Internet DRAFT - draft-bp-v6ops-ipv6-ready-dns-dnssec
draft-bp-v6ops-ipv6-ready-dns-dnssec
v6ops C. Byrne
Internet-Draft T-Mobile USA
Intended status: Informational J. Palet Martinez
Expires: April 13, 2019 The IPv6 Company
October 10, 2018
IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSSEC Infrastructure
draft-bp-v6ops-ipv6-ready-dns-dnssec-00
Abstract
This document defines the timing for implementing a worldwide
IPv6-Ready DNS and DNSSEC infrastructure, in order to facilitate the
global IPv6-only deployment.
A key issue for this, is the need for a global support of DNSSEC and
DNS64, which in some scenarios do not work well together. This
document states that any DNSSEC signed resources records should
include a native IPv6 resource record as the most complete and
expedient path to solve any deployment conflict with DNS64 and DNSSEC
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Byrne & Palet Martinez Expires April 13, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC Infrastructure October 2018
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Conflict Between DNS64 and DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Resolving the DNS64 and DNSSEC Conflict by Requiring AAAA . . 3
5. Ensuring a smooth IPv4-IPv6 transition by Requiring AAAA . . 4
6. Definition of IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC Infrastructure . . . . . 4
7. Implementation timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
One of the main issues to ensure the best path for the IPv4 to IPv6
transition and the support of an IPv6-only Internet, is to ensure
that all the services remain accessible by means of DNS.
One of the alternatives is the use of NAT64 ([RFC6146]) and DNS64
([RFC6147]), sometimes by means 464XLAT ([RFC6877]), which will help
to ensure that, when a network or part of it, becomes IPv6-only,
still can have access to IPv4-only resources.
DNS64 ([RFC6147]) is a widely deployed technology allowing hundreds
of millions of IPv6-only hosts/networks to reach IPv4-only resources.
DNSSEC is a technology used to validate the authenticity of
information in the DNS, however, as DNS64 ([RFC6147]) modifies DNS
answers and DNSSEC is designed to detect such modifications, DNS64
([RFC6147]) can break DNSSEC in some circumstances.
Furthermore, the deployment of those transition mechanisms means that
the cost of the transition is on the back of the service provider,
because the investment required in the devices that take care of that
transition services and the support of the helpdesks to resolve
issues. So in the end, all that cost is indirectly charged to the
end-user, which is unfair.
It seems obvious that should not be that way, and the end-goal is a
situation where we get rid-off IPv4-only services, and meanwhile, the
Byrne & Palet Martinez Expires April 13, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC Infrastructure October 2018
cost borne by the IPv4 laggards operating those services.
This document provides the steps to be able to tackle that situation
and advance with the global IPv6 deployment in a fair way.
The document also states that the most complete and expedient path to
avoid any negative interactions is, for the DNSSEC signed resources,
to always include IPv6 AAAA resources records. As stated in
[RFC6540], IPv6 [RFC8200] is not optional and failing to support IPv6
may result in failure to communicate on the Internet, especially when
DNSSEC signed IPv4-only resources are present.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. The Conflict Between DNS64 and DNSSEC
DNS64 ([RFC6147]) is a key part of widely deployed IPv6-only
transition mechanism such as 464XLAT ([RFC6877]) and Happy Eyeballs
version 2 ([RFC8305]). Currently, hundreds of millions of hosts rely
on DNS64 ([RFC6147]) for access to the Internet. A core function of
DNS64 ([RFC6147]) is generating an inauthentic AAAA DNS record when
an authentic AAAA DNS record for a host is not available from the
authoritative nameserver. DNSSEC's fundamental feature is detecting
and denying inauthentic DNS resource records. While DNS64
([RFC6147]) outlines may work in harmony with DNSSEC, the
preconditions may not always exist for harmony to be achieved.
4. Resolving the DNS64 and DNSSEC Conflict by Requiring AAAA
DNS64 ([RFC6147]) and DNSSEC are both important components of the
current and future Internet. The limitation for how these protocols
interact is unlikely to changes. Deploying DNSSEC and IPv6 are both
commonly achievable for a typical Internet system operator using
their own systems or using a third-party service. The resolution to
the DNS64 ([RFC6147]) and DNSSEC conflict is to simply deploy both,
IPv6 and DNSSEC in tandem.
Deploying DNSSEC signed IPv4 resources records without matching IPv6
records is a risk and not recommend.
Ultimately, this guidance is simply restating [RFC6540], that IPv6 is
mandatory for all Internet systems.
Byrne & Palet Martinez Expires April 13, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC Infrastructure October 2018
5. Ensuring a smooth IPv4-IPv6 transition by Requiring AAAA
Similarly, to what is stated in the precedent section for DNS64
([RFC6147]) and DNSSEC, a smoother and less painful transition from
IPv4 to IPv6, and the succesful deployment of an IPv6-only Internet,
can be facilitated by requiring AAAA resource records at every DNS
instance.
6. Definition of IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC Infrastructure
In the context of this document, and others that may be generated as
a consequence of it, "IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC Infrastructure" means
that a DNS/DNSSEC server (root, TLD, authoritative NS, others) is
fully accessible and operational if queried either from a remote
dual-stack network or an IPv6-only network.
In general, that means having AAAA RRs in addition to A RRs, ensuring
that PMTUD works correctly and fragmentation is correctly handled.
In case DNSSEC is implemented with IPv4, it MUST support also
IPv6-only operation according the above considerations.
7. Implementation timing
Towards the implementation of the worldwide IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC
infrastructure, considering that there are no excuses for a DNS
operator to support IPv6, the following deadlines are defined
counting since the date this document becomes an RFC:
1. All the root and TLDs MUST be IPv6-Ready in 6 months.
2. All the DNSSEC signed zones MUST be IPv6-Ready in 6 months.
3. All the authoritative NS MUST be IPv6-Ready in 12 months.
4. The remaining RRs in other DNS servers, MUST be IPv6-Ready in 18
months.
Probing mechanisms to verify that the relevant AAAA are fully
operational MUST be setup by IANA. If there is a failure at the
deadline in complying with those requirements, the relevant NS, MUST
be temporarily suspended until there is a subsequent successful
verification.
Byrne & Palet Martinez Expires April 13, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC Infrastructure October 2018
8. Security Considerations
DNSSEC is a good security practice. Providing AAAA DNSSEC signed
records wherever a DNSSEC signed A record is used ensures the most
effective use of DNSSEC.
9. IANA Considerations
IANA and ICANN are instructed by means of this document, to take the
relevant measures for ensuring the steps towards the above indicated
implementation timing.
It is suggested that frequent warnings are provided to the relevant
stakeholders, in advance to each of the deadlines.
10. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the inputs of ... TBD.
11. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6540] George, W., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and L. Howard,
"IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes", BCP 177,
RFC 6540, DOI 10.17487/RFC6540, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6540>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
Byrne & Palet Martinez Expires April 13, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Ready DNS/DNSSEC Infrastructure October 2018
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8305] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>.
Authors' Addresses
Cameron Byrne
T-Mobile USA
Bellevue, WA
United States of America
Email: Cameron.Byrne@T-Mobile.com
Jordi Palet Martinez
The IPv6 Company
Molino de la Navata, 75
La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid 28420
Spain
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
URI: http://www.theipv6company.com/
Byrne & Palet Martinez Expires April 13, 2019 [Page 6]
