krishnan, Ed Lewis, Xing Li, Matthijs
   Mekking, Hiroshi Miyata, Simon Perrault, Teemu Savolainen, Jyrki
   Soini, Dave Thaler, Mark Townsley, Stig Venaas, Magnus Westerlund,
   Florian Weimer, Dan Wing, Xu Xiaohu.

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


11.  References







Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2671]  Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
              RFC 2671, August 1999.

   [RFC2672]  Crawford, M., "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection",
              RFC 2672, August 1999.

   [RFC2765]  Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
              (SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
              Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
              draft-ietf-behave-address-format-02 (work in progress),
              December 2009.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
              Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "NAT64: Network
              Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4
              Servers", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-06 (work
              in progress), December 2009.

   [RFC2766]  Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address
              Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766,
              February 2000.

   [RFC2136]  Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
              "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
              RFC 2136, April 1997.

   [RFC1858]  Ziemba, G., Reed, D., and P. Traina, "Security
              Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858,



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


              October 1995.

   [RFC3128]  Miller, I., "Protection Against a Variant of the Tiny
              Fragment Attack (RFC 1858)", RFC 3128, June 2001.

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
              January 2001.

   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
              "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
              October 2003.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, March 2005.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, March 2005.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [RFC4966]  Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move the Network
              Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to
              Historic Status", RFC 4966, July 2007.

   [I-D.iana-rfc3330bis]
              Cotton, M. and L. Vegoda, "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",
              draft-iana-rfc3330bis-11 (work in progress), August 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]
              Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19 (work in progress), October 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol]
              Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama,
              "Solution approaches for address-selection problems",
              draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-sol-02 (work in progress),
              July 2009.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   [RFC3498]  Kuhfeld, J., Johnson, J., and M. Thatcher, "Definitions of
              Managed Objects for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)
              Linear Automatic Protection Switching (APS)
              Architectures", RFC 3498, March 2003.

   [I-D.wing-behave-learn-prefix]
              Wing, D., "Learning the IPv6 Prefix of a Network's IPv6/
              IPv4 Translator", draft-wing-behave-learn-prefix-04 (work
              in progress), October 2009.

   [I-D.venaas-behave-mcast46]
              Venaas, S., Asaeda, H., SUZUKI, S., and T. Fujisaki, "An
              IPv4 - IPv6 multicast translator",
              draft-venaas-behave-mcast46-01 (work in progress),
              July 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones]
              Andrews, M., "Locally-served DNS Zones",
              draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-09 (work in
              progress), November 2009.

   [I-D.savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection]
              Savolainen, T., "DNS Server Selection on Multi-Homed
              Hosts", draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection-01 (work
              in progress), October 2009.


Appendix A.  Deployment scenarios and examples

   In this section, we first provide an example of the address
   transformation algorithm and then we walk through some sample
   scenarios that are expected to be common deployment cases.  It should
   be noted that is provided for illustrative purposes and this section
   is not normative.  The normative definition of DNS64 is provided in
   Section 5 and the normative definition of the address transformation
   algorithm is provided in [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format].

   There are two main different setups where DNS64 is expected to be
   used (other setups are possible as well, but these two are the main
   ones identified at the time of this writing).

      One possible setup that is expected to be common is the case of an
      end site or an ISP that is providing IPv6-only connectivity or
      connectivity to IPv6-only hosts that wants to allow the
      communication from these IPv6-only connected hosts to the IPv4
      Internet.  This case is called An-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet.
      In this case, the IPv6/IPv4 Translator is used to connect the end
      site or the ISP to the IPv4 Internet and the DNS64 function is



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


      provided by the end site or the ISP.

      The other possible setup that is expected is an IPv4 site that
      wants that its IPv4 servers to be reachable from the IPv6
      Internet.  This case is called IPv6-Internet-to-an-IPv4-network.
      It should be noted that the IPv4 addresses used in the IPv4 site
      can be either public or private.  In this case, the IPv6/IPv4
      Translator is used to connect the IPv4 end site to the IPv6
      Internet and the DNS64 function is provided by the end site
      itself.

   In this section we illustrate how the DNS64 behaves in the different
   scenarios that are expected to be common.  We consider then 3
   possible scenarios, namely:

   1.  An-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup with DNS64 in DNS server
       mode

   2.  An-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup with DNS64 in stub-
       resolver mode

   3.  IPv6-Internet-to-an-IPv4-network setup with DNS64 in DNS server
       mode

   The notation used is the following: upper case letters are IPv4
   addresses; upper case letters with a prime(') are IPv6 addresses;
   lower case letters are ports; prefixes are indicated by "P::X", which
   is an IPv6 address built from an IPv4 address X by adding the prefix
   P, mappings are indicated as "(X,x) <--> (Y',y)".

A.1.  Example of IPv6/IPv4 address transformation algorithm

   In this section we describe the algorithm for the generation of IPv6
   address from IPv4 address to be implemented in the DNS64 in the case
   of a Pref64::/n with n=96.

   The only parameter required by the default algorithm is an IPv6
   prefix.  This prefix is used to map IPv4 addresses into IPv6
   addresses, and is denoted Pref64::/96.  If an Pref64::/96 is
   configured through any means in the DNS64 (such as manually
   configured, or other automatic mean not specified in this document),
   the default algorithm will use this prefix.  If no prefix is
   available the algorithm will use the Well-Know prefix (64:FF9B::/96)
   defined in [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]

   The input for the algorithm are:





Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


      The IPv4 address: X

      The IPv6 prefix: Pref64::/96

   The IPv6 address is generated by concatenating the prefix
   Pref64::/96, the IPv4 address X So, the resulting IPv6 address would
   be Pref64:X

   Reverse algorithm

   We next describe the reverse algorithm of the algorithm described in
   the previous section.  This algorithm allows to generate and IPv4
   address from an IPv6 address.  This reverse algorithm is NOT
   implemented by the DNS64 but it is implemented in the IPv6/IPv4
   translator that is serving the same domain the DNS64.

   The only parameter required by the default algorithm is an IPv6
   prefix.  This prefix is the one originally used to map IPv4 addresses
   into IPv6 addresses, and is denoted Pref64::/96.

   The input for the algorithm are:

      The IPv6 address: X'

      The IPv6 prefix: Pref64::/n

   First, the algorithm checks that the fist 96 bits of the IPv6 address
   X' match with the prefix Pref64::/96 i.e. verifies that Pref64::/96 =
   X'/96.

      If this is not the case, the algorithm ends and no IPv4 address is
      generated.

      If the verification is successful, then last 32 bits of address X'
      are extracted to form the IPv4 address.

A.2.  Example of An-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup with DNS64 in
      DNS server mode

   In this example, we consider an IPv6 node located in an IPv6-only
   site that initiates a communication to an IPv4 node located in the
   IPv4 Internet.  In this example, the Pref64::/n has n equal to 96.

   The scenario for this case is depicted in the following figure:







Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


      +---------------------------------------+         +-----------+
      |IPv6 site       +-------------+        |IP Addr: |           |
      |  +----+        | Name server |   +-------+ T    |   IPv4    |
      |  | H1 |        | with DNS64  |   |64Trans|------| Internet  |
      |  +----+        +-------------+   +-------+      +-----------+
      |    |IP addr: Y'     |              |  |            |IP addr: X
      |    ---------------------------------  |          +----+
      +---------------------------------------+          | H2 |
                                                         +----+

   The figure shows an IPv6 node H1 which has an IPv6 address Y' and an
   IPv4 node H2 with IPv4 address X.

   A IPv6/IPv4 Translator connects the IPv6 network to the IPv4
   Internet.  This IPv6/IPv4 Translator has a prefix (called
   Pref64::/96) an IPv4 address T assigned to its IPv4 interface.

   The other element involved is the local name server.  The name server
   is a dual-stack node, so that H1 can contact it via IPv6, while it
   can contact IPv4-only name servers via IPv4.

   The local name server needs to know the prefix assigned to the local
   IPv6/IPv4 Translator (Pref64::/96).  For the purpose of this example,
   we assume it learns this through manual configuration.

   For this example, assume the typical DNS situation where IPv6 hosts
   have only stub resolvers, and always query a name server that
   performs recursive lookups (henceforth called "the recursive
   nameserver").

   The steps by which H1 establishes communication with H2 are:

   1.  H1 does a DNS lookup for FQDN(H2).  H1 does this by sending a DNS
       query for an AAAA record for H2 to the recursive name server.
       The recursive name server implements DNS64 functionality.

   2.  The recursive name server resolves the query, and discovers that
       there are no AAAA records for H2.

   3.  The recursive name server queries for an A record for H2 and gets
       back an A record containing the IPv4 address X. The name server
       then synthesizes an AAAA record.  The IPv6 address in the AAAA
       record contains the prefix assigned to the IPv6/IPv4 Translator
       in the upper 96 bits then the IPv4 address X i.e. the resulting
       IPv6 address is Pref64:X

   4.  H1 receives the synthetic AAAA record and sends a packet towards
       H2.  The packet is sent from a source transport address of (Y',y)



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


       to a destination transport address of (Pref64:X,x), where y and x
       are ports chosen by H2.

   5.  The packet is routed to the IPv6 interface of the IPv6/IPv4
       Translator and the subsequent communication flows by means of the
       IPv6/IPv4 Translator mechanisms.

A.3.  An example of an-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup with DNS64 in
      stub-resolver mode

   The scenario also considers a Pref64::/n with n equal to 96.  This
   case is depicted in the following figure:


      +---------------------------------------+         +-----------+
      |IPv6 site             +-------+        |IP addr: |           |
      |  +---------------+   | Name  |   +-------+  T   |   IPv4    |
      |  | H1 with DNS64 |   | Server|   |64Trans|------| Internet  |
      |  +---------------+   +-------+   +-------+      +-----------+
      |        |IP addr: Y'      |         |  |            |IP addr: X
      |    ---------------------------------  |          +----+
      +---------------------------------------+          | H2 |
                                                         +----+

   The figure shows an IPv6 node H1 which has an IPv6 address Y' and an
   IPv4 node H2 with IPv4 address X. Node H1 is implementing the DNS64
   function.

   A IPv6/IPv4 Translator connects the IPv6 network to the IPv4
   Internet.  This IPv6/IPv4 Translator has a prefix (called
   Pref64::/96) and an IPv4 address T assigned to its IPv4 interface.

   H1 needs to know the prefix assigned to the local IPv6/IPv4
   Translator (Pref64::/96).  For the purpose of this example, we assume
   it learns this through manual configuration.

   Also shown is a name server.  For the purpose of this example, we
   assume that the name server is a dual-stack node, so that H1 can
   contact it via IPv6, while it can contact IPv4-only name servers via
   IPv4.

   For this example, assume the typical situation where IPv6 hosts have
   only stub resolvers and always query a name server that provides
   recursive lookups (henceforth called "the recursive name server").
   The recursive name server does not perform the DNS64 function.

   The steps by which H1 establishes communication with H2 are:




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   1.  H1 does a DNS lookup for FQDN(H2).  H1 does this by sending a DNS
       query for a AAAA record for H2 to the recursive name server.

   2.  The recursive DNS server resolves the query, and returns the
       answer to H1.  Because there are no AAAA records in the global
       DNS for H2, the answer is empty.

   3.  The stub resolver at H1 then queries for an A record for H2 and
       gets back an A record containing the IPv4 address X. The DNS64
       function within H1 then synthesizes a AAAA record.  The IPv6
       address in the AAAA record contains the prefix assigned to the
       IPv6/IPv4 Translator in the upper 96 bits, then the IPv4 address
       X i.e. the resulting IPv6 address is Pref64:X.

   4.  H1 sends a packet towards H2.  The packet is sent from a source
       transport address of (Y',y) to a destination transport address of
       (Pref64:X,x), where y and x are ports chosen by H2.

   5.  The packet is routed to the IPv6 interface of the IPv6/IPv4
       Translator and the subsequent communication flows using the IPv6/
       IPv4 Translator mechanisms.

A.4.  Example of IPv6-Internet-to-an-IPv4-network setup DNS64 in DNS
      server mode

   In this example, we consider an IPv6 node located in the IPv6
   Internet site that initiates a communication to a IPv4 node located
   in the IPv4 site.  Once again, in this example, the Pref64::/n has n
   equal to 96.

   This scenario can be addressed without using any form of DNS64
   function.  This is so because it is possible to assign a fixed IPv6
   address to each of the IPv4 servers.  Such an IPv6 address would be
   constructed as the Pref64::/96 concatenated with the IPv4 address of
   the IPv4 server.  Note that the IPv4 address can be a public or a
   private address; the latter does not present any additional
   difficulty, since the NSP prefix must be used a Pref64::/96 (in this
   scenario the usage of the Well-Known prefix is not supported).  Once
   these IPv6 addresses have been assigned to represent the IPv4 servers
   in the IPv6 Internet, real AAAA RRs containing these addresses can be
   published in the DNS under the site's domain.  This is the
   recommended approach to handle this scenario, because it does not
   involve synthesizing AAAA records at the time of query.  Such a
   configuration is easier to troubleshoot in the event of problems,
   because it always provides the same answer to every query.

   However, there are some more dynamic scenarios, where synthesizing
   AAAA RRs in this setup may be needed.  In particular, when DNS Update



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   [RFC2136] is used in the IPv4 site to update the A RRs for the IPv4
   servers, there are two options: One option is to modify the server
   that receives the dynamic DNS updates.  That would normally be the
   authoritative server for the zone.  So the authoritative zone would
   have normal AAAA RRs that are synthesized as dynamic updates occur.
   The other option is modify the authoritative server to generate
   synthetic AAAA records for a zone, possibly based on additional
   constraints, upon the receipt of a DNS query for the AAAA RR.  The
   first option -- in which the AAAA is synthesized when the DNS update
   message is received, and the data published in the relevant zone --
   is recommended over the second option (i.e. the synthesis upon
   receipt of the AAAA DNS query).  This is because it is usually easier
   to solve problems of misconfiguration and so on when the DNS
   responses are not being generated dynamically.  For completeness, the
   DNS64 behavior that we describe in this section covers the case of
   synthesizing the AAAA RR when the DNS query arrives.  Nevertheless,
   such a configuration is not recommended.  Troubleshooting
   configurations that change the data depending on the query they
   receive is notoriously hard, and the IPv4/IPv6 translation scenario
   is complicated enough without adding additional opportunities for
   possible malfunction.

   The scenario for this case is depicted in the following figure:


     +-----------+          +----------------------------------------+
     |           |          |   IPv4 site            +-------------+ |
     |   IPv6    |      +-------+      +----+        | Name server | |
     | Internet  |------|64Trans|      | H2 |        | with DNS64  | |
     +-----------+      +-------+      +----+        +-------------+ |
       |IP addr: Y'         |  |         |IP addr: X     |           |
     +----+                 | -----------------------------------    |
     | H1 |                 +----------------------------------------+
     +----+

   The figure shows an IPv6 node H1 which has an IPv6 address Y' and an
   IPv4 node H2 with IPv4 address X.

   A IPv6/IPv4 Translator connects the IPv4 network to the IPv6
   Internet.  This IPv6/IPv4 Translator has a prefix (called
   Pref64::/96).

   Also shown is the authoritative name server for the local domain with
   DNS64 functionality.  For the purpose of this example, we assume that
   the name server is a dual-stack node, so that H1 or a recursive
   resolver acting on the request of H1 can contact it via IPv6, while
   it can be contacted by IPv4-only nodes to receive dynamic DNS updates
   via IPv4.



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   The local name server needs to know the prefix assigned to the local
   IPv6/IPv4 Translator (Pref64::/96).  For the purpose of this example,
   we assume it learns this through manual configuration.

   The steps by which H1 establishes communication with H2 are:

   1.  H1 does a DNS lookup for FQDN(H2).  H1 does this by sending a DNS
       query for an AAAA record for H2.  The query is eventually
       forwarded to the server in the IPv4 site.

   2.  The local DNS server resolves the query (locally), and discovers
       that there are no AAAA records for H2.

   3.  The name server verifies that FQDN(H2) and its A RR are among
       those that the local policy defines as allowed to generate a AAAA
       RR from.  If that is the case, the name server synthesizes an
       AAAA record from the A RR and the relevant Pref64::/96.  The IPv6
       address in the AAAA record contains the prefix assigned to the
       IPv6/IPv4 Translator in the first 96 bits and the IPv4 address X.

   4.  H1 receives the synthetic AAAA record and sends a packet towards
       H2.  The packet is sent from a source transport address of (Y',y)
       to a destination transport address of (Pref64:X,x), where y and x
       are ports chosen by H2.

   5.  The packet is routed through the IPv6 Internet to the IPv6
       interface of the IPv6/IPv4 Translator and the communication flows
       using the IPv6/IPv4 Translator mechanisms.


Appendix B.  Motivations and Implications of synthesizing AAAA RR when
             real AAAA RR exists

   The motivation for synthesizing AAAA RR when a real AAAA RR exists is
   to support the following scenario:

      An IPv4-only server application (e.g. web server software) is
      running on a dual-stack host.  There may also be dual-stack server
      applications also running on the same host.  That host has fully
      routable IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and hence the authoritative DNS
      server has an A and a AAAA record as a result.

      An IPv6-only client (regardless of whether the client application
      is IPv6-only, the client stack is IPv6-only, or it only has an
      IPv6 address) wants to access the above server.

      The client issues a DNS query to a DNS64 recursor.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   If the DNS64 only generates a synthetic AAAA if there's no real AAAA,
   then the communication will fail.  Even though there's a real AAAA,
   the only way for communication to succeed is with the translated
   address.  So, in order to support this scenario, the administrator of
   a DNS64 service may want to enable the synthesis of AAAA RR even when
   real AAAA RR exist.

   The implication of including synthetic AAAA RR when real AAAA RR
   exist is that translated connectivity may be preferred over native
   connectivity in some cases where the DNS64 is operated in DNS server
   mode.

   RFC3484 [RFC3484] rules use longest prefix match to select which is
   the preferred destination address to use.  So, if the DNS64 recursor
   returns both the synthetic AAAA RR and the real AAAA RR, then if the
   DNS64 is operated by the same domain as the initiating host, and a
   global unicast prefix (called the NSP prefix as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]) is used, then the synthetic AAAA RR
   is likely to be preferred.

   This means that without further configuration:

      In the case of An IPv6 network to the IPv4 internet, the host will
      prefer translated connectivity if NSP prefix is used.  If the
      Well-Known prefix defined in [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] is
      used, it will probably prefer native connectivity.

      In the case of the IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network, it is
      possible to bias the selection towards the real AAAA RR if the
      DNS64 recursor returns the real AAAA first in the DNS reply, when
      the NSP prefix is used (the Well-Known prefix usage is not
      recommended in this case)

      In the case of the IPv6 to IPv4 in the same network, for local
      destinations (i.e., target hosts inside the local site), it is
      likely that the NSP prefix and the destination prefix are the
      same, so we can use the order of RR in the DNS reply to bias the
      selection through native connectivity.  If a Well-Known prefix is
      used, the longest prefix match rule will select native
      connectivity.

   So this option introduces problems in the following cases:

      An IPv6 network to the IPv4 internet with the NSP prefix

      IPv6 to IPv4 in the same network when reaching external
      destinations and the NSP prefix is used.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   In any case, the problem can be solved by properly configuring the
   RFC3484 [RFC3484] policy table, but this requires effort on the part
   of the site operator.


Authors' Addresses

   Marcelo Bagnulo
   UC3M
   Av. Universidad 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   Spain

   Phone: +34-91-6249500
   Fax:
   Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es/marcelo


   Andrew Sullivan
   Shinkuro
   4922 Fairmont Avenue, Suite 250
   Bethesda, MD  20814
   USA

   Phone: +1 301 961 3131
   Email: ajs@shinkuro.com


   Philip Matthews
   Unaffiliated
   600 March Road
   Ottawa, Ontario
   Canada

   Phone: +1 613-592-4343 x224
   Fax:
   Email: philip_matthews@magma.ca
   URI:












Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                    DNS64                    December 2009


   Iljitsch van Beijnum
   IMDEA Networks
   Av. Universidad 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   Spain

   Phone: +34-91-6246245
   Email: iljitsch@muada.com











































Bagnulo, et al.           Expires June 20, 2010                [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/