idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.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? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 6 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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.) 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. -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (March 2002) is 8071 days in the past. Is this intentional? 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 section? 'RFC1886' on line 194 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2874' on line 200 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'Tradeoff' on line 206 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC3152' on line 203 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1035' on line 191 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2673' on line 197 looks like a reference Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DNSEXT Working Group Randy Bush (ed.) 3 Alain Durand (ed.) 4 Bob Fink (ed.) 5 Olafur Gudmundsson (ed.) 6 Tony Hain (ed.) 7 INTERNET-DRAFT March 2002 9 11 Updates: RFC 1886, RFC 2673, RFC 2874 13 Representing IPv6 addresses in DNS. 15 Status of this Memo 17 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 18 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 36 Comments should be sent to the authors or the DNSEXT WG mailing list 37 namedroppers@ops.ietf.org 39 This draft expires on September 1, 2002. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All rights reserved. 45 Abstract 47 This document clarifies and updates the standards status of RFCs that 48 define direct and reverse map of IPv6 addresses in DNS. This document 49 moves the A6 and Bit label specifications to experimental status. 51 1 - Introduction 53 The IETF had begun the process of standardizing two different address 54 formats for IPv6 addresses AAAA[RFC1886] and A6[RFC2874] and both are 55 at proposed standard. This had led to confusion and conflicts on 56 which one to deploy. It is important for deployment that any 57 confusion in this area be cleared up, as there is a feeling in the 58 community that having more than one choice will lead to delays in the 59 deployment of IPv6. The goal of this document is to clarify the 60 situation. 62 This document is based on extensive technical discussion on various 63 relevant working groups mailing lists and a joint DNSEXT and NGTRANS 64 meeting at the 51st IETF in August 2001. This document attempts to 65 capture the sense of the discussions and reflect them in this 66 document to represent the consensus of the community. 68 The main arguments and the issues are covered in a separate 69 document[Tradeoff] that reflects the current understanding of the 70 issues. This document summarizes the outcome of these discussions. 72 The issue of the root of reverse IPv6 address map is outside the 73 scope of this document and is covered in a different 74 document[RFC3152]. 76 1.1 Standards action taken 78 This document changes the status of RFCs 2673 and 2874 from Proposed 79 Standard to Experimental. 81 2 - IPv6 addresses: AAAA RR vs A6 RR 83 Working group consensus as perceived by the chairs of the DNSEXT and 84 NGTRANS working groups is that: 86 a) AAAA records are preferable at the moment for production 87 deployment of IPv6, and 89 b) that A6 records have interesting properties that need to be 90 better understood before deployment. 92 c) It is not known if the benefits of A6 outweigh the costs and 93 risks. 95 2.1 Rationale 97 There are several potential issues with A6 RRs that stem directly 98 from the feature that makes them different from AAAA RRs: the ability 99 to build up addresses via chaining. 101 Resolving a chain of A6 RRs involves resolving a series of what are 102 nearly-independent queries. Each of these sub-queries takes some 103 non-zero amount of time, unless the answer happens to be in the 104 resolver's local cache already. Other things being equal, we expect 105 that the time it takes to resolve an N-link chain of A6 RRs will be 106 roughly proportional to N. What data we have suggests that users are 107 already impatient with the length of time it takes to resolve A RRs 108 in the IPv4 Internet, which suggests that users are not likely to be 109 patient with significantly longer delays in the IPv6 Internet, but 110 terminating queries prematurely is both a waste of resources and 111 another source of user frustration. Thus, we are forced to conclude 112 that indiscriminate use of long A6 chains is likely to lead to 113 increased user frustration. 115 The probability of failure during the process of resolving an N-link 116 A6 chain also appears to be roughly proportional to N, since each of 117 the queries involved in resolving an A6 chain has roughly the same 118 probability of failure as a single AAAA query. 120 Last, several of the most interesting potential applications for A6 121 RRs involve situations where the prefix name field in the A6 RR 122 points to a target that is not only outside the DNS zone containing 123 the A6 RR, but is administered by a different organization entirely. 124 While pointers out of zone are not a problem per se, experience both 125 with glue RRs and with PTR RRs in the IN-ADDR.ARPA tree suggests that 126 pointers to other organizations are often not maintained properly, 127 perhaps because they're less susceptible to automation than pointers 128 within a single organization would be. 130 2.2 Recommended standard action 132 Based on the perceived consensus, this document recommend that RFC 133 1886 stay on standards track and be advanced, while moving RFC 2874 134 to Experimental status. 136 3 - Bitlabels in the reverse DNS tree 138 RFC 2673 defines a new DNS label type. This was the first new type 139 defined since RFC 1035[RFC1035]. Since the development of 2673 it has 140 been learned that deployment of a new type is difficult since DNS 141 servers that do not support bitlabels reject queries containing bit 142 labels as being malformed. The community has also indicated that this 143 new label type is not needed for mapping reverse addresses. 145 3.1 Rationale 147 The hexadecimal text representation of IPv6 addresses appears to be 148 capable of expressing all of the delegation schemes that we expect to 149 be used in the DNS reverse tree. 151 3.2 Recommended standard action 153 RFC 2673 standard status is to be changed from Proposed to 154 Experimental. Future standardization of these documents is to be done 155 by the DNSEXT working group or its successor. 157 4 DNAME in IPv6 reverse tree 159 The issues for DNAME chaining in the reverse tree are substantially 160 identical to the issues for A6 chaining in the forward tree. 161 Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental, the intent of this 162 document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse tree be deprecated. 164 5 Acknowledgments 166 This document is based on input from many members of the various IETF 167 working groups involved in this issues. Special thanks go to the 168 people that prepared reading material for the joint DNSEXT and 169 NGTRANS working group meeting at the 51st IETF in London, Rob 170 Austein, Dan Bernstein, Matt Crawford, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, 171 Christian Huitema. Number of other people have made number of 172 comments on mailing lists about this issue including Andrew W. 173 Barclay, Robert Elz, Johan Ihren, Edward Lewis, Bill Manning, Pekka 174 Savola, Paul Vixie. 176 6 - Security Considerations: 178 As this document specifies a course of action, there are no direct 179 security considerations. There is an indirect security impact of the 180 choice, in that the relationship between A6 and DNSSEC is not well 181 understood throughout the community, while the choice of AAAA does 182 leads to a model for use of DNSSEC in IPv6 networks which parallels 183 current IPv4 practice. 185 7 - IANA Considerations: 187 None. 189 References: 191 [RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and 192 Specification'' STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 194 [RFC1886] S. Thompson, C. Huitema, ``DNS Extensions to support IP 195 version 6'', RFC 1886, December 1995. 197 [RFC2673] M. Crawford ``Binary Labels in the Domain Name System``, RFC 198 2673, August 1999. 200 [RFC2874] M. Crawford, C. Huitema, ``DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 201 Address Aggregation and Renumbering'', RFC 2874, July 2000. 203 [RFC3152] R. Bush, ``Delegation of IP6.ARPA'', RFC 3152 also BCP0049, 204 August 2001, 206 [Tradeoff] R. Austein, ``Tradeoffs in DNS support for IPv6'', Work in 207 progress, draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-dns-tradeoffs-xx.txt, July 208 2001. 210 Editors Address 212 Randy Bush 213 Alain Durand 214 Bob Fink 215 Olafur Gudmundsson 216 Tony Hain 218 Full Copyright Statement 220 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 222 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 223 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 224 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 225 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 226 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 227 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 228 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 229 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 230 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 231 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 232 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 233 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 234 English. 236 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 237 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 239 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 240 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 241 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 242 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 243 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 244 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."