BEHAVE Working Group D. Wing
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track February 12, 2010
Expires: August 16, 2010
DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts
draft-wing-behave-dns64-config-02
Abstract
Some networks are expected to support IPv4-only, dual-stack, and
IPv6-only hosts at the same time. Such networks also want to IPv6/
IPv4 translation for the IPv6-only host so it can access servers on
the IPv4 Internet. On such a network, the synthesized AAAA responses
from a DNS64 can cause traffic to be translated. This document
describes and analyzes several solutions to avoid that translation.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Procedures to support IPv6-only and dual-stack hosts with
DNS64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. IPv4-Mapped Address for 'normal' DNS server . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Host Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Advantages and Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Disable DNS64 Functions in DNS Query . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Host Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Advantages and Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. New DHCP option for 'normal' DNS server . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Host Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Advantages and Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Modify Host's Address Selection Rules . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4.1. Host Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.2. Limitations and Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Use DHCP to Assign Appropriate DNS Server . . . . . . . . 8
3.5.1. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5.2. DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Server Requirements . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.3. DHCP Server Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.4. Host Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.5. Advantages and Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. New DHCP option for DNS64 server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6.1. Advantages and Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
1. Introduction
In order to access IPv4 servers, an IPv6-only host needs to use an
IPv6/IPv4 translator. Typically, the IPv6-only host performs a DNS
query to a DNS64 recursive resolver, which synthesizes an AAAA when
necessary. However, if a dual-stack host uses that same DNS64
recursive resolver and normal address selection rules [RFC3484], the
dual-stack host will send traffic through the IPv6/IPv4 translator
when such traffic could have been sent using IPv4. Thus, as an
optimization, it is desirable that a dual-stack host avoid IPv6/IPv4
translation.
Note: If the dual-stack host's IPv4 traffic is being NATted the
difference is NAT44 versus NAT64, so the performance and scalability
concern is nearly identical. However, at least one application
breaks when translated between IP address families unless special
measures are taken [I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64]. The IETF should decide
if it is worthwhile to avoid NAT64 for dual-stack hosts that are
connected to a network operating a DNS64.
Note: Windows XP can only be configured with IPv4 DNS servers
[XP-DNS]. This means a Windows XP host is always dual-stack and
requires an IPv4 address in order to send its DNS queries. While
it is possible to work around this issue by running BIND on the
Windows XP device itself, this is complex. Thus, Windows XP
should not be considered a viable operating system to join an
IPv6-only network.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
"IPv4-only" means a host that has only IPv4 address(es) assigned to
its interface(s). "Dual-stack" means a host that has an IPv4 address
and an IPv6 address assigned to its interface(es). "IPv6-only" means
a host that has only IPv6 address(es) assigned to its interface(s).
3. Procedures to support IPv6-only and dual-stack hosts with DNS64
Several solutions are discussed in this section, in roughly the order
of preference (as determined by the author).
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
3.1. IPv4-Mapped Address for 'normal' DNS server
It has been observed that some common operating systems, when
configured as dual-stack, will successfully use an IPv4-mapped
address (and send an IPv4 packet). But when configured as IPv6-only,
they will not successfully use an IPv4-mapped address (because they
lack an IPv4 address) [experiment].
We could take advantage of this by configuring the 'normal' DNS
server using an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address (that is, an IPv6 address
starting with ::ffff:/96), and configuring the DNS64 server using a
normal IPv6 address.
Because [RFC3646] says the DNS servers are used in the order listed,
a dual-stack host will use the 'normal' DNS server and an IPv6-only
host will be unable to use that 'normal' DNS server and will use the
next server on its list.
Note: Non-compliant IPv6 stacks might send a packet to the IPv4-
mapped IPv6 address (::ffff:c000:0201, using the example below).
To deal with such non-compliant IPv6 implementations the network
can filter (drop) traffic to that IPv6 address.
For example, a dual-stack host and an IPv6-only host would be
configured with the following DNS servers, in this order:
::ffff:192.0.2.1 # 'normal' DNS server (usable only by
dual-stack host. Not usable by IPv6-only
host)
2001:0DB8:DDDD::1234 # DNS64 server
3.1.1. Host Transition
When transitioning from dual-stack to IPv6-only, nothing needs to
occur - the higher-priority DNS server (with the IPv4-mapped IPv6
address) will become inaccessible and the DNS client will failover to
the next-higher priority DNS server (which is the DNS64 server).
When transitioning from IPv6-only to dual-stack, nothing
automatically causes the host to start querying the 'normal' DNS
server. Thus, a host that transitions from IPv6-only to dual-stack
will continue to query the DNS64 until the host's stack re-
initializes.
3.1.2. Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages:
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
o No change to hosts.
o On Linux systems, is not effective if the sysctl
net.ipv6.bindv6only is set, as this causes dual-stack systems to
not send packets to IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.
Disadvantages:
o Seems confusing to configure.
o Can we rely on IPv6-only hosts allowing IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses
to be configured as their DNS servers?
3.2. Disable DNS64 Functions in DNS Query
A dual-stack host does not need synthesized AAAA records, and does
not need to use the network's NAT64. So, a dual-stack host could
send a DNS query to a DNS64 requesting no synthesized AAAA records.
This allows both dual-stack and IPv6-only hosts to be configured with
a DNS64.
To request no AAAA synthesis, the DNS query sets both the DO bit ("I
understand DNSSEC") and the CD bit ("I will do DNSSEC validation").
When the DNS64 receives a query with those bits set, it does not
synthesize an AAAA response (because doing so would break DNSSEC
validation).
3.2.1. Host Transition
If host transitions from dual-stack to IPv6-only, it would need to
perform its own DNS64 function (which requires it know the prefix of
its NAT64) or would have to not set the DO and CD bits in DNS
queries. Likewise, if a host transitions from IPv6-only to dual-
stack, it needs to know to start sending DNS queries with the DO and
CD bits set.s
3.2.2. Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages:
o Simple
Disadvantages:
o Requires dual-stack host support DNSSEC validation.
o Requires host support Section 3.2.1.
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
o There are security implications if the DNS client is lying and is
not, in fact, going to perform its own DNSSEC validation.
3.3. New DHCP option for 'normal' DNS server
Another approach, which requires modification of dual-stack hosts
which want to avoid the DNS64, is to introduce a new DHCP option.
This approach feels a little backwards at first. The idea is to
support unmodified hosts (which might be dual-stack but might be
IPv6-only) by placing DNS64 servers into the normal DHCPv6 option for
DNS servers [RFC3646]. Then, place the 'normal' DNS servers into a
*new* DHCPv6 option.
3.3.1. Host Transition
TBD.
3.3.2. Advantages and Disadvantages
Disadvantages:
o If dual-stack hosts want to avoid NAT64, they need to be modified
to understand this new DHCP option. If they aren't modified, they
will use NAT64.
3.4. Modify Host's Address Selection Rules
The default address selection rules [RFC3484] prefer IPv6 over IPv4.
This means, for a dual-stack host, that IPv6 will be preferred (if
available) over IPv4. If a dual-stack host is configured to use a
DNS64 server, that DNS64 server will synthesize an AAAA response if
there is an A record. Thus, the dual-stack host will always use IPv6
if a DNS lookup was involved, even if IPv4 could have been used more
optimally.
Note: If both a NAT44 and NAT64 are deployed on the same network,
roughly the same inefficiency occurs (that is, NAT state is
created). However, it is generally considered better to perform
NAT44 than NAT64, because NAT64 translates between IP address
families which can have side effects (e.g., FTP).
To avoid this, the host's default address selection rules [RFC3484]
can be modified so that IPv4 is preferred over the IPv6/IPv4
translator's prefix. At the same time, native IPv6 can still be
preferred over IPv4. This is accomplished by adding the network's
IPv6/IPv4 translator's prefix as the lowest Precedence in the address
selection rules.
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
If the IPv6/IPv4 translator's prefix is the IANA-assigned well-known
prefix (64:FF9B::/96, as assigned in
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]), this can be hard-coded or easily
scripted into the system startup. However, if the IPv6/IPv4
translator's prefix is a network-specific prefix (NSP, as described
in [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]), the default address selection
rules can be modified only after the host learns its currently-
connected network's IPv6/IPv4 translator's prefix (e.g., using
[I-D.wing-behave-learn-prefix]).
On some operating systems, the address selection rules can be
configured using a command line utility (e.g., Windows, FreeBSD),
without new software in the host's IP stack. Other operating systems
are not as accommodating of this solution (see Section 3.4.2).
Note: it may be desirable to create a standard to adjust a host's
address selection rules based on the translator's prefix. This is
a topic for the IPv6 maintenance working group [6man]. This
automatic mechanism may involve modifications to the host's IP
stack, depending on how the IETF chooses to standardize such a
mechanism. FOR EXAMPLE, it may be useful to consider
[I-D.wing-behave-learn-prefix] (which proposes using either DNS or
DHCPv6) in conjunction with adjusting the host's address selection
rules.
3.4.1. Host Transition
An IPv6-only and a dual-stack host can both be configured with the
same address selection rules (namely, both can add the network's
translator as the lowest Precedence). This is because the IPv6-only
host will never use IPv4 (because it lacks an IPv4 address) and will
thus fall through and use the IPv6 address synthesized by the DNS64
containing the IPv6/IPv4 translator's prefix (that is, as shown in
the examples, the IPv6-only host will use the Precedence 3 entry in
the default policy table). The dual-stack host, if it receives an
AAAA response, will prefer use IPv6; if it receives only an A
response, it will prefer to use IPv4 (using Precedence 10 for IPv4-
mapped addresses defined in Section 2.5.4 of [RFC2373]).
3.4.2. Limitations and Advantages
The following limitations are observed:
o OSX does not implement a [RFC3484] or [RFC3484]-like policy table.
o Some applications implement their own address selection rules,
effectively ignoring the OS's address selection rules.
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
The following advantages are observed:
o Causes IPv4 to be preferred over IPv6/IPv4 translator addresses,
even if DNS was not used to obtain the IPv4 or IPv6 address (e.g.,
applications which do not use DNS).
3.4.3. Examples
For example, if a network is using the WKP 64:FF9B::/96
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] and a host is using the new default
policy table from [I-D.arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise] (which added
Precedence 5 for Teredo), the host's new policy table would contain
one new entry with Precedence 3, as shown below:
Prefix Precedence Label
::1/128 50 0 # localhost
::/0 30 2 # IPv6 native
2002::/16 20 3 # 6to4
::ffff:0:0/96 10 4 # IPv4-mapped
2001::/32 5 5 # Teredo
64:FF9B::/96 3 6 # 6/4 translator's prefix
As another example, if a network has the prefix 2001:0DB8::/32 and
the NAT64 is using the Network-Specific Prefix (NSP) 2001:0DB8:
AAAA::/96, and the host is using the new default policy table from
[I-D.arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise] (which added Precedence 5 for
Teredo), the host's new policy table would contain one new entry with
Precedence 3, as shown below:
Prefix Precedence Label
::1/128 50 0 # localhost
::/0 30 2 # IPv6 native
2002::/16 20 3 # 6to4
::ffff:0:0/96 10 4 # IPv4-mapped
2001::/32 5 5 # Teredo
2001:0DB8:AAAA::/96 3 6 # 6/4 translator's prefix
3.5. Use DHCP to Assign Appropriate DNS Server
Note: due to the limitations of this solution (see
Section 3.5.5), it may have little or no value.
To avoid unnecessary traffic through a translator, it is desirable to
configure IPv4-only and dual-stack hosts with a 'normal' DNS
recursive resolver.
However, it is necessary to configure IPv6-only hosts with a DNS64
[I-D.ietf-behave-dns64] recursive resolver so those hosts can use an
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
IPv6/IPv4 translator and access servers on the IPv4 Internet.
It is difficult to provide different DNS servers to those types of
hosts, because there is no existing protocol that declares a host is
IPv4-only, dual-stack, or IPv6-only.
This document describes how a network's DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers,
combined with a client-identifiers [RFC4361] chosen by the host, can
determine if a host is IPv4-only, dual-stack, or IPv6-only, and
assign the correct DNS server according to that determination.
Note: the DHCP mechanism described in this section have some
overlap with the Multiple Interfaces Working Group [mif] and with
split-zone DNS [I-D.savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection].
Both an IPv4-only host and a dual-stack host obtain an IPv4 network
address. Today, hosts most commonly obtain an IPv4 address using
DHCPv4 [RFC2131]. An IPv6-only host does not obtain an IPv4 address;
however, it may be using DHCPv6 to obtain other information (e.g.,
NTP servers). The following procedure takes advantage of that
difference to determine if a host is IPv4-only, dual-stack, or IPv6-
only.
3.5.1. Host Requirements
The host has the following requirements:
1. if the host uses IPv4, it MUST use DHCPv4 to learn its IPv4
address and its DNS server address(es); and,
2. if the host uses IPv6, it MUST use DHCPv6 to learn its IPv6 DNS
resolver, using the Information-Request message described in
Section 18.1.5 of [RFC3315] and using [RFC3646]; and,
3. the host MUST use client-identifiers [RFC4361] to identify itself
to its DHCP server(s), and MUST use the same client-identifier
for both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
Note: This last requirement is stronger than the SHOULD in
Section 6.2 of [RFC4361]
If the host does not support DHCP authentication, and acquires/
releases its IPv4 address while keeping its IPv6 address, it MUST
support the procedure described in Section 3.5.4; and,
4. the host MUST support the DHCP Information Refresh Time Option
[RFC4242].
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
3.5.2. DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Server Requirements
The DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers have the following requirements:
1. the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers MUST be able to communicate with
each other both client-identifiers [RFC4361] and if an IPv4
address is assigned to that client-identifier; and,
2. If the DHCP server and the host support DHCP authentication, the
DHCP server MUST support the procedure described in
Section 3.5.4.
3. MUST support the DHCP Information Refresh Time Option [RFC4242].
3.5.3. DHCP Server Operation
If the DHCP server first receives a DHCPv4 request for a particular
client-identifier, it responds with the 'normal' DNS resolver. The
DHCPv6 server remembers that RFC4361 client identity and if the
DHCPv6 server sees a DHCPv6 request from that same client identity,
it responds to the DHCPv6 request with a 'normal' DNS resolver.
If the DHCP server first receives a DHCPv6 request for a particular
client-identifier, it responds with a short information refresh time
[RFC4242] (e.g., 30 seconds) and a DNS64 recursive resolver.
Note-1: This means that during the short information refresh
time, both a dual-stack host and an IPv6-only will have their DNS
queries processed by the DNS64 recursive resolver. During that
time, both the dual-stack host and the IPv6-only host will get
connectivity to IPv4 servers, but the dual-stack host will use the
IPv6/IPv4 translator until the information refresh time expires.
Note-2: for discussion: Consider have DHCP server slightly delay
(e.g., 100ms) responding to a DHCPv6 request. This gives a chance
for the DHCPv4 request to be received, thus avoiding the issue
described in Note-1.
After the short information refresh time, the DHCPv6 client will send
a new request. By that time, the DHCPv6 server will have either:
a. have seen a DHCPv4 request from the same RFC4361 host. This
indicates the host supports dual-stack. The DHCP server should
extend the DHCPv6 lease, and provide a 'normal' DNS server
(instead of the DNS64 server).
b. have not seen a DHCPv4 request from the same RFC4361 host. This
indicates the host is IPv6-only. The DHCP server should extend
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
the DHCPv6 lease and continue providing the same DNS64 server.
3.5.4. Host Transition
During natural evolution of a network or because of debugging/
troubleshooting, a host might transition between IPv4-only, dual-
stack, or IPv6-only. When the host acquires or releases its IPv4
address it transitions to needing a different DNS server; if the host
has an IPv4 address, it needs a 'normal' DNS server and if it does
not have an IPv4 address it needs a DNS64 server.
There are two transitions considered, where the host transitions:
1. from IPv6-only to IPv4-supporting (that is, IPv4-only or dual-
stack),
2. from IPv4-supporting (that is, IPv4-only or dual-stack) to IPv6-
only.
When doing (1), the DHCPv4 server will provide a 'normal' DNS server
(because the DHCPv4 server sees the same client-identifier as seen by
the DHCPv6 server). So case (1) is solved.
However, when doing (2), the host is giving up its IPv4 address and
is currently using a normal DNS server, but needs to be told to use a
DNS64 server instead. There are two mechanisms to provide that
function, based on the network and host's support of DHCP
authentication (Section 19.1.1 of [RFC3315])
1. with DHCP authentication: When a certain client identifier loses
or acquires its IPv4 address and also has an IPv6 address, the
DHCPv6 server MUST send a DHCP RECONFIGURE message [RFC3315] to
the host and SHOULD include the Option Request option indicating
the DNS server information has changed. The RECONFIGURE message
triggers the host to send a new Information-Request message to
the DHCPv6 server.
2. without DHCP authentication: the host, when keeping its IPv6
address and releasing its IPv4 address, MUST also issue a new
DHCPv6 Information-Request message to the DHCPv6 server.
In both cases, the Information-Request message causes the DHCPv6
server to reply with a DNS64 recursive resolver, as discussed in
Section 3.5.2.
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
3.5.5. Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages:
o Dual-stack applications, which perform DNS lookups, will
effectively avoid NAT64 when using the 'normal' DNS server.
Disadvantages:
o A network with mixed IPv4-only/dual-stack hosts and IPv6-only
hosts needs to have a mix of DNS configurations for those hosts.
Thus, mechanisms that advertise the same DNS servers to all hosts
cannot be used on such networks (e.g., IPv6 router
advertisements).
o If separate networks operate DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 (e.g., as with
Dual-Stack Lite where the ISP operates DHCPv4 and the customer
premise router operates DHCPv6), it is likely impossible for the
DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers to communicate necessary information
with each other.
o Windows does not support [RFC4361].
o OSX does not support DHCPv6.
3.6. New DHCP option for DNS64 server
Another approach, which requires modification of IPv6-only hosts
which need to use the DNS64, is to introduce a new DHCP option.
The idea is to support unmodified dual-stack hosts (which use the
normal DNS server provided via [RFC3646]), but to modify IPv6-only
hosts to look for the DNS64 server in a newly-defined DHCPv6 option.
3.6.1. Advantages and Disadvantages
Disadvantages:
o Requires modifying IPv6-only hosts, and without this modification
they won't work at all with a DNS64.
4. Security Considerations
TBD.
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair, Marcelo Braun, Ralph Droms, Dave Thaler,
Bernie Volz, and Andrew Yourtchenko for their review comments.
This document was produced using version 1.35pre1 of XML2RFC.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-behave-dns64]
Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum,
"DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation
from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers",
draft-ietf-behave-dns64-05 (work in progress),
December 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
December 2003.
[RFC4242] Venaas, S., Chown, T., and B. Volz, "Information Refresh
Time Option for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 4242, November 2005.
[RFC4361] Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-specific Client
Identifiers for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
Version Four (DHCPv4)", RFC 4361, February 2006.
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
7.2. Informative References
[6man] IETF, "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group", 2009,
<http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/6man-charter>.
[I-D.arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise]
Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, "Things To Be
Considered for RFC 3484 Revision",
draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 (work in progress),
October 2009.
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-04 (work in progress),
January 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64]
Beijnum, I., "IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP
considerations", draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-00 (work in
progress), December 2009.
[I-D.savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection]
Savolainen, T., "DNS Server Selection on Multi-Homed
Hosts", draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection-01 (work
in progress), October 2009.
[I-D.wing-behave-learn-prefix]
Wing, D., "Learning the IPv6 Prefix of a Network's IPv6/
IPv4 Translator", draft-wing-behave-learn-prefix-04 (work
in progress), October 2009.
[RFC2373] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[XP-DNS] Microsoft, "Windows XP: IPv6 configuration items", 5 2005,
<http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/
xp/all/proddocs/en-us/sag_ip_v6_imp_config_items.mspx>.
[experiment]
Braun, "practical issues with using v4-mapped addresses
for nat64", Jul 2008, <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/
web/int-area/current/msg01476.html>.
[mif] IETF, "Multiple Interfaces Working Group", 2009,
<http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/mif-charter>.
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts February 2010
Author's Address
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Wing Expires August 16, 2010 [Page 15]