Network Working Group R. Austein

Request for Comments: 3364 Bourgeois Dilettant

Updates: 2673, 2874 August 2002

Category: Informational

Tradeoffs in Domain Name System (DNS) Support

for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this

memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

The IETF has two different proposals on the table for how to do DNS

support for IPv6, and has thus far failed to reach a clear consensus

on which approach is better. This note attempts to examine the pros

and cons of each approach, in the hope of clarifying the debate so

that we can reach closure and move on.

Introduction

RFC 1886 [RFC1886] specified straightforward mechanisms to support

IPv6 addresses in the DNS. These mechanisms closely resemble the

mechanisms used to support IPv4, with a minor improvement to the

reverse mapping mechanism based on experience with CIDR. RFC 1886 is

currently listed as a Proposed Standard.

RFC 2874 [RFC2874] specified enhanced mechanisms to support IPv6

addresses in the DNS. These mechanisms provide new features that

make it possible for an IPv6 address stored in the DNS to be broken

up into multiple DNS resource records in ways that can reflect the

network topology underlying the address, thus making it possible for

the data stored in the DNS to reflect certain kinds of network

topology changes or routing architectures that are either impossible

or more difficult to represent without these mechanisms. RFC 2874 is

also currently listed as a Proposed Standard.

Austein Informational [Page 1]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

Both of these Proposed Standards were the output of the IPNG Working

Group. Both have been implemented, although implementation of

[RFC1886] is more widespread, both because it was specified earlier

and because it's simpler to implement.

There's little question that the mechanisms proposed in [RFC2874] are

more general than the mechanisms proposed in [RFC1886], and that

these enhanced mechanisms might be valuable if IPv6's evolution goes

in certain directions. The questions are whether we really need the

more general mechanism, what new usage problems might come along with

the enhanced mechanisms, and what effect all this will have on IPv6

deployment.

The one thing on which there does seem to be widespread agreement is

that we should make up our minds about all this Real Soon Now.

Main Advantages of Going with A6

While the A6 RR proposed in [RFC2874] is very general and provides a

superset of the functionality provided by the AAAA RR in [RFC1886],

many of the features of A6 can also be implemented with AAAA RRs via

preprocessing during zone file generation.

There is one specific area where A6 RRs provide something that cannot

be provided using AAAA RRs: A6 RRs can represent addresses in which a

prefix portion of the address can change without any action (or

perhaps even knowledge) by the parties controlling the DNS zone

containing the terminal portion (least significant bits) of the

address. This includes both so-called "rapid renumbering" scenarios

(where an entire network's prefix may change very quickly) and

routing architectures such as the former "GSE" proposal [GSE] (where

the "routing goop" portion of an address may be subject to change

without warning). A6 RRs do not completely remove the need to update

leaf zones during all renumbering events (for example, changing ISPs

would usually require a change to the upward delegation pointer), but

careful use of A6 RRs could keep the number of RRs that need to

change during such an event to a minimum.

Note that constructing AAAA RRs via preprocessing during zone file

generation requires exactly the sort of information that A6 RRs store

in the DNS. This begs the question of where the hypothetical

preprocessor obtains that information if it's not getting it from the

DNS.

Note also that the A6 RR, when restricted to its zero-length-prefix

form ("A6 0"), is semantically equivalent to an AAAA RR (with one

"wasted" octet in the wire representation), so anything that can be

done with an AAAA RR can also be done with an A6 RR.

Austein Informational [Page 2]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

Main Advantages of Going with AAAA

The AAAA RR proposed in [RFC1886], while providing only a subset of

the functionality provided by the A6 RR proposed in [RFC2874], has

two main points to recommend it:

- AAAA RRs are essentially identical (other than their length) to

IPv4's A RRs, so we have more than 15 years of experience to help

us predict the usage patterns, failure scenarios and so forth

associated with AAAA RRs.

- The AAAA RR is "optimized for read", in the sense that, by storing

a complete address rather than making the resolver fetch the

address in pieces, it minimizes the effort involved in fetching

addresses from the DNS (at the expense of increasing the effort

involved in injecting new data into the DNS).

Less Compelling Arguments in Favor of A6

Since the A6 RR allows a zone administrator to write zone files whose

description of addresses maps to the underlying network topology, A6

RRs can be construed as a "better" way of representing addresses than

AAAA. This may well be a useful capability, but in and of itself

it's more of an argument for better tools for zone administrators to

use when constructing zone files than a justification for changing

the resolution protocol used on the wire.

Less Compelling Arguments in Favor of AAAA

Some of the pressure to go with AAAA instead of A6 appears to be

based on the wider deployment of AAAA. Since it is possible to

construct transition tools (see discussion of AAAA synthesis, later

in this note), this does not appear to be a compelling argument if A6

provides features that we really need.

Another argument in favor of AAAA RRs over A6 RRs appears to be that

the A6 RR's advanced capabilities increase the number of ways in

which a zone administrator could build a non-working configuration.

While operational issues are certainly important, this is more of

argument that we need better tools for zone administrators than it is

a justification for turning away from A6 if A6 provides features that

we really need.

Austein Informational [Page 3]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

Potential Problems with A6

The enhanced capabilities of the A6 RR, while interesting, are not in

themselves justification for choosing A6 if we don't really need

those capabilities. The A6 RR is "optimized for write", in the sense

that, by making it possible to store fragmented IPv6 addresses in the

DNS, it makes it possible to reduce the effort that it takes to

inject new data into the DNS (at the expense of increasing the effort

involved in fetching data from the DNS). This may be justified if we

expect the effort involved in maintaining AAAA-style DNS entries to

be prohibitive, but in general, we expect the DNS data to be read

more frequently than it is written, so we need to evaluate this

particular tradeoff very carefully.

There are also several potential issues with A6 RRs that stem

directly from the feature that makes them different from AAAA RRs:

the ability to build up address via chaining.

Resolving a chain of A6 RRs involves resolving a series of what are

almost independent queries, but not quite. Each of these sub-queries

takes some non-zero amount of time, unless the answer happens to be

in the resolver's local cache already. Assuming that resolving an

AAAA RR takes time T as a baseline, we can guess that, on the

average, it will take something approaching time N*T to resolve an

N-link chain of A6 RRs, although we would expect to see a fairly good

caching factor for the A6 fragments representing the more significant

bits of an address. This leaves us with two choices, neither of

which is very good: we can decrease the amount of time that the

resolver is willing to wait for each fragment, or we can increase the

amount of time that a resolver is willing to wait before returning

failure to a client. What little data we have on this subject

suggests that users are already impatient with the length of time it

takes to resolve A RRs in the IPv4 Internet, which suggests that they

are not likely to be patient with significantly longer delays in the

IPv6 Internet. At the same time, terminating queries prematurely is

both a waste of resources and another source of user frustration.

Thus, we are forced to conclude that indiscriminate use of long A6

chains is likely to lead to problems.

To make matters worse, the places where A6 RRs are likely to be most

critical for rapid renumbering or GSE-like routing are situations

where the prefix name field in the A6 RR points to a target that is

not only outside the DNS zone containing the A6 RR, but is

administered by a different organization (for example, in the case of

an end user's site, the prefix name will most likely point to a name

belonging to an ISP that provides connectivity for the site). While

pointers out of zone are not a problem per se, pointers to other

organizations are somewhat more difficult to maintain and less

Austein Informational [Page 4]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

susceptible to automation than pointers within a single organization

would be. Experience both with glue RRs and with PTR RRs in the IN-

ADDR.ARPA tree suggests that many zone administrators do not really

understand how to set up and maintain these pointers properly, and we

have no particular reason to believe that these zone administrators

will do a better job with A6 chains than they do today. To be fair,

however, the alternative case of building AAAA RRs via preprocessing

before loading zones has many of the same problems; at best, one can

claim that using AAAA RRs for this purpose would allow DNS clients to

get the wrong answer somewhat more efficiently than with A6 RRs.

Finally, assuming near total ignorance of how likely a query is to

fail, the probability of failure with an N-link A6 chain would appear

to be roughly proportional to N, since each of the queries involved

in resolving an A6 chain would have the same probability of failure

as a single AAAA query. Note again that this comment applies to

failures in the the process of resolving a query, not to the data

obtained via that process. Arguably, in an ideal world, A6 RRs would

increase the probability of the answer a client (finally) gets being

right, assuming that nothing goes wrong in the query process, but we

have no real idea how to quantify that assumption at this point even

to the hand-wavey extent used elsewhere in this note.

One potential problem that has been raised in the past regarding A6

RRs turns out not to be a serious issue. The A6 design includes the

possibility of there being more than one A6 RR matching the prefix

name portion of a leaf A6 RR. That is, an A6 chain may not be a

simple linked list, it may in fact be a tree, where each branch

represents a possible prefix. Some critics of A6 have been concerned

that this will lead to a wild expansion of queries, but this turns

out not to be a problem if a resolver simply follows the "bounded

work per query" rule described in RFC 1034 (page 35). That rule

applies to all work resulting from attempts to process a query,

regardless of whether it's a simple query, a CNAME chain, an A6 tree,

or an infinite loop. The client may not get back a useful answer in

cases where the zone has been configured badly, but a proper

implementation should not produce a query explosion as a result of

processing even the most perverse A6 tree, chain, or loop.

Interactions with DNSSEC

One of the areas where AAAA and A6 RRs differ is in the precise

details of how they interact with DNSSEC. The following comments

apply only to non-zero-prefix A6 RRs (A6 0 RRs, once again, are

semantically equivalent to AAAA RRs).

Austein Informational [Page 5]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

Other things being equal, the time it takes to re-sign all of the

addresses in a zone after a renumbering event is longer with AAAA RRs

than with A6 RRs (because each address record has to be re-signed

rather than just signing a common prefix A6 RR and a few A6 0 RRs

associated with the zone's name servers). Note, however, that in

general this does not present a serious scaling problem, because the

re-signing is performed in the leaf zones.

Other things being equal, there's more work involved in verifying the

signatures received back for A6 RRs, because each address fragment

has a separate associated signature. Similarly, a DNS message

containing a set of A6 address fragments and their associated

signatures will be larger than the equivalent packet with a single

AAAA (or A6 0) and a single associated signature.

Since AAAA RRs cannot really represent rapid renumbering or GSE-style

routing scenarios very well, it should not be surprising that DNSSEC

signatures of AAAA RRs are also somewhat problematic. In cases where

the AAAA RRs would have to be changing very quickly to keep up with

prefix changes, the time required to re-sign the AAAA RRs may be

prohibitive.

Empirical testing by Bill Sommerfeld [Sommerfeld] suggests that

333MHz Celeron laptop with 128KB L2 cache and 64MB RAM running the

BIND-9 dnssec-signzone program under NetBSD can generate roughly 40

1024-bit RSA signatures per second. Extrapolating from this,

assuming one A RR, one AAAA RR, and one NXT RR per host, this

suggests that it would take this laptop a few hours to sign a zone

listing 10**5 hosts, or about a day to sign a zone listing 10**6

hosts using AAAA RRs.

This suggests that the additional effort of re-signing a large zone

full of AAAA RRs during a re-numbering event, while noticeable, is

only likely to be prohibitive in the rapid renumbering case where

AAAA RRs don't work well anyway.

Interactions with Dynamic Update

DNS dynamic update appears to work equally well for AAAA or A6 RRs,

with one minor exception: with A6 RRs, the dynamic update client

needs to know the prefix length and prefix name. At present, no

mechanism exists to inform a dynamic update client of these values,

but presumably such a mechanism could be provided via an extension to

DHCP, or some other equivalent could be devised.

Austein Informational [Page 6]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

Transition from AAAA to A6 Via AAAA Synthesis

While AAAA is at present more widely deployed than A6, it is possible

to transition from AAAA-aware DNS software to A6-aware DNS software.

A rough plan for this was presented at IETF-50 in Minneapolis and has

been discussed on the ipng mailing list. So if the IETF concludes

that A6's enhanced capabilities are necessary, it should be possible

to transition from AAAA to A6.

The details of this transition have been left to a separate document,

but the general idea is that the resolver that is performing

iterative resolution on behalf of a DNS client program could

synthesize AAAA RRs representing the result of performing the

equivalent A6 queries. Note that in this case it is not possible to

generate an equivalent DNSSEC signature for the AAAA RR, so clients

that care about performing DNSSEC validation for themselves would

have to issue A6 queries directly rather than relying on AAAA

synthesis.

Bitlabels

While the differences between AAAA and A6 RRs have generated most of

the discussion to date, there are also two proposed mechanisms for

building the reverse mapping tree (the IPv6 equivalent of IPv4's IN-

ADDR.ARPA tree).

[RFC1886] proposes a mechanism very similar to the IN-ADDR.ARPA

mechanism used for IPv4 addresses: the RR name is the hexadecimal

representation of the IPv6 address, reversed and concatenated with a

well-known suffix, broken up with a dot between each hexadecimal

digit. The resulting DNS names are somewhat tedious for humans to

type, but are very easy for programs to generate. Making each

hexadecimal digit a separate label means that delegation on arbitrary

bit boundaries will result in a maximum of 16 NS RRsets per label

level; again, the mechanism is somewhat tedious for humans, but is

very easy to program. As with IPv4's IN-ADDR.ARPA tree, the one

place where this scheme is weak is in handling delegations in the

least significant label; however, since there appears to be no real

need to delegate the least significant four bits of an IPv6 address,

this does not appear to be a serious restriction.

[RFC2874] proposed a radically different way of naming entries in the

reverse mapping tree: rather than using textual representations of

addresses, it proposes to use a new kind of DNS label (a "bit label")

to represent binary addresses directly in the DNS. This has the

advantage of being significantly more compact than the textual

representation, and arguably might have been a better solution for

DNS to use for this purpose if it had been designed into the protocol

Austein Informational [Page 7]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

from the outset. Unfortunately, experience to date suggests that

deploying a new DNS label type is very hard: all of the DNS name

servers that are authoritative for any portion of the name in

question must be upgraded before the new label type can be used, as

must any resolvers involved in the resolution process. Any name

server that has not been upgraded to understand the new label type

will reject the query as being malformed.

Since the main benefit of the bit label approach appears to be an

ability that we don't really need (delegation in the least

significant four bits of an IPv6 address), and since the upgrade

problem is likely to render bit labels unusable until a significant

portion of the DNS code base has been upgraded, it is difficult to

escape the conclusion that the textual solution is good enough.

DNAME RRs

[RFC2874] also proposes using DNAME RRs as a way of providing the

equivalent of A6's fragmented addresses in the reverse mapping tree.

That is, by using DNAME RRs, one can write zone files for the reverse

mapping tree that have the same ability to cope with rapid

renumbering or GSE-style routing that the A6 RR offers in the main

portion of the DNS tree. Consequently, the need to use DNAME in the

reverse mapping tree appears to be closely tied to the need to use

fragmented A6 in the main tree: if one is necessary, so is the other,

and if one isn't necessary, the other isn't either.

Other uses have also been proposed for the DNAME RR, but since they

are outside the scope of the IPv6 address discussion, they will not

be addressed here.

Recommendation

Distilling the above feature comparisons down to their key elements,

the important questions appear to be:

(a) Is IPv6 going to do rapid renumbering or GSE-like routing?

(b) Is the reverse mapping tree for IPv6 going to require delegation

in the least significant four bits of the address?

Question (a) appears to be the key to the debate. This is really a

decision for the IPv6 community to make, not the DNS community.

Question (b) is also for the IPv6 community to make, but it seems

fairly obvious that the answer is "no".

Austein Informational [Page 8]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

Recommendations based on these questions:

(1) If the IPv6 working groups seriously intend to specify and deploy

rapid renumbering or GSE-like routing, we should transition to

using the A6 RR in the main tree and to using DNAME RRs as

necessary in the reverse tree.

(2) Otherwise, we should keep the simpler AAAA solution in the main

tree and should not use DNAME RRs in the reverse tree.

(3) In either case, the reverse tree should use the textual

representation described in [RFC1886] rather than the bit label

representation described in [RFC2874].

(4) If we do go to using A6 RRs in the main tree and to using DNAME

RRs in the reverse tree, we should write applicability statements

and implementation guidelines designed to discourage excessively

complex uses of these features; in general, any network that can

be described adequately using A6 0 RRs and without using DNAME

RRs should be described that way, and the enhanced features

should be used only when absolutely necessary, at least until we

have much more experience with them and have a better

understanding of their failure modes.

Security Considerations

This note compares two mechanisms with similar security

characteristics, but there are a few security implications to the

choice between these two mechanisms:

(1) The two mechanisms have similar but not identical interactions

with DNSSEC. Please see the section entitled "Interactions with

DNSSEC" (above) for a discussion of these issues.

(2) To the extent that operational complexity is the enemy of

security, the tradeoffs in operational complexity discussed

throughout this note have an impact on security.

(3) To the extent that protocol complexity is the enemy of security,

the additional protocol complexity of [RFC2874] as compared to

[RFC1886] has some impact on security.

IANA Considerations

None, since all of these RR types have already been allocated.

Austein Informational [Page 9]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

Acknowledgments

This note is based on a number of discussions both public and private

over a period of (at least) eight years, but particular thanks go to

Alain Durand, Bill Sommerfeld, Christian Huitema, Jun-ichiro itojun

Hagino, Mark Andrews, Matt Crawford, Olafur Gudmundsson, Randy Bush,

and Sue Thomson, none of whom are responsible for what the author did

with their ideas.

References

[RFC1886] Thomson, S. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to support

IP version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995.

[RFC2874] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support

IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874,

July 2000.

[Sommerfeld] Private message to the author from Bill Sommerfeld dated

21 March 2001, summarizing the result of experiments he

performed on a copy of the MIT.EDU zone.

[GSE] "GSE" was an evolution of the so-called "8+8" proposal

discussed by the IPng working group in 1996 and 1997.

The GSE proposal itself was written up as an Internet-

Draft, which has long since expired. Readers interested

in the details and history of GSE should review the IPng

working group's mailing list archives and minutes from

that period.

Author's Address

Rob Austein

EMail: sra@hactrn.net

Austein Informational [Page 10]



RFC 3364 Tradeoffs in DNS Support for IPv6 August 2002

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

Austein Informational [Page 11]