Re: [v6ops] DNSv6 Proxy !

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Tue, 21 May 2013 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
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 95A2921F9715 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 06:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e5D-pXRysD0N for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 06:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E2121F85E0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 06:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) with ESMTP id c2c7b915.722c9940.97704.00-533.274180.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from <bs7652@att.com>); Tue, 21 May 2013 13:52:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 519b7c2c1bfbc238-5b1bb1dc78254219da11dffc26bcd3f85ea815ec
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 72c7b915.0.97699.00-415.274101.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from <bs7652@att.com>); Tue, 21 May 2013 13:52:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 519b7c287f743b7f-6d32707e5e6d2d98cb0ed386f64b2e6bf11aa9af
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4LDqdnL004632; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:52:39 -0400
Received: from alpi132.aldc.att.com (alpi132.aldc.att.com [130.8.217.2]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4LDqReY004459 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 May 2013 09:52:36 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com (gaalpa1msghub9b.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.36.88]) by alpi132.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 21 May 2013 13:52:10 GMT
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.36.69]) by GAALPA1MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.36.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:52:09 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DNSv6 Proxy !
Thread-Index: AQHOViQm+Pd3mqdCS0GWLskNYM77vpkPrrGA///ybgA=
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:52:09 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611302C6230@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <B14A62A57AB87D45BB6DD7D9D2B78F0B116ACDFD@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com> <B14A62A57AB87D45BB6DD7D9D2B78F0B116ACE79@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B14A62A57AB87D45BB6DD7D9D2B78F0B116ACE79@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.199.78.119]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <bs7652@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=KuX6LxqN c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=XF2aQeIDtRMA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9]
X-AnalysisOut: [zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=rB15-6yAj]
X-AnalysisOut: [iMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=5nl7HtzNx8stdIbQ9n8A:9 a=CjuIK1q]
X-AnalysisOut: [_8ugA:10 a=FrOj9zBXoPdd9TYA:21 a=vD-XKe1xVZyUY9pv:21]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DNSv6 Proxy !
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:53:00 -0000

> I just realized that neither RFC6204, nor the bis draft
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-01#section
> -5.1) have added any specifics for what IPv6 address should the CPE router
> use while executing the DNS proxy function (if enabled).
> 
> Should it use the IPv6 address assigned to its WAN interface (which is to be
> used for CPE management, really) via DHCPv6 IA_NA or SLAAC, or the
> address assigned to its LAN interface via DHCPv6 PD ?

IMO, the default behavior of the CE router would be to use default address selection as described in RFC 6724. Since 6204bis (and RFC 6204) requires the CE router to be an IPv6 node per RFC 6434, RFC 6434 requires address selection per RFC 3484, and RFC 6724 obsoletes RFC 3484, I think this is covered.

Since the DNSv6 query is being sent out the WAN interface, I would expect the CE router to select an address from among those it considers appropriate for traffic that it originates and sends out over that WAN interface. I would hope that access providers would not be surprised by a CE router considering a globally scoped, preferred, and valid address assigned to its WAN interface as being appropriate for traffic that the CE router sends out over the WAN interface. The idea that a CE router is supposed to interpret such an address assigned to its WAN interface as being reserved for a special purpose (CPE management) strikes me as odd. If the access provider wants to assign a special management address to the WAN interface, it would probably be best to assign an address that would not end up being the CE router's first pick for other traffic, per RFC 6724 guidance.
Barbara