v6ops                                                  J. Palet Martinez
Internet-Draft                                          The IPv6 Company
Intended status: Informational                               A. D'Egidio
Expires: July 17, 2020                                        Telecentro January 14, 8, 2021                                      Telecentro
                                                            July 7, 2020

                       464XLAT/NAT64 Optimization


   This document proposes possible solutions to avoid certain drawbacks
   of IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (SIIT) when the destinations are
   already available with IPv6.  When SIIT is used as a stateless NAT46
   and IPv4-only devices or applications initiate traffic flows to dual-
   stack services (in the operator network or Internet), those flows
   will be translated back to IPv4 by a NAT64.  Avoiding this dual-
   translation will significantly reduce the usage of the NAT64 and the
   relevant logging, which may be a high impact when traffic flows are
   towards CDNs, caches or similar resources.  This is the case for
   464XLAT and MAP-T.

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 https://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 July 17, 2020. January 8, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Possible Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Solution Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Approach 1: DNS/Routing-based Solution  . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Approach 2: NAT46/CLAT/DNS-proxy-EAM-based Solution . . .   8
       5.2.1.  Detection of IPv4-only devices or applications  . . .   8
       5.2.2.  Detection of IPv6-enabled service . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.2.3.  Creation of EAMT entries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.4.  Forwarding path via stateful NAT for existing EAMT
               entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2.5.  Maintenance of the EAMT entries . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.6.  Usage example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.7.  Behavior in case of multiple A/AAAA RRs . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.8.  Behavior in presence/absence of DNS64 . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.9.  Behavior when using literal addresses or non
               IPv6-compliant APIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.10. False detection of a dual-stack host as IPv4-only . .  12
       5.2.11. Behavior in presence of Happy Eyeballs  . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.12. Behavior in case of Foreign DNS . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Approach 3: NAT46/CLAT-provider-EAM-based Solution  . . .  14
   6.  IPv6-only Services become accessible to IPv4-only
       devices/apps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   Different transition mechanisms, typically in the group of the so-
   called IPv6-only with IPv4aaS (IPv4-as-a-Service), such as 464XLAT
   ([RFC6877]) or MAP-T ([RFC7599]), allow IPv4-only devices or
   applications to connect with IPv4 services in Internet, by means of a
   stateless NAT46 SIIT (IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm) as described by

   This is done by the implementation of SIIT at the CE (Customer Edge)
   Router or sometimes at the end-device, for example, the UE (User
   Equipment) in cellular networks.  This functionality is the CLAT
   (Customer Translator) in the case of 464XLAT, while in the case of
   MAP-T is called NAT46.

   The NAT46/CLAT (WAN side) is connected by IPv6-only to the operator
   network, which in turn, will have a reverse translation, the NAT64
   ([RFC6146]), known as PLAT (Provider Translator) in the case of
   464XLAT.  This allows to translate the IPv6-only flow back to IPv4,
   in order to forward it to Internet.

   In both cases (NAT46 and NAT64), the translation of the packet
   headers is done using the IP/ICMP translation algorithm defined in
   [RFC7915] and algorithmically translating the IPv4 addresses to IPv6
   addresses following [RFC6052].

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Possible Optimization

   In the case of 464XLAT, a DNS64 ([RFC6147]) is (optionally) in charge
   of the synthesis of AAAA records from the A records, so they can use
   a NAT64, without the need of doing a double-translation by means of
   the NAT46/CLAT.

   However, the DNS64 is not useful for the IPv4-only devices or
   applications in the LANs, as they will not be able to use the AAAA
   records, so they are always forced to use the double-translation.

   This is the expected behavior, as the original design of NAT64 was
   targeted to connect IPv6-only devices (using DNS) to IPv4-only
   services.  464XLAT expanded the solution to also allow IPv4-only
   devices (even if not using DNS) to connect to IPv4-only services by
   means of IPv6-only access networks.

   The optimization solutions presented by this document try to avoid
   this double-translation, in the cases when the Internet services, are
   already IPv6-enabled.  So, in those cases, if the NAT46 already
   translated the IPv4-only flow to IPv6, it doesn't look necessary to
   translate this back to IPv6.

   A typical 464XLAT deployment is depicted in Figure 1.

                   +-------+     .-----.                     .-----.
                   | IPv6  |    /       \                   /       \
       .-----.     |  CE   |   /  IPv6-  \     .-----.     /  IPv4   \
      /       \    |  or   +--(   only    )---( NAT64 )---(  Internet )
     /  LAN's  \   |  UE   |   \  Access /\    `-----'     \         /
    (   Dual-   )--+       |    \       /  \                \       /
     \  Stack  /   | with  |     `--+--'    \   .-----.      `-----'
      \       /    | NAT46 |        |        \ /       \
       `-----'     | CLAT  |    +---+----+    /  IPv6   \
                   |       |    |  DNS/  |   (  Internet )
                   +-------+    |  DNS64 |    \         /
                                +--------+     \       /

                   Figure 1: Typical 464XLAT Deployment

   As it can be observed in the preceding picture, the situation is the
   same, regardless of in case of a wired network with a CE Router or a
   cellular network where a UE is connecting other devices (which may be
   IPv4-only or have IPv4-only apps), by means of a tethering

   If the operator is providing direct access, for example, to Content
   Delivery Networks (CDNs), caches, or other resources, and they are
   dual-stacked, the situation can be described as shown in Figure 2.

                  +-------+     .-----.                     .-----.
                  | IPv6  |    /       \                   /       \
      .-----.     |  CE   |   /  IPv6-  \     .-----.     /  IPv4   \
     /       \    |  or   +--(   only    )---( NAT64 )---(  Internet )
    /  LAN's  \   |  UE   |   \  Access /\    `-----'     \         /
   (   Dual-   )--+       |    \       /  \                \       /
    \  Stack  /   | with  |     `--+--'    \   .-----.      `--+--'
     \       /    | NAT46 |        |        \ /       \         \
      `-----'     | CLAT  |    +---+----+    /  IPv6   \      .--+--.
                  |       |    |  DNS/  |   (  Internet )    / Dual- \
                  +-------+    |  DNS64 |    \         /----/  Stack  \
                               +--------+     \       /    (           )
                                               `-----'      \  CDNs/  /
                                                             \ Caches/

           Figure 2: Typical 464XLAT Deployment with CDNs/Caches

   In this case if the flows initiated in the LANs come from IPv4-only
   devices or applications, even if the destination resources are
   IPv6-enabled, the double-translation is enforced, which has the
   following consequences:

   o  More traffic needs to pass thru the NAT64 devices.

   o  More NAT64 devices may be needed to handle the additional traffic.

   o  Additional usage of IPv4 addresses.

   o  Additional state at the NAT64 devices.

   o  Additional logging, its relevant storage and processing resources.

   o  Clearly

   Clearly, all those aspects have impact in both, CapEx and OpEx.  This
   is extremely important when considering that most of the time, the
   contents stored in CDNs, caches, and so on, is there for a good
   reason: It is frequently accessed resources and/or big.  Examples
   such as video, audio, software and updates, are very common.  So,
   this optimization can be highly impacting in many networks.

4.  Problem Statement

   If the devices or applications in the customer LAN are IPv6-capable,
   then the access to the CDNs, caches or other resources, will be made
   in an optimized way, by means of IPv6-only, not using the NAT64, as
   depicted in Figure 3.

                  +-------+     .-----.                     .-----.
                  | IPv6  |    /       \                   /       \
      .-----.     |  CE   |   /  IPv6-  \     .-----.     /  IPv4   \
     /       \    |  or   +--(   only    )---( NAT64 )---(  Internet )
    /  IPv6   \   |  UE   |   \  Access /\    `-----'     \         /
   ( capable   )--+       |    \       /  \                \       /
    \  apps   /   | with  |     `--+--'    \   .-----.      `--+--'
     \       /    | NAT46 |        |        \ /       \
      `-----'     | CLAT  |    +---+----+    /  IPv6   \      .--+--.
                  |       |    |  DNS/  |   (  Internet )IPv6/ Dual- \
                  +-------+    |  DNS64 |    \         /----/  Stack  \
                               +--------+     \       /    (           )
                                               `-----'      \  CDNs/  /
                                                             \ Caches/
   <---------------------- end-to-end IPv6 flow ---------------------->

       Figure 3: 464XLAT access to CDNs/Caches by IPv6-capable apps

   However, if the devices or applications are IPv4-only, for example,
   many SmartTVs and Set-Top-Boxes available today, a non-optimal double
   translation will occur (NAT46 at the CLAT and NAT64 at the PLAT), as
   illustrated in Figure 4.

                  +-------+     .-----.                     .-----.
                  | IPv6  |    /       \                   /       \
      .-----.     |  CE   |   /  IPv6-  \     .-----.     /  IPv4   \
     / IPv4- \    |  or   +--(   only    )---( NAT64 )---(  Internet )
    /  only   \   |  UE   |   \  Access /\    `-----'     \         /
   (  SmartTV  )--+       |    \       /  \                \       /
    \   STB   /   | with  |     `--+--'    \   .-----.      `--+--'
     \ VoIP  /    | NAT46 |        |        \ /       \         \ IPv4
      `-----'     | CLAT  |    +---+----+    /  IPv6   \      .--+--.
                  |       |    |  DNS/  |   (  Internet )    / Dual- \
                  +-------+    |  DNS64 |    \         /    /  Stack  \
                               +--------+     \       /    (           )
                                               `-----'      \  CDNs/  /
                                                             \ Caches/
   <-------------------- IPv4 to IPv6 to IPv4 flow -------------------->

         Figure 4: 464XLAT access to CDNs/Caches by IPv4-only apps

   Clearly, this is a non-optimal situation, as it means that even if
   there is a dual-stack service, the NAT46/CLAT translated IPv4 to IPv6
   traffic flow, is unnecessarily translated back to IPv4, traversing
   the stateful NAT64.  This has a direct impact in the need to scale
   the NAT64 beyond what will be actually needed if possible solutions,
   in order to keep using the IPv6 path towards those services, are

   As shown in the Figure 4, this is also the case for many other
   services, not just CDNs or caches, such as VoIP access to the
   relevant operator infrastructure, which may be also dual-stack.  This
   is true as well for many other dual-stack or IPv6-enabled services,
   which may be directly reachable from the operator infrastructure,
   even if they are not part of it, for example peering agreements,
   services in IXs, etc.  In general, this will become a more frequent
   situation for many other services, which are not yet dual-stack.

   For simplicity, across the rest of this document, references to CDNs/
   caches, should be understood, unless otherwise stated, as any dual-
   stacked resources.

   This document looks into different possible solution approaches in
   order to optimize the IPv4-only SIIT translation providing a direct
   path to IPv6-capable services, as depicted in Figure 5.

                  +-------+     .-----.                     .-----.
                  | IPv6  |    /       \                   /       \
      .-----.     |  CE   |   /  IPv6-  \     .-----.     /  IPv4   \
     / IPv4- \    |  or   +--(   only    )---( NAT64 )---(  Internet )
    /  only   \   |  UE   |   \  Access /\    `-----'     \         /
   (  SmartTV  )--+       |    \       /  \                \       /
    \   STB   /   | with  |     `--+--'    \   .-----.      `--+--'
     \ VoIP  /    | NAT46 |        |        \ /       \
      `-----'     | CLAT  |    +---+----+    /  IPv6   \      .--+--.
                  |       |    |  DNS/  |   (  Internet )IPv6/ Dual- \
                  +-------+    |  DNS64 |    \         /----/  Stack  \
                               +--------+     \       /    (           )
                                               `-----'      \  CDNs/  /
                                                             \ Caches/
   <------------------------ IPv4 to IPv6 flow ------------------------>

    Figure 5: Optimized 464XLAT access to CDNs/Caches by IPv4-only apps

5.  Solution Approaches

5.1.  Approach 1: DNS/Routing-based Solution

   Because the IPv4-only devices will not be able to query for AAAA
   records, the NAT46/CLAT/CE will translate the IPv4 addresses from the
   A record for the CDN/cache destination, using the WKP or NSP, as
   configured by the operator.

   If the CDN/cache provider is able to configure, in the relevant
   interfaces of the CDN/caches, the same IPv6 addresses that will
   naturally result as the translated destination addresses for the
   queried A records, preceded by the WKP or NSP, then having more
   specific routing prefixes, will result in traffic to those
   destinations being directly forwarded towards those interfaces,
   instead of needing to traverse the NAT64.

   For example, let's suppose a provider using the WKP (64:ff9b::/96)
   and a SmartTV querying for www.example.com:

       www.example.com                   A
       NAT46/CLAT translated to                  64:ff9b::
       CDN IPv6 interface must be                64:ff9b::
       Operator must have a specific route to    64:ff9b::

   Note: Examples using text representation as per Section 2.3 of
   [RFC6052] and IPv4 documentation addresses following [RFC5737].

   Because the WKP is non-routable, this solution will only be possible
   if the CDN/cache is in the same ASN as the provider network, or
   somehow interconnected without routing thru Internet.

   This solution has the additional drawback of the operational
   complexity/issues added to the operation of the CDN/cache, and the
   need to synchronize any IPv4 interface address changes with the
   relevant IPv6 ones, and possibly with routing.

5.2.  Approach 2: NAT46/CLAT/DNS-proxy-EAM-based Solution

   If the NAT46/CLAT/CE, as commonly is the case, is also a DNS proxy/
   stub resolver, it is possible to modify the behavior and create an
   "internal" interaction among both of them.

   This approach uses the existing IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the A and
   AAAA records, respectively, so no additional complexity/issues added
   to the CDN/caches operations.

   The following sub-sections detail this approach and provide a step-
   by-step example case.

5.2.1.  Detection of IPv4-only devices or applications

   The assumption is that, typically a dual-stack device will prefer
   using IPv6 as the DNS transport.  So, when there is a DNS query,
   transported with IPv4, for an A record, and there is not a query for
   the AAAA record from the same IPv4 source (to the same destination),
   the DNS proxy/stub resolver can infer that, most probably, it is an
   IPv4-only device or application.

   It needs to be remarked that, if the detection of the IPv4-only
   device or application is done incorrectly (either not detecting it or
   by a false detection), no harm is caused.  In the worst case,
   optimization will not be performed, at least, at the time being.
   However, optimization maybe performed later on, if a new detection
   succeeds (for example, another device using the same A record).

5.2.2.  Detection of IPv6-enabled service

   In the case of an IPv4-only detected device or application, the DNS
   proxy/stub resolver MUST actually perform an additional AAAA query,
   unless the information is already present in the Additional Section,
   as per Section 3 of [RFC3596].  Note that the NAT46/CLAT MUST already
   know the WKP or NSP being used in that network.  If the response
   contains at least one IPv6 address not using the WKP/NSP, it means
   that the destination is IPv6-enabled (because at least one of the
   IPv6 addresses is not synthesized).  This means that it is possible
   for the NAT46/CLAT, to create an Explicit Address Mapping

5.2.3.  Creation of EAMT entries

   This way, an EAM Table (EAMT used for short, across the rest of this
   document) is created/maintained automatically by the DNS proxy/stub
   resolver in the NAT46/CLAT, and the NAT46/CLAT is responsible to
   prioritize any available entries in the EAMT, versus the use of any
   synthetic AAAA.

   In order to create the EAMT entry, to determine if there is an AAAA
   record after an A record query, it is suggested to use the same delay
   value (50 milliseconds) as the "Resolution Delay" indicated by Happy
   Eyeballs [RFC8305].  This avoids a slight NAT64 overload and flapping
   between destination addresses (IPv4/IPv6), which may impact some
   applications, at the cost of a small extra delay for the initial
   communication setup, when the EAMT entry doesn't yet exist.

   Each EAMT entry will contain, the fields already described in
   [RFC7757] and a few new ones:

   1.  ID: EAMT Entry Index (optional).

   2.  IPv4 address/prefix: By default, the prefix length is 32 bits.

   3.  IPv6 address/prefix: By default, the prefix length is 128 bits.

   4.  TTL: Because the optimization will make use of the AAAA (IPv6
       address), the TTL for the EAMT entry must be set to the one of same value
       as in the AAAA RR.  In normal conditions the TTL for both A and
       AAAA records, of a given FQDN, should be the same, so this
       ensures a proper behavior if there is any DNS mismatch.

   5.  FQDN: The one that originated the A query for this EAMT entry.
       Required in order to ensure a correct detection of cases such as
       the use of reverse-proxy with a single IPv4 address to multiple
       IPv6 addresses.

   6.  Valid/Invalid: When set to 1, means that this EAMT entry MUST NOT
       be used and consequently no optimization performed.  It may be
       used also for an explicit configuration (GUI, CLI, provisioning
       system, etc.) to disallow optimization for any explicitly configured
       IPv4 addresses.

   7.  Auto/Static: When set to 1, means that this EAMT entry has been
       manually/statically configured, for example by means of an
       explicit configuration (GUI, CLI, provisioning system, etc.), so
       it doesn't expire with TTL.

   When a new EAMT entry is first automatically created, it is marked as
   "Valid" and "Auto" (both bits cleared).  If a subsequent A query,
   with a different FQDN, results in an IPv4 address that has already an
   EAMT entry and a different IPv6 address, it means that some reverse-
   proxy or similar functionality is being used by the IPv6-enabled
   service.  In this case, the existing EAMT entry will be marked as
   "Invalid" (bit set).  No new EAMT entry is created for that IPv4
   address.  Otherwise, the optimization will only allow to access the
   first set of IPv4/IPv6/FQDN, which may break the access to other FQDN
   that share the same IPv4 address and different IPv6 addresses.

   In this case the EAMT entry will still expire according the TTL,
   which allows to re-enable optimization if a new query for the A
   record has changed the situation.  For example, maybe the reverse-
   proxy has been removed, or there is now only a single device using
   it, so at the time being, the optimization is again possible without
   creating troubles to other hosts.

   Note that when an EAMT entry is marked as "invalid", it will not
   affect the devices or applications, as they will still be able to use
   the regular CLAT+NAT64 flow, of course, without the optimization.

   ***** Open question regarding TTL and maybe FQDN and valid/auto bits.
   Is this always a good thing to do for EAM?  Should this document
   update [RFC7757] to support this by default?  Or it is just and

   Note the newly defined EAMT fields, follow the "extensions" approach
   as per section 3.1 of [RFC7757].

5.2.4.  Forwarding path via stateful NAT for existing EAMT entries

   Following this approach, if there is a valid EAMT entry, for a given
   IPv4-destination, the IPv6-native path pointed by the IPv6 address of
   that EAMT entry, will take precedence versus the NAT64 path, so the
   traffic will not be forwarded to the NAT64.

   However, this is not sufficient to ensure that individual
   applications are able to keep existing connections.  In many cases,
   audio and video streaming may use a single TCP connection lasting
   from minutes to hours.  Instead, the CDN TTLs may be configured in
   the range from 10 to 300 seconds in order to allow new resolutions to
   switch quickly and to handle large recursive resolvers (with hundreds
   of thousands of clients behind them).

   Consequently, the EAMT entries should not be used directly to
   establish a forwarding path, but instead, to create a stateful NAT
   entry for the 4-tuple for the duration of the session/connection.

5.2.5.  Maintenance of the EAMT entries

   The information in the EAMT MUST be kept timely-synchronized with the
   AAAA records TTL's, so the EAMT entries MUST expire on the AAAA TTL
   expiry and consequently be deleted.

   However, EAMT entries with the Auto/Static bit set, will not be
   deleted.  This allows users/operators to set explicit rules for
   diagnostics or resolution of issues in special situations.

5.2.6.  Usage example

   Using the same example as in the previous approach:

        www.example.com                   A
                                          AAAA    2001:db8::a:b:c:d
        EAMT entry             2001:db8::a:b:c:d
        NAT46/CLAT translated to                  2001:db8::a:b:c:d
        CDN IPv6 interface already is             2001:db8::a:b:c:d
        Operator already has a specific route to  2001:db8::a:b:c:d

   The following is an example of the CE behavior after the previous
   case has already created an EAMT entry and a reverse-proxy is

   1.  A query for www.another-example.com A RR is received

   2.  www.another-example.com A

   3.  www.another-example.com AAAA 2001:db8::e:e:f:f

   4.  A conflict has been detected

   5.  The existing EAMT entry for is set as invalid

5.2.7.  Behavior in case of multiple A/AAAA RRs

   If multiple A and/or AAAA records are available, the DNS proxy/stub
   resolver MUST follow existing procedures to choose each one.  In
   other words, the chosen pair of A/AAAA records doesn't present any
   different result compared with a situation when this mechanism is not

5.2.8.  Behavior in presence/absence of DNS64

   This mechanism optimization performs the same in both cases, cases: if a DNS64 is
   present/used and or if it is not present/used.  This is explained because
   the mechanism optimization is only relevant for destinations which don't already have
   AAAA records, and in those cases DNS64 is not relevant.  Furthermore,
   because as indicated in Section 5.2.2, the EAMT entry is not created
   when the service is IPv6-enabled.  This is relevant because 464XLAT
   can be deployed/used with and without a DNS64.

5.2.9.  Behavior when using literal addresses or non IPv6-compliant APIs

   Because the EAMT entries are only created when the NAT46/CLAT/CE
   proxy/stub DNS is being used, any devices or applications that don't
   use DNS, will not create the relevant entries.

   They will be however maybe optimized if devices or applications using DNS, at some
   point, query for the same A RRs, or if EAMT entries are statically

5.2.10.  False detection of a dual-stack host as IPv4-only

   If a dual-stack host is issuing the A query using IPv4 transport, and
   the AAAA query using IPv6 transport, or using different IPv4
   addresses for the A and AAAA queries, the EAMT entry will be created.
   However, this EAMT entry may not be used by dual-stack devices or
   applications, because those devices or applications should prefer
   IPv6.  If the host is preferring IPv4 for connecting to the CDN/cache
   or IPv6-enabled service, it will be actually using the NAT46/CLAT,
   including the EAMT entry and consequently IPv6, so this mechanism
   will be correcting an undesirable behavior.  This is a special case,
   which actually seems to be an incoherent host or application

   However, if other IPv4-only devices or applications subsequently need
   to connect to the same IPv6-enabled service, they will take advantage
   of the already existing EAMT entry, and consequently use the
   IPv6-optimised path.

5.2.11.  Behavior in presence of Happy Eyeballs

   Happy Eyeballs [RFC8305] is only available in dual-stack hosts.
   Consequently, is not affected by this mechanism because both, the A
   and the AAAA queries should be issued by the host as soon after one
   another as possible.  However, if the same NAT46/CLAT/CE is serving
   IPv4-only hosts and dual-stack hosts and both of them are using the
   same destinations, an EAMT entry will be created for that
   destination.  Consequently, a Happy Eyeballs fallback to IPv4 will
   actually be using the relevant EAMT entry IPv6 destination.  This has
   the disadvantage that the IPv4-IPv6-IPv4 translation path can't be
   used by Happy Eyeballs-enabled applications.  However, this may be
   actually considered as a good thing, in the sense that an operator is
   interested in knowing as soon as possible, if the IPv6-only network
   is not performing correctly, because that means also IPv4 will not be
   working.  If the issue is related to extra IPv6 delay versus the IPv4
   delay, Happy Eyeballs will not be able to offer a significative
   advantage here, but it looks like an acceptable trade-off.

   Note that when using 464XLAT, the WAN link of the NAT46/CLAT/CE is
   IPv6-only.  So even if Happy Eyeballs is present, the fallback to
   IPv4-only typically, will be slower than native IPv6 itself, because
   the added detail delay in the NAT46+NAT64 translations, when not using this

5.2.12.  Behavior in case of Foreign DNS

   Devices or applications may use DNS servers from other networks.  For
   a complete description of reasons for that, refer to Section 4.4 of
   [RFC8683].  In the case the DNS is modified, or some devices or
   applications use other DNS servers, the possible scenarios and the
   implications are:

   a.  Devices configured to use a DNS proxy/resolver which is not the
       CE/NAT46/CLAT.  In this case this optimization will not work,
       because the EAMT entry will not be created based on their own
       flows.  Nevertheless, the EAMT entry may be created by other
       devices using the same destinations.  However, the lack of EAMT
       entry, will not impact negatively in the user's devices/
       applications (the optimization is not performed).  It should be
       noticed that users commonly, don't change the configuration of
       devices such as SmartTVs or STBs (if they do, some other
       functionalities, such as CDN/caches optimizations may not work as
       well), so this only happens typically if the vendor is doing it
       on-purpose and for good well-known reasons.

   b.  DNS privacy/encryption.  Hosts or applications that use
       mechanisms for DNS privacy/encryption, such as DoT ([RFC7858],
       [RFC8094]), DoH ([RFC8484]) or DoQ ([I-D.huitema-quic-dnsoquic]),
       ([I-D.huitema-dprive-dnsoquic]), will not make use of the stub/proxy stub/
       proxy resolver, so the same considerations as for the previous
       case apply.

   c.  Users that modify the DNS in their Operating Systems.  This is
       quite frequent, however commonly Operating Systems are dual-
       stack, so aren't part of the problem statement described by this
       document and will not be adversely affected.

   d.  Users that modify the DNS in the CE.  This is less common.  In
       this case, this optimization is not adversely affected, because
       it doesn't depend on the operator DNS, it works only based on the
       internal CE interaction between the NAT46/CLAT and the stub/proxy
       resolver.  Note that it may be affected if the operator offers
       different "DNS views" or "split DNS", however this is not related
       to this optimization and will anyway impact in the other possible
       operator optimizations (i.e.  CDN/cache features).

   e.  Combinations of the above ones.  No further impact, than the one
       already described, is observed.

5.3.  Approach 3: NAT46/CLAT-provider-EAM-based Solution

   Instead of using the DNS proxy/stub resolver to create the EAMT
   entries, the operator may push this table (or parts of it) into the
   CE/NAT46/CLAT, by using configuration/management mechanisms.

   This solution has the advantage of not being affected by any DNS
   changes from the user (the EAMT is created by the operator) and
   ensures a complete control from the operator.  However, it may impact
   the cases of devices with a DNS configured by the vendor.

   In general, most of the considerations from the previous approach
   will apply.

   One more advantage of this solution is that the EAMT pairs doesn't
   need to match the "real" IPv4/IPv6 addresses available in the A/AAAA
   records, as shown in the next example.

        www.example.com                   A
                                          AAAA    2001:db8::a:b:c:d
        EAMT pulled/pushed entry  2001:db8::f:e:d:c
        NAT46/CLAT translated to                  2001:db8::f:e:d:c
        CDN IPv6 interface already is             2001:db8::f:e:d:c
        Operator already has a specific route to  2001:db8::f:e:d:c

   EAMT may contain TTLs which probably are derived from DNS ones, or
   alternatively, a global TTL for the full table.

   An alternative way to configure the table, is that the CE is actually
   pulling the table (or parts of it) from the operator infrastructure.
   In this case it will be mandatory that the entries have individual
   TTLs, again probably derived from the DNS ones.

   The major drawback of this approach is that it requires a new
   protocol, or an extension to existing ones, in order to push or pull
   the EAMT, in addition to the possible impact in terms of bandwidth
   each time the CEs reboot, or an EAMT must be pushed to all the CEs,

6.  IPv6-only Services become accessible to IPv4-only devices/apps

   One of the issues with the IPv6 deployment, is that those services
   which become IPv6-only in Internet, aren't reachable by IPv4-only
   devices and applications.  This means that new content providers must
   support dual-stack even for new services, even while IPv4 public
   addresses aren't available.

   If NAT46/CLAT/DNS-proxy-EAM approach (Section 5.2) is chosen, it also
   offers the chance to resolve this issue.  This is possible if
   IPv6-only services get configured with an A resource record (TBD:
   special allocated IANA pointing
   to a well-known IPv4 address), address despite they aren't actually connected
   to IPv4.  This is out of scope for this document, as it will require
   further work and a reservation by IANA, This will mean that those
   services will work fine if there is a NAT46/CLAT. NAT46/CLAT supporting the
   optimization.  This A RR has no negative impact if the NAT46/CLAT
   doesn't exist, or it is not optimized, because is not reachable via
   IPv4-only, so is not a different situation than compared with not having
   an A RR.

   The result of this is equivalent to the approach taken by MAP-T
   (Section 12.3 of [RFC7599]).  However, it has the advantage that the
   MAP-T approach is restricted to services in the MAP-T domain.


   In fact, it may become an incentive for the IPv6 deployment in
   Internet services and services, as it provides the option to use an a well-known IPv4
   address (maybe anycast) for the "non-valid" A RR, that points points, in
   case of port 80/443 to a
   "universal" web page (maybe hosted by IANA or IETF?) service that displays returns a warning
   such as "You should contact your ISP; this "This service is only available if the network is properly
   connected to Internet, which is
   not the case.". Internet with IPv6".

7.  Conclusions

   NAT46/CLAT/DNS-proxy-EAM approach (Section 5.2) seems the right
   solution for optimizing the access to dual-stack services, whether
   they are located inside or outside the ISP.  It is also the only
   approach which has no additional requirements for the network
   operators (both ISPs and CDN/cache operators).

   Having this type of optimization facilitates and increases the usage
   of IPv6, even for IPv4-only devices and applications, at the same
   time that decreases the use of the NAT64.

   SIIT already has a SHOULD for EAM support.  Should 464XLAT be updated
   by this document support, so the CLAT has a MUST for EAM support?.

   Should we recommend having A records for IPv6-only services in
   Internet?  The A record may point to a "reserved" or "special" IPv4
   address.  A web page IPv4-only hosted by IETF(?) showing "sorry this
   web page/service is only available from IPv6 enabled operators"?.

   Open question: Should we consider any other risks?  If CE's
   implementing this optimization create troubles, it may bring is not a high
   additional burden the
   content providers to switch back to IPv4-only.  So possible failure
   cases need support required for existing implementations
   to be carefully considered updated for every possible solution
   approach. this optimization.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document does not have any new specific security considerations,
   besides the ones already known for DNS64.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not have any new specific IANA considerations,
   unless we decide to define a "special reserved IPv4 address".  TBD. considerations.

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the inputs of Erik Nygren, Fred
   Baker, Martin Hunek, Chongfeng Xie, Fernando Gont, Fernando Frediani
   and TBD ...

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
              "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
              RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,

   [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,

   [RFC7599]  Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
              and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
              Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.

   [RFC7757]  Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address
              Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016,

   [RFC7915]  Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
              "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8305]  Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
              Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,

11.2.  Informative References


              Huitema, C., Shore, M., Mankin, A., Dickinson, S., and J.
              Iyengar, S. Dickinson, "Specification
              of DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections", draft-huitema-quic-dnsoquic-07 (work in
              progress), September 2019.

              Palet, J., "Additional NAT64/464XLAT Deployment Guidelines
              in Operator and Enterprise Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-
              nat64-deployment-08 draft-huitema-
              dprive-dnsoquic-00 (work in progress), July 2019. March 2020.

   [RFC5737]  Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
              Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5737, January 2010,

   [RFC7858]  Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
              and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

   [RFC8094]  Reddy, T., Wing, D., and P. Patil, "DNS over Datagram
              Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 8094,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8094, February 2017,

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,

   [RFC8683]  Palet Martinez, J., "Additional Deployment Guidelines for
              NAT64/464XLAT in Operator and Enterprise Networks",
              RFC 8683, DOI 10.17487/RFC8683, November 2019,

Authors' Addresses

   Jordi Palet Martinez
   The IPv6 Company
   Molino de la Navata, 75
   La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid  28420

   Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
   URI:   http://www.theipv6company.com/

   Alejandro D'Egidio

   Email: adegidio@telecentro.net.ar