Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Excuse front posting but +1, this is IMHO just about the
last thing worth saying on this thread.

Regards
   Brian

On 15/11/2017 16:05, Jen Linkova wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> If I may try to suggest a solution based on what you are saying:
>>
>> - Remove (external) DNS64 from the solution
>> - Replace NAT64 prefix discovery with some sort of local configuration. e.g. put it in DHCP or RA
>>
>> Which has the implications that:
>>  - host learns NAT64 prefix via RA/DHCP
>>  - host is free to use whatever DNS recursive resolvers (instead of the must be local (and on correct interface where the NAT64 is) resolver
>>  - host synthesises addresses itself. And does validation before synthesising (if that's required).
>>
>> Is this the solution you would be looking for?
>>
>> And yes, you need host changes. But we need that anyway.
> 
> NAT64 is a band aid, a tactical solution to deal with IPv4-only hosst
> while we are waiting for them to die. Requiring *mandatory* changes on
> majority of devices which are working on NAT64 networks just fine
> currently to solve problems for those who either a) sign their zones
> but do not enable Ipv6 b)doing some smart things in their host
> resolvers looks like an overkill to me..
> 
> IMHO the optimal solution is:
> - the network SHOULD provide a host with NAT64 prefix information in
> RA (I do not believe that information needs to be duplicated in DHCP
> at all);
> - an application MAY use that information to do AAAA synthetics
> (validating resolvers SHOULD do that).
> - network still provides DNS64 servers to hosts so all unsophisticated
> hosts (majority of devices falls into that category) continue to use
> network-provided resolvers.
> 
> 
>>
>>> On 15 Nov 2017, at 08:06, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 15 Nov 2017, at 3:40 am, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Is there any reason to run DNS64 at all these days?  ipv4only.arpa can be a preconfigured
>>>> zone which allows CLAT to get its mapping.  All the phones have CLAT support.
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting idea. It would work in theory, but such a network would completely break devices that don't support 464xlat. That gives up one of the major advantages of NAT64/DNS64, which is that it's a 90% solution even just by itself - yes, IPv4-only applications and address literals exist, but most simple client/server applications Just Work behind it.
>>>
>>> And that 90% “solution” has lots of down sides.  It basically requires EVERY DNS VALIDATOR ON
>>> THE PLANET TO SUPPORT DNS64 JUST IN CASE IT IS USED BEHIND A DNS64 SERVER.
>>>
>>> DNS64/NAT64 was presented as NOT REQUIRING node changes when first mooted.  It keeps on
>>> requiring more and more highly invasive node changes to support.  It was from the very beginning
>>> bad engineering.   To get IPv4 as a service some node changes are required.  Lets make sure they
>>> are MINIMAL ones.
>>>
>>> Just for the record DNSSEC validators need to send BOTH CD=0 and CD=1 queries to get answers
>>> though a upstream VALIDATING server which includes a VALIDATING DNS64 server as CD=0 and
>>> CD=1 address different DNSSEC threats.  I tried very hard to point that out when RFC 6147 was
>>> being written but the working group decide that CD indicated whether the client was validating or
>>> not.  There is NO SUCH INDICATION in a DNS message.
>>>
>>>  If a query arrives at a vDNS64 device with the "Checking Disabled"
>>>   (CD) bit set, it is an indication that the querying agent wants all
>>>   the validation data so it can do checking itself.  By local policy,
>>>   vDNS64 could still validate, but it must return all data to the
>>>   querying agent anyway.
>>>
>>> CD=0 queries causes the upstream validating servers to reject incoming spoofed answers
>>> or stale answers (this is a common operational problem).
>>>
>>> CD=1 queries allow the validation to succeed when the upstream validator has a bad trust
>>> anchor or a bad clock which is rejecting legitimate answers.
>>>
>>> A validating client can’t just send CD=1 queries as the upstream validator doesn’t kick in.
>>> The upstream validator can lock onto a stale answer source.  It needs to send CD=0 queries
>>> on validation failure to force the upstream validator to try multiple sources.
>>>
>>> A validating client can’t just send CD=0.  It needs to send CD=1 on SERVFAIL in case the
>>> upstream validator has a bad trust anchor (likely with the upcoming root KSK roll) or has
>>> a bad clock (these usually get fixed fast).
>>>
>>> Now to get a answer from a signed zone with servers with stale answers a validatiing DNS64 client
>>> needs to send:
>>>
>>> a) send CD=1 and validation failure send CD=0 then on AAAA validation failure send CD=1 and
>>>    hope the TTL was not 0 and that is not cachable and there is no assurance that you won’t get
>>>    a answer from a stale source.
>>>
>>>       or
>>>
>>> b) send CD=0 and on validation failure of the AAAA send CD=1 and hope the TTL was not 0 as
>>>    that is not cachable and there is no assurance that you won’t get a answer from a stale source.
>>>
>>> TTL=0 answers exist.
>>>
>>> Note none of this is documented in a RFC.  You have to understand how both DNSSEC and DNS64 work to
>>> realise this.
>>>
>>> IPV4ONLY.ARPA is currently has a secure delegation which breaks prefix discover for DNS VALIDATORS.
>>> Note “ad” is set in the flags.  Yes, I’ve submitted a errata.  Yes, I’ve opened a ticket to get it fixed but
>>> based on past experience that could take months if it happens at all.  You will note that the recursive
>>> server is running on the loopback interface so all DNS answers are being validated here.
>>>
>>> [rock:bind9/bin/named] marka% dig IPV4ONLY.ARPA
>>> ;; BADCOOKIE, retrying.
>>>
>>> ; <<>> DiG 9.12.0b2+hotspot+add-prefetch+marka <<>> IPV4ONLY.ARPA
>>> ;; global options: +cmd
>>> ;; Got answer:
>>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 8504
>>> ;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
>>>
>>> ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
>>> ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
>>> ; COOKIE: 7dbf8beb79be47a09eb5313d5a0b776f4fae3aa6931d9583 (good)
>>> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
>>> ;IPV4ONLY.ARPA.                       IN      A
>>>
>>> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
>>> ipv4only.arpa.                26574   IN      A       192.0.0.171
>>> ipv4only.arpa.                26574   IN      A       192.0.0.170
>>>
>>> ;; Query time: 0 msec
>>> ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
>>> ;; WHEN: Wed Nov 15 10:08:31 AEDT 2017
>>> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 115
>>>
>>> [rock:bind9/bin/named] marka%
>>>
>>>> It's not true that all phones have clat support. Notably, Apple not only does not support it but appears ideologically opposed to it on the grounds that it does not have a good exit strategy (because it makes it possible to run IPv4-only apps forever).
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>> PHONE: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> 
> 
>