<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">


<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes=""
     category="std" consensus="true" docName="draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-09"
     number="8781" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en"
     tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true"
     version="3">

  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 2.39.0 -->
  

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>


    <title>Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8781"/>
    

    <author fullname="Lorenzo Colitti" initials="L." surname="Colitti">
      <organization>Google</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Shibuya 3-21-3</street>
          <city>Shibuya</city>
          <region>Tokyo</region>
          <code>150-0002</code>
          <country>Japan</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>lorenzo@google.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Jen Linkova" initials="J." surname="Linkova">
      <organization>Google</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1 Darling Island Rd</street>
          <city>Pyrmont</city>
          <region>NSW</region>
          <code>2009</code>
          <country>Australia</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>furry@google.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2020" month="April" />

  

    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>IPv6 Maintenance</workgroup>



    <abstract>
      <t>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.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>NAT64 <xref target="RFC6146" format="default"/> with DNS Extensions
      for Network Address Translation from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers (DNS64) <xref
      target="RFC6147" format="default"/> 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 <xref target="RFC4861"
      format="default"/> option to be used in Router Advertisements
      (RAs) to
      communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts.</t>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>
    The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
    NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
    described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> 
    when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <dl>
	  <dt>PREF64 (or NAT64 prefix):</dt><dd>An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 address
	  synthesis <xref target="RFC6146" format="default"/>;
        </dd>
        <dt>NAT64:</dt><dd>Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 clients to
	  IPv4 servers <xref target="RFC6146" format="default"/>;
        </dd>
        <dt>Router Advertisement (RA):</dt><dd>A message used by IPv6 routers to
	  advertise their presence together
	  with various link and Internet parameters <xref target="RFC4861" format="default"/>;
        </dd></dl>
        <t>
	  DNS64: a mechanism for synthesizing AAAA records from A records
	  <xref target="RFC6147" format="default"/>;
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Use Cases for Communicating the NAT64 Prefix to Hosts</name>
      <t>
		On networks employing NAT64, it is useful for hosts to know the NAT64 prefix for several reasons, including the following:
      </t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Enabling DNS64 functions on end hosts. In particular:
          </t>
          <ul spacing="normal">

            <li>Local DNSSEC validation (DNS64 in stub-resolver mode). As
	    discussed in <xref target="RFC6147" sectionFormat="comma" 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.</li>
            <li>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 <xref target="RFC7858" format="default"/> or
	    DNS-over-HTTPS <xref target="RFC8484" format="default"/> server
	    with which the host has an existing trust relationship).</li>
            <li>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.</li>
          </ul>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t> Enabling NAT64 address-translation functions on end hosts. For example:
          </t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>IPv4 address literals on an IPv6-only host. As described in
	    <xref target="RFC8305" sectionFormat="comma" section="7.1"/>, IPv6-only
	    hosts connecting to IPv4 address literals can translate the IPv4
	    literal to an IPv6 literal.</li>
            <li>464XLAT <xref target="RFC6877" format="default"/>. 464XLAT
	    requires the host be aware of the NAT64 prefix.</li>
          </ul>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">

      
      <name>Why Include the NAT64 Prefix in Router Advertisements?</name>
      <dl><dt>Fate sharing:</dt><dd>NAT64 requires routing to be configured. IPv6 routing
      configuration requires receiving an IPv6 RA <xref
      target="RFC4861" format="default"/>. 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.</dd>
      <dt>Atomic configuration:</dt><dd>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).</dd>
      <dt>Updatability:</dt><dd>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.</dd>
      <dt>Deployability:</dt><dd>All IPv6 hosts and networks are required to support
      Neighbor Discovery <xref target="RFC4861" format="default"/> so just a
      minor extension to the existing implementation is required. Other
      options, such as <xref target="RFC7225" format="default"/>, require
      implementing other protocols (e.g., Port Control Protocol (PCP) <xref target="RFC7225"
      format="default"/>), which could be considered an obstacle for
      deployment.</dd></dl>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Format" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Option Format</name>
      <figure anchor="fig_Option">
        <name>NAT64 Prefix Option Format</name>

        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
 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                    |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>Fields:</t>
      <dl>
	<dt>Type:</dt>
            <dd>8-bit identifier of the PREF64 option
	    type (38)</dd>

            <dt>Length:</dt>
            <dd>8-bit unsigned integer.  The length of the
	    option (including the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8
	    octets. The sender <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> set the length to 2.  The
	    receiver <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore the PREF64 option if the
	    Length field value is not 2.</dd>

            <dt>Scaled Lifetime:</dt>
            <dd>13-bit unsigned integer. The maximum time in
	    units of 8 seconds over which this NAT64 prefix <bcp14>MAY</bcp14>
	    be used. See <xref target="lifetime" format="default"/> for the
	    Scaled Lifetime field processing rules.</dd>

            <dt>PLC (Prefix Length Code):</dt>
            <dd>3-bit unsigned integer. This field encodes the
	    NAT64 Prefix Length defined in <xref target="RFC6052"
	    format="default"/>. 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 <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore the PREF64
	    option if the Prefix Length Code field is not set to one of those
	    values.</dd>

            <dt>Highest 96 bits of the Prefix:</dt>
            <dd>96-bit unsigned integer. Contains bits 0 - 95 of the NAT64 prefix.</dd>
      </dl>

      <section anchor="lifetime" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Scaled Lifetime Processing</name>
        <t>
	  It would be highly undesirable for the NAT64 prefix to
	  have a lifetime shorter than the Router Lifetime, which
	  is defined in <xref target="RFC4861"
	  sectionFormat="of" section="4.2"/> 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 <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
	  multiply the Scaled Lifetime value by 8 (for example,
	  by a logical left shift) to calculate the maximum time in
	  seconds the prefix <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> 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 <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>
	  to configure default Router Lifetimes greater than 65528
	  seconds when using this option.
	  A lifetime of 0 indicates that the prefix <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be used anymore.
        </t>
        <t>
	  By default, the value of the Scaled Lifetime field <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be set
	  to the lesser of 3 x MaxRtrAdvInterval <xref
	  target="RFC4861" format="default"/> divided by 8, or 8191.
        </t>
        <t>
	  Router vendors <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> allow administrators to specify
	  nonzero lifetime values that are not divisible by 8. 
	  In such cases, the router <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> 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 <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be set to 1.
	  This last step ensures that lifetimes under 8 seconds are encoded as
	  a nonzero Scaled Lifetime.
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Usage Guidelines</name>
      <t>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 <xref target="RFC1918"
      format="default"/> 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.
      </t>
      <t>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 <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> follow the recommendations
      given in <xref target="RFC7050" sectionFormat="of" section="3"/>, limited
      to the NAT64 prefixes that have a nonzero lifetime.</t>

      <t>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
      <xref target="RFC7050" format="default"/> or <xref target="RFC7225"
      format="default"/>. 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.
      

</t>
      <section anchor="mult_src" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes</name>
        <t>
	  In some cases, a host may receive multiple NAT64 prefixes from
	  different sources. Possible scenarios include (but are not limited
	  to):
        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li> the host is using multiple mechanisms to discover PREF64
	  prefixes (e.g., by using PCP <xref target="RFC7225"
	  format="default"/>) and/or resolving an IPv4-only fully qualified
	  domain name <xref target="RFC7050" format="default"/> in addition to
	  receiving the PREF64 RA option);</li>
          <li> the PREF64 option presents in a single RA more than once;</li>
          <li> the host receives multiple RAs with different PREF64 prefixes
	  on a given interface.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>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 <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> follow the recommendations
	given in <xref target="RFC7050" section="3" sectionFormat="of"/>,
	limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have a nonzero lifetime.</t>
        <t>
	  When different PREF64s are discovered using multiple mechanisms,
	  hosts <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> select one source of information
	  only. The <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> order is:
        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>PCP-discovered prefixes <xref target="RFC7225" format="default"/>, if supported;</li>
          <li>PREF64s discovered via the RA Option;</li>
          <li>PREF64s resolving an  IPv4-only fully qualified domain name <xref
	  target="RFC7050" format="default"/> </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Note: If the network provides PREF64s via both this RA Option
	and <xref target="RFC7225" format="default"/>, 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.</t>
        <t>
	    The host <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> treat the PREF64 as being specific
	    to the network interface it was received on. Hosts that are aware
	    of Provisioning Domain (PvD, <xref target="RFC7556" format="default"/>)
	    <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat the PREF64 as being scoped to the
	    implicit or explicit PvD.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="cons" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>PREF64 Consistency</name>
        <t>
	    <xref target="RFC4861" sectionFormat="of" section="6.2.7"/>
	    recommends that routers inspect RAs sent by other routers to
	    ensure that all routers onlink advertise consistent
	    information. Routers <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> 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 <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> log
	    such cases to system or network management. Routers
	    <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> check and compare the following information:
        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>set of PREF64s with a nonzero lifetime;</li>
          <li>set of PREF64s with a zero lifetime.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>
Routers that are aware of PvD (<xref target="RFC7556"
format="default"/>) <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> only compare information scoped to the
same
implicit or explicit PvD.
</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="IANA-con" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>IANA has assigned a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option
      type for the PREF64 option defined in this document in the
      &quot;IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats&quot; registry <xref target="IANA" />.</t>

      <table anchor="option_table" align="center">
	<name>New IANA Registry Assignment</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Description</th>
            <th align="left">Type</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">PREF64 option</td>
            <td align="left">38</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>

    </section>
    <section anchor="Security" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>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 <xref target="RFC6105"
      format="default"/>. 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.</t>
      <t>
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 <xref target="RFC6104" format="default"/>.
      </t>
      <t>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 <xref
      target="RFC7050" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/>.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4861.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6052.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7050.xml"/>
        <xi:include
	    href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>

<reference anchor="IANA"
           target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters">
  <front>
    <title>Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters</title>
    <author><organization>IANA</organization></author>
  </front>
</reference>

      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1918.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6104.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6105.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6146.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6147.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6877.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7225.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7556.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7858.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8305.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8484.xml"/>
      </references>
    </references>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>
	Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their review and feedback:
	<contact fullname="Mikael Abrahamsson"/>, <contact fullname="Mark Andrews"/>, <contact fullname="Brian E Carpenter"/>, <contact fullname="David Farmer"/>,
	<contact fullname="Nick Heatley"/>, <contact fullname="Robert Hinden"/>, <contact fullname="Martin Hunek"/>, <contact fullname="Tatuya Jinmei"/>, <contact fullname="Benjamin
	Kaduk"/>, <contact fullname="Erik Kline"/>, <contact fullname="Suresh Krishnan"/>, <contact fullname="Warren Kumari"/>, <contact fullname="David Lamparter"/>,
	<contact fullname="Barry Leiba"/>, <contact fullname="Jordi Palet Martinez"/>, <contact fullname="Tommy Pauly"/>, <contact fullname="Alexandre Petrescu"/>,
	<contact fullname="Michael Richardson"/>, <contact fullname="David Schinazi"/>, <contact fullname="Ole Troan"/>, <contact fullname="Eric Vynke"/>, <contact fullname="Bernie
	Volz"/>.
      </t>
    </section>

  </back>
</rfc>
