Commit 66cc8985 authored by Mark Andrews's avatar Mark Andrews

new draft

parent e601e3f0
Internet Engineering Task Force Alain Durand
INTERNET-DRAFT SUN Microsystems,inc.
Feb, 27, 2003 Johan Ihren
Expires August, 28, 2003 Autonomica
IPv6 DNS transition issues
Status of this memo
This memo provides information to the Internet community. It does not
specify an Internet standard of any kind. This memo is in full
conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
This memo summarizes DNS related issues when transitioning a network
to IPv6. Consensus and open issues are presented.
1. Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS records
In the direct zones, according to [RFC3363], IPv6 addresses are
represented using AAAA records [RFC1886]. In the reverse zone, IPv6
addresses are represented using PTR records in nibble format under
the tree [RFC3152].
2. IPv4/IPv6 name space
2.1 Terminology
The phrase "IPv4 name server" indicates a name server available over
IPv4 transport. It does not imply anything about what DNS data is
served. Likewise, "IPv6 name server" indicates a name server
available over IPv6 transport.
2.2. Introduction to the problem of name space fragmentation:
following the referral chain
The caching resolver that tries to lookup a name starts out at the
root, and follows referrals until it is referred to a nameserver that
is authoritative for the name. If somewhere down the chain of
referrals it is referred to a nameserver that is only accessible over
a type of transport that is unavailable, a traditional nameserver is
unable to finish the task.
When the Internet moves from IPv4 to a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 it is
only a matter of time until this starts to happen and the complete
DNS hierarchy starts to fragment into a graph where authoritative
nameservers for certain nodes are only accessible over a certain
transport. What is feared is that a node using only a particular
version of IP, querying information about another node using the same
version of IP can not do it because, somewhere in the chain of
servers accessed during the resolution process, one or more of them
will only be accessible with the other version of IP.
With all DNS data only available over IPv4 transport everything is
simple. IPv4 resolvers can use the intended mechanism of following
referrals from the root and down while IPv6 resolvers have to work
through a "translator", i.e. they have to use a second name server on
a so-called "dual stack" host as a "forwarder" since they cannot
access the DNS data directly.
With all DNS data only available over IPv6 transport everything would
be equally simple, with the exception of old legacy IPv4 name servers
having to switch to a forwarding configuration.
However, the second situation will not arise in a foreseeable time.
Instead, it is expected that the transition will be from IPv4 only to
a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6, with DNS data of theoretically three
categories depending on whether it is available only over IPv4
transport, only over IPv6 or both.
The latter is the best situation, and a major question is how to
ensure that it as quickly as possible becomes the norm. However,
while it is obvious that some DNS data will only be available over v4
transport for a long time it is also obvious that it is important to
avoid fragmenting the name space available to IPv4 only hosts. I.e.
during transition it is not acceptable to break the name space that
we presently have available for IPv4-only hosts.
2.3 Policy based avoidance of name space fragmentation.
Today there are only a few DNS "zones" on the public Internet that
are available over IPv6 transport, and they can mostly be regarded
as "experimental". However, as soon as there is a root name server
available over IPv6 transport it is reasonable to expect that it will
become more common to have zones served by IPv6 servers over time.
Having those zones served only by IPv6-only name server would not be
a good development, since this will fragment the previously
unfragmented IPv4 name space and there are strong reasons to find a
mechanism to avoid it.
The RECOMMENDED approach to maintain name space continuity is to use
administrative policies:
- every recursive DNS server SHOULD be either IPv4-only or dual
- every single DNS zone SHOULD be served by at least one IPv4
reachable DNS server.
This rules out IPv6-only recursive DNS servers and DNS zones served
only by IPv6-only DNS servers. This approach could be revisited
if/when translation techniques between IPv4 and IPv6 were to be
widely deployed.
In order to enforce the second point, the zone validation process
SHOULD ensure that there is at least one IPv4 address record
available for the name servers of any child delegations within the
3. Local Scope addresses.
[IPv6ADDRARCH] define three scopes of addresses, link local, site
local and global.
3.1 Link local addresses
Local addresses SHOULD NOT be published in the DNS, neither in the
forward tree nor in the reverse tree.
3.2 Site local addresses
Note: There is an ongoing discussion in the IPv6 wg on the
usefulness of site local addresses that may end up deprecating or
limiting the use of Site Local addresses.
Site local addresses are an evolution of private addresses [RFC1918]
in IPv4. The main difference is that, within a site, nodes are
expected to have several addresses with different scopes. [ADDRSELEC]
recommends to use the lowest possible scope possible for
communications. That is, if both site local & global addresses are
published in the DNS for node B, and node A is configured also with
both site local & global addresses, the communication between node A
and B has to use site local addresses.
For reasons illustrated in [DontPublish], site local addresses SHOULD
NOT be published in the public DNS. They MAY be published in a site
view of the DNS if two-face DNS is deployed.
For a related discussion on how to handle those "local" zones, see
3.3 Reverse path DNS for site local addresses.
The main issue is that the view of a site may be different on a stub
resolver and on a fully recursive resolver it points to. A simple
scenario to illustrate the issue is a home network deploying site
local addresses. Reverse DNS resolution for site local addresses has
to be done within the home network and the stub resolver cannot
simply point to the ISP DNS resolver.
Site local addresses SHOULD NOT be populated in the public reverse
tree. If two-face DNS is deployed, site local addresses MAY be
populated in the local view of reverse tree.
4. Automatic population of the Reverse path DNS
Getting the reverse tree DNS populated correctly in IPv4 is not an
easy exercise and very often the records are not really up to date or
simply are just not there. As IPv6 addresses are much longer than
IPv4 addresses, the situation of the reverse tree DNS will probably
be even worse.
A fairly common practice from IPv4 ISP is to generate PTR records for
home customers automatically from the IPv4 address itself. Something
like: IN PTR
It is not clear today if something similar need to be done in IPv6,
and, if yes, what is the best approach to this problem.
As the number of possible PTR records would be huge (2^80) for a /48
prefix, a possible solution would be to use wildcards entries like:
* IN PTR customer-42.local-
However, the use of wildcard is generally discouraged and this may
not be an acceptable solution.
An alternative approach is to dynamically synthetize PTR records,
either on the server side or on the resolver side. This approach is
discussed at length in [DYNREVERSE].
Other solutions like the use of ICMP name lookups [ICMPNL] have been
proposed but failed to reach consensus. It would work if and only the
remote host is reachable at the time of the request and one can
somehow trust the value that would be returned by the remote host.
A more radical approach would be not to pre-populate the reverse tree
at all. This approach claims that applications that misuse reverse
DNS for any kind of access control are fundamentally broken and
should be fixed without introducing any kludge in the DNS. There is a
certain capital of sympathy for this, however, ISP who who pre-
generate statically PTR records for their IPv4 customers do it for a
reason, and it is unlikely that this reason will disappear with the
introduction of IPv6.
5. Privacy extension addresses
[RFC3041] defines privacy extensions for IPv6 stateless
autoconfiguration where the interface ID is a random number. As those
addresses are designed to provide privacy by making it more difficult
to log and trace back to the user, it makes no sense to in the
reverse tree DNS to have them pointing to a real name.
[RFC3041] type addresses SHOULD NOT be published in the reverse tree
DNS pointing to meaningful names. A generic, catch-all name MAY be
acceptable. An interesting alternative would be to use dynamic
synthesis as in [DYNREVERSE].
6. 6to4
6to4 addresses can be published in the forward DNS, however special
care is needed in the reverse tree. See [6to4ReverseDNS] for details.
The delegation of is suggested in [6to4ARPA],
however, delegations in the reverse zone under are
the core of the problem. Delegating the next 32 bits of the IPv4
address used in the 6to4 domain won't scale and delegating on less
may require cooperation from the upstream IPSs. The problem here is
that, especially in the case of home usage of 6to4, the entity being
delegated the zone (the ISP) may not be the
same as the one using 6to4 (the end customer). the
Another problem with reverse DNS for 6to4 addresses is that the 6to4
prefix may be transient. One of the usage scenario of 6to4 is to have
PCs connected via dial-up use 6to4 to connect to the IPv6 Internet.
In such a scenario, the lifetime of the 6to4 prefix is the same as
the DHCP lease of the IPv4 address it is derived from. It means that
the reverse DNS delegation is only valid for the same duration.
A possible approach is not to populate the reverse tree DNS for 6to4
addresses. Another one is to use dynamic synthesis as described in
7. Recursive DNS server discovery
[DNSdiscovery] has been proposed to reserve a well known site local
unicast address to configure the DNS resolver as a last resort
mechanism, when no other information is available. Another approach
is to use a DHCPv6 extensions [DHCPv6DNS].
8. DNSsec
There is nothing specific to IPv6 or IPv4 in DNSsec. However,
translation tools such as NAT-PT [RFC2766] introduce a DNS-ALG that
will break DNSsec by imposing a change in the trust model. See [DNS-
ALG] for details.
9. Security considerations
Using wildcard DNS records in the reverse path tree may have some
implication when used in conjunction with DNSsec. Security
considerations for referenced documents are described in those memos
and are not replicated here.
10. Author addresses
Alain Durand
SUN Microsystems, Inc
17 Network circle UMPK17-202
Menlo Park, CA, 94025
Johan Ihren
Bellmansgatan 30
SE-118 47 Stockholm, Sweden
11. References
[RFC1918] Address Allocation for Private Internets. Y. Rekhter, B.
Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot, E. Lear. February
[RFC2766] Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-
G. Tsirtsis, P. Srisuresh. February 2000.
[RFC3041] Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
in IPv6,
T. Narten, R. Draves, January 2001.
[RFC3152] Delegation of, R. Bush, August 2001.
[RFC3363] Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses
in the Domain Name System (DNS), R. Bush, A. Durand, B.
Fink, O. Gudmundsson, T. Hain. August 2002.
[DYNREVERSE] Dynamic reverse DNS for IPv6, A. Durand,
draft-durand-dnsops-dynreverse-00.txt, work in progress.
[DNS-ALG] Issues with NAT-PT DNS ALG in RFC2766, A. Durand,
draft-durand-v6ops-natpt-dns-alg-issues-00.txt, work in
[LOCAL] Operational Guidelines for "local" zones in the DNS,
Kato, A., Vixie, P., draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt,
work in progress.
[ICMPNL] Use of ICMPv6 node information query for reverse DNS lookup,
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, draft-itojun-ipv6-nodeinfo-
revlookup-00.txt, work in progress.
[IPv6ADDRARCH] IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture, R. Hinden,
draft-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt, work in progress.
[6to4ARPA] Delegation of, Bush, R., Damas, J.,
draft-ymbk-6to4-arpa-delegation-00.txt, work in progress.
[6to4ReverseDNS] 6to4 and DNS, K. Moore, draft-moore-6to4-dns-03.txt,
work in progress.
[DNSdiscovery] Well known site local unicast addresses for DNS
A. Durand, J. hagano, D. Thaler, draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-
discovery-07.txt, work in progress.
[DHCPv6DNS] DNS Configuration options for DHCPv6, Droms, R.
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-02.txt, work in
12. Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
This diff is collapsed.
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment