IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Supporting IPv6-only Networks with NAT64 and DNS64 section of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-01

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 29 June 2017 05:17 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB801273B1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 GXYJYlevXNJN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51DAA12704A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64CDA349442; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:17:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53083160047; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:17:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401D9160070; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:17:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id JG3vF0Q0l5GZ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:17:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC6C9160047; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:17:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EB67D005C0; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:17:41 +1000 (AEST)
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Cc: "stephan.lagerholm@yahoo.com" <stephan.lagerholm@yahoo.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <149670589074.3841.10812713591494006570@ietfa.amsl.com> <C22244D7-ABF6-430B-8155-8D4C1C1382DF@apple.com> <FA0D06E7-47F9-4029-81D4-2D96BFDD5576@consulintel.es> <65F3C8F4-6533-4C15-83F9-64AFC0EFFA79@apple.com> <4AC6726C-142E-48E5-95CF-2C3AD3331441@consulintel.es> <738488839.469942.1498664001646@mail.yahoo.com> <20170628220025.4FA447CB2073@rock.dv.isc.org> <280023835.899017.1498705302254@mail.yahoo.com> <47F7A2D8-9516-4E25-A673-40D6293B7CE7@isc.org> <CAAedzxpk_TTvT1n_NtCFp94Hdha1mHaSJDR0u3Fqx14q7-ha_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:58:07 +0900." <CAAedzxpk_TTvT1n_NtCFp94Hdha1mHaSJDR0u3Fqx14q7-ha_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:17:41 +1000
Message-Id: <20170629051741.38EB67D005C0@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1cyW9-IkPMPg3Sk3TCyCoItRnF0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Supporting IPv6-only Networks with NAT64 and DNS64 section of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-01
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:17:48 -0000

In message <CAAedzxpk_TTvT1n_NtCFp94Hdha1mHaSJDR0u3Fqx14q7-ha_w@mail.gmail.com>, Erik Kline writes:
> >
> > The whole IETF seems to think that DNS64/NAT64 works well.  It
> > doesn’t when you need to use the protections that DNSSEC
> > provides.  It works ok if everything else is correctly configured and
> > there are no active attacks on the recursive DNS servers happening.
> >
>
> When the *end client* needs to do DNSSec.  If the recursive servers
> unconditionally do DNSSec on the clients' behalf for NAT64/DNS64 networks,
> that seems like a reasonable operational SHOULD/MUST we can mention.

The real problem is the choice to promote DNS64/NAT64.  Just because
it works "well enough" in the cellular envionment *where there is
little to no DNSSEC being used (read as epsilon)*, that is not a
reason to promote it as a *general* solution for IPv6-only networks.
Doing that will come back to bite us in the future.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email