Archive

Hi Philip,

Agree, ideally, should be a DHCPv6 bases mechanism as we already proposed long time ago, because PCP is not present in many networks (unfortunately), while DHCP is quite common.

We are happy to resurrect and review this work if needed:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-intarea-nat64-prefix-dhcp-option-01

Regards,

Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----

De: DNSOP <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-8@u-1.phicoh.com>

Fecha: miércoles, 13 de junio de 2018, 12:42

Para: <v6ops@ietf.org>

CC: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>om>, Michelle Cotton via RT <iana-questions@iana.org>rg>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>rg>, David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>

Asunto: Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] [IANA #989438] ipv4only.arpa's delegation should be insecure.

    >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa 

    ><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa>

    >From Section 6.2:

    3.  Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST recognize 'ipv4only.arpa'

           as special and MUST give it special treatment.  Regardless of any

           manual client DNS configuration, DNS overrides configured by VPN

           client software, or any other mechanisms that influence the

           choice of the client's recursive resolver address(es) (including

           client devices that run their own local recursive resolver and

           use the loopback address as their configured recursive resolver

           address) all queries for 'ipv4only.arpa' and any subdomains of

           that name MUST be sent to the recursive resolver learned from the

           network via IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS

           Configuration [RFC6106] or via DNS Configuration options for

           DHCPv6 [RFC3646].

    First we introduce ipv4only.arpa as a hack to avoid creating/deploying a

    suitable mechanism to communicate the NAT64 translation prefix. That's fine

    with me.

    But when that hack then requires changes to every possible DNS stub resolver

    implementation in the world, there is something seriously wrong.

    So if this in indeeed required to make RFC7050 work then it is better to

    formally deprecate RFC7050 and focus on other ways to discover the

    translation prefix.

    It seems that at least one already exists (RFC7225) so not much is lost.

    _______________________________________________

    DNSOP mailing list

    DNSOP@ietf.org

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.