Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:30:41 +0000

Cross posting with dnsop and sunsets per email exchanges/conversations
with both sets of chairs.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 17:21
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Joel
Jaeggli <[email-masked]>, Paul Ebersman
<[email-masked]>, Brian Haberman
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, Wesley George <[email-masked]>,
Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

>sunset4,
>
>Please see the following I-D that was submitted earlier today.  We would
>appreciate your feedback and comments.  I had some offline email with the
>dnsop and v6ops chairs and ADs (they are copied instead of cross posting
>for now).  The guidance I received was to post this here to sunset4.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John
>+1-484-962-0060
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 16:48
>To: Paul Ebersman <[email-masked]>, John Jason Brzozowski
><[email-masked]>
>Subject: New Version Notification for
>draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt
>
>>
>>A new version of I-D, draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt
>>has been successfully submitted by John Jason Brzozowski and posted to
>>the
>>IETF repository.
>>
>>Name:		draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas
>>Revision:	00
>>Title:		DNS Forwarding and IPv4aaS
>>Document date:	2015-11-02
>>Group:		Individual Submission
>>Pages:		7
>>URL:            
>>https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ip
>>v
>>4aas-00.txt
>>Status:         
>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aa
>>s
>>/
>>Htmlized:       
>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00
>>
>>
>>Abstract:
>>   The depletion of IPv4 coupled with the wide spread deployment of IPv6
>>   for broadband globally is creating an environment where service
>>   providers can seriously begin to consider alternate uses and
>>   applications for native IPv6 connectivity.  Pervasive, reliable
>>   support for IPv6 across many access technologies suggests that one
>>   critical use for native IPv6 is the carry legacy IPv4 communications.
>>   Today this is referred to as IPv4 as a Service (IPv4aaS).  IPv4aaS
>>   can leverage a variety of transports ranging from Mapping of Address
>>   and Ports (MAP) to Generic Route Encapsulation (GRE) along with other
>>   viable protocols.  Most every use case for IPv4aaS includes the use
>>   of CG-NAT, however, this is not strictly required.  The purpose of
>>   this document is to hone in on DNS specific behavior that must be
>>   taken into consideration as the deployment of IPv4aaS advances
>>   globally.
>>
>>                 
>>        
>>
>>
>>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>submission
>>until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>>The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
>

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:27:57 +1100

The simplest way to force this is for the ISP to only supply IPv6
recursive recursive servers to the CPE where 464XLAT / MAP* / DS-Lite
is in use.  Also if a DUID is presented over DHCPv4 (RFC 4361) don't
return nameservers.  The CPE device should be getting nameservers
via RA/DHCPv6 in this case.

The CPE at this point can only advertise it's own addresses IPv4
address or manually configured addresses.

Iterative servers should prefer IPv6.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:37:11 +1100

Also perhaps we should be looking at RFC3901bis.  Alain, Johan are you
interested?

Mark

In message <[email-masked]>, Mark Andrews writes:
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 06:01:14 +0000

Mark this is in part, what we are planning on doing.  However, what we
want to make sure we had was standards reference(s) that we could point
implementers to.  Also note this case only pertains to DNS queries that
are directed at the LAN of the CPE router i.e. 10.0.0.1.  There are other
use cases that we thought would be valuable to enumerate, including cases
where hosts are configured with a publicly routable IPv4 DNS server
address or DNS servers that are in the customer’s premises that are dual
stacked.  In the later cases assigning only a DNS server IPv6 address
would have no impact.

John
+1-484-962-0060

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 14:37
Cc: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>, Brian
Haberman <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>, Fred Baker <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Paul Ebersman
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for
draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 06:03:39 +0000

Forgot to add, I am interested in RFC3901bis.

John
+1-484-962-0060

-----Original Message-----
From: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 15:01
To: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Cc: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>, Fred Baker
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Paul Ebersman
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for
draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:31:12 +0000

I thought about it and re-read what we wrote in 3901.

3901 talks about servers that need to deal with other parties: recursive
resolvers and zone servers. It provides guidelines for the stability of
entire DNS system.

In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP
DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same administrative
 authority. Thus, the need to make a BCP is much lower. This can be seen
as simply an implementation issue. In other words, there are other
solutions that could be used, for example a translation of the DNS packets
from IPv4 to IPv6. Such a translation may or may not be optimal, but it
would work and, more importantly, would not break the DNS resolution and
would have no impact on the stability of the DNS system as a whole.

As such, I¹m not convinced we should re-open 3901 for this purpose.

Alain.

---

From: "Ebersman, Paul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:41:20 +0000

> would have no impact on the stability of the DNS system as a whole.

Putting in a second DNS server that does nothing but forward everything just to
translate v4 to v6 does indeed have an impact on stability if you try to do it
at large scale. It impacts infrastructure costs, performance and potentlally confuses
geo-ip/cdn. It also adds complexity in debugging.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:26:49 +0000

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:41 AM, Ebersman, Paul <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I was talking about doing the translation in the CPE. But, the larger point is, this was just an example of something else that could be done, although, I agree, sub-optimally.
What draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt proposes is reasonable, no objections. However, as far as I know, this is already being documented by the various IPv4aas solutions.

Alain.

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:00:53 +0000

Alain Durand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> as simply an implementation issue.

But there needs to be a specification for interop between the CPE and the
ISP's network, so the ISP knows which suppliers they can buy equipment from.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Fair Isle, Faeroes: South or southwest 4 or 5,
occasionally 6 at first, then becoming variable 3 or 4 later. Slight or
moderate in southeast Fair Isle, otherwise rough becoming moderate. Rain,
drizzle or showers. Good, occasionally poor.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:38:56 +0000

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Tony Finch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Exactly. This is specified in each of the various IPv4aas docs, as I pointed out earlier, along with the other things the CPE and the device on the ISP side must agree to do, such as packet format, address/port syntax, etc...

Alain

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:21:55 +0000

Tony I think my perspective is mainly from a CPE implementers point of
view.  Implementations are done by many third parties some who work with
operators and some who do not.  Guidance in a single document would be
valuable.

John
+1-484-962-0060

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]> on behalf of Tony Finch
<[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 19:00
To: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Cc: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>, Brian Haberman
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Joel
Jaeggli <[email-masked]>, Fred Baker <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, John Jason Brzozowski
<[email-masked]>, Paul Ebersman
<[email-masked]>, Terry Manderson
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for
draft-jjmb-sunset4-dns-forwarding-ipv4aas-00.txt