Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 14 November 2017 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64DF1271FD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:29:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMbaPEvrebwS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 864821200F1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7FF20008; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:30:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242D982B23; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:29:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
In-Reply-To: <BDE1F599-6BF1-4FC1-AA2E-F55A556FB183@employees.org>
References: <6755862C-AA12-45B4-98B8-EF6D9F90898B@employees.org> <6445323B-FFE4-4A3E-9EFB-9F4D05BED0D5@jisc.ac.uk> <48E76543-3DD4-43E8-9B50-5CC4D9D76A2F@cisco.com> <7C928B66-8D07-42A0-9168-617E2978227F@jisc.ac.uk> <CAD6AjGQdenKMxQ6KBeBGzTu6fAtR9d_x7HuSPYVATcKEOdmNUQ@mail.gmail.com> <24403.1510627646@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <BDE1F599-6BF1-4FC1-AA2E-F55A556FB183@employees.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:29:04 -0500
Message-ID: <15934.1510676944@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DHTZEWNBMWy0unT9wg4ga--YoSw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:29:12 -0000

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>; wrote:
    > Michael,

    >>> I have a network with 10s of millions of ipv6-only nodes, none of
    >>> which can so dnssec (neither android nor ios support it) and the
    >>> implication that these nodes are no longer ipv6 since they don't do
    >>> dnssec is ludicrous.
    >>
    >> If you want to do DNSSEC validation, and there is a possibility of NAT64,
    >> then you need to do the DNS64 locally.
    >>
    >> If you aren't doing DNSSEC now, then it won't matter.
    >> When you add DNSSEC, then you have to do NAT64 prefix discovery, and DNS64.

    > Could you speculate on how much of this should go in the host and
    > thereby are candidates for host requirements and how much belongs in
    > the application?

You have to do this wherever you do DNSSEC.

That is seldom in the application.  There are libraries (e.g: libunbound)
so that clueful applications can do DNSSEC before the system is ready, but
this is rather akin to that some applications (ping/traceroute,etc) open
raw sockets and construct IP headers themselves.

So I'd say that it all goes into the host requirements.


    > Btw: Your key has expired. ;-)

finger mcr@sandelman.ca | gpg --import

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-