DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines
|The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC
RFC Internet-Draft (dnsop WG)
(latest revision 2004-03-31)
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
No shepherd assigned
RFC 3901 (Best Current Practice)
||Send notices to
Internet Engineering Task Force A.Durand
INTERNET-DRAFT SUN Microsystems,inc.
March, 25, 2004 J. Ihren
Expires September 24, 2004 Autonomica
DNS IPv6 transport operational guidelines
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2004.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This memo provides guidelines and Best Current Practice for operating
DNS in a world where queries and responses are carried in a mixed
environment of IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
This document is the result of many conversations that happened in
the DNS community at IETF and elsewhere since 2001. During that
period of time, a number of Internet drafts have been published to
clarify various aspects of the issues at stake. This document focuses
on the conclusion of those discussions.
The authors would like to acknowledge the role of Pekka Savola in his
thorough review of the document.
The phrase "IPv4 name server" indicates a name server available over
IPv4 transport. It does not imply anything about what DNS [1,2] data
is served. Likewise, "IPv6 [5,6,7] name server" indicates a name
server available over IPv6 transport. The phrase "dual-stack name
server" indicates a name server that is actually configured to run
both protocols, IPv4 and IPv6, and not merely a server running on a
system capable of running both but actually configured to run only
2. Introduction to the Problem of Name Space Fragmentation:
following the referral chain
A resolver that tries to look up a name starts out at the root, and
follows referrals until it is referred to a name server that is
authoritative for the name. If somewhere down the chain of referrals
it is referred to a name server that is only accessible over a
transport which the resolver cannot use, the resolver is unable to
finish the task.
When the Internet moves from IPv4 to a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 it is
only a matter of time until this starts to happen. The complete DNS
hierarchy then starts to fragment into a graph where authoritative
name servers for certain nodes are only accessible over a certain
transport. The concern is that a resolver using only a particular
version of IP, querying information about another node using the same
version of IP can not do it because, somewhere in the chain of
servers accessed during the resolution process, one or more of them
will only be accessible with the other version of IP.
With all DNS data only available over IPv4 transport everything is
simple. IPv4 resolvers can use the intended mechanism of following
referrals from the root and down while IPv6 resolvers have to work
through a "translator", i.e. they have to use a recursive name server
on a so-called "dual stack" host as a "forwarder" since they cannot
access the DNS data directly.
With all DNS data only available over IPv6 transport everything would
be equally simple, with the exception of IPv4 recursive name servers
having to switch to a forwarding configuration.
However, the second situation will not arise in the foreseeable
future. Instead, the transition will be from IPv4 only to a mixture
of IPv4 and IPv6, with three categories of DNS data depending on
whether the information is available only over IPv4 transport, only
over IPv6 or both.
Having DNS data available on both transports is the best situation.
The major question is how to ensure that it as quickly as possible
becomes the norm. However, while it is obvious that some DNS data
will only be available over v4 transport for a long time it is also
obvious that it is important to avoid fragmenting the name space
available to IPv4 only hosts. I.e. during transition it is not
acceptable to break the name space that we presently have available
for IPv4-only hosts.
3. Policy Based Avoidance of Name Space Fragmentation
Today there are only a few DNS "zones" on the public Internet that
are available over IPv6 transport, and most of them can be regarded
as "experimental". However, as soon as the root and top level domains
are available over IPv6 transport, it is reasonable to expect that it
will become more common to have zones served by IPv6 servers.
Having those zones served only by IPv6-only name server would not be
a good development, since this will fragment the previously
unfragmented IPv4 name space and there are strong reasons to find a
mechanism to avoid it.
The recommended approach to maintain name space continuity is to use
administrative policies, as described in the next section.
4. DNS IPv6 Transport recommended Guidelines
In order to preserve name space continuity, the following
administrative policies are recommended:
- every recursive name server SHOULD be either IPv4-only or dual
This rules out IPv6-only recursive servers. However, one might
well design configurations where a chain of IPv6-only name
server forward queries to a set of dual stack recursive name
server actually performing those recursive queries.
- every DNS zone SHOULD be served by at least one IPv4-reachable
authoritative name server.
This rules out DNS zones served only by IPv6-only authoritative
Note: zone validation processes SHOULD ensure that there is at least
one IPv4 address record available for the name servers of any child
delegations within the zone.
5. Security Considerations
The guidelines described in this memo introduce no new security
considerations into the DNS protocol or associated operational
6. IANA considerations
This memo creates no new requirements on IANA namespaces .
7. Authors Addresses
SUN Microsystems, Inc
17 Network circle UMPK17-202
Menlo Park, CA, 94025
SE-118 47 Stockholm, Sweden
8. Normative References
 Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
 Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
 The Internet Standards Process, S. Bradner, RFC2026,
 Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,
T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, RFC2434, October 1998.
 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. S. Deering,
R. Hinden, RFC2460, December 1998.
 Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
 DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6. S. Thomson, C. Huitema,
V. Ksinant, M. Souissi, RFC3596, October 2003.
9. Full Copyright Statement
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the