NAT64 prefix discovery: Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       N. Buraglio
Request for Comments: 9872                       Energy Sciences Network
Category: Informational                                        T. Jensen
ISSN: 2070-1721
                                                              J. Linkova
                                                                  Google
                                                          September 2025


   Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address
                               Synthesis

Abstract

   On networks providing IPv4-IPv6 translation (RFC 7915), hosts and
   other endpoints need to know the IPv6 prefix(es) used for translation
   (the NAT64 prefix (RFC 6052)).  This document provides guidelines for
   NAT64 prefix discovery, specifically recommending obtaining the NAT64
   prefix from the Router Advertisement option (RFC 8781) when
   available.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   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).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see 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/rfc9872.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Terminology
   3.  Recommendations for PREF64 Discovery
     3.1.  Deployment Recommendations for Endpoints
     3.2.  Deployment Recommendations for Operators
       3.2.1.  Mobile Network Considerations
       3.2.2.  Migration Considerations
   4.  Existing Issues with RFC 7050
     4.1.  Dependency on Network-Provided Recursive Resolvers
     4.2.  Network Stack Initialization Delay
     4.3.  Latency in Updates Propagation
     4.4.  Multihoming Implications
     4.5.  Security Implications
       4.5.1.  Definition of Secure Channel
       4.5.2.  Secure Channel Example of IPsec
       4.5.3.  Secure Channel Example of Link Layer Encryption
   5.  Security Considerations
   6.  IANA Considerations
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   Devices translating between IPv4 and IPv6 packet headers [RFC7915]
   use a NAT64 prefix to map IPv4 addresses into the IPv6 address space,
   and vice versa.  When a network provides NAT64, it is advantageous
   for endpoints to acquire the network's NAT64 prefixes (PREF64).
   Discovering the PREF64 enables endpoints to:

   *  Implement the customer-side translator (CLAT) function of the
      464XLAT architecture [RFC6877].

   *  Translate IPv4 literals to IPv6 literals (Section 7.1 of
      [RFC8305]).

   *  Perform local DNS64 [RFC6147] functions.

   *  Support applications relying on IPv4 address referral
      (Section 3.2.2 of [RFC7225]).

   Dynamic PREF64 discovery is useful to keep the NAT64 prefix
   configuration up-to-date, particularly for unmanaged endpoints or
   endpoints that move between networks.  [RFC7050] introduces the first
   DNS64-based mechanism for PREF64 discovery per the analysis described
   in [RFC7051].  However, subsequent methods have been developed to
   address the limitations of the mechanism described in [RFC7050].

   For instance, [RFC8781] defines a Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] option
   for Router Advertisements (RAs) to convey PREF64 information to
   hosts.  This approach offers several advantages (Section 3 of
   [RFC8781]), including fate sharing with other host network
   configuration parameters.

   Due to fundamental shortcomings of the mechanism defined in [RFC7050]
   (see Section 4 for more details), [RFC8781] describes the preferred
   solution for new deployments.  Implementations should strive for
   consistent PREF64 acquisition methods.  The DNS64-based mechanism of
   [RFC7050] should be employed only when RA-based PREF64 delivery is
   unavailable or as a fallback for legacy systems incapable of
   processing the PREF64 RA Option.

2.  Terminology

   DNS64:  A mechanism for synthesizing AAAA records from A records,
      defined in [RFC6147].

   NAT64:  A mechanism for translating IPv6 packets to IPv4 packets, and
      vice versa.  The translation is done by translating the packet
      headers according to the IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm defined in
      [RFC7915].  NAT64 translators can operate in stateful mode
      [RFC6144] or stateless mode [RFC6877] (e.g., customer-side
      translator (CLAT)).  This document uses "NAT64" as a generalized
      term for a translator, which uses the stateless IP/ICMP
      Translation Algorithm defined in [RFC7915] and operates within a
      framework for IPv4/IPv6 translation described in [RFC6144].

   PREF64:  Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix.  An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6
      address synthesis [RFC6146].

   RA:  Router Advertisement.  A packet used by Neighbor Discovery
      [RFC4861] and SLAAC to advertise the presence of the routers,
      together with other IPv6 configuration information.

   SLAAC:  Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].

   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.

3.  Recommendations for PREF64 Discovery

3.1.  Deployment Recommendations for Endpoints

   Endpoints SHOULD attempt to obtain PREF64 information from RAs per
   [RFC8781], instead of using the method described in [RFC7050].  In
   the absence of the PREF64 information in RAs, an endpoint MAY choose
   to fall back to the mechanism defined in [RFC7050].  This
   recommendation to prefer the mechanism defined in [RFC8781] over the
   one defined in [RFC7050] is consistent with Section 5.1 of [RFC8781].

3.2.  Deployment Recommendations for Operators

   Network operators deploying NAT64 SHOULD provide PREF64 information
   in Router Advertisements per [RFC8781].

3.2.1.  Mobile Network Considerations

   While support for the option specified in [RFC8781] is widely
   integrated into modern operating systems on mobile endpoints,
   equipment deployed in mobile network environments often lacks
   abilities to include the PREF64 Option into RAs.  Therefore, the
   immediate deployment and enablement of PREF64 by mobile operators may
   not currently be feasible and the recommendations outlined in this
   document are not presently applicable to mobile network operators.
   These environments are encouraged to incorporate the option specified
   in [RFC8781] when made practical by infrastructure upgrades or
   software stack feature additions.

3.2.2.  Migration Considerations

   Transitioning from the heuristic procedure in [RFC7050] to using the
   approach in [RFC8781] might require a period of time where both
   mechanisms coexist.  How long this may take depends on the endpoint
   footprint, particularly the presence and number of endpoints running
   outdated operating systems that do not support the option in
   [RFC8781].  Operators are advised to take those factors into account
   prior to removing support for the heuristic procedure in [RFC7050],
   noting that it is still safe to add support for the approach in
   [RFC8781] since endpoints that support it will always prefer it over
   [RFC7050] if they follow RFC requirements.

   Migrating away from DNS64-based discovery also reduces dependency on
   DNS64 in general, thereby eliminating DNSSEC and DNS64
   incompatibility concerns (Section 6.2 of [RFC6147]).

4.  Existing Issues with RFC 7050

   DNS-based discovery of the NAT64 prefix introduces some challenges,
   which make this approach less preferable than the latest developed
   alternatives (such as the PREF64 RA Option [RFC8781]).  This section
   outlines the key issues associated with [RFC7050] with a focus on
   those not discussed in [RFC7050] or in the analysis of solutions for
   hosts to discover the NAT64 prefix [RFC7051].

   Signalling PREF64 in the RA Option addresses all issues outlined in
   this section (see Section 3 of [RFC8781] for details).

4.1.  Dependency on Network-Provided Recursive Resolvers

   The presence or absence of NAT64 functionality, as well as its
   associated prefix (if present), are network-dependent attributes.
   Therefore, [RFC7050] requires the endpoint discovering the prefix to
   use the DNS64 resolvers provided by the network.  If the device or an
   application is configured to use other recursive resolvers or runs a
   local recursive resolver, the corresponding name resolution APIs and
   libraries are required to recognize 'ipv4only.arpa.' as a special
   name and give it special treatment.  This issue and remediation
   approach are discussed in [RFC8880].  However, it has been observed
   that very few implementations of the method described in [RFC7050]
   support the requirements specified in [RFC8880] for special treatment
   of 'ipv4only.arpa.'.  As a result, configuring such systems and
   applications to use resolvers other than the one provided by the
   network breaks the PREF64 discovery, leading to degraded user
   experience.

   VPN applications may override the endpoint's DNS configuration, for
   example, by configuring enterprise DNS servers as the node's
   recursive resolvers and forcing all name resolution through the VPN.
   These enterprise DNS servers typically lack DNS64 functionality and
   therefore cannot provide information about the PREF64 used within the
   local network.  If the VPN is configured in so-called "split
   tunneling" mode (when only a subset of network traffic is routed into
   the VPN tunnel), endpoints may not discover the necessary PREF64,
   which negatively impacts their connectivity on IPv6-only networks.

   If both the network-provided DNS64 and the endpoint's resolver happen
   to utilize the Well-Known Prefix (64:ff9b::/96) [RFC6052], the
   endpoint would end up using a PREF64 that's valid for the current
   network.  However, if the endpoint changes its network attachment, it
   can't detect if the new network lacks NAT64 entirely or uses a
   network-specific prefix (NSP) [RFC6144] for NAT64.

   Signalling PREF64 in an RA Option decouples the PREF64 discovery from
   the host's DNS resolver configuration.

4.2.  Network Stack Initialization Delay

   When using SLAAC, an IPv6 host typically requires a single RA to
   acquire its network configuration.  For IPv6-only endpoints, timely
   PREF64 discovery is critical, particularly for those performing local
   DNS64 or NAT64 functions, such as CLAT [RFC6877].  Until a PREF64 is
   obtained, the endpoint's IPv4-only applications and communication to
   IPv4-only destinations are impaired.  The mechanism defined in
   [RFC7050] does not bundle PREF64 information with other network
   configuration parameters and requires at least one round-trip time
   (to send a DNS request and receive a response) after the network
   stack configuration is completed.

   On the other hand, advertising PREF64 in an RA eliminates the period
   when the host obtains IPv6 addresses and default routers but no
   PREF64.

4.3.  Latency in Updates Propagation

   Section 3 of [RFC7050] states:

   |  The node SHALL cache the replies it receives during the Pref64::/n
   |  discovery procedure, and it SHOULD repeat the discovery process
   |  ten seconds before the TTL of the Well-Known Name's synthetic AAAA
   |  resource record expires.

   As a result, once a PREF64 is discovered, it will be used until the
   TTL expires or until the node disconnects from the network.  There is
   no mechanism for an operator to force the PREF64 rediscovery on the
   node without disconnecting the node from the network.  If the
   operator needs to change the PREF64 value used in the network, they
   need to proactively reduce the TTL value returned by the DNS64
   server.  This method has two significant drawbacks:

   *  Many networks utilize external DNS64 servers and therefore have no
      control over the TTL value if the PREF64 needs to be changed or
      withdrawn.

   *  The PREF64 changes need to be planned and executed at least TTL
      seconds in advance.  If the operator needs to notify nodes that a
      particular prefix must not be used (e.g., during a network outage
      or if the nodes learned a rogue PREF64 as a result of an attack),
      it might not be possible without interrupting the network
      connectivity for the affected nodes.

   The mechanism defined in [RFC8781] allows notifying hosts about
   PREF64 changes immediately by sending an RA with updated information.

4.4.  Multihoming Implications

   Section 3 of [RFC7050] requires a node to examine all received AAAA
   resource records to discover one or more PREF64s and to utilize all
   learned prefixes.  However, this approach presents challenges in some
   multihomed topologies where different DNS64 servers belonging to
   different ISPs might return different PREF64s.  In such cases, it is
   crucial that traffic destined for synthesized addresses is sent to
   the correct NAT64 and the source address selected for those flows
   belongs to the prefix from that ISP's address space.  In other words,
   the node needs to associate each discovered PREF64 with upstream
   information, including the IPv6 prefix and default gateway.
   Currently, there is no reliable way for a node to map a DNS64
   response (and the prefix learned from it) to a specific upstream in a
   multihoming scenario.  Consequently, the node might inadvertently
   select an incorrect source address for a given PREF64 and/or send
   traffic to the incorrect uplink.

   Advertising PREF64 in RAs allows hosts to track which PREF64 was
   advertised by which router and use that information to select the
   correct next hop.  Section 8 of [CLAT] discusses this scenario in
   more details.

4.5.  Security Implications

   As discussed in Section 7 of [RFC7050], the DNS-based PREF64
   discovery is prone to DNS spoofing attacks.  In addition to creating
   a wider attack surface for IPv6 deployments, [RFC7050] has other
   security challenges, which are discussed below.

4.5.1.  Definition of Secure Channel

   [RFC7050] requires a node's communication channel with a DNS64 server
   to be a "secure channel", which it defines to mean "a communication
   channel a node has between itself and a DNS64 server protecting DNS
   protocol-related messages from interception and tampering".  This
   need is redundant when another communication mechanism of
   IPv6-related configuration, specifically RAs, can already be defended
   against tampering, for example, by enabling RA-Guard [RFC6105].  When
   the mechanism defined in [RFC8781] is used in place of the one
   defined in [RFC7050], nodes only need to implement one defense
   mechanism; requiring nodes to implement two defense mechanisms
   creates an unnecessary risk.

4.5.2.  Secure Channel Example of IPsec

   One of the two examples that [RFC7050] defines to qualify a
   communication channel with a DNS64 server is the use of an "IPsec-
   based virtual private network (VPN) tunnel".  As of the time of this
   writing, this is not supported as a practice by any common operating
   system DNS client.  While they could, there have also since been
   multiple mechanisms defined for performing DNS-specific encryption,
   such as those defined in [RFC9499], that would be more appropriately
   scoped to the applicable DNS traffic.  These are also compatible with
   encrypted DNS advertisement by the network using Discovery of
   Network-designated Resolvers [RFC9463], which would ensure the
   clients know in advance that the DNS64 server supported the
   encryption mechanism.

4.5.3.  Secure Channel Example of Link Layer Encryption

   The other example given by [RFC7050] that would allow a communication
   channel with a DNS64 server to qualify as a "secure channel" is the
   use of a "link layer utilizing data encryption technologies".  As of
   the time of this writing, most common link layer implementations use
   data encryption already with no extra effort needed on the part of
   network nodes.  While this appears to be a trivial way to satisfy
   this requirement, it also renders the requirement meaningless since
   any node along the path can still read the higher-layer DNS traffic
   containing the translation prefix.  This seems to be at odds with the
   definition of "secure channel", as explained in Section 2.2 of
   [RFC7050].

5.  Security Considerations

   Obtaining PREF64 information using RAs improves the overall security
   of an IPv6-only endpoint as it mitigates all attack vectors related
   to a spoofed or rogue DNS response, as discussed in Section 7 of
   [RFC7050].  Security considerations related to obtaining PREF64
   information from RAs are discussed in Section 7 of [RFC8781].

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

7.  References

7.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8781]  Colitti, L. and J. Linkova, "Discovering PREF64 in Router
              Advertisements", RFC 8781, DOI 10.17487/RFC8781, April
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8781>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [CLAT]     Colitti, L., Linkova, J., and T. Jensen, "464XLAT
              Customer-side Translator (CLAT): Node Recommendations",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-v6ops-claton-
              08, 17 September 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-
              claton-08>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6144]  Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
              IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7051]  Korhonen, J., Ed. and T. Savolainen, Ed., "Analysis of
              Solution Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix",
              RFC 7051, DOI 10.17487/RFC7051, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7051>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7915]  Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
              "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8880]  Cheshire, S. and D. Schinazi, "Special Use Domain Name
              'ipv4only.arpa'", RFC 8880, DOI 10.17487/RFC8880, August
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8880>.

   [RFC9463]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Reddy.K, T., Ed., Wing, D., Cook, N.,
              and T. Jensen, "DHCP and Router Advertisement Options for
              the Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers (DNR)",
              RFC 9463, DOI 10.17487/RFC9463, November 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9463>.

   [RFC9499]  Hoffman, P. and K. Fujiwara, "DNS Terminology", BCP 219,
              RFC 9499, DOI 10.17487/RFC9499, March 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9499>.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following people for their
   valuable contributions: Mike Bishop, Mohamed Boucadair, Lorenzo
   Colitti, Tom Costello, Charles Eckel, Susan Hares, Nick Heatley, Ted
   Lemon, Gábor Lencse, David Lou, Peter Schmitt, Éric Vyncke, and
   Chongfeng Xie.

Authors' Addresses

   Nick Buraglio
   Energy Sciences Network
   Email: buraglio@forwardingplane.net


   Tommy Jensen
   Email: tojens.ietf@gmail.com


   Jen Linkova
   Google
   Email: furry13@gmail.com