update to 9.7.2-P3

[tridge/bind9.git] / doc / draft / draft-ietf-behave-dns64-11.txt

BEHAVE WG                                                     M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft                                                      UC3M
Intended status: Standards Track                             A. Sullivan
Expires: April 4, 2011                                          Shinkuro
                                                             P. Matthews
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                          I. van Beijnum
                                                          IMDEA Networks
                                                         October 1, 2010


DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients
                            to IPv4 Servers
                       draft-ietf-behave-dns64-11

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 in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 4, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 1]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.











































Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 2]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Background to DNS64-DNSSEC interaction . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  DNS64 Normative Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Resolving AAAA queries and the answer section  . . . . . . 11
       5.1.1.  The answer when there is AAAA data available . . . . . 12
       5.1.2.  The answer when there is an error  . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.1.3.  Dealing with timeouts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.1.4.  Special exclusion set for AAAA records . . . . . . . . 13
       5.1.5.  Dealing with CNAME and DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.1.6.  Data for the answer when performing synthesis  . . . . 13
       5.1.7.  Performing the synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.1.8.  Querying in parallel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  Generation of the IPv6 representations of IPv4
           addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.3.  Handling other Resource Records and the Additional
           Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.3.1.  PTR Resource Record  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.3.2.  Handling the additional section  . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       5.3.3.  Other Resource Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.4.  Assembling a synthesized response to a AAAA query  . . . . 18
     5.5.  DNSSEC processing: DNS64 in validating resolver mode . . . 18
   6.  Deployment notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.1.  DNS resolvers and DNS64  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.2.  DNSSEC validators and DNS64  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     6.3.  DNS64 and multihomed and dual-stack hosts  . . . . . . . . 20
       6.3.1.  IPv6 multihomed hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.3.2.  Accidental dual-stack DNS64 use  . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       6.3.3.  Intentional dual-stack DNS64 use . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   7.  Deployment scenarios and examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.1.  Example of An-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup with
           DNS64 in DNS server mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.2.  An example of an-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup
           with DNS64 in stub-resolver mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     7.3.  Example of IPv6-Internet-to-an-IPv4-network setup
           DNS64 in DNS server mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   Appendix A.  Motivations and Implications of synthesizing AAAA
                Resource Records when real AAAA Resource Records



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 3]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


                exist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

















































Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 4]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


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 stateful 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 owner name 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 an 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 features
   require performing the DNS64 function directly in the end-hosts
   themselves.

   This document is structured as follows: section 2 provides a non-
   normative overview of the behaviour of DNS64.  Section 3 provides a
   non-normative background required to understand the interaction
   between DNS64 and DNSSEC.  The normative specification of DNS64 is
   provided in sections 4, 5 and 6.  Section 4 defines the terminology,
   section 5 is the actual DNS64 specification and section 6 covers
   deployments issues.  Section 7 is non-normative and provides a set of
   examples and typical deployment scenarios.


2.  Overview

   This section provides an introduction to the DNS64 mechanism.

   We assume that we have one or more IPv6/IPv4 translator boxes



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 5]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   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 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 cases where only IPv4 connectivity is
   available to the server).  Each 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 cannot retrieve a AAAA record for the
   queried name.  The DNS64 service appears as a regular DNS server or
   resolver to the IPv6 initiator.  The DNS64 receives a AAAA DNS query
   generated by the IPv6 initiator.  It first attempts a resolution for
   the requested AAAA records.  If there are no AAAA records 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.  For each A
   record discovered, DNS64 creates a synthetic AAAA RR from the
   information retrieved in the A RR.

   The owner name 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.  If not explicitly mentioned, all prefixes are treated
   equally and the operations described in this document are performed
   using the prefixes available.  So as to be general, we will call any
   of these prefixes Pref64::/n, and describe the operations made with
   the generic prefix Pref64::/n.  The IPv6 address representing IPv4
   addresses included in the AAAA RR synthesized by the DNS64 contain
   Pref64::/n and they also embed the original IPv4 address.

   The same algorithm and the same Pref64::/n prefix(es) must be
   configured both in the DNS64 device and the IPv6/IPv4 translator(s),
   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 address that
   contains the Pref64::/n be delivered to an IPv6/IPv4 translator that
   has that particular Pref64::/n configured, so they can be translated
   into IPv4 packets.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 6]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   Once the DNS64 has synthesized the AAAA RRs, the synthetic AAAA RRs
   are 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 an 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.

   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 to create IPv6
      representations of IPv4 addresses.

   The main difference 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 any of three places.  The
   terms below are more formally defined in Section 4.

   The first option is to locate the DNS64 function in authoritative
   servers for a zone.  In this case, the authoritative server provides
   synthetic AAAA RRs for an IPv4-only host in its zone.  This is one
   type of DNS64 server.

   Another 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 recursive resolver



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 7]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   mode".  This is a second type of DNS64 server, and it is also one
   type of DNS64 resolver.

   The last option is to place the DNS64 function in the end hosts,
   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 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".  This is the second type of
   DNS64 resolver.


3.  Background to DNS64-DNSSEC interaction

   DNSSEC ([RFC4033], [RFC4034], [RFC4035]) 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.
   Moreover, a security-aware recursive resolver can be validating or
   non-validating, according to operator policy.  In the cases below,
   the recursive resolver 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 "DNSSEC OK" (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 "Checking Disabled"
   (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:





Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 8]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   1.  A DNS64 (DNSSEC-aware or DNSSEC-oblivious) 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.  The
       DNS64 can do validation of the response, if dictated by its local
       policy.

   2.  A security-oblivious DNS64 receives a query with the DO bit set,
       and the CD bit clear or set.  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 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 receives a query with
       the DO bit set and the CD bit set.  In this case, the DNS64 is
       supposed to pass on all the data it gets to the query initiator
       (see section 3.2.2 of [RFC4035]).  This case will not work with
       DNS64, unless the validating resolver is prepared to do DNS64
       itself.  If the DNS64 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 resolver receives a query
       with the DO bit clear and CD clear.  In this case, the resolver
       validates the data.  If it fails, it returns RCODE 2 (Server
       failure); 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 should have
       set DO and CD), cannot tell that DNS64 is involved.

   6.  A security-aware and validating DNS64 resolver receives a query
       with the DO bit set and CD clear.  This works like the previous
       case, except that the resolver should also set the "Authentic
       Data" (AD) bit on the response.

   7.  A security-aware and validating DNS64 resolver 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.  The node needs to do DNS64
       itself, or else communication will fail.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                 [Page 9]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


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 request.

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

   DNS64 recursive resolver:  A recursive resolver that provides the
      DNS64 functionality as part of its operation.  This is the same
      thing as "DNS64 in recursive resolver mode".

   DNS64 resolver:  Any resolver (stub resolver or recursive resolver)
      that provides the DNS64 function.

   DNS64 server:  Any server providing the DNS64 function.  This
      includes the server portion of a recursive resolver when it is
      providing the DNS64 function.

   IPv4-only server:  Servers running IPv4-only applications, servers
      that can only use IPv4, as well as cases where only IPv4
      connectivity is available to the server.

   IPv6-only hosts:  Hosts running IPv6-only applications, hosts that
      can only use IPv6, as well as cases where only IPv6 connectivity
      is available to the client.

   Recursive resolver:  A DNS server that accepts requests from one
      resolver, and asks another server (of some description) for the
      answer on behalf of the first resolver.  Full discussion of DNS
      recursion is beyond the scope of this document; see [RFC1034] and
      [RFC1035] for full details.

   Synthetic RR:  A DNS resource record (RR) that is not contained in
      the authoritative servers' zone data, but which is instead
      synthesized from other RRs in the same zone.  An example is a
      synthetic AAAA record created from an A record.





Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 10]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   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].  It is worth emphasizing that while
   DNS64 is a logical function separate from the DNS, it is nevertheless
   closely associated with that protocol.  It depends on the DNS
   protocol, and some behavior of DNS64 will interact with regular DNS
   responses.


5.  DNS64 Normative Specification

   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.  It
   works within those DNS functions, and appears on the network as
   though it were a "plain" DNS resolver or name server conforming to
   [RFC1034], and [RFC1035].

   The implementation SHOULD support mapping of separate IPv4 address
   ranges to separate IPv6 prefixes for AAAA record synthesis.  This
   allows handling of special use IPv4 addresses [RFC5735].

   DNS messages contain several sections.  The portion of a DNS message
   that is altered by DNS64 is the Answer section, which is discussed
   below in section Section 5.1.  The resulting synthetic answer is put
   together with other sections, and that creates the message that is
   actually returned as the response to the DNS query.  Assembling that
   response is covered below in section Section 5.4.

   DNS64 also responds to PTR queries involving addresses containing any
   of the IPv6 prefixes it uses for synthesis of AAAA RRs.

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.  The query may be answered from
   a local cache, if one is available.  DNS64 operation for classes
   other than IN is undefined, and a DNS64 MUST behave as though no
   DNS64 function is configured.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 11]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


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 5.1.4.  If there is (non-excluded) AAAA data available, DNS64
   SHOULD NOT include synthetic AAAA RRs in the response (see Appendix A
   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 (No error
   condition), then there are two possibilities.  A result with RCODE=3
   (Name Error) is handled according to normal DNS operation (which is
   normally to return the 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 (see sections
   Section 5.1.6 and Section 5.1.7) 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 (see [RFC4074]).  Note that this means, for
   practical purposes, that several different classes of error in the
   DNS are all treated as though a AAAA record is not available for that
   owner name.

   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.  Dealing with timeouts

   If the query receives no answer before the timeout (which might be
   the timeout from every authoritative server, depending on whether the
   DNS64 is in recursive resolver mode), it is treated as RCODE=2
   (Server failure).







Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 12]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


5.1.4.  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:0:0/96 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 dual-stack host.

   When the DNS64 performs its initial AAAA query, if it receives an
   answer with only AAAA records containing addresses in the excluded
   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
   excluded range(s), 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.

5.1.5.  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
   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 a
   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, any chains of CNAME or DNAME RRs
   are included as part of the answer along with the synthetic AAAA (if
   appropriate).

5.1.6.  Data for the answer when performing synthesis

   If the query results in no error but an empty answer section in the
   response, the DNS64 attempts to retrieve A records for the name in
   question, either by performing another query or, in the case of an
   authoritative server, by examining its own results.  If this new A RR



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 13]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   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.  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 5.1.7.  The DNS64 returns the
   synthesized AAAA records in the answer section, removing the A
   records that form the basis of the synthesis.

5.1.7.  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 the original CLASS field, 1.  Under this
      specification, DNS64 for any CLASS other than 1 is undefined.

   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.  If the SOA RR was not
      delivered with the negative response to the AAAA query, then the
      DNS64 SHOULD use a the minimum of the TTL of the original A RR and
      600 seconds.  It is possible instead to query explicitly for the
      SOA RR and use the result of that query, but this will increase
      query load and time to resolution for little additional benefit.)
      This is in keeping with the approach used in negative caching
      ([RFC2308].

   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 MUST
      check each A RR against configured 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.

5.1.8.  Querying in parallel

   The DNS64 MAY perform the query for the AAAA RR and for the A RR in
   parallel, in order to minimize the delay.

   Note: Querying in parallel will result in performing unnecessary A RR
   queries in the case where no AAAA RR synthesis is required.  A



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 14]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   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
   t 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 a DNS64 to create the IPv6 address to be
      returned in the synthetic AAAA RR from the IPv4 address contained
      in an original A RR, and by a IPv6/IPv4 translator to create the
      IPv6 address to be included in the source address field of the
      outgoing IPv6 packets from the IPv4 address included in the source
      address field of the incoming IPv4 packet.

      The algorithm MUST be reversible; i.e., it MUST be possible to
      derive 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 and in the NAT64 (such as fixed string to
      be used as a suffix).

         For each prefix Pref64::/n, n MUST be less than or equal to 96.
         If one or more Pref64::/n are configured in the DNS64 through
         any means (such as manually configured, or other automatic
         means not specified in this document), the default algorithm
         MUST use these prefixes (and not use the Well-Known 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] to represent the IPv4 unicast
         address range

      [[anchor6: 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]

   A DNS64 MUST support the algorithm for generating IPv6
   representations of IPv4 addresses defined in Section 2 of
   [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format].  Moreover, the aforementioned



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 15]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   algorithm MUST be the default algorithm used by the DNS64.  While the
   normative description of the algorithm is provided in
   [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format], a sample description of the
   algorithm and its application to different scenarios is provided in
   Section 7 for illustration purposes.

5.3.  Handling other Resource Records and the Additional Section

5.3.1.  PTR Resource Record

   If a DNS64 server 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 any of the locally-
   configured Pref64::/n or the default Well-known prefix.  There are
   two alternatives for a DNS64 server to respond to such PTR queries.
   A DNS64 server MUST provide one of these, and SHOULD NOT provide both
   at the same time unless different IP6.ARPA zones require answers of
   different sorts:

   1.  The first option is for the DNS64 server to respond
       authoritatively for its prefixes.  If the address prefix matches
       any Pref64::/n used in the site, either a NSP or the Well-Known
       Prefix (i.e. 64:FF9B::/96), 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
       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.

   2.  The second option is for the DNS64 nameserver to synthesize a
       CNAME mapping the IP6.ARPA namespace to the corresponding IN-
       ADDR.ARPA name.  In this case, the DNS64 nameserver SHOULD ensure
       that there is RDATA at the PTR of the corresponding IN-ADDR.ARPA
       name, and that there is not an existing CNAME at that name.  This
       is in order to avoid synthesizing a CNAME that makes a CNAME
       chain longer or that does not actually point to anything.  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



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 16]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


       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 for each PTR query that matches the Pref64::/n), and
       that it may require signing on the fly.

   If the address prefix does not match any 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.

      NOTE: It may appear that adding synthetic records to the
      additional section is desirable, because clients sometimes use the
      data in the additional section to proceed without having to re-
      query.  There is in general no promise, however, that the
      additional section will contain all the relevant records, so any
      client that depends on the additional section being able to
      satisfy its needs (i.e. without additional queries) is necessarily
      broken.  An IPv6-only client that needs a AAAA record, therefore,
      will send a query for the necessary AAAA record if it is unable to
      find such a record in the additional section of an answer it is
      consuming.  For a correctly-functioning client, the effect would
      be no different if the additional section were empty.The
      alternative, of removing the A records in the additional section
      and replacing them with synthetic AAAA records, may cause a host
      behind a NAT64 to query directly a nameserver that is unaware of
      the NAT64 in question.  The result in this case will be resolution
      failure anyway, only later in the resolution operation.  The
      prohibition on synthetic data in the additional section reduces,
      but does not eliminate, the possibility of resolution failures due
      to cached DNS data from behind the DNS64.  See Section 6.

5.3.3.  Other Resource Records

   If the DNS64 is in recursive resolver mode, then considerations
   outlined in [I-D.ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones] may be relevant.

   All other RRs MUST be returned unchanged.  This includes responses to
   queries for A RRs.





Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 17]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


5.4.  Assembling a synthesized response to a AAAA query

   A 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 (initiator's) 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
   (initiator's) query.  The answer section is populated according to
   the rules in Section 5.1.7.  The authority and additional sections
   are copied from the response to the final query that the DNS64
   performed, and used as the basis for synthesis.

   The final response from the DNS64 is subject to all the standard DNS
   rules, including truncation [RFC1035] and EDNS0 handling [RFC2671].

5.5.  DNSSEC processing: DNS64 in validating resolver mode

   We consider the case where a recursive resolver 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.  See the next item for
       rules about how to do validation and synthesis.  In this case,
       however, vDNS64 MUST NOT set the AD bit in any response.

   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



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 18]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


       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 return the
       data 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
       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



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 19]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   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 be unable to answer the necessary AAAA queries.

6.2.  DNSSEC validators and DNS64

   An existing DNSSEC validator (i.e. that is unaware of DNS64) might
   reject all the data that comes from DNS64 as having been tampered
   with (even if it did not set CD when querying).  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 a DNS64, and allow the
   DNS64 recursive resolver 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
   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.

             +---------------+                 +-------------+
             |      i1 (IPv6)+----NAT64--------+IPv4 Internet|
             |               |                 +-------------+
             | host          |
             |               |                 +-------------+
             |      i2 (IPv6)+-----------------+IPv6 Internet|
             +---------------+                 +-------------+

                      Figure 1: IPv6 multihomed hosts

   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.

   Note that the issue is not that there are two interfaces, but that
   there are two networks involved.  The same results could be achieved



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 20]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   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 native IPv4 connectivity.
   In this case, i1 could receive an IPv6 address from a synthetic AAAA
   that would better be reached via native IPv4.  Again, it is worth
   emphasising that this arises because there are two networks involved.

             +---------------+                 +-------------+
             |      i1 (IPv6)+----NAT64--------+IPv4 Internet|
             |               |                 +-------------+
             | host          |
             |               |                 +-------------+
             |      i2 (IPv4)+-----------------+IPv4 Internet|
             +---------------+                 +-------------+

                 Figure 2: Accidental dual-stack DNS64 use

   The default configuration of dual-stack hosts is that IPv6 is
   preferred over IPv4 ([RFC3484]).  In that arrangement the host will
   often use the NAT64 when native IPv4 would be more desirable.  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
   with a LAN, and not with the IPv4 Internet.  The IPv4 Internet is
   only accessible using the NAT64.  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, 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.






Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 21]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


             +---------------+                 +-------------+
             |      i1 (IPv6)+----NAT64--------+IPv4 Internet|
             |               |                 +-------------+
             | host          |
             |               |
             |      i2 (IPv4)+---(local LAN only)
             +---------------+

                Figure 3: Intentional dual-stack DNS64 use

   It is important for deployers of DNS64 to realise that, in some
   circumstances, making the DNS64 available to a dual-stack host will
   cause the host to prefer to send packets via NAT64 instead of via
   native IPv4, with the associated loss of performance or functionality
   (or both) entailed by the NAT.  At the same time, some hosts are not
   able to learn about DNS servers provisioned on IPv6 addresses, or
   simply cannot send DNS packets over IPv6.


7.  Deployment scenarios and examples

   In this section we illustrate how the DNS64 behaves in different
   scenarios that are expected to be common.  In particular we will
   consider the following scenarios defined in
   [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]: the an-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-
   Internet scenario (both with DNS64 in DNS server mode and in stub-
   resolver mode) and the IPv6-Internet-to-an-IPv4-network setup (with
   DNS64 in DNS server mode only).

   In all the examples below, there is a IPv6/IPv4 translator connecting
   the IPv6 domain to the IPv4 one.  Also there is a name server that is
   a dual-stack node, so it can communicate with IPv6 hosts using IPv6
   and with IPv4 nodes using IPv4.  In addition, we assume that in the
   examples, the DNS64 function learns which IPv6 prefix it needs to use
   to map the IPv4 address space through manual configuration.

7.1.  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.

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







Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 22]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


             +---------------------+         +---------------+
             |IPv6 network         |         |    IPv4       |
             |           |  +-------------+  |  Internet     |
             |           |--| Name server |--|               |
             |           |  | with DNS64  |  |  +----+       |
             |  +----+   |  +-------------+  |  | H2 |       |
             |  | H1 |---|         |         |  +----+       |
             |  +----+   |   +------------+  |  192.0.2.1    |
             |           |---| IPv6/IPv4  |--|               |
             |           |   | Translator |  |               |
             |           |   +------------+  |               |
             |           |         |         |               |
             +---------------------+         +---------------+

    Figure 4: An-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup with DNS64 in DNS
                                server mode

   The figure shows an IPv6 node H1 and an IPv4 node H2 with IPv4
   address 192.0.2.1 and FQDN h2.example.com.

   The IPv6/IPv4 Translator has an IPv4 address 203.0.113.1 assigned to
   its IPv4 interface and it is using the WKP 64:FF9B::/96 to create
   IPv6 representations of IPv4 addresses.  The same prefix is
   configured in the DNS64 function in the local name server.

   For this example, assume the typical DNS situation where IPv6 hosts
   have only stub resolvers, and they are configured with the IP address
   of a name server that they always have to query and 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 h2.example.com.  H1 does this by sending
       a DNS query for a 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 performs an A-record query for H2 and
       gets back an RRset containing a single A record with the IPv4
       address 192.0.2.1.  The name server 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 and the
       received IPv4 address in the lower 32 bits i.e. the resulting
       IPv6 address is 64:FF9B::192.0.2.1.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 23]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   4.  H1 receives the synthetic AAAA record and sends a packet towards
       H2.  The packet is sent to the destination address 64:FF9B::
       192.0.2.1.

   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.

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

   This case is depicted in the following figure:


             +---------------------+         +---------------+
             |IPv6 network         |         |    IPv4       |
             |           |     +--------+    |  Internet     |
             |           |-----| Name   |----|               |
             | +-----+   |     | server |    |  +----+       |
             | | H1  |   |     +--------+    |  | H2 |       |
             | |with |---|         |         |  +----+       |
             | |DNS64|   |   +------------+  |  192.0.2.1    |
             | +----+    |---| IPv6/IPv4  |--|               |
             |           |   | Translator |  |               |
             |           |   +------------+  |               |
             |           |         |         |               |
             +---------------------+         +---------------+


   Figure 5: An-IPv6-network-to-IPv4-Internet setup with DNS64 in stub-
                               resolver mode

   The figure shows an IPv6 node H1 implementing the DNS64 function and
   an IPv4 node H2 with IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 and FQDN h2.example.com.

   The IPv6/IPv4 Translator has an IPv4 address 203.0.113.1 assigned to
   its IPv4 interface and it is using the WKP 64:FF9B::/96 to create
   IPv6 representations of IPv4 addresses.  The same prefix is
   configured in the DNS64 function in H1.

   For this example, assume the typical DNS situation where IPv6 hosts
   have only stub resolvers, and they are configured with the IP address
   of a name server that they always have to query and that performs
   recursive lookups (henceforth called "the recursive nameserver").
   The recursive name server does not perform the DNS64 function.

   The steps by which H1 establishes communication with H2 are:




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 24]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   1.  H1 does a DNS lookup for h2.example.com.  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 192.0.2.1.  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 received
       IPv4 address i.e. the resulting IPv6 address is 64:FF9B::
       192.0.2.1.

   4.  H1 sends a packet towards H2.  The packet is sent to the
       destination address 64:FF9B::192.0.2.1.

   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.

7.3.  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 that initiates a communication to an IPv4 node located in
   the IPv4 site.

   In some cases, 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 nodes.  Such an IPv6 address
   would be constructed using the address transformation algorithm
   defined in [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] that takes as input the
   Pref64::/96 and the IPv4 address of the IPv4 node.  Note that the
   IPv4 address can be a public or a private address; the latter does
   not present any additional difficulty, since an NSP must be used as
   Pref64::/96 (in this scenario the usage of the Well-Known prefix is
   not supported as discussed in [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]).
   Once these IPv6 addresses have been assigned to represent the IPv4
   nodes 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.

   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 April 4, 2011                [Page 25]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   [RFC2136] is used in the IPv4 site to update the A RRs for the IPv4
   nodes, there are two options: One option is to modify the DNS 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 all the authoritative servers 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 when the DNS responses are not
   being generated dynamically.  However, it may be the case where the
   primary server (that receives all the updates) cannot be upgraded for
   whatever reason, but where a secondary can be upgraded in order to
   handle the (comparatively small amount) of AAAA queries.  In such
   case, it is possible to use the DNS64 as described next.  The DNS64
   behavior that we describe in this section covers the case of
   synthesizing the AAAA RR when the DNS query arrives.

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


              +-----------+          +----------------------+
              |           |          |   IPv4 site          |
              |   IPv6    |    +------------+  |   +----+   |
              | Internet  |----| IPv6/IPv4  |--|---| H2 |   |
              |           |    | Translator |  |   +----+   |
              |           |    +------------+  |            |
              |           |          |         | 192.0.2.1  |
              |           |    +------------+  |            |
              |           |----| Name server|--|            |
              |           |    | with DNS64 |  |            |
              +-----------+    +------------+  |            |
                |                    |         |            |
              +----+                 |                      |
              | H1 |                 +----------------------+
              +----+

   Figure 6: IPv6-Internet-to-an-IPv4-network setup DNS64 in DNS server
                                   mode

   The figure shows an IPv6 node H1 and an IPv4 node H2 with IPv4
   address 192.0.2.1 and FQDN h2.example.com.

   The IPv6/IPv4 Translator is using a NSP 2001:DB8::/96 to create IPv6
   representations of IPv4 addresses.  The same prefix is configured in



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 26]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   the DNS64 function in the local name server.  The name server that
   implements the DNS64 function is the authoritative name server for
   the local domain.

   The steps by which H1 establishes communication with H2 are:

   1.  H1 does a DNS lookup for h2.example.com.  H1 does this by sending
       a DNS query for a 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 h2.example.com 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
       a AAAA record from the A RR and the prefix 2001:DB8::/96.  The
       IPv6 address in the AAAA record is 2001:DB8::192.0.2.1.

   4.  H1 receives the synthetic AAAA record and sends a packet towards
       H2.  The packet is sent to the destination address 2001:DB8::
       192.0.2.1.

   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.


8.  Security Considerations

   DNS64 operates in combination with the DNS, and is therefore subject
   to whatever security considerations are appropriate to the DNS mode
   in which the DNS64 is operating (i.e. authoritative, recursive, or
   stub resolver mode).

   DNS64 has the potential to interfere with the functioning of DNSSEC,
   because DNS64 modifies DNS answers, and DNSSEC is designed to detect
   such modification and to treat modified answers as bogus.  See the
   discussion above in Section 3, Section 5.5, and Section 6.2.

   Additionally, for the correct functioning of the translation
   services, the DNS64 and the NAT64 need to use the same Pref64.  If an
   attacker manages to change the Pref64 used by the DNS64, the traffic
   generated by the host that receives the synthetic reply will be
   delivered to the altered Pref64.  This can result in either a DoS
   attack (if resulting IPv6 addresses are not assigned to any device)
   or in a flooding attack (if the resulting IPv6 addresses are assigned
   to devices that do not wish to receive the traffic) or in



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 27]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   eavesdropping attack (in case the Pref64 is routed through the
   attacker).


9.  IANA Considerations

   This memo makes no request of IANA.


10.  Contributors

      Dave Thaler

      Microsoft

      dthaler@windows.microsoft.com


11.  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: Jaap Akkerhuis,
   Mark Andrews, Jari Arkko, Rob Austein, Timothy Baldwin, Fred Baker,
   Doug Barton, Marc Blanchet, Cameron Byrne, Brian Carpenter, Zhen Cao,
   Hui Deng, Francis Dupont, Patrik Faltstrom, David Harrington, Ed
   Jankiewicz, Peter Koch, Suresh Krishnan, Martti Kuparinen, Ed Lewis,
   Xing Li, Bill Manning, Matthijs Mekking, Hiroshi Miyata, Simon
   Perrault, Teemu Savolainen, Jyrki Soini, Dave Thaler, Mark Townsley,
   Rick van Rein, Stig Venaas, Magnus Westerlund, Jeff Westhead, Florian
   Weimer, Dan Wing, Xu Xiaohu, Xiangsong Cui.

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


12.  References

12.1.  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.




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 28]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


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

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

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

   [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
              Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
              draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10 (work in progress),
              August 2010.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
              Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers",
              draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 (work in
              progress), July 2010.

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

   [RFC2308]  Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
              NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998.

   [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.



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 29]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [RFC4074]  Morishita, Y. and T. Jinmei, "Common Misbehavior Against
              DNS Queries for IPv6 Addresses", RFC 4074, May 2005.

   [RFC5735]  Cotton, M. and L. Vegoda, "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",
              BCP 153, RFC 5735, January 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]
              Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
              IPv4/IPv6 Translation",
              draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10 (work in progress),
              August 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones]
              Andrews, M., "Locally-served DNS Zones",
              draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-14 (work in
              progress), September 2010.


Appendix A.  Motivations and Implications of synthesizing AAAA Resource
             Records when real AAAA Resource Records exist

   The motivation for synthesizing AAAA RRs when real AAAA RRs exist 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 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.

      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 resolver.

   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 RRs even
   when real AAAA RRs exist.

   The implication of including synthetic AAAA RRs when real AAAA RRs
   exist is that translated connectivity may be preferred over native



Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 30]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   connectivity in some cases where the DNS64 is operated in DNS server
   mode.

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

   This means that without further configuration:

      In the "An IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet" scenario, the host
      will prefer translated connectivity if an NSP 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 "IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network" scenario, it is possible
      to bias the selection towards the real AAAA RR if the DNS64
      resolver returns the real AAAA first in the DNS reply, when an NSP
      is used (the Well-Known Prefix usage is not supported in this
      case)

      In the "An IPv6 network to IPv4 network" scenario, for local
      destinations (i.e., target hosts inside the local site), it is
      likely that the NSP 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 the Well-Known Prefix is used,
      the longest prefix match rule will select native connectivity.

   The problem can be solved by properly configuring the RFC3484
   [RFC3484] policy table.


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




Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 31]
\f
Internet-Draft                    DNS64                     October 2010


   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:


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

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





















Bagnulo, et al.           Expires April 4, 2011                [Page 32]
\f