[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 8880

Network Working Group                                        S. Cheshire
Internet-Draft                                                Apple Inc.
Updates: 7050 (if approved)                                  D. Schinazi
Intended status: Standards Track                              Google LLC
Expires: September 20, 2020                               March 19, 2020


                Special Use Domain Name 'ipv4only.arpa'
                draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa-17

Abstract

   The specification for how a client discovers its local network's
   NAT64 prefix (RFC7050) defines the special name 'ipv4only.arpa' for
   this purpose, but in its Domain Name Reservation Considerations
   section that specification indicates that the name actually has no
   particularly special properties that would require special handling,
   and does not request IANA to record the name in the Special-Use
   Domain Names registry.

   Consequently, despite the well articulated special purpose of the
   name, 'ipv4only.arpa' was not recorded in the Special-Use Domain
   Names registry as a name with special properties.

   This document describes the special treatment required, formally
   declares the special properties of the name, adds similar
   declarations for the corresponding reverse mapping names, and updates
   RFC7050.

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 September 20, 2020.






Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Specialness of 'ipv4only.arpa'  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Consequences of 'ipv4only.arpa' not being declared special  .   4
   4.  Remedies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix A.  Example BIND 9 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20























Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


1.  Introduction

   The specification for how a client discovers its local network's
   NAT64 prefix [RFC7050] defines the special name 'ipv4only.arpa' for
   this purpose, but in its Domain Name Reservation Considerations
   section that specification indicates that the name actually has no
   particularly special properties that would require special handling,
   and does not request IANA to record the name in the Special-Use
   Domain Names registry [SUDN].

   Consequently, despite the well articulated special purpose of the
   name, 'ipv4only.arpa' was not recorded in the Special-Use Domain
   Names registry [SUDN] as a name with special properties.

   This omission was discussed in the Special-Use Domain Names Problem
   Statement [RFC8244].

   As a result of this omission, in cases where software needs to give
   this name special treatment in order for it to work correctly, there
   was no clear mandate authorizing software authors to implement that
   special treatment.  Software implementers were left with the choice
   between not implementing the special behavior necessary for the name
   queries to work correctly, or implementing the special behavior and
   being accused of being noncompliant with some RFC.

   This document describes the special treatment required, formally
   declares the special properties of the name, and adds similar
   declarations for the corresponding reverse mapping names.

1.1.  Conventions and Terminology

   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.

2.  Specialness of 'ipv4only.arpa'

   The hostname 'ipv4only.arpa' is peculiar in that it was never
   intended to be treated like a normal hostname.

   A typical client never has any reason to look up the IPv4 address
   records for 'ipv4only.arpa'.  No normal user is ever trying to view a
   web site hosted at that domain name, or trying to send email to an
   email address at that domain name.  The name 'ipv4only.arpa' is
   already known, by IETF specification [RFC7050], to have exactly two




Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


   IPv4 address records, 192.0.0.170 and 192.0.0.171.  No client ever
   has to look up the name in order to learn those two addresses.

   In contrast, clients often look up the IPv6 AAAA address records for
   'ipv4only.arpa', which is contrary to general DNS expectations, given
   that it is already known, by IETF specification [RFC7050], that
   'ipv4only.arpa' is an IPv4-only name, which has no IPv6 AAAA address
   records.  And yet, clients expect to receive, and do in fact receive,
   positive answers for these IPv6 AAAA address records that apparently
   should not exist.

   This odd query behaviour comes not because clients are using DNS to
   learn legitimate answers from the name's legitimate authoritative
   server.  Instead, the DNS protocol has, in effect, been co-opted as
   an improvised client-to-middlebox communication protocol, to look for
   a DNS64/NAT64 [RFC6146] [RFC6147] gateway and, if one is present, to
   request that it disclose the prefix it is using for IPv6 address
   synthesis.

   This use of specially crafted DNS queries as an improvised client-to-
   middlebox communication protocol has a number of specific
   consequences, outlined below, which client software needs to take
   into account if the queries are to produce the desired results,
   particularly when used on a multi-homed host, or when a VPN tunnel is
   in use.  The name 'ipv4only.arpa' is most definitely a special name,
   and needs to be listed in IANA's registry along with other DNS names
   that have special uses [SUDN].

3.  Consequences of 'ipv4only.arpa' not being declared special

   As a result of the original specification [RFC7050] not formally
   declaring 'ipv4only.arpa' to have special properties, there was no
   clear mandate for DNS software to treat this name specially.  In
   particular, this lack of mandate for special treatment is relevant
   (a) to the name resolution APIs and libraries on client devices, and
   (b) to DNS64 [RFC6147] implementations.  These two aspects are
   discussed in more detail below.

3.1.  Consequences for Name Resolution APIs and Libraries

   A serious problem can occur with DNS64/NAT64 when a device is
   configured to use a recursive resolver other than the one it learned
   from the network.

   A device joining a NAT64 network will learn the recursive resolver
   recommended for that network, typically via IPv6 Router Advertisement
   Options for DNS Configuration [RFC8106] or via DNS Configuration
   options for DHCPv6 [RFC3646].  On a NAT64 network it is essential



Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


   that the client use the DNS64 recursive resolver recommended for that
   network, since only that recursive resolver can be relied upon to
   know the appropriate prefix(es) to use for synthesizing IPv6
   addresses that will be acceptable to that NAT64 gateway.

   However, it is becoming increasingly common for users to manually
   override their default DNS configuration because they wish to use
   some other public recursive resolver on the Internet, which may offer
   better speed, better reliability, or better privacy than the local
   network's default recursive resolver.  At the time of writing,
   examples of widely known public recursive resolver services include
   Cloudflare Public DNS [DNS1], Google Public DNS [DNS8], and Quad9
   [DNS9].

   Another common scenario is the use of corporate or personal VPN
   client software.  Both for privacy reasons, and also because the
   local network's recursive resolver will typically be unable to
   provide answers for the company's private internal host names, so VPN
   client software overrides the local network's default configuration,
   to divert some or all DNS requests to the company's own private
   internal recursive resolver, reached through the VPN tunnel.  As with
   the case described above of public recursive resolver services, the
   company's private internal recursive resolver cannot be expected to
   be able to synthesize IPv6 addresses correctly for use with the local
   network's NAT64 gateway, because the company's private internal
   recursive resolver is unlikely to be aware of the NAT64 prefix in use
   on the NAT64 network to which the client device is currently
   attached.  It is clear that a single recursive resolver cannot meet
   both needs.  The local network's recursive resolver cannot give
   answers for some company's private internal host names, and some
   company's private internal recursive resolver cannot give correctly
   synthesized IPv6 addresses suitable for the local network's NAT64
   gateway.

   Note that multiple NAT64 services may be simultaneously available to
   a client.  For example, the local network may provide NAT64 service
   (to allow a IPv6-only client device to access IPv4-only Internet
   services), while at the same time a corporate VPN may also provide
   NAT64 service (to allow a client connecting via an IPv6-only VPN
   tunnel to access IPv4-only corporate services).  The NAT64 address
   synthesis prefixes for the two NAT64 services may be different.  In
   this case it is essential that the NAT64 address synthesis prefix
   used on the local network be the prefix learned from the local
   network's recursive resolver, and the NAT64 address synthesis prefix
   used on the VPN tunnel be the prefix learned from the VPN tunnel's
   recursive resolver.





Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


   The conflict here arises because DNS is being used for two unrelated
   purposes.  The first purpose is retrieving data from a (nominally)
   global database -- generally retrieving the IP address(es) associated
   with a hostname.  The second purpose is using the DNS protocol as a
   middlebox communication protocol, to interrogate the local network
   infrastructure to discover the IPv6 prefix(es) in use by the local
   NAT64 gateway for address synthesis.

3.2.  Consequences for DNS64 Implementations

   As a result of there being no mandate for special treatment, queries
   for 'ipv4only.arpa' had to be handled normally, resulting in DNS64
   gateways performing unnecessary IPv6 address record queries (DNS
   qtype "AAAA", always returning negative responses) and IPv4 address
   record queries (DNS qtype "A", always returning the same positive
   responses) to the authoritative 'arpa' name servers.

   Having DNS64 gateways around the world issue these queries generated
   additional load on the authoritative 'arpa' name servers, which was
   redundant when the name 'ipv4only.arpa' is defined, by IETF
   specification [RFC7050], to have exactly two IPv4 address records,
   192.0.0.170 and 192.0.0.171, and no other IPv4 or IPv6 address
   records.

   Also, at times, for reasons that remain unclear, the authoritative
   'arpa' name servers have been observed to be slow or unresponsive.
   The failures of these 'ipv4only.arpa' queries result in unnecessary
   failures of the DNS64 gateways and of the client devices that depend
   on them for DNS64 [RFC6147] address synthesis.

   Even when the authoritative 'arpa' name servers are operating
   correctly, having to perform an unnecessary query to obtain an answer
   that is already known in advance can add precious milliseconds of
   delay, affecting user experience on the client devices waiting for
   those synthesized replies.

4.  Remedies

   This document leverages operational experience to update the Domain
   Name Reservation Considerations [RFC6761] section of the earlier
   specification [RFC7050] with one that more accurately lists the
   actual special properties of the name 'ipv4only.arpa', so that
   software can legitimately implement the correct behavior necessary
   for better performance, better reliability, and correct operation.

   These changes affect two bodies of software, (a) the name resolution
   APIs and libraries on client devices, and (b) DNS64 implementations.




Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


   The new special rules specified in this document for name resolution
   APIs and libraries state how they should select which recursive
   resolver to query to learn the IPv6 address synthesis prefix in use
   on a particular physical or virtual interface.  Specifically: When
   querying for the name 'ipv4only.arpa', name resolution APIs and
   libraries should use the recursive resolver recommended by the
   network for the interface in question, rather than a recursive
   resolver configured manually, a recursive resolver configured by VPN
   software, or a full-service recursive resolver running on the local
   host.  Superficially this might seem like a security issue, since the
   user might have explicitly configured the particular DNS resolver
   they wish to use, and rather than using that, the name resolution
   code ignores the user's stated preference and uses untrusted input
   received from the network instead.  However, the 'ipv4only.arpa'
   query is not really a DNS query in the usual sense; even though it
   may look like a DNS query, it is actually an improvised client-to-
   middlebox communication protocol in disguise.  For NAT64 to work at
   all, it is necessary for the interface on which NAT64 translation is
   being performed to tell the host the address of the DNS64 recursive
   resolver the host must use to learn the NAT64 prefix being used by
   that NAT64.  This is typically done via IPv6 Router Advertisement
   Options for DNS Configuration [RFC8106] or via DNS Configuration
   options for DHCPv6 [RFC3646].

   The new special rules specified in this document for DNS64
   implementations recommend that they avoid performing run-time network
   queries for values that are known to be fixed by specification.

   A useful property of the way NAT64 Prefix Discovery [RFC7050] was
   originally specified was that it allowed for incremental deployment.
   Even if existing DNS64 gateways, that were unaware of the special
   'ipv4only.arpa' name, were already deployed, once IANA created the
   appropriate 'ipv4only.arpa' records, clients could begin to use the
   new facility immediately.  Clients could send their special queries
   for 'ipv4only.arpa' to an ipv4only-unaware DNS64 gateway, and (after
   a query to IANA's servers) the DNS64 gateway would then generate the
   correct synthesized response.

   While this was a useful transition strategy to enable rapid adoption,
   it is not the ideal end situation.  For better performance, better
   reliability, and lower load in IANA's servers, it is preferable for
   DNS64 gateways to be aware of the special 'ipv4only.arpa' name so
   that they can avoid issuing unnecessary queries.  Network operators
   who wish to provide reliable, high performance service to their
   customers are motivated to prefer DNS64 gateways that recognize the
   special 'ipv4only.arpa' name and apply the appropriate optimizations.





Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


5.  Security Considerations

   One of the known concerns with DNS64 is that it conflicts with
   DNSSEC.  If DNSSEC is used to assert cryptographically that a name
   has no IPv6 AAAA records, then this interferes with using DNS64
   address synthesis to assert that those nonexistent IPv6 AAAA records
   do exist.

   Section 3 of the DNS64 specification [RFC6147] discusses this:

      ... DNS64 receives a query with the DO bit set and
      the CD bit set. In this case, the DNS64 is supposed
      to pass on all the data it gets to the query initiator.
      This case will not work with DNS64, unless the
      validating resolver is prepared to do DNS64 itself.

   The NAT64 Prefix Discovery specification [RFC7050] provides the
   mechanism for the query initiator to learn the NAT64 prefix so that
   it can do its own validation and DNS64 synthesis as described above.
   With this mechanism the client can (i) interrogate the local DNS64/
   NAT64 gateway with an 'ipv4only.arpa' query to learn the IPv6 address
   synthesis prefix, (ii) query for the (signed) IPv4 address records
   itself, and validate the response, and then (iii) perform its own
   IPv6 address synthesis locally, combining the IPv6 address synthesis
   prefix learned from the local DNS64/NAT64 gateway with the validated
   DNSSEC-signed data learned from the global Domain Name System.

   It is conceivable that over time, if DNSSEC adoption continues to
   grow, the majority of clients could move to this validate-and-
   synthesize-locally model, which reduces the DNS64 machinery to the
   vestigial role of simply responding to the 'ipv4only.arpa' query to
   report the local IPv6 address synthesis prefix.  In no case does the
   client care what answer(s) the authoritative 'arpa' name servers
   might give for that query.  The 'ipv4only.arpa' query is being used
   purely as a local client-to-middlebox communication message.

   This approach is even more attractive if it does not create an
   additional dependency on the authoritative 'arpa' name servers to
   answer a query that is unnecessary because the DNS64/NAT64 gateway
   already knows the answer before it even issues the query.  Avoiding
   this unnecessary query improves performance and reliability for the
   client, and reduces unnecessary load for the authoritative 'arpa'
   name servers.

   Hard-coding the known answers for 'ipv4only.arpa' IPv4 address record
   queries (DNS qtype "A") in recursive resolvers also reduces the risk
   of malicious devices intercepting those queries and returning
   incorrect answers.  Because the 'ipv4only.arpa' zone has to be an



Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


   insecure delegation (see below) DNSSEC cannot be used to protect
   these answers from tampering by malicious devices on the path.

   With respect to the question of whether 'ipv4only.arpa' should be a
   secure or insecure delegation, we need to consider two paths of
   information flow through the network: The path from the server
   authoritative for 'ipv4only.arpa' to the DNS64 recursive resolver,
   and the path from the DNS64 recursive resolver to the ultimate
   client.

   The path from the authoritative server to the DNS64 recursive
   resolver (queries for IPv4 address records) need not be protected by
   DNSSEC, because the DNS64 recursive resolver already knows, by
   specification, what the answers are.  In principle, if this were a
   secure delegation, and 'ipv4only.arpa' were a signed zone, then the
   path from the authoritative server to the DNS64 recursive resolver
   would still work, but DNSSEC is not necessary here.  Run-time
   cryptographic signatures are not needed to verify compile-time
   constants.  Validating the signatures could only serve to introduce
   potential failures into the system for minimal benefit.

   The path from the DNS64 recursive resolver to the ultimate client
   (queries for IPv6 address records) *cannot* be protected by DNSSEC,
   because the DNS64 recursive resolver is synthesizing IPv6 address
   answers, and does not possess the DNSSEC secret key required to sign
   those answers.

   Consequently, the 'ipv4only.arpa' zone MUST be an insecure
   delegation, to give DNS64/NAT64 gateways the freedom to synthesize
   answers to those queries at will, without the answers being rejected
   by DNSSEC-capable resolvers.  DNSSEC-capable resolvers that follow
   this specification MUST NOT attempt to validate answers received in
   response to queries for the IPv6 AAAA address records for
   'ipv4only.arpa'.  Note that the name 'ipv4only.arpa' has no use
   outside of being used for this special DNS pseudo-query used to learn
   the DNS64/NAT64 address synthesis prefix, so the lack of DNSSEC
   security for that name is not a problem.

   The original NAT64 Prefix Discovery specification [RFC7050] stated,
   incorrectly:

      A signed "ipv4only.arpa." allows validating DNS64 servers
      (see [RFC6147] Section 3, Case 5, for example) to detect
      malicious AAAA resource records.  Therefore, the zone
      serving the well-known name has to be protected with DNSSEC.

   This document updates the previous specification [RFC7050] to correct
   that error.  The 'ipv4only.arpa' zone MUST be an insecure delegation.



Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


6.  IANA Considerations

   [Once published] IANA has created an insecure delegation for
   'ipv4only.arpa' to allow DNS64 recursive resolvers to create
   synthesized AAAA answers within that zone.

   IANA has recorded the following names in the
   Special-Use Domain Names registry [SUDN]:

      ipv4only.arpa.
      170.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa.
      171.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa.

   IANA has recorded the following IPv4 addresses in the
   IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry [SUv4]:

      192.0.0.170
      192.0.0.171

7.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations

7.1.  Special Use Domain Name 'ipv4only.arpa'

   The name 'ipv4only.arpa' is defined, by IETF specification [RFC7050],
   to have two IPv4 address records with rdata 192.0.0.170 and
   192.0.0.171.

   When queried via a DNS64 [RFC6147] recursive resolver, the name
   'ipv4only.arpa' is also defined to have IPv6 AAAA records, with rdata
   synthesized from a combination of the NAT64 IPv6 prefix(es) and the
   IPv4 addresses 192.0.0.170 and 192.0.0.171.  This can return more
   than one pair of IPv6 addresses if there are multiple NAT64 prefixes.

   The name 'ipv4only.arpa' has no other IPv4 or IPv6 address records.
   There are no subdomains of 'ipv4only.arpa'.  All names falling below
   'ipv4only.arpa' are defined to be nonexistent (NXDOMAIN).

   The name 'ipv4only.arpa' is special to
   (a) client software wishing to perform DNS64 address synthesis,
   (b) APIs responsible for retrieving the correct information, and
   (c) the DNS64 recursive resolver responding to such requests.
   These three considerations are listed in items 2, 3 and 4 below:

   1.  Normal users should never have reason to encounter the
       'ipv4only.arpa' domain name.  If they do, they should expect
       queries for 'ipv4only.arpa' to result in the answers required by
       the specification [RFC7050].  Normal users have no need to know
       that 'ipv4only.arpa' is special.



Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


   2.  Application software may explicitly use the name 'ipv4only.arpa'
       for DNS64/NAT64 address synthesis, and expect to get the answers
       required by the specification [RFC7050].  If application software
       encounters the name 'ipv4only.arpa' in the normal course of
       handling user input, the application software should resolve that
       name as usual and need not treat it in any special way.

   3.  Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST recognize 'ipv4only.arpa'
       as special and MUST give it special treatment.

       Learning a network's NAT64 prefix is by its nature an interface-
       specific operation, and the special DNS query used to learn this
       interface-specific NAT64 prefix MUST be sent to the DNS recursive
       resolver address(es) the client learned via the configuration
       machinery for that specific client interface.  The NAT64 prefix
       is a per-interface property, not a per-device property.

       Regardless of any manual client DNS configuration, DNS overrides
       configured by VPN client software, or any other mechanisms that
       influence the choice of the client's recursive resolver
       address(es) (including client devices that run their own local
       recursive resolver and use the loopback address as their
       configured recursive resolver address) all queries for
       'ipv4only.arpa' and any subdomains of that name MUST be sent to
       the recursive resolver learned from the network interface in
       question via IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
       Configuration [RFC8106], DNS Configuration options for DHCPv6
       [RFC3646], or other configuration mechanisms.  Because DNS
       queries for 'ipv4only.arpa' are actually a special middlebox
       communication protocol, it is essential that they go to the
       correct middlebox for the interface in question, and failure to
       honor this requirement would cause failure of the NAT64 Prefix
       Discovery mechanism [RFC7050].

       One implication of this is that, on multi-homed devices (devices
       that allow more than one logical or physical IP interface to be
       active at the same time, e.g., cellular data and Wi-Fi, or one
       physical interface plus a VPN connection), clients MUST use
       interface-aware name resolution APIs.  On different (logical or
       physical) interfaces, different DNS64 answers may be received,
       and DNS64 answers are only valid for the interface on which they
       were received.  On multi-homed devices (including devices that
       support VPN), name resolution APIs that do not include interface
       parameters will not work reliably with NAT64.  On single-homed
       devices, interface-unaware name resolution APIs are acceptable
       since when only one interface can be active at a time there is no
       need to specify an interface.




Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


       DNSSEC-capable resolvers MUST NOT attempt to validate answers
       received in response to queries for the IPv6 AAAA address records
       for 'ipv4only.arpa', since, by definition, any such answers are
       generated by the local network's DNS64/NAT64 gateway, not the
       authoritative server responsible for that name.

   4.  For the purposes of this section, recursive resolvers fall into
       two categories.  The first category is traditional recursive
       resolvers, which includes *forwarding* recursive resolvers, as
       commonly implemented in residential home gateways, and
       *iterative* recursive resolvers, as commonly deployed by ISPs.
       More information on these terms can be found in DNS Terminology
       [RFC8499].  The second category is DNS64 recursive resolvers,
       whose purpose is to synthesize IPv6 address records.  These may
       be *forwarding* DNS64 recursive resolvers or *iterative* DNS64
       recursive resolvers, and they work in partnership with a
       companion NAT64 gateway to communicate the appropriate NAT64
       address synthesis prefix to clients.

       Traditional forwarding recursive resolvers SHOULD NOT recognize
       'ipv4only.arpa' as special or give that name, or subdomains of
       that name, any special treatment.  The rationale for this is that
       a traditional forwarding recursive resolver, such as built in to
       a residential home gateway, may itself be downstream of a DNS64
       recursive resolver.  Passing through the 'ipv4only.arpa' queries
       to the upstream DNS64 recursive resolver will allow the correct
       NAT64 prefix to be discovered.

       Traditional iterative recursive resolvers that are not explicitly
       configured to synthesize IPv6 prefixes on behalf of a companion
       NAT64 gateway need not recognize 'ipv4only.arpa' as special or
       take any special action.

       Forwarding or iterative recursive resolvers that have been
       explicitly configured to perform DNS64 address synthesis in
       support of a companion NAT64 gateway (i.e, "DNS64 recursive
       resolvers") MUST recognize 'ipv4only.arpa' as special.  The
       authoritative name servers for 'ipv4only.arpa' cannot be expected
       to know the local network's NAT64 address synthesis prefix, so
       consulting the authoritative name servers for IPv6 address
       records for 'ipv4only.arpa' is futile.  All DNS64 recursive
       resolvers MUST recognize 'ipv4only.arpa' (and all of its
       subdomains) as special, and MUST NOT attempt to look up NS
       records for 'ipv4only.arpa', or otherwise query authoritative
       name servers in an attempt to resolve this name.  Instead, DNS64
       recursive resolvers MUST act as authoritative for this zone, by
       generating immediate responses for all queries for
       'ipv4only.arpa' (and any subdomain of 'ipv4only.arpa'), with the



Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


       one exception of queries for the DS record.  Queries for the DS
       record are resolved the usual way to allow a client to securely
       verify that the 'ipv4only.arpa' zone has an insecure delegation.
       Note that this exception is not expected to receive widespread
       usage, since any client compliant with this specification already
       knows that 'ipv4only.arpa' is an insecure delegation and will not
       attempt DNSSEC validation for this name.

       DNS64 recursive resolvers MUST generate the 192.0.0.170 and
       192.0.0.171 responses for IPv4 address queries (DNS qtype "A"),
       the appropriate synthesized IPv6 address record responses for
       IPv6 address queries (DNS qtype "AAAA"), and a negative
       ("no error no answer") response for all other query types except
       DS.

       For all subdomains of 'ipv4only.arpa', DNS64 recursive resolvers
       MUST generate immediate NXDOMAIN responses.  All names falling
       below 'ipv4only.arpa' are defined to be nonexistent.

       An example configuration for BIND 9 showing how to achieve the
       desired result is given in Appendix A.

       Note that this is *not* a locally served zone in the usual sense
       of that term [RFC6303] because this rule applies *only* to DNS64
       recursive resolvers, not to forwarding DNS recursive resolvers.

   5.  Authoritative name server software need not recognize
       'ipv4only.arpa' as special or handle it in any special way.

   6.  Generally speaking, operators of authoritative name servers need
       not know anything about the name 'ipv4only.arpa', just as they do
       not need to know anything about any other names they are not
       responsible for.  Only the administrators of the 'arpa' namespace
       need to be aware of this name's purpose and how it should be
       configured.  In particular, 'ipv4only.arpa' MUST have the
       required records, and MUST be an insecure delegation, to allow
       DNS64 recursive resolvers to create synthesized AAAA answers
       within that zone.  Making the 'ipv4only.arpa' zone a secure
       delegation would make it impossible for DNS64 recursive resolvers
       to create synthesized AAAA answers that will be accepted by
       DNSSEC validating clients, thereby defeating the entire purpose
       of the 'ipv4only.arpa' name.

   7.  DNS Registries/Registrars need not know anything about the name
       'ipv4only.arpa', just as they do not need to know anything about
       any other name they are not responsible for.





Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


7.2.  Names '170.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa' and '171.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa'

   Since the IPv4 addresses 192.0.0.170 and 192.0.0.171 are defined to
   be special, and are listed in the IPv4 Special-Purpose Address
   Registry [SUv4], the corresponding reverse mapping names in the
   in-addr.arpa domain are similarly special.

   The name '170.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa' is defined, by IETF specification
   [RFC7050], to have only one DNS record, type PTR, with rdata
   'ipv4only.arpa'.

   The name '171.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa' is defined, by IETF specification
   [RFC7050], to have only one DNS record, type PTR, with rdata
   'ipv4only.arpa'.

   There are no subdomains of '170.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa' or
   '171.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa'.  All names falling below these names are
   defined to be nonexistent (NXDOMAIN).

   Practically speaking these two names are rarely used, but to the
   extent that they may be, they are special only to resolver APIs and
   libraries, as described in item 3 below:

   1.  Normal users should never have reason to encounter these two
       reverse mapping names.  However, if they do, queries for these
       reverse mapping names should return the expected answer
       'ipv4only.arpa'.  Normal users have no need to know that these
       reverse mapping names are special.

   2.  Application software SHOULD NOT recognize these two reverse
       mapping names as special, and SHOULD NOT treat them differently.
       For example, if the user were to issue the Unix command
       "host 192.0.0.170" then the "host" command should call the name
       resolution API or library as usual and display the result that is
       returned.

   3.  Name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD recognize these two
       reverse mapping names as special and generate the required
       responses locally.  For the names '170.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa' and
       '171.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa' PTR queries yield the result
       'ipv4only.arpa'; all other query types yield a negative
       ("no error no answer") response.  For all subdomains of these two
       reverse mapping domains, all queries yield an NXDOMAIN response.
       All names falling below these two reverse mapping domains are
       defined to be nonexistent.






Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


       This local self-contained generation of these responses is to
       avoid placing unnecessary load on the authoritative
       'in-addr.arpa' name servers.

   4.  Recursive resolvers SHOULD NOT recognize these two reverse
       mapping names as special and SHOULD NOT, by default, give them
       any special treatment.

   5.  Authoritative name server software need not recognize these two
       reverse mapping names as special or handle them in any special
       way.

   6.  Generally speaking, most operators of authoritative name servers
       need not know anything about these two reverse mapping names,
       just as they do not need to know anything about any other names
       they are not responsible for.  Only the operators of the
       authoritative name servers for these two reverse mapping names
       need to be aware that these names are special, and require fixed
       answers specified by IETF specification.

   7.  DNS Registries/Registrars need not know anything about these two
       reverse mapping names, just as they do not need to know anything
       about any other name they are not responsible for.




























Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


7.2.1.  ip6.arpa Reverse Mapping PTR Records

   For all IPv6 addresses synthesized by a DNS64 recursive resolver, the
   DNS64 recursive resolver is responsible for synthesizing the
   appropriate 'ip6.arpa' reverse mapping PTR records too, if it chooses
   to provide reverse mapping PTR records.  The same applies to the
   synthesized IPv6 addresses corresponding to the IPv4 addresses
   192.0.0.170 and 192.0.0.171.

   Generally a DNS64 recursive resolver synthesizes appropriate
   'ip6.arpa' reverse mapping PTR records by extracting the embedded
   IPv4 address from the encoded IPv6 address, performing a reverse
   mapping PTR query for that IPv4 address, and then synthesizing a
   corresponding 'ip6.arpa' reverse mapping PTR record containing the
   same rdata.

   In the case of synthesized IPv6 addresses corresponding to the IPv4
   addresses 192.0.0.170 and 192.0.0.171, the DNS64 recursive resolver
   does not issue reverse mapping queries for those IPv4 addresses, but
   instead, according to rule 3 above, immediately returns the answer
   'ipv4only.arpa'.

   In the case of a client that uses the 'ipv4only.arpa' query to
   discover the IPv6 prefixes in use by the local NAT64 gateway, and
   then proceeds to perform its own address synthesis locally (which has
   benefits such as allowing DNSSEC validation), that client MUST also
   synthesize 'ip6.arpa' reverse mapping PTR records for those
   discovered prefix(es), according to the rules above: When a client's
   name resolution APIs and libraries receive a request to look up an
   'ip6.arpa' reverse mapping PTR record for an address that falls
   within one of the discovered NAT64 address synthesis prefixes, the
   software extracts the embedded IPv4 address and then, for IPv4
   addresses 192.0.0.170 and 192.0.0.171, returns the fixed answer
   'ipv4only.arpa', and for all other IPv4 addresses performs a reverse
   mapping PTR query for the IPv4 address, and then synthesizes a
   corresponding 'ip6.arpa' reverse mapping PTR record containing the
   same rdata.














Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


8.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Jouni Korhonen, Teemu Savolainen, and Dan Wing, for
   devising the NAT64 Prefix Discovery mechanism [RFC7050], and for
   their feedback on this document.

   Thanks to Geoff Huston for his feedback on this document.

   Thanks to Erik Kline for pointing out that the in-addr.arpa names are
   special too.

   Thanks to Mark Andrews for conclusively pointing out the reasons why
   the 'ipv4only.arpa' zone must be an insecure delegation in order for
   the NAT64 Prefix Discovery mechanism [RFC7050] to work, and many
   other very helpful comments.

   Thanks particularly to Lorenzo Colitti for an especially spirited
   hallway discussion at IETF 96 in Berlin, which lead directly to
   significant improvements in how this document presents the issues.

   Thanks to Scott Bradner, Bernie Volz, Barry Leiba, Mirja Kuehlewind,
   Suresh Krishnan, Benjamin Kaduk, Roman Danyliw, Eric Vyncke and the
   other IESG reviewers for their thoughtful feedback.

   Thanks to Dave Thaler and Warren Kumari for generously helping
   shepherd this document through the publication process.

9.  References

9.1.  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>.

   [RFC3646]  Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.

   [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>.






Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


   [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>.

   [RFC6761]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
              RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>.

   [RFC7050]  Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
              the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
              RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.

   [RFC8106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.

   [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>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6303]  Andrews, M., "Locally Served DNS Zones", BCP 163,
              RFC 6303, DOI 10.17487/RFC6303, July 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6303>.

   [RFC8244]  Lemon, T., Droms, R., and W. Kumari, "Special-Use Domain
              Names Problem Statement", RFC 8244, DOI 10.17487/RFC8244,
              October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8244>.

   [RFC8499]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
              January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.

   [SUDN]     "Special-Use Domain Names Registry",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-
              names/>.

   [SUv4]     "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-
              registry/>.

   [DNS1]     "1.1.1.1 - The free app that makes your Internet safer",
              <https://1.1.1.1/>.



Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


   [DNS8]     "Google Public DNS",
              <https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/>.

   [DNS9]     "Quad9 - Internet Security and Privacy In a Few Easy
              Steps", <https://quad9.net/>.

Appendix A.  Example BIND 9 Configuration

   A BIND 9 recursive resolver can be configured to act as authoritative
   for the necessary DNS64 names as described below.

   In /etc/named.conf the following line is added:

      zone "ipv4only.arpa"            { type master; file "ipv4only"; };

   The file /var/named/ipv4only is created with the following content:

      $TTL 86400               ; Default TTL 24 hours
      @ IN SOA nameserver.example. admin.nameserver.example. (
               2016052400      ; Serial
               7200            ; Refresh ( 7200 = 2 hours)
               3600            ; Retry   ( 3600 = 1 hour)
               15724800        ; Expire  (15724800 = 6 months)
               60              ; Minimum
               )
      @ IN NS  nameserver.example.

      @ IN A    192.0.0.170
      @ IN A    192.0.0.171
      @ IN AAAA 64:ff9b::192.0.0.170 ; If not using Well-Known Prefix
      @ IN AAAA 64:ff9b::192.0.0.171 ; place chosen NAT64 prefix here




















Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft         Special Name ipv4only.arpa             March 2020


Authors' Addresses

   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple Inc.
   One Apple Park Way
   Cupertino, California  95014
   USA

   Phone: +1 (408) 996-1010
   Email: cheshire@apple.com


   David Schinazi
   Google LLC
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, California  94043
   USA

   Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com
































Cheshire & Schinazi    Expires September 20, 2020              [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/