RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 15 November 2017 13:35 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 014F7127137 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:35:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 inAmEgjUcPqJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D5A2124B17 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B5C74A0E6A; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:35:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.63]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8BD461C0075; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:35:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM6E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::f5a7:eab1:c095:d9ec%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:35:31 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Subject: RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Thread-Topic: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Thread-Index: AQHTXWdFi4OqdfTJ20KXt2XmNGUMBaMUf56AgAAh5QCAABAMAIAAvzQQ
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:35:30 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07AD68@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D43E103C-27B8-48CF-B801-ACCF9B42533E@employees.org> <m1eEHPS-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <59B0BEC0-D791-4D75-906C-84C5E423291B@employees.org> <m1eEIGX-0000FjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <73231F8D-498E-4C77-8DA8-044365368FC9@isc.org> <CAKD1Yr1aFwF_qZVp5HbRbKzcOGqn==MRe_ewaA8Qc8t3+CVu_Q@mail.gmail.com> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eb2cZqDcCmEkKCXuM9WXj6lMVJQ>
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:35:36 -0000
Hi Jen, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jen Linkova > Envoyé : mercredi 15 novembre 2017 04:05 > À : Ole Troan > Cc : 6man WG; Mark Andrews > Objet : Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> 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); [Med] Please check: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7051#section-5.7.3 Things may get complex if multiple NSPs are used for load-balancing or if destination based NAT64s are deployed. A list of issues is elaborated in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7225#section-3.1 > - 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 <marka@isc.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On 15 Nov 2017, at 3:40 am, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> 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: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >> ipv6@ietf.org > >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -- > SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Tim Chown
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Tim Chown
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Philip Homburg
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Philip Homburg
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Philip Homburg
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Philip Homburg
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Philip Homburg
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Philip Homburg
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- IPv4 only apps [was: IPv6 only host NAT64 require… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv4 only apps [was: IPv6 only host NAT64 req… Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv4 only apps [was: IPv6 only host NAT64 req… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv4 only apps [was: IPv6 only host NAT64 req… Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Michael Richardson
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Philip Homburg
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Michael Richardson
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Jen Linkova
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Erik Kline
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Jen Linkova
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? james woodyatt
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? james woodyatt
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? james woodyatt
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? james woodyatt
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 re… Tim Chown
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… Ca By
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… Tim Chown
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… Ca By
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… james woodyatt
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Michael Richardson
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… Michael Richardson
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… james woodyatt
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… Mark Andrews
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Jen Linkova
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Fred Baker
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Fred Baker
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… Tim Chown
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? james woodyatt
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Jen Linkova
- Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT6… Fernando Gont
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Simon Hobson
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mikael Abrahamsson
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Michael Richardson
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? mohamed.boucadair
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Jen Linkova
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Jen Linkova
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Lee Howard
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Lee Howard
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ole Troan
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mark Andrews
- RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Masanobu Kawashima
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Jen Linkova
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ola Thoresen
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Ca By
- Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements? Brian E Carpenter