idnits 2.17.1 

draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate.  This must be updated to
     follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months
     document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching
     beginning. Boilerplate error?

  ** Bad filename characters: the document name given in the document,
     'draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00.txt.', contains other characters than
     digits, lowercase letters and dash.

  ** Missing revision: the document name given in the document,
     'draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00.txt.', does not give the document
     revision number

  ~~ Missing draftname component: the document name given in the document,
     'draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00.txt.', does not seem to contain all
     the document name components required ('draft' prefix, document source,
     document name, and revision) -- see
     https://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines#naming for more information.

  == Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as
     'draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00.txt.', but the file name used is
     'draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00'

  == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
     Standard

  == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1
     longer page, the longest (page 1) being 301 lines


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section.

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
     2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
     when there are no actions for IANA.)

  ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative
     References.  All references will be assumed normative when checking for
     downward references.

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 4 characters in excess of 72.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  == The "Author's Address" (or "Authors' Addresses") section title is
     misspelled.

  == Couldn't figure out when the document was first submitted -- there may
     comments or warnings related to the use of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378
     work that could not be issued because of this.  Please check the Legal
     Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info to determine
     if you need the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.

  -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check
     skipped.


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC1886' is mentioned on line 41, but not defined

  ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 1886 (Obsoleted by RFC 3596)

  == Missing Reference: 'ADDRSELEC' is mentioned on line 77, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'NAT-PTissues' is defined on line 168, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2766 (Obsoleted by RFC 4966)

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'NAT-PTissues' 

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'NAT64' 

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'FRAGMENTATION' 

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'DNS-OPS-REQ' 

  -- No information found for draft-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3 - is the name correct?

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'IPv6ADDRARCH' 

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '6to4ReverseDNS' 

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
     draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-discovery-05

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'DNSdiscovery' 


     Summary: 10 errors (**), 1 flaw (~~), 10 warnings (==), 9 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1	Internet Engineering Task Force                     Alain Durand
2	INTERNET-DRAFT                             SUN Microsystems,inc.
3	June, 23, 2002
4	Expires December, 24, 2002

6	                       IPv6 DNS transition issues
7	                <draft-durand-ngtrans-dns-issues-00.txt.

9	                          Status of this memo

11	   This memo provides information to the Internet community. It does not
12	   specify an Internet standard of any kind. This memo is in full
13	   conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026

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

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

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

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

31	Abstract

33	   This memo summarizes DNS related issues when transitioning a network
34	   to IPv6. Those issues have been discussed in the NGtrans, IPv6,
35	   DNSext and DNSop working group. Wherever consensus has been reached,
36	   it is presented. When consensus has not yet been reached, a list of
37	   open issues is presented.

39	1. DNS records

41	   In the direct zones, the consensus is to use AAAA [RFC1886] records.
42	   In the reverse zone, the consensus is to use PTR records in nibble
43	   format under the ip6.arpa. tree.

45	2. IPv4/IPv6 name space

47	   There is consensus that keeping the Internet name space unfragmented
48	   is a good thing. This covers IPv4 and IPv6. It means that any record
49	   in the public Internet should be available to any nodes, IPv4 or
50	   IPv6.  See [FRAGMENTATION] and [DNS-OPS-REQ] for details. One
51	   possible approach is to maintain name space continuity with
52	   administrative procedures: ask every full DNS resolver to be dual
53	   stack and ask that every single DNS zone has to be served by at least
54	   an IPv4 reachable DNS server. The other avenue to approach this
55	   problem is to design a 'bridging system' enabling direct
56	   communication between and IPv6 only DNS resolver and an IPv4 only DNS
57	   server or an IPv4 only resolver talking to an IPv6 only DNS server.
58	   NAT-PT [RFC2766] does not work for that purpose because of the DNS-
59	   ALG built-in. Other issues surrounding NAT-PT are discussed in [NAT-
60	   PTissues]. [NAT64] as a potential replacement for NAT-PT could be a
61	   better fit, at least for the case of the IPv6 only DNS resolver
62	   talking to an IPv4 only DNS server.

64	3. Local Scope addresses.

66	   [IPv6ADDRARCH] define three scopes of addresses, link local, site
67	   local and global.

69	3.1 Link local addresses

71	   There is consensus not to publish link local addresses in the DNS.

73	3.2 Site local addresses

75	   Site Local addresses are an evolution of private addresses [RFC1918]
76	   in IPv4.  The main difference is that, within a site, nodes are
77	   expected to have several addresses with different scopes. [ADDRSELEC]
78	   recommends to use the lowest possible scope possible for
79	   communications. That is, if both site local & global addresses are
80	   published in the DNS for node B, and node A is configured also with
81	   both site local & global addresses, the communication between node A
82	   and B has to use site local addresses.  This means that site local
83	   addresses should not be published in the public DNS.  They may be
84	   published in a site view of the DNS if two-face DNS is deployed.

86	3.3 Reverse path DNS for site local.

88	   The main issue is that the view of a site may be different on a stub
89	   resolver and on a fully recursive resolver it points to.  A simple
90	   scenario to illustrate the issue is a home network deploying site
91	   local addresses. Reverse DNS resolution for site local addresses has
92	   to be done within the home network and the stub resolver cannot
93	   simply point to the ISP DNS resolver.

95	4. Reverse DNS

97	   Getting the reverse tree DNS populated correctly in IPv4 is not an
98	   easy exercise and very often the records are not really up to date or
99	   simply are just not there. As IPv6 addresses are much longer than
100	   IPv4 addresses, the situation of the reverse tree DNS will probably
101	   be even worse.

103	   A fairly common practice from IPv4 ISP is to generate PTR records for
104	   home customers automatically from the IPv4 address itself. Something
105	   like:
106	      1.2.3.4.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR 4.3.2.1.local-ISP.net
107	   Its not clear today if something similar need to be done in IPv6.  As
108	   the number of possible PTR records would be huge (2^80) for a /48
109	   prefix, a possible solution would be to use wildcards entries like:
110	      *.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.a.b.c.ip6.arpa. IN PTR customer-42.local-ISP.net

112	5. 6to4

114	   6to4 addresses can be published in the forward DNS, however special
115	   care is needed in the reverse tree. See [6to4ReverseDNS] for details.
116	   Delegations in the reverse zone under 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa are the core
117	   of the problem. Delegating the next 32 bits of the IPv4 address used
118	   in the 6to4 domain won't scale and delegating on less may require
119	   cooperation from the upstream IPSs.

121	   Another problem with reverse DNS for 6to4 addresses is that the 6to4
122	   prefix may be transient. One of the usage scenario of 6to4 is to have
123	   PCs connected via dial-up use 6to4 to connect to the IPv6 Inernet. In
124	   such a scenario, the lifetime of the 6to4 prefix is the same as the
125	   DHCP lease of the IPv4 address it is derived from. It means that the
126	   reverse DNS delegation is only valid for the same duration.

128	6. DNS resolver discovery

130	   [DNSdiscovery] has been proposed to reserved a well known site local
131	   unicast address to configure the DNS resolver as a last resort
132	   mechanism, when no other information is available. Another approach
133	   is to use DHCPv6 extensions.

135	7.  DNSsec

137	   There is nothing specific to IPv6 or IPv4 in DNSsec.

139	8. Security considerations

141	   A certain number of security considerations are not completely
142	   solved.
143	      - If a 'bridging system' based on translation is designed to
144	      enable seamless interoperation between IPv4 & IPv6 DNS resolvers &
145	      servers, this system should not introduce any new security issues.
146	      - If DNS resolver discovery is done using the 'well known address'
147	      approach, the stub resolver will not know exactly which resolver
148	      it is talking to and thus may or may not be able establish a
149	      cryptographically verified association with it.

151	9. Author addresses

153	   Alain Durand
154	   SUN Microsystems, Inc
155	   901 San Antonio Road MPK17-202
156	   Palo Alto, CA 94303-4900
157	   USA
158	   Mail: Alain.Durand@sun.com

160	10. References

162	   [RFC1918] Address Allocation for Private Internets. Y. Rekhter, B.
163	   Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot, E. Lear. February 1996.

165	   [RFC2766] Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-
166	   PT). G.  Tsirtsis, P. Srisuresh. February 2000.

168	   [NAT-PTissues] Issues with NAT-PT DNS ALG in RFC2766, A. Durand,
169	   draft-durand-natpt-dns-alg-issues-00.txt, work in progress.

171	   [NAT64] NAT64 - NAT46, A. Durand, draft-durand-ngtrans-
172	   nat64-nat46-00.txt, work in progress.

174	   [FRAGMENTATION] IPv4-to-IPv6 migration and DNS namespace
175	   fragmentation, J. Ihren, draft-ietf-dnsop-v6-name-space-
176	   fragmentation-01.txt, work in progress.

178	   [DNS-OPS-REQ] NGtrans IPv6 DNS operational requirements and roadmap,
179	   A. Durand, J. Ihren, draft-ietf-ngtrans-dns-ops-req-04.txt, work in
180	   progress.

182	   [IPv6ADDRARCH] IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture, R. Hinden,
183	   draft-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt, work in progress.

185	   [6to4ReverseDNS] 6to4 and DNS, K. Moore, draft-ietf-
186	   ngtrans-6to4-dns-00.txt, work in progress.

188	   [DNSdiscovery] Well known site local unicast addresses for DNS
189	   resolver, A. Durand, J. hagano, D. Thaler, draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-
190	   discovery-05.txt, work in progress.

192	10. Full Copyright Statement

194	   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

196	   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
197	   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
198	   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
199	   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
200	   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
201	   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
202	   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
203	   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
204	   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
205	   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
206	   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
207	   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
208	   English.

210	   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
211	   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

213	   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
214	   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
215	   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
216	   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
217	   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
218	   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.