diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-durand-dns-proxy-00.txt b/doc/draft/draft-durand-dns-proxy-00.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..730ac07e5f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/draft/draft-durand-dns-proxy-00.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+Internet Engineering Task Force                             Alain Durand
+INTERNET-DRAFT                                           SUN Microsystem
+Oct 2, 2001
+Expires Apr. 3, 2002
+
+
+
+                               IPv6 DNS lookup proxy
+
+                         draft-durand-dns-proxy-00.txt
+
+
+
+                          Status of this memo
+
+
+   This memo provides information to the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  This memo is in full
+   conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
+
+   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
+   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
+   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
+   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
+
+
+
+Abstract
+
+
+   This document describe a DNS lookup proxy to enable IPv6 only
+   resolver to query data on IPv4 only server.
+
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+
+   As analyzed in [DNSOPreq], the operation of DNS in a mixed
+   environment IPv4 and IPv6 require Some bridging to happen to enable
+   an IPv6 only system to query data on an IPv4 only server and vice-
+   versa. However, such bridges do not need to be symmetrical, that is,
+   it is OK, for the sake of efficiency, to design two different
+   systems, one for each case. This document presents a scalable
+   solution to enable IPv6 only systems to query IPv4 only servers.  The
+   case of an IPv4 only system querying an IPv6 only server is not
+   discussed here.
+
+
+
+2. Recursive vs non recursive fallback system
+
+
+   One of the approach suggested to solve the bridging problem was to
+   use some kind of dual stack, general forwarder that will resolve the
+   queries on behalf of the IPv6 only resolver.  An IPv6 only resolver
+   could either delegate all its queries to this forwarder or only use
+   it in last resort mode, when IPv4 transport is needed to reach the
+   desired DNS server.
+
+   In the first mode of operation, the general forwarder may face
+   massive scaling issues.  In the second mode of operation, the
+   forwarder will still have to operate in recursive mode because the
+   information gathered previously by the IPv6 only resolver in its
+   attempt to resolve the name will be lost. It is feared that such
+   general forwarder will also face serious scaling issues once the IPv6
+   traffic will increase.
+
+
+   The lookup-proxy design is based upon the following observation:
+   When a resolver is following a chain of referrals and cannot complete
+   because it is referred to an address it lacks transport for, then it
+   knows both the query and where to send it. It is just lacking
+   transport. The solution presented here aims at bridging seamlessly
+   the two transports by providing a new protocol that can send the
+   tuple:
+
+           {query, server}
+
+   to a proxy, have the proxy send the query on (directly) to the
+   server, collect the response and return it to the resolver.  The
+   proxy will be non-recursive, and thereby much more scalable.
+   Furthermore, the proxy does not (or should not) know much about DNS,
+   it should only know enough to repack the query and response in IPv4
+   and IPv6 packets respectively.
+
+
+
+3. Lookup proxy architecture
+
+
+3.1 An IPv6 anycast prefix
+
+   As an IPv6 address is much larger than an IPv4 address, it is
+   possible to embed an IPv4 address within an IPv6 address. Proposal
+   like [6to4] or [isatap] use this property to embed IPv4 tunnel
+   endpoint within IPv6 addresses.
+
+   This document suggest to use a well know, globally routable prefix P
+   as an anycast DNS lookup proxy prefix. The prefix length of P MUST be
+   shorter than 96 and SHOULD be small enough not to be filtered in
+   common BGP announcement.
+
+   A set of DNS lookup proxies MUST advertise this anycast prefix and
+   MUST intercept any IPv6 packet whose destination address is of the
+   form P::a.b.c.d (a.b.c.d represent the 32 bits of an IPv4 address)
+   and UPD destination port is 53.
+
+
+3.2 DNS lookup proxy behavior
+
+   A DNS lookup proxy SHOULD check the payload to make sure it really is
+   a valid DNS query and then MUST forward it in a new IPv4 packet.
+
+   The source address of this new packet is one of the proxy IPv4
+   addresses.  The destination address is taken from the 32 lowest bits
+   of the destination address of the incoming IPv6 packet. The transport
+   protocol MUST be set to UDP and destination port to 53. The payload
+   of the new IPv4 packet MUST be directly copied from the one in the
+   IPv6 packet.
+
+
+3.3 Fragmentation and MTU
+
+   Simple UDP DNS queries and answers are expected to fit within 512
+   bytes, fragmentation and MTU are not an issue for them.  However,
+   queries using EDNS 0 or falling back to TCP may have a larger
+   payload.  For DNS connections using TCP, MTU is not an issue, as TCP
+   will adapt the correct MTU in each connection on both side of the
+   proxy.  Using EDNS 0, the client may specify a large packet size than
+   512. As an IPv6 header is longer than an IPv4 header (with no
+   options), this mechanism will not results in fragmented UDP packets.
+
+   However, if the DNS communication results in exchanging more than one
+   packet, there is a theoretical chance that different packets will go
+   through different proxies, defeating the mechanism. It is expected
+   that the routing system will be stable enough to prevent this case to
+   happen in reality.
+
+
+3.4 Mapping
+
+   A DNS lookup proxy MUST maintain some kind of mapping between the
+   incoming IPv6 query and the outgoing IPv4 packet so that when the
+   answer will come back from the IPv4 DNS server, it will know where to
+   sent it to in IPv6 land.
+
+   A DNS lookup proxy MUST implement some time-outs on those mappings to
+   do garbage collection.
+
+
+3.5 Caching
+   A DNS lookup proxy MAY implement positive and/or negative caching
+   technique to improve efficiency.
+
+   In the case of positive caching, the proxy MUST honor the TTL
+   provided in the DNS answer; the proxy MAY use a smaller TTL than it
+   received, but MUST NOT cache the answer beyond the period specified
+   by the TTL.
+
+
+
+3.5 rate limitation
+
+   A DNS lookup proxy may also impose some rate limitation measure on
+   packet they sent to the same address, either IPv4 or IPv6, to lower
+   the impact of potential DOS attack inherent with any public proxy.
+
+
+
+4. Converting IPv4 referrals into IPv6 referrals
+
+   When an IPv6 only resolver is following a chain of referrals and
+   cannot complete because it is referred only to IPv4 addresses, it
+   SHOULD automatically derived an IPv6 addresses by padding the IPv4
+   addresses to the prefix P and send the DNS queries to those
+   addresses.
+
+
+
+5. Scaling issues
+
+
+   Using an anycast prefix P will allow to use as many proxy as
+   necessary, thus this mechanism has very good scaling properties.
+
+
+6. Anycast issues
+
+   IPv6 architecture requires the anycast addresses MUST NOT be used as
+   source addresses. Thus, when returning the DNS answer, the proxy MUST
+   replace the anycast address by one of its unicast address with the
+   appropriate scope. Also, the IPv6 DNS resolver MUST not check the
+   source address of packets returning from the proxy.
+
+
+
+
+7. Security consideration
+
+
+   Any public proxy is inherently a source of DOS attack. Rate limiting
+   packet emission as suggested in 3.5 is expected to lower the risks.
+
+
+
+8. Author address
+
+
+   Alain Durand
+   SUN Microsystems, Inc
+   901 San Antonio Road
+   MPK17-202
+   Palo Alto, CA 94303-4900
+   USA
+   Mail: Alain.Durand@sun.com
+
+
+9. References
+
+   [DNSOPreq] draft-ietf-ngtrans-dns-ops-req-02.txt
+
+
+   10. Acknowledgment
+
+   The author whishes to acknowledge the input of Johan Ihren and
+   Akira Kato.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+