PREF64 in RA: Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        L. Colitti
Request for Comments: 8781                                    J. Linkova
Category: Standards Track                                         Google
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               April 2020


              Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements

Abstract

   This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery option to be used in
   Router Advertisements (RAs) to communicate prefixes of Network
   Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers
   (NAT64) to hosts.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8781.

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
     1.1.  Requirements Language
     1.2.  Terminology
   2.  Use Cases for Communicating the NAT64 Prefix to Hosts
   3.  Why Include the NAT64 Prefix in Router Advertisements?
   4.  Option Format
     4.1.  Scaled Lifetime Processing
   5.  Usage Guidelines
     5.1.  Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes
     5.2.  PREF64 Consistency
   6.  IANA Considerations
   7.  Security Considerations
   8.  References
     8.1.  Normative References
     8.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   NAT64 [RFC6146] with DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation
   from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers (DNS64) [RFC6147] is a widely
   deployed mechanism to provide IPv4 access on IPv6-only networks.  In
   various scenarios, the host must be aware of the NAT64 prefix in use
   by the network.  This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery
   [RFC4861] option to be used in Router Advertisements (RAs) to
   communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

1.2.  Terminology

   PREF64 (or NAT64 prefix):  An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 address
      synthesis [RFC6146];

   NAT64:  Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 clients to
      IPv4 servers [RFC6146];

   Router Advertisement (RA):  A message used by IPv6 routers to
      advertise their presence together with various link and Internet
      parameters [RFC4861];

   DNS64: a mechanism for synthesizing AAAA records from A records
   [RFC6147];

2.  Use Cases for Communicating the NAT64 Prefix to Hosts

   On networks employing NAT64, it is useful for hosts to know the NAT64
   prefix for several reasons, including the following:

   *  Enabling DNS64 functions on end hosts.  In particular:

      -  Local DNSSEC validation (DNS64 in stub-resolver mode).  As
         discussed in [RFC6147], Section 2, the stub resolver in the
         host "will try to obtain (real) AAAA RRs, and in case they are
         not available, the DNS64 function will synthesize AAAA RRs for
         internal usage."  Therefore, to perform the DNS64 function, the
         stub resolver needs to know the NAT64 prefix.  This is required
         in order to use DNSSEC on a NAT64 network.

      -  Trusted DNS server.  AAAA synthesis is required for the host to
         be able to use a DNS server not provided by the network (e.g.,
         a DNS-over-TLS [RFC7858] or DNS-over-HTTPS [RFC8484] server
         with which the host has an existing trust relationship).

      -  Networks with no DNS64 server.  Hosts that support AAAA
         synthesis and are aware of the NAT64 prefix in use do not need
         the network to perform the DNS64 function at all.

   *  Enabling NAT64 address-translation functions on end hosts.  For
      example:

      -  IPv4 address literals on an IPv6-only host.  As described in
         [RFC8305], Section 7.1, IPv6-only hosts connecting to IPv4
         address literals can translate the IPv4 literal to an IPv6
         literal.

      -  464XLAT [RFC6877]. 464XLAT requires the host be aware of the
         NAT64 prefix.

3.  Why Include the NAT64 Prefix in Router Advertisements?

   Fate sharing:  NAT64 requires routing to be configured.  IPv6 routing
      configuration requires receiving an IPv6 RA [RFC4861].  Therefore,
      using RAs to provide hosts with the NAT64 prefix ensures that
      NAT64 reachability information shares the fate of the rest of the
      network configuration on the host.

   Atomic configuration:  Including the NAT64 prefix in the RA minimizes
      the number of packets required to configure a host.  Only one
      packet (an RA) is required to complete the network configuration.
      This speeds up the process of connecting to a network that
      supports NAT64/DNS64.  It also simplifies host implementation by
      removing the possibility that the host can have an incomplete
      Layer 3 configuration (e.g., IPv6 addresses and prefixes, but no
      NAT64 prefix).

   Updatability:  It is possible to change the NAT64 prefix at any time,
      because when it changes, it is possible to notify hosts by sending
      a new RA.

   Deployability:  All IPv6 hosts and networks are required to support
      Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] so just a minor extension to the
      existing implementation is required.  Other options, such as
      [RFC7225], require implementing other protocols (e.g., Port
      Control Protocol (PCP) [RFC7225]), which could be considered an
      obstacle for deployment.

4.  Option Format

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |     Scaled Lifetime     | PLC |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |              Highest 96 bits of the Prefix                    |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 1: NAT64 Prefix Option Format

   Fields:

   Type:  8-bit identifier of the PREF64 option type (38)

   Length:  8-bit unsigned integer.  The length of the option (including
      the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 octets.  The sender
      MUST set the length to 2.  The receiver MUST ignore the PREF64
      option if the Length field value is not 2.

   Scaled Lifetime:  13-bit unsigned integer.  The maximum time in units
      of 8 seconds over which this NAT64 prefix MAY be used.  See
      Section 4.1 for the Scaled Lifetime field processing rules.

   PLC (Prefix Length Code):  3-bit unsigned integer.  This field
      encodes the NAT64 Prefix Length defined in [RFC6052].  The PLC
      field values 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 indicate the NAT64 prefix length
      of 96, 64, 56, 48, 40, and 32 bits, respectively.  The receiver
      MUST ignore the PREF64 option if the Prefix Length Code field is
      not set to one of those values.

   Highest 96 bits of the Prefix:  96-bit unsigned integer.  Contains
      bits 0 - 95 of the NAT64 prefix.

4.1.  Scaled Lifetime Processing

   It would be highly undesirable for the NAT64 prefix to have a
   lifetime shorter than the Router Lifetime, which is defined in
   Section 4.2 of [RFC4861] as a 16-bit unsigned integer.  If the NAT64
   prefix lifetime is not at least equal to the default Router Lifetime,
   it might lead to scenarios in which the NAT64 prefix lifetime expires
   before the arrival of the next unsolicited RA.  Therefore, the Scaled
   Lifetime encodes the NAT64 prefix lifetime in units of 8 seconds.
   The receiver MUST multiply the Scaled Lifetime value by 8 (for
   example, by a logical left shift) to calculate the maximum time in
   seconds the prefix MAY be used.  The maximum lifetime of the NAT64
   prefix is thus 65528 seconds.  To ensure that the NAT64 prefix does
   not expire before the default router, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to
   configure default Router Lifetimes greater than 65528 seconds when
   using this option.  A lifetime of 0 indicates that the prefix SHOULD
   NOT be used anymore.

   By default, the value of the Scaled Lifetime field SHOULD be set to
   the lesser of 3 x MaxRtrAdvInterval [RFC4861] divided by 8, or 8191.

   Router vendors SHOULD allow administrators to specify nonzero
   lifetime values that are not divisible by 8.  In such cases, the
   router SHOULD round the provided value up to the nearest integer that
   is divisible by 8 and smaller than 65536, then divide the result by 8
   (or perform a logical right shift by 3) and set the Scaled Lifetime
   field to the resulting value.  If a nonzero lifetime value that is to
   be divided by 8 (or subjected to a logical right shift by 3) is less
   than 8, then the Scaled Lifetime field SHOULD be set to 1.  This last
   step ensures that lifetimes under 8 seconds are encoded as a nonzero
   Scaled Lifetime.

5.  Usage Guidelines

   This option specifies exactly one NAT64 prefix for all IPv4
   destinations.  If the network operator wants to route different parts
   of the IPv4 address space to different NAT64 devices, this can be
   accomplished by routing more specific subprefixes of the NAT64 prefix
   to those devices.  For example, suppose an operator is using the
   [RFC1918] address space 10.0.0.0/8 internally.  That operator might
   want to route 10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device A, and the rest of the
   IPv4 space through NAT64 device B.  If the operator's NAT64 prefix is
   2001:db8:a:b::/96, then the operator can route
   2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 to NAT64 A and 2001:db8:a:b::/96 to NAT64 B.

   This option may appear more than once in an RA (e.g., when gracefully
   renumbering the network from one NAT64 prefix to another).  Host
   behavior with regard to synthesizing IPv6 addresses from IPv4
   addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in Section 3 of
   [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have a nonzero
   lifetime.

   In a network (or a provisioning domain) that provides both IPv4 and
   NAT64, it may be desirable for certain IPv4 addresses not to be
   translated.  An example might be private address ranges that are
   local to the network/provisioning domain and that should not be
   reached through the NAT64.  This type of configuration cannot be
   conveyed to hosts using this option, or through other NAT64 prefix
   provisioning mechanisms such as [RFC7050] or [RFC7225].  This problem
   does not apply in IPv6-only networks: the host in an IPv6-only
   network does not have an IPv4 address and cannot reach any IPv4
   destinations without the NAT64.

5.1.  Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes

   In some cases, a host may receive multiple NAT64 prefixes from
   different sources.  Possible scenarios include (but are not limited
   to):

   *  the host is using multiple mechanisms to discover PREF64 prefixes
      (e.g., by using PCP [RFC7225]) and/or resolving an IPv4-only fully
      qualified domain name [RFC7050] in addition to receiving the
      PREF64 RA option);

   *  the PREF64 option presents in a single RA more than once;

   *  the host receives multiple RAs with different PREF64 prefixes on a
      given interface.

   When multiple PREF64s are discovered via the RA PREF64 Option (either
   the Option presents more than once in a single RA or multiple RAs are
   received), host behavior with regard to synthesizing IPv6 addresses
   from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in
   Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have a
   nonzero lifetime.

   When different PREF64s are discovered using multiple mechanisms,
   hosts SHOULD select one source of information only.  The RECOMMENDED
   order is:

   *  PCP-discovered prefixes [RFC7225], if supported;

   *  PREF64s discovered via the RA Option;

   *  PREF64s resolving an IPv4-only fully qualified domain name
      [RFC7050]

   Note: If the network provides PREF64s via both this RA Option and
   [RFC7225], hosts that receive the PREF64 via the RA Option may choose
   to use it immediately (before waiting for the PCP to complete);
   therefore, some traffic may not reflect any more detailed
   configuration provided by the PCP.

   The host SHOULD treat the PREF64 as being specific to the network
   interface it was received on.  Hosts that are aware of Provisioning
   Domain (PvD, [RFC7556]) MUST treat the PREF64 as being scoped to the
   implicit or explicit PvD.

5.2.  PREF64 Consistency

   Section 6.2.7 of [RFC4861] recommends that routers inspect RAs sent
   by other routers to ensure that all routers onlink advertise
   consistent information.  Routers SHOULD inspect valid PREF64 options
   received on a given link and verify the consistency.  Detected
   inconsistencies indicate that one or more routers might be
   misconfigured.  Routers SHOULD log such cases to system or network
   management.  Routers SHOULD check and compare the following
   information:

   *  set of PREF64s with a nonzero lifetime;

   *  set of PREF64s with a zero lifetime.

   Routers that are aware of PvD ([RFC7556]) MUST only compare
   information scoped to the same implicit or explicit PvD.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option type for the
   PREF64 option defined in this document in the "IPv6 Neighbor
   Discovery Option Formats" registry [IANA].

                          +---------------+------+
                          | Description   | Type |
                          +===============+======+
                          | PREF64 option | 38   |
                          +---------------+------+

                             Table 1: New IANA
                            Registry Assignment

7.  Security Considerations

   Because RAs are required in all IPv6 configuration scenarios, on
   IPv6-only networks, RAs must already be secured -- e.g., by deploying
   an RA-Guard [RFC6105].  Providing all configuration in RAs reduces
   the attack surface to be targeted by malicious attackers trying to
   provide hosts with invalid configuration, as compared to distributing
   the configuration through multiple different mechanisms that need to
   be secured independently.

   If a host is provided with an incorrect NAT64 prefix, the IPv6-only
   host might not be able to communicate with IPv4-only destinations.
   Connectivity to destinations reachable over IPv6 would not be
   impacted just by providing a host with an incorrect prefix; however,
   if attackers are capable of sending rogue RAs, they can perform
   denial-of-service or man-in-the-middle attacks, as described in
   [RFC6104].

   The security measures that must already be in place to ensure that
   RAs are only received from legitimate sources eliminate the problem
   of NAT64 prefix validation described in Section 3.1 of [RFC7050].

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [IANA]     IANA, "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6
              (ICMPv6) Parameters",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
              J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
              Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918,
              February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC6104]  Chown, T. and S. Venaas, "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement
              Problem Statement", RFC 6104, DOI 10.17487/RFC6104,
              February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6104>.

   [RFC6105]  Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
              Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.

   [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.

   [RFC7225]  Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
              Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.

   [RFC7556]  Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain
              Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7556>.

   [RFC7858]  Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
              and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

   [RFC8305]  Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
              Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>.

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
   review and feedback: Mikael Abrahamsson, Mark Andrews, Brian E
   Carpenter, David Farmer, Nick Heatley, Robert Hinden, Martin Hunek,
   Tatuya Jinmei, Benjamin Kaduk, Erik Kline, Suresh Krishnan, Warren
   Kumari, David Lamparter, Barry Leiba, Jordi Palet Martinez, Tommy
   Pauly, Alexandre Petrescu, Michael Richardson, David Schinazi, Ole
   Troan, Eric Vynke, Bernie Volz.

Authors' Addresses

   Lorenzo Colitti
   Google
   Shibuya 3-21-3, Tokyo
   150-0002
   Japan

   Email: lorenzo@google.com


   Jen Linkova
   Google
   1 Darling Island Rd
   Pyrmont NSW 2009
   Australia

   Email: furry@google.com