From de7e1db19da108c11098aad4d4237554b83e1c90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Doug Barton Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 23:48:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] In preparation for the BIND 9.6.1rc1 import, remove these two directories. We do not install these files so there is little use to keeping them in the tree, and the drafts directory in particular is the source of a lot of churn for each new version. --- doc/draft/draft-baba-dnsext-acl-reqts-01.txt | 336 - doc/draft/draft-daigle-napstr-04.txt | 1232 --- doc/draft/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt | 1960 ----- doc/draft/draft-dnsext-opcode-discover-02.txt | 241 - .../draft-durand-dnsop-dynreverse-00.txt | 240 - doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt | 928 --- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt | 393 - doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-12.txt | 674 -- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00.txt | 1397 ---- ...f-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-06.txt | 442 -- ...raft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-01.txt | 616 -- ...raft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-01.txt | 784 -- ...t-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-02.txt | 616 -- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-07.txt | 896 --- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-00.txt | 392 - .../draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-02.txt | 839 -- doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-05.txt | 504 -- doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07.txt | 928 --- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt | 334 - ...-ietf-dnsext-keyrr-key-signing-flag-12.txt | 560 -- doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-43.txt | 1740 ----- doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec3-04.txt | 2352 ------ doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-01.txt | 840 -- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt | 464 -- doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-04.txt | 840 -- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt | 580 -- ...xt-signed-nonexistence-requirements-01.txt | 755 -- ...draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-renewal-mode-05.txt | 1292 ---- ...t-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-00.txt | 1501 ---- ...raft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-02.txt | 730 -- doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-06.txt | 522 -- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt | 1063 --- doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-05.txt | 1232 --- ...-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08.txt | 2016 ----- .../draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-07.txt | 396 - ...t-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-06.txt | 1848 ----- .../draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-11.txt | 1682 ---- ...etf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-01.txt | 300 - ...etf-dnsop-key-rollover-requirements-02.txt | 389 - doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-02.txt | 480 -- doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-06.txt | 618 -- doc/draft/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-05.txt | 1588 ---- .../draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt | 1200 --- doc/draft/draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt | 614 -- ...t-ihren-dnsext-threshold-validation-00.txt | 519 -- doc/draft/draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt | 295 - .../draft-park-ipv6-extensions-dns-pnp-00.txt | 1830 ----- doc/draft/update | 46 - doc/rfc/index | 119 - doc/rfc/rfc1032.txt | 781 -- doc/rfc/rfc1033.txt | 1229 --- doc/rfc/rfc1034.txt | 3077 -------- doc/rfc/rfc1035.txt | 3077 -------- doc/rfc/rfc1101.txt | 787 -- doc/rfc/rfc1122.txt | 6844 ----------------- doc/rfc/rfc1123.txt | 5782 -------------- doc/rfc/rfc1183.txt | 619 -- doc/rfc/rfc1348.txt | 227 - doc/rfc/rfc1535.txt | 283 - doc/rfc/rfc1536.txt | 675 -- doc/rfc/rfc1537.txt | 507 -- doc/rfc/rfc1591.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc1611.txt | 1683 ---- doc/rfc/rfc1612.txt | 1795 ----- doc/rfc/rfc1706.txt | 563 -- doc/rfc/rfc1712.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc1750.txt | 1683 ---- doc/rfc/rfc1876.txt | 1011 --- doc/rfc/rfc1886.txt | 268 - doc/rfc/rfc1982.txt | 394 - doc/rfc/rfc1995.txt | 451 -- doc/rfc/rfc1996.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc2052.txt | 563 -- doc/rfc/rfc2104.txt | 620 -- doc/rfc/rfc2119.txt | 171 - doc/rfc/rfc2133.txt | 1795 ----- doc/rfc/rfc2136.txt | 1460 ---- doc/rfc/rfc2137.txt | 619 -- doc/rfc/rfc2163.txt | 1459 ---- doc/rfc/rfc2168.txt | 1123 --- doc/rfc/rfc2181.txt | 842 -- doc/rfc/rfc2230.txt | 619 -- doc/rfc/rfc2308.txt | 1067 --- doc/rfc/rfc2317.txt | 563 -- doc/rfc/rfc2373.txt | 1459 ---- doc/rfc/rfc2374.txt | 675 -- doc/rfc/rfc2375.txt | 451 -- doc/rfc/rfc2418.txt | 1459 ---- doc/rfc/rfc2535.txt | 2635 ------- doc/rfc/rfc2536.txt | 339 - doc/rfc/rfc2537.txt | 339 - doc/rfc/rfc2538.txt | 563 -- doc/rfc/rfc2539.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc2540.txt | 339 - doc/rfc/rfc2541.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc2553.txt | 2299 ------ doc/rfc/rfc2671.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc2672.txt | 507 -- doc/rfc/rfc2673.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc2782.txt | 675 -- doc/rfc/rfc2825.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc2826.txt | 339 - doc/rfc/rfc2845.txt | 843 -- doc/rfc/rfc2874.txt | 1123 --- doc/rfc/rfc2915.txt | 1011 --- doc/rfc/rfc2929.txt | 675 -- doc/rfc/rfc2930.txt | 899 --- doc/rfc/rfc2931.txt | 563 -- doc/rfc/rfc3007.txt | 507 -- doc/rfc/rfc3008.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc3071.txt | 563 -- doc/rfc/rfc3090.txt | 619 -- doc/rfc/rfc3110.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc3123.txt | 451 -- doc/rfc/rfc3152.txt | 227 - doc/rfc/rfc3197.txt | 283 - doc/rfc/rfc3225.txt | 339 - doc/rfc/rfc3226.txt | 339 - doc/rfc/rfc3258.txt | 619 -- doc/rfc/rfc3363.txt | 339 - doc/rfc/rfc3364.txt | 619 -- doc/rfc/rfc3425.txt | 283 - doc/rfc/rfc3445.txt | 563 -- doc/rfc/rfc3467.txt | 1739 ----- doc/rfc/rfc3490.txt | 1235 --- doc/rfc/rfc3491.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc3492.txt | 1963 ----- doc/rfc/rfc3493.txt | 2187 ------ doc/rfc/rfc3513.txt | 1459 ---- doc/rfc/rfc3596.txt | 451 -- doc/rfc/rfc3597.txt | 451 -- doc/rfc/rfc3645.txt | 1459 ---- doc/rfc/rfc3655.txt | 451 -- doc/rfc/rfc3658.txt | 1067 --- doc/rfc/rfc3757.txt | 451 -- doc/rfc/rfc3833.txt | 899 --- doc/rfc/rfc3845.txt | 395 - doc/rfc/rfc3901.txt | 283 - doc/rfc/rfc4025.txt | 675 -- doc/rfc/rfc4033.txt | 1179 --- doc/rfc/rfc4034.txt | 1627 ---- doc/rfc/rfc4035.txt | 2971 ------- doc/rfc/rfc4074.txt | 339 - doc/rfc/rfc4159.txt | 171 - doc/rfc/rfc4193.txt | 899 --- doc/rfc/rfc4255.txt | 507 -- doc/rfc/rfc4343.txt | 563 -- doc/rfc/rfc4367.txt | 955 --- doc/rfc/rfc4398.txt | 955 --- doc/rfc/rfc4408.txt | 2691 ------- doc/rfc/rfc4431.txt | 227 - doc/rfc/rfc4470.txt | 451 -- doc/rfc/rfc4634.txt | 6051 --------------- doc/rfc/rfc4641.txt | 1963 ----- doc/rfc/rfc4648.txt | 1011 --- doc/rfc/rfc4701.txt | 675 -- doc/rfc/rfc5155.txt | 2915 ------- doc/rfc/rfc952.txt | 340 - 158 files changed, 153744 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-baba-dnsext-acl-reqts-01.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-daigle-napstr-04.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-dnsext-opcode-discover-02.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-durand-dnsop-dynreverse-00.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-12.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-06.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-01.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-01.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-02.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-07.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-00.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-02.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-05.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-keyrr-key-signing-flag-12.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-43.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec3-04.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-01.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-04.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-01.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-renewal-mode-05.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-00.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-02.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-06.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-05.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-07.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-06.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-11.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-01.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-key-rollover-requirements-02.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-02.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-06.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-05.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ihren-dnsext-threshold-validation-00.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-park-ipv6-extensions-dns-pnp-00.txt delete mode 100644 doc/draft/update delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/index delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1032.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1033.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1034.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1035.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1101.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1122.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1123.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1183.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1348.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1535.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1536.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1537.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1591.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1611.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1612.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1706.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1712.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1750.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1876.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1886.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1982.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1995.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1996.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2052.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2104.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2119.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2133.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2136.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2137.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2163.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2168.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2181.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2230.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2308.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2317.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2373.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2374.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2375.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2418.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2535.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2536.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2537.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2538.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2539.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2540.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2541.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2553.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2671.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2672.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2673.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2782.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2825.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2826.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2845.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2874.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2915.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2929.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2930.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc2931.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3007.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3008.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3071.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3090.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3110.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3123.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3152.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3197.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3225.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3226.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3258.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3363.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3364.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3425.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3445.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3467.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3490.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3491.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3492.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3493.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3513.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3596.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3597.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3645.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3655.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3658.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3757.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3833.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3845.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3901.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4025.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4033.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4034.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4035.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4074.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4159.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4193.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4255.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4343.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4367.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4398.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4408.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4431.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4470.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4634.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4641.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4648.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4701.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc5155.txt delete mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc952.txt diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-baba-dnsext-acl-reqts-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-baba-dnsext-acl-reqts-01.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1030e5782ef..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-baba-dnsext-acl-reqts-01.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,336 +0,0 @@ - - - - -Internet-Draft T. Baba -Expires: March 11, 2004 NTT Data - September 11, 2003 - - - Requirements for Access Control in Domain Name Systems - draft-baba-dnsext-acl-reqts-01.txt - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions - of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - - Distribution of this memo is unlimited. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 11, 2004. - -Abstract - - This document describes the requirements for access control - mechanisms in the Domain Name System (DNS), which authenticate - clients and then allow or deny access to resource records in the - zone according to the access control list (ACL). - -1. Introduction - - The Domain Name System (DNS) is a hierarchical, distributed, highly - available database used for bi-directional mapping between domain - names and IP addresses, for email routing, and for other information - [RFC1034, 1035]. DNS security extensions (DNSSEC) have been defined - to authenticate the data in DNS and provide key distribution services - using SIG, KEY, and NXT resource records (RRs) [RFC2535]. - - - -Baba Expires March 11, 2004 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNS Access Control Requirements September 2003 - - - At the 28th IETF Meeting in Houston in 1993, DNS security design team - started a discussion about DNSSEC and agreed to accept the assumption - that "DNS data is public". Accordingly, confidentiality for queries - or responses is not provided by DNSSEC, nor are any sort of access - control lists or other means to differentiate inquirers. However, - about ten years has passed, access control in DNS has been more - important than before. Currently, new RRs are proposed to add new - functionality to DNS such as ENUM [RFC2916]. Such new RRs may - contain private information. Thus, DNS access control will be - needed. - - Furthermore, with DNS access control mechanism, access from - unauthorized clients can be blocked when they perform DNS name - resolution. Thus, for example, Denial of Service (DoS) attacks - against a server used by a closed user group can be prevented using - this mechanism if IP address of the server is not revealed by other - sources. - - This document describes the requirements for access control - mechanisms in DNS. - -2. Terminology - - AC-aware client - This is the client that understands the DNS access control - extensions. This client may be an end host which has a stub - resolver, or a cashing/recursive name server which has a - full-service resolver. - - AC-aware server - This is the authoritative name server that understands the DNS - access control extensions. - - ACE - An Access Control Entry. This is the smallest unit of access - control policy. It grants or denies a given set of access - rights to a set of principals. An ACE is a component of an ACL, - which is associated with a resource. - - ACL - An Access Control List. This contains all of the access control - policies which are directly associated with a particular - resource. These policies are expressed as ACEs. - - Client - A program or host which issues DNS requests and accepts its - responses. A client may be an end host or a cashing/recursive name - server. - - - -Baba Expires March 11, 2004 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNS Access Control Requirements September 2003 - - - RRset - All resource records (RRs) having the same NAME, CLASS and TYPE - are called a Resource Record Set (RRset). - -3. Requirements - - This section describes the requirements for access control in DNS. - -3.1 Authentication - -3.1.1 Client Authentication Mechanism - - The AC-aware server must identify AC-aware clients based on IP - address and/or domain name (user ID or host name), and must - authenticate them using strong authentication mechanism such as - digital signature or message authentication code (MAC). - - SIG(0) RR [RFC2931] contains a domain name associated with sender's - public key in its signer's name field, and TSIG RR [RFC2845] also - contains a domain name associated with shared secret key in its key - name field. Each of these domain names can be a host name or a user - name, and can be used as a sender's identifier for access control. - Furthermore, SIG(0) uses digital signatures, and TSIG uses MACs for - message authentication. These mechanisms can be used to authenticate - AC-aware clients. - - Server authentication may be also provided. - -3.1.2 End-to-End Authentication - - In current DNS model, caching/recursive name servers are deployed - between end hosts and authoritative name servers. Although - authoritative servers can authenticate caching/recursive name servers - using SIG(0) or TSIG, they cannot authenticate end hosts behind them. - For end-to-end authentication, the mechanism for an end host to - discover the target authoritative name server and directly access to - it bypassing caching/recursive name servers is needed. For example, - an end host can get the IP addresses of the authoritative name - servers by retrieving NS RRs for the zone via local caching/recursive - name server. - - In many enterprise networks, however, there are firewalls that block - all DNS packets other than those going to/from the particular - caching/recursive servers. To deal with this problem, one can - implement packet forwarding function on the caching/recursive servers - and enable end-to-end authentication via the caching/recursive - servers. - - - - -Baba Expires March 11, 2004 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNS Access Control Requirements September 2003 - - -3.1.3 Authentication Key Retrieval - - Keys which are used to authenticate clients should be able to be - automatically retrieved. The KEY RR is used to store a public key - for a zone or a host that is associated with a domain name. SIG(0) - RR uses a public key in KEY RR for verifying the signature. If - DNSSEC is available, the KEY RR would be protected by the SIG RR. - KEY RR or newly defined RR can be used to automatic key retrieval. - -3.2 Confidentiality - -3.2.1 Data Encryption - - To avoid disclosure to eavesdroppers, the response containing the - RRsets which are restricted to access from particular users should be - encrypted. Currently, no encryption mechanism is specified in DNS. - Therefore, new RRs should be defined for DNS message encryption. - Instead, IPsec [RFC2401] can be used to provide confidentiality if - name server and resolver can set up security associations dynamically - using IPsec API [IPSECAPI] when encryption is required. - - In case encryption is applied, entire DNS message including DNS - header should be encrypted to hide information including error code. - - Query encryption may be also provided for hiding query information. - -3.2.2 Key Exchange - - If DNS message encryption is provided, automatic key exchange - mechanism should be also provided. [RFC2930] specifies a TKEY RR - that can be used to establish and delete shared secret keys used by - TSIG between a client and a server. With minor extensions, TKEY can - be used to establish shared secret keys used for message encryption. - -3.2.3 Caching - - The RRset that is restricted to access from particular users must not - be cached. To avoid caching, the TTL of the RR that is restricted to - access should be set to zero during transit. - -3.3 Access Control - -3.3.1 Granularity of Access Control - - Control of access on a per-user/per-host granularity must be - supported. Control of access to individual RRset (not just the - entire zone) must be also supported. However, SOA, NS, SIG, NXT, - KEY, and DS RRs must be publicly accessible to avoid unexpected - results. - - -Baba Expires March 11, 2004 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNS Access Control Requirements September 2003 - - -3.3.2 ACL Representation - - Access Control List (ACL) format must be standardized so that both - the primary and secondary AC-aware servers can recognize the same - ACL. Although ACL may appear in or out of zone data, it must be - transferred to the secondary AC-aware server with associated zone - data. It is a good idea to contain ACL in zone data, because ACL can - be transferred with zone data using existing zone transfer mechanisms - automatically. However, ACL must not be published except for - authorized secondary master servers. - - In zone data master files, ACL should be specified using TXT RRs or - newly defined RRs. In each access control entry (ACE), authorized - entities (host or user) must be described using domain name (host - name, user name, or IP address in in-addr.arpa/ip6.arpa format). - There may be other access control attributes such as access time. - - It must be possible to create publicly readable entries, which may be - read even by unauthenticated clients. - -3.3.3 Zone/ACL Transfer - - As mentioned above, ACL should be transferred from a primary AC-aware - server to a secondary AC-aware server with associated zone data. - When an AC-aware server receives a zone/ACL transfer request, the - server must authenticate the client, and should encrypt the zone - data and associated ACL during transfer. - -3.4 Backward/co-existence Compatibility - - Any new protocols to be defined for access control in DNS must be - backward compatible with existing DNS protocol. AC-aware servers - must be able to process normal DNS query without authentication, and - must respond if retrieving RRset is publicly accessible. - - Modifications to root/gTLD/ccTLD name servers are not allowed. - -4. Security Considerations - - This document discusses the requirements for access control - mechanisms in DNS. - -5. Acknowledgements - - This work is funded by the Telecommunications Advancement - Organization of Japan (TAO). - - The author would like to thank the members of the NTT DATA network - security team for their important contribution to this work. - - -Baba Expires March 11, 2004 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNS Access Control Requirements September 2003 - - -6. References - - [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the - Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. - - [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", - RFC 2535, March 1999. - - [RFC2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. Wellington, - "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", - RFC 2845, May 2000. - - [RFC2916] Faltstrom, P., "E.164 number and DNS", RFC 2916, - September 2000. - - [RFC2930] Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)", - RFC 2930, September 2000. - - [RFC2931] Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures - (SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000. - - [IPSECAPI] Sommerfeld, W., "Requirements for an IPsec API", - draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsec-apireq-00.txt, June 2003, Work in - Progress. - - -Author's Address - - Tatsuya Baba - NTT Data Corporation - Research and Development Headquarters - Kayabacho Tower, 1-21-2, Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, - Tokyo 104-0033, Japan - - Tel: +81 3 3523 8081 - Fax: +81 3 3523 8090 - Email: babatt@nttdata.co.jp - - - - - - - - -Baba Expires March 11, 2004 [Page 6] diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-daigle-napstr-04.txt b/doc/draft/draft-daigle-napstr-04.txt deleted file mode 100644 index fffa8a5f20b..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-daigle-napstr-04.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1232 +0,0 @@ - - -Network Working Group L. Daigle -Internet-Draft A. Newton -Expires: August 15, 2004 VeriSign, Inc. - February 15, 2004 - - - Domain-based Application Service Location Using SRV RRs and the - Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS) - draft-daigle-napstr-04.txt - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2004. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. - -Abstract - - This memo defines a generalized mechanism for application service - naming that allows service location without relying on rigid domain - naming conventions (so-called name hacks). The proposal defines a - Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application to map domain - name, application service name, and application protocol to target - server and port, dynamically. - - - - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Specification . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.2 S-NAPTR DDDS Application Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2.1 Ordering and Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2.2 Matching and non-Matching NAPTR Records . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2.3 Terminal and Non-Terminal NAPTR Records . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2.4 S-NAPTR and Successive Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.2.5 Clients Supporting Multiple Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3. Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1 Guidelines for Application Protocol Developers . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1.1 Registration of application service and protocol tags . . . 7 - 3.1.2 Definition of conditions for retry/failure . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.1.3 Server identification and handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.2 Guidelines for Domain Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.3 Guidelines for Client Software Writers . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4. Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4.1 Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4.2 Service Discovery within a Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4.3 Multiple Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4.4 Remote Hosting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 4.5 Sets of NAPTR RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 4.6 Sample sequence diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5. Motivation and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 5.1 So, why not just SRV records? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 5.2 So, why not just NAPTR records? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - A. Application Service Location Application of DDDS . . . . . . 18 - A.1 Application Unique String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - A.2 First Well Known Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - A.3 Expected Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - A.4 Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - A.5 Service Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - A.5.1 Application Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - A.5.2 Application Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - A.6 Valid Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - A.7 Valid Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - B. Pseudo pseudocode for S-NAPTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - B.1 Finding the first (best) target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - B.2 Finding subsequent targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - -1. Introduction - - This memo defines a generalized mechanism for application service - naming that allows service location without relying on rigid domain - naming conventions (so-called name hacks). The proposal defines a - Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS -- see [6]) Application to - map domain name, application service name, and application protocol - to target server and port, dynamically. - - As discussed in Section 5, existing approaches to using DNS records - to dynamically determining the current host for a given application - service are limited in terms of the use cases supported. To address - some of the limitations, this document defines a DDDS Application to - map service+protocol+domain to specific server addresses using both - NAPTR [7] and SRV ([5]) DNS resource records. This can be viewed as - a more general version of the use of SRV and/or a very restricted - application of the use of NAPTR resource records. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 ([2]). - -2. Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Specification - - The precise details of the specification of this DDDS application are - given in Appendix A. This section defines the usage of the DDDS - application. - -2.1 Key Terms - - An "application service" is a generic term for some type of - application, indpendent of the protocol that may be used to offer it. - Each application service will be associated with an IANA-registered - tag. For example, instant messaging is a type of application - service, which can be implemented by many different application-layer - protocols, and the tag "IM" (used as an illustration here) could be - registered for it. - - An "application protocol" is used to implement the application - service. These are also associated with IANA-registered tags. In - the case where multiple transports are available for the application, - separate tags should be defined for each transport. - - The intention is that the combination of application service and - protocol tags should be specific enough that finding a known pair - (e.g., "IM:ProtC") is sufficient for a client to identify a server - with which it can communicate. - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - Some protocols support multiple application services. For example, - LDAP is an application protocol, and can be found supporting various - services (e.g., "whitepages", "directory enabled networking", etc). - -2.2 S-NAPTR DDDS Application Usage - - As outlined in Appendix A, NAPTR records are used to store - application service+protocol information for a given domain. - Following the DDDS standard, these records are looked up, and the - rewrite rules (contained in the NAPTR records) are used to determine - the successive DNS lookups, until a desirable target is found. - - For the rest of this section, refer to the set of NAPTR resource - records for example.com shown in the figure below. - - example.com. - ;; order pref flags service regexp replacement - IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "WP:whois++" "" bunyip.example. - IN NAPTR 100 20 "s" "WP:ldap" "" _ldap._tcp.myldap.example.com. - IN NAPTR 200 10 "" "IM:protA" "" someisp.example. - IN NAPTR 200 30 "a" "IM:protB" "" myprotB.example.com. - - -2.2.1 Ordering and Preference - - A client retrieves all of the NAPTR records associated with the - target domain name (example.com, above). These are to be sorted in - terms of increasing ORDER, and increasing PREF within each ORDER. - -2.2.2 Matching and non-Matching NAPTR Records - - Starting with the first sorted NAPTR record, the client examines the - SERVICE field to find a match. In the case of the S-NAPTR DDDS - application, that means a SERVICE field that includes the tags for - the desired application service and a supported application protocol. - - If more than one NAPTR record matches, they are processed in - increasing sort order. - -2.2.3 Terminal and Non-Terminal NAPTR Records - - A NAPTR record with an empty FLAG field is "non-terminal". That is, - more NAPTR RR lookups are to be performed. Thus, to process a NAPTR - record with an empty FLAG field in S-NAPTR, the REPLACEMENT field is - used as the target of the next DNS lookup -- for NAPTR RRs. - - In S-NAPTR, the only terminal flags are "S" and "A". These are - called "terminal" NAPTR lookups because they denote the end of the - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - DDDS/NAPTR processing rules. In the case of an "S" flag, the - REPLACEMENT field is used as the target of a DNS query for SRV RRs, - and normal SRV processing is applied. In the case of an "A" flag, an - address record is sought for the REPLACEMENT field target (and the - default protocol port is assumed). - -2.2.4 S-NAPTR and Successive Resolution - - As shown in the example NAPTR RR set above, it is possible to have - multiple possible targets for a single application service+protocol - pair. These are to be pursued in order until a server is - successfully contacted or all possible matching NAPTR records have - been successively pursued to terminal lookups and servers contacted. - That is, a client must backtrack and attempt other resolution paths - in the case of failure. - - "Failure" is declared, and backtracking must be used when - - o the designated remote server (host and port) fail to provide - appropriate security credentials for the *originating* domain - - o connection to the designated remote server otherwise fails -- the - specifics terms of which are defined when an application protocol - is registered - - o the S-NAPTR-designated DNS lookup fails to yield expected results - -- e.g., no A RR for an "A" target, no SRV record for an "S" - target, or no NAPTR record with appropriate application service - and protocol for a NAPTR lookup. Except in the case of the very - first NAPTR lookup, this last is a configuration error: the fact - that example.com has a NAPTR record pointing to "bunyip.example" - for the "WP:Whois++" service and protocol means the administrator - of example.com believes that service exists. If bunyip.example - has no "WP:Whois++" NAPTR record, the application client MUST - backtrack and try the next available "WP:Whois++" option from - example.com. As there is none, the whole resolution fails. - - An application client first queries for the NAPTR RRs for the domain - of a named application service. The application client MUST select - one protocol to choose The PREF field of the NAPTR RRs may be used by - the domain administrator to The first DNS query is for the NAPTR RRs - in the original target domain (example.com, above). - -2.2.5 Clients Supporting Multiple Protocols - - In the case of an application client that supports more than one - protocol for a given application service, it MUST pursue S-NAPTR - resolution completely for one protocol before trying another.j It MAY - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - choose which protocol to try first based on its own preference, or - from the PREF ranking in the first set of NAPTR records (i.e., those - for the target named domain). However, the chosen protocol MUST be - listed in that first NAPTR RR set. - - That is, what the client MUST NOT do is start looking for one - protocol, observe that a successive NAPTR RR set supports another of - its preferred protocols, and continue the S-NAPTR resolution based on - that protocol. For example, even if someisp.example offers the "IM" - service with protocol "ProtB", there is no reason to believe it does - so on behalf of example.com (since there is no such pointer in - example.com's NAPTR RR set). - -3. Guidelines - -3.1 Guidelines for Application Protocol Developers - - The purpose of S-NAPTR is to provide application standards developers - with a more powerful framework (than SRV RRs alone) for naming - service targets, without requiring each application protocol (or - service) standard to define a separate DDDS application. - - Note that this approach is intended specifically for use when it - makes sense to associate services with particular domain names (e.g., - e-mail addresses, SIP addresses, etc). A non-goal is having all - manner of label mapped into domain names in order to use this. - - Specifically not addressed in this document is how to select the - domain for which the service+protocol is being sought. It is up to - other conventions to define how that might be used (e.g., instant - messaging standards can define what domain to use from IM URIs, how - to step down from foobar.example.com to example.com, and so on, if - that is applicable). - - Although this document proposes a DDDS application that does not use - all the features of NAPTR resource records, it does not mean to imply - that DNS resolvers should fail to implement all aspects of the NAPTR - RR standard. A DDDS application is a client use convention. - - The rest of this section outlines the specific elements that protocol - developers must determine and document in order to make use of S- - NAPTR. - -3.1.1 Registration of application service and protocol tags - - Application protocol developers that wish to make use of S-NAPTR must - make provision to register any relevant application service and - application protocol tags, as described in Section 6. - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - -3.1.2 Definition of conditions for retry/failure - - One other important aspect that must be defined is the expected - behaviour for interacting with the servers that are reached via S- - NAPTR. Specifically, under what circumstances should the client - retry a target that was found via S-NAPTR? What should it consider a - failure that causes it to return to the S-NAPTR process to determine - the next serviceable target (a less preferred target)? - - For example, if the client gets a "connection refused" from a server, - should it retry for some (protocol-dependent) period of time? Or, - should it try the next-preferred target in the S-NAPTR chain of - resolution? Should it only try the next-preferred target if it - receives a protocol-specific permanent error message? - - The most important thing is to select one expected behaviour and - document it as part of the use of S-NAPTR. - - As noted earlier, failure to provide appropriate credentials to - identify the server as being authoritative for the original taret - domain is always considered a failure condition. - -3.1.3 Server identification and handshake - - As noted in Section 7, use of the DNS for server location increases - the importance of using protocol-specific handshakes to determine and - confirm the identity of the server that is eventually reached. - - Therefore, application protocol developers using S-NAPTR should - identify the mechanics of the expected identification handshake when - the client connects to a server found through S-NAPTR. - -3.2 Guidelines for Domain Administrators - - Although S-NAPTR aims to provide a "straightforward" application of - DDDS and use of NAPTR records, it is still possible to create very - complex chains and dependencies with the NAPTR and SRV records. - - Therefore, domain administrators are called upon to use S-NAPTR with - as much restraint as possible, while still achieving their service - design goals. - - The complete set of NAPTR, SRV and A RRs that are "reachable" through - the S-NAPTR process for a particular application service can be - thought of as a "tree". Each NAPTR RR retrieved points to more NAPTR - or SRV records; each SRV record points to several A record lookups. - Even though a particular client can "prune" the tree to use only - those records referring to application protocols supported by the - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - client, the tree could be quite deep, and retracing the tree to retry - other targets can become expensive if the tree has many branches. - - Therefore, - - o Fewer branches is better: for both NAPTR and SRV records, provide - different targets with varying preferences where appropriate - (e.g., to provide backup services, etc), but don't look for - reasons to provide more. - - o Shallower is better: avoid using NAPTR records to "rename" - services within a zone. Use NAPTR records to identify services - hosted elsewhere (i.e., where you cannot reasonably provide the - SRV records in your own zone). - - -3.3 Guidelines for Client Software Writers - - To properly understand DDDS/NAPTR, an implementor must read [6]. - However, the most important aspect to keep in mind is that, if one - target fails to work for the application, it is expected that the - application will continue through the S-NAPTR tree to try the (less - preferred) alternatives. - -4. Illustrations - -4.1 Use Cases - - The basic intended use cases for which S-NAPTR has been developed - are: - - o Service discovery within a domain. For example, this can be used - to find the "authoritative" server for some type of service within - a domain (see the specific example in Section 4.2). - - o Multiple protocols. This is increasingly common as new - application services are defined. This includes the case of - instant messaging (a service) which can be offered with multiple - protocols (see Section 4.3). - - o Remote hosting. Each of the above use cases applies within the - administration of a single domain. However, one domain operator - may elect to engage another organization to provide an application - service. See Section 4.4 for an example that cannot be served by - SRV records alone. - - - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - -4.2 Service Discovery within a Domain - - There are occasions when it is useful to be able to determine the - "authoritative" server for a given application service within a - domain. This is "discovery", because there is no a priori knowledge - as to whether or where the service is offered; it is therefore - important to determine the location and characteristics of the - offered service. - - For example, there is growing discussion of having a generic - mechanism for locating the keys or certificates associated with - particular application (servers) operated in (or for) a particular - domain. Here's a hypothetical case for storing application key or - certificate data for a given domain. The premise is that some - credentials registry (CredReg) service has been defined to be a leaf - node service holding the keys/certs for the servers operated by (or - for) the domain. Furthermore, it is assumed that more than one - protocol is available to provide the service for a particular domain. - This DDDS-based approach is used to find the CredReg server that - holds the information. - - Thus, the set of NAPTR records for thinkingcat.example might look - like this: - - thinkingcat.example. - ;; order pref flags service regexp replacement - IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "CREDREG:ldap:iris-beep" "" theserver.thinkingcat.example. - - Note that another domain, offering the same application service, - might offer it using a different set of application protocols: - - anotherdomain.example. - ;; order pref flags service regexp replacement - IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "CREDREG:iris-lw:iris-beep" "" foo.anotherdomain.example. - - -4.3 Multiple Protocols - - As it stands, there are several different protocols proposed for - offering "instant message" services. Assuming that "IM" was - registered as an application service, this DDDS application could be - used to determine the available services for delivering to a target. - - Two particular features of instant messaging should be noted: - - 1. gatewaying is expected to bridge communications across protocols - - 2. instant messaging servers are likely to be operated out of a - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - different domain than the instant messaging address, and servers - of different protocols may be offered by independent - organizations - - For example, "thinkingcat.example" may support its own servers for - the "ProtA" instant messaging protocol, but rely on outsourcing from - "example.com" for "ProtC" and "ProtB" servers. - - Using this DDDS-based approach, thinkingcat.example can indicate a - preference ranking for the different types of servers for the instant - messaging service, and yet the out-sourcer can independently rank the - preference and ordering of servers. This independence is not - achievable through the use of SRV records alone. - - Thus, to find the IM services for thinkingcat.example, the NAPTR - records for thinkingcat.example are retrieved: - - thinkingcat.example. - ;; order pref flags service regexp replacement - IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "IM:ProtA" "" _ProtA._tcp.thinkingcat.example. - IN NAPTR 100 20 "s" "IM:ProtB" "" _ProtB._tcp.example.com. - IN NAPTR 100 30 "s" "IM:ProtC" "" _ProtC._tcp.example.com. - - and then the administrators at example.com can manage the preference - rankings of the servers they use to support the ProtB service: - - _ProtB._tcp.example.com. - ;; Pref Weight Port Target - IN SRV 10 0 10001 bigiron.example.com - IN SRV 20 0 10001 backup.im.example.com - IN SRV 30 0 10001 nuclearfallout.australia-isp.example - - -4.4 Remote Hosting - - In the Instant Message hosting example in Section 4.3, the service - owner (thinkingcat.example) had to host pointers to the hosting - service's SRV records in the thinkingcat.example domain. - - A better way to approach this is to have one NAPTR RR in the - thinkingcat.example domain pointing to all the hosted services, and - the hosting domain has NAPTR records for each service to map them to - whatever local hosts it chooses (and may change from time to time). - - - - - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - thinkingcat.example. - ;; order pref flags service regexp replacement - IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "IM:ProtA" "" _ProtA._tcp.thinkingcat.example. - IN NAPTR 100 20 "" "IM:ProtB:ProtC" "" thinkingcat.example.com. - - - and then the administrators at example.com can break out the - individual application protocols and manage the preference rankings - of the servers they use to support the ProtB service (as before): - - thinkingcat.example.com. - ;; order pref flags service regexp replacement - IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "IM:ProtC" "" _ProtC._tcp.example.com. - IN NAPTR 100 20 "s" "IM:ProtB" "" _ProtB._tcp.example.com. - - - - _ProtC._tcp.example.com. - ;; Pref Weight Port Target - IN SRV 10 0 10001 bigiron.example.com - IN SRV 20 0 10001 backup.im.example.com - IN SRV 30 0 10001 nuclearfallout.australia-isp.example - - -4.5 Sets of NAPTR RRs - - Note that the above sections assumed that there was one service - available (via S-NAPTR) per domain. Often, that will not be the - case. Assuming thinkingcat.example had the CredReg service set up as - described in Section 4.2 and the instant messaging service set up as - described in Section 4.4, then a client querying for the NAPTR RR set - from thinkingcat.com would get the following answer: - - thinkingcat.example. - ;; order pref flags service regexp replacement - IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "IM:ProtA" "" _ProtA._tcp.thinkingcat.example. - IN NAPTR 100 20 "" "IM:ProtB:ProtC:" "" thinkingcat.example.com. - IN NAPTR 200 10 "" "CREDREG:ldap:iris-beep" "" bouncer.thinkingcat.example. - - Sorting them by increasing "ORDER", the client would look through the - SERVICE strings to determine if there was a NAPTR RR that matched the - application service it was looking for, with an application protocol - it could use. The first (lowest PREF) record that so matched is the - one the client would use to continue. - -4.6 Sample sequence diagram - - Consider the example in Section 4.3. Visually, the sequence of steps - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - required for the client to reach the final server for a "ProtB" - service for IM for the thinkingcat.example domain is as follows: - - - Client NS for NS for - thinkingcat.example example.com backup.im.example.com - | | | - 1 -------->| | | - 2 <--------| | | - 3 ------------------------------>| | - 4 <------------------------------| | - 5 ------------------------------>| | - 6 <------------------------------| | - 7 ------------------------------>| | - 8 <------------------------------| | - 9 ------------------------------------------------->| - 10 <-------------------------------------------------| - 11 ------------------------------------------------->| - 12 <-------------------------------------------------| - (...) - - - - 1. the name server (NS) for thinkingcat.example is reached with a - request for all NAPTR records - - 2. the server responds with the NAPTR records shown in Section 4.3. - - 3. the second NAPTR record matches the desired criteria; that has an - "s" flag and a replacement fields of "_ProtB._tcp.example.com". - So, the client looks up SRV records for that target, ultimately - making the request of the NS for example.com. - - 4. the response includes the SRV records listed in Section 4.3. - - 5. the client attempts to reach the server with the lowest PREF in - the SRV list -- looking up the A record for the SRV record's - target (bigiron.example.com). - - 6. the example.com NS responds with an error message -- no such - machine! - - 7. the client attempts to reach the second server in the SRV list, - and looks up the A record for backup.im.example.com - - 8. the client gets the A record with the IP address for - backup.im.example.com from example.com's NS. - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - 9. the client connects to that IP address, on port 10001 (from the - SRV record), using ProtB over tcp. - - 10. the server responds with an "OK" message. - - 11. the client uses ProtB to challenge that this server has - credentials to operate the service for the original domain - (thinkingcat.example) - - 12. the server responds, and the rest is IM. - - -5. Motivation and Discussion - - Increasingly, application protocol standards are using domain names - to identify server targets, and stipulating that clients should look - up SRV resource records to determine the host and port providing the - server. This enables a distinction between naming an application - service target and actually hosting the server. It also increases - flexibility in hosting the target service: - - o the server may be operated by a completely different organization - without having to list the details of that organization's DNS - setup (SRVs) - - o multiple instances can be set up (e.g., for load balancing or - secondaries) - - o it can be moved from time to time without disrupting clients' - access, etc. - - This is quite useful, but Section 5.1 outlines some of the - limitations inherent in the approach. - - That is, while SRV records can be used to map from a specific service - name and protocol for a specific domain to a specific server, SRV - records are limited to one layer of indirection, and are focused on - server administration rather than on application naming. And, while - the DDDS specification and use of NAPTR allows multiple levels of - redirection before locating the target server machine with an SRV - record, this proposal requires only a subset of NAPTR strictly bound - to domain names, without making use of the REGEXP field of NAPTR. - These restrictions make the client's resolution process much more - predictable and efficient than with some potential uses of NAPTR - records. This is dubbed "S-NAPTR" -- a "S"traightforward use of - NAPTR records. - - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - -5.1 So, why not just SRV records? - - An expected question at this point is: this is so similar in - structure to SRV records, why are we doing this with DDDS/NAPTR? - - Limitations of SRV include: - - o SRV provides a single layer of indirection -- the outcome of an - SRV lookup is a new domain name for which the A RR is to be found. - - o the purpose of SRV is focused on individual server administration, - not application naming: as stated in [5] "The SRV RR allows - administrators to use several servers for a single domain, to move - services from host to host with little fuss, and to designate some - hosts as primary servers for a service and others as backups." - - o target servers by "service" (e.g., "ldap") and "protocol" (e.g., - "tcp") in a given domain. The definition of these terms implies - specific things (e.g., that protocol should be one of UDP or TCP) - without being precise. Restriction to UDP and TCP is insufficient - for the uses described here. - - The basic answer is that SRV records provide mappings from protocol - names to host and port. The use cases described herein require an - additional layer -- from some service label to servers that may in - fact be hosted within different administrative domains. We could - tweak SRV to say that the next lookup could be something other than - an address record, but that is more complex than is necessary for - most applications of SRV. - -5.2 So, why not just NAPTR records? - - That's a trick question. NAPTR records cannot appear in the wild -- - see [6]. They must be part of a DDDS application. - - The purpose here is to define a single, common mechanism (the DDDS - application) to use NAPTR when all that is desired is simple DNS- - based location of services. This should be easy for applications to - use -- some simple IANA registrations and it's done. - - Also, NAPTR has very powerful tools for expressing "rewrite" rules. - That power (==complexity) makes some protocol designers and service - administrators nervous. The concern is that it can translate into - unintelligible, noodle-like rule sets that are difficult to test and - administer. - - This proposed DDDS application specifically uses a subset of NAPTR's - abilities. Only "replacement" expressions are allowed, not "regular - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - expressions". - -6. IANA Considerations - - This document calls for 2 IANA registries: one for application - service tags, and one for application protocol tags. - - Application service and protocol tags should be defined in an RFC - (unless the "x-" experimental form is used, in which case they are - unregistered). There are no restrictions placed on the tags other - than that they must conform with the syntax defined below (Appendix - A.5). The IANA registries should list the tags and the RFC that - defines their use. - -7. Security Considerations - - The security of this approach to application service location is only - as good as the security of the DNS servers along the way. If any of - them is compromised, bogus NAPTR and SRV records could be inserted to - redirect clients to unintended destinations. This problem is hardly - unique to S-NAPTR (or NAPTR in general). - - To protect against DNS-vectored attacks, applications should define - some form of end-to-end authentication to ensure that the correct - destination has been reached. Many application protocols such as - HTTPS, BEEP, IMAP, etc... define the necessary handshake mechansims - to accomplish this task. - - The basic mechanism works in the following way: - - 1. During some portion of the protocol handshake, the client sends - to the server the original name of the desired destination (i.e. - no transformations that may have resulted from NAPTR - replacements, SRV targets, or CNAME changes). In certain cases - where the application protocol does not have such a feature but - TLS may be used, it is possible to use the "server_name" TLS - extension. - - 2. The server sends back to the client a credential with the - appropriate name. For X.509 certificates, the name would either - be in the subjectDN or subjectAltName fields. For Kerberos, the - name would be a service principle name. - - 3. Using the matching semantics defined by the application protocol, - the client compares the name in the credential with the name sent - to the server. - - 4. If the names match, there is reasonable assurance that the - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - correct end point has been reached. - - It is important to note that this document does not define either the - handshake mechanism, the specific credenential naming fields, nor the - name matching semantics. Definitions of S-NAPTR for particular - application protocols MUST define these. - -8. Acknowledgements - - Many thanks to Dave Blacka, Patrik Faltstrom, Sally Floyd for - discussion and input that has (hopefully!) provoked clarifying - revisions of this document. - -References - - [1] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource - Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998. - - [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [3] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax - Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. - - [4] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC - 2535, March 1999. - - [5] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for - specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, - February 2000. - - [6] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part - One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002. - - [7] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part - Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, October - 2002. - - [8] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part - Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)", RFC 3404, October - 2002. - - - - - - - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Leslie Daigle - VeriSign, Inc. - 21355 Ridgetop Circle - Dulles, VA 20166 - US - - EMail: leslie@verisignlabs.com; leslie@thinkingcat.com - - - Andrew Newton - VeriSign, Inc. - 21355 Ridgetop Circle - Dulles, VA 20166 - US - - EMail: anewton@verisignlabs.com - -Appendix A. Application Service Location Application of DDDS - - This section defines the DDDS application, as described in [6]. - -A.1 Application Unique String - - The Application Unique String is domain label for which an - authoritative server for a particular service is sought. - -A.2 First Well Known Rule - - The "First Well Known Rule" is identity -- that is, the output of the - rule is the Application Unique String, the domain label for which the - authoritative server for a particular service is sought. - -A.3 Expected Output - - The expected output of this Application is the information necessary - to connect to authoritative server(s) (host, port, protocol) for an - application service within a given a given domain. - -A.4 Flags - - This DDDS Application uses only 2 of the Flags defined for the - URI/URN Resolution Application ([8]): "S" and "A". No other Flags - are valid. - - Both are for terminal lookups. This means that the Rule is the last - one and that the flag determines what the next stage should be. The - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - "S" flag means that the output of this Rule is a domain label for - which one or more SRV [5] records exist. "A" means that the output - of the Rule is a domain name and should be used to lookup address - records for that domain. - - Consistent with the DDDS algorithm, if the Flag string is empty the - next lookup is for another NAPTR record (for the replacement target). - -A.5 Service Parameters - - Service Parameters for this Application take the form of a string of - characters that follow this ABNF ([3]): - - service-parms = [ [app-service] *(":" app-protocol)] - app-service = experimental-service / iana-registered-service - app-protocol = experimental-protocol / iana-registered-protocol - experimental-service = "x-" 1*30ALPHANUMSYM - experimental-protocol = "x-" 1*30ALPHANUMSYM - iana-registered-service = ALPHA *31ALPHANUMSYM - iana-registered-protocol = ALPHA *31ALPHANUM - ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z - DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9 - SYM = %x2B / %x2D / %x2E ; "+" / "-" / "." - ALPHANUMSYM = ALPHA / DIGIT / SYM - ; The app-service and app-protocol tags are limited to 32 - ; characters and must start with an alphabetic character. - ; The service-parms are considered case-insensitive. - - Thus, the Service Parameters may consist of an empty string, just an - app-service, or an app-service with one or more app-protocol - specifications separated by the ":" symbol. - - Note that this is similar to, but not the same as the syntax used in - the URI DDDS application ([8]). The DDDS DNS database requires each - DDDS application to define the syntax of allowable service strings. - The syntax here is expanded to allow the characters that are valid in - any URI scheme name (see [1]). Since "+" (the separator used in the - RFC3404 service parameter string) is an allowed character for URI - scheme names, ":" is chosen as the separator here. - -A.5.1 Application Services - - The "app-service" must be a registered service [this will be an IANA - registry; this is not the IANA port registry, because we want to - define services for which there is no single protocol, and we don't - want to use up port space for nothing]. - - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - -A.5.2 Application Protocols - - The protocol identifiers that are valid for the "app-protocol" - production are any standard, registered protocols [IANA registry - again -- is this the list of well known/registered ports?]. - -A.6 Valid Rules - - Only substitution Rules are permitted for this application. That is, - no regular expressions are allowed. - -A.7 Valid Databases - - At present only one DDDS Database is specified for this Application. - [7] specifies a DDDS Database that uses the NAPTR DNS resource record - to contain the rewrite rules. The Keys for this database are encoded - as domain-names. - - The First Well Known Rule produces a domain name, and this is the Key - that is used for the first lookup -- the NAPTR records for that - domain are requested. - - DNS servers MAY interpret Flag values and use that information to - include appropriate NAPTR, SRV or A records in the Additional - Information portion of the DNS packet. Clients are encouraged to - check for additional information but are not required to do so. See - the Additional Information Processing section of [7] for more - information on NAPTR records and the Additional Information section - of a DNS response packet. - -Appendix B. Pseudo pseudocode for S-NAPTR - -B.1 Finding the first (best) target - - Assuming the client supports 1 protocol for a particular application - service, the following pseudocode outlines the expected process to - find the first (best) target for the client, using S-NAPTR. - - - target = [initial domain] - naptr-done = false - - while (not naptr-done) - { - NAPTR-RRset = [DNSlookup of NAPTR RRs for target] - [sort NAPTR-RRset by ORDER, and PREF within each ORDER] - rr-done = false - cur-rr = [first NAPTR RR] - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - while (not rr-done) - if ([SERVICE field of cur-rr contains desired application - service and application protocol]) - rr-done = true - target= [REPLACEMENT target of NAPTR RR] - else - cur-rr = [next rr in list] - - if (not empty [FLAG in cur-rr]) - naptr-done = true - } - - port = -1 - - if ([FLAG in cur-rr is "S"]) - { - SRV-RRset = [DNSlookup of SRV RRs for target] - [sort SRV-RRset based on PREF] - target = [target of first RR of SRV-RRset] - port = [port in first RR of SRV-RRset] - } - - ; now, whether it was an "S" or an "A" in the NAPTR, we - ; have the target for an A record lookup - - host = [DNSlookup of target] - - return (host, port) - - - -B.2 Finding subsequent targets - - The pseudocode in Appendix B is crafted to find the first, most - preferred, host-port pair for a particular application service an - protocol. If, for any reason, that host-port pair did not work - (connection refused, application-level error), the client is expected - to try the next host-port in the S-NAPTR tree. - - The pseudocode above does not permit retries -- once complete, it - sheds all context of where in the S-NAPTR tree it finished. - Therefore, client software writers could - - o entwine the application-specific protocol with the DNS lookup and - RRset processing described in the pseudocode and continue the S- - NAPTR processing if the application code fails to connect to a - located host-port pair; - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - - o use callbacks for the S-NAPTR processing; - - o use an S-NAPTR resolution routine that finds *all* valid servers - for the required application service and protocol from the - originating domain, and provides them in sorted order for the - application to try in order. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft draft-daigle-napstr-04 February 2004 - - -Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Daigle & Newton Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 22] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt b/doc/draft/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 4a01d91b9a8..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1960 +0,0 @@ - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Hadmut Danisch -Category: Experimental Oct 2003 -Expires: Apr 1, 2004 - - The RMX DNS RR and method for lightweight SMTP sender authorization - draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions - of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six - months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other - documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts - as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in - progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - -Abstract - - This memo introduces a new authorization scheme for SMTP e-mail - transport. It is designed to be a simple and robust protection - against e-mail fraud, spam and worms. It is based solely on - organisational security mechanisms and does not require but still - allow use of cryptography. This memo also focuses on security and - privacy problems and requirements in context of spam defense. In - contrast to prior versions of the draft a new RR type is not - required anymore. - - - - - - - - - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 1] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - Table of Contents - - -1. General Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -2. Problem and threat description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1. Mail sender forgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1.1 Definition of sender forgery . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1.2 Spam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1.3 E-Mail Worms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1.4 E-Mail spoofing and fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2. Indirect damage caused by forgery . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.3. Technical problem analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.4. Shortcomings of cryptographical approaches . . . . . . . . 7 -3. A DNS based sender address verification . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.2. Envelope vs. header sender address . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.3. Domain part vs. full sender address . . . . . . . . . . . 9 -4. Mapping of E-Mail addresses to DNS names . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4.1. Domain part only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4.2. Full address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 4.3. Empty address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 -5. Mandatory entry types and their syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5.1. Overall structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5.2. Unused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5.3. IPv4 and IPv6 address ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5.4. DNS Hostname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 5.4.1 Road warriors and DynDNS entries . . . . . . . . . 13 - 5.5. APL Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 5.6. Domain Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 5.7. Full Address Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 5.8. DNS mapped authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 5.9. RMX reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 -6. Optional and experimental entry types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 6.1. TLS fingerprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 6.2. TLS and LDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 6.3. PGP or S/MIME signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 6.4. Transparent Challenge/Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 6.5. SASL Challenge/Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 -7. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 7.1. Alternative encoding as TXT records . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 7.2. RMX Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 7.2.1 Overall structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 7.2.2 Record encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 7.2.3 Encoding of IPv4 and IPv6 address ranges . . . . . 18 - 7.2.4 Encoding of DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 7.2.5 Encoding of unused and full query . . . . . . . . . 19 - 7.2.6 Additional Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 -8. Message Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 2] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - -9. SMTP error messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 -10. Message relaying and forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 10.1. Problem description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 10.2. Trusted relaying/forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 10.3. Untrusted relaying/forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 -11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 11.1. Draft specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 11.1.1 Authentication strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 11.1.2 Where Authentication and Authorization end . . . . 22 - 11.1.3 Vulnerability of DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 11.1.4 Sneaking RMX attack? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 11.1.5 Open SMTP relays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 11.1.6 Unforged Spam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 11.1.7 Reliability of Whois Entries . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 11.1.8 Hazards for Freedom of Speech . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 11.2. General Considerations about spam defense . . . . . . . . 27 - 11.2.1 Action vs. reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 11.2.2 Content based Denial of Service attacks . . . . . 27 -12. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 12.1. Draft specific considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 12.1.1 No content leaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 12.1.2 Message reception and sender domain . . . . . . . 28 - 12.1.3 Network structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 12.1.4 Owner information distribution . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 12.2. General Considerations about spam defense . . . . . . . . 29 - 12.2.1 Content leaking of content filters . . . . . . . . 29 - 12.2.2 Black- and Whitelists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 -13. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 13.1. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 13.1.1 Compatibility with old mail receivers . . . . . . 30 - 13.1.2 Compatibility with old mail senders . . . . . . . 30 - 13.1.3 Compatibility with old DNS clients . . . . . . . . 30 - 13.1.4 Compatibility with old DNS servers . . . . . . . . 30 - 13.2. Enforcement policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 -14. General considerations about fighting spam . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 14.1. The economical problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 14.2. The POP problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 14.3. The network structure problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 14.4. The mentality problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 14.5. The identity problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 14.6. The multi-legislation problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 -Implementation and further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 -References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 -Draft History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 -Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - - - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 3] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - -1. General Issues - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in - this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. - -2. Problem and threat description - -2.1. Mail sender forgery - - The amount of e-mails with forged sender addresses has dramatically - increased. As a consequence, damages and annoyances caused by such - e-mails increased as well. In the majority of examined e-mails the - domain name of the envelope sender address was forged, and the e- - mail was sent from an IP address which does not belong to a network - used by the actual owner of the domain. - -2.1.1. Definition of sender forgery - - As discussions, comments to prior versions of this draft, and - different approaches to stop forgery showed, different perceptions - of "mail forgery" exist. For example, there are mechanisms to - verify e-mail addresses for mailing lists, web servers, or to stop - spam, which do send a message with a random number to the given - address and expect the user to send a reply. Here, someone is - considered to be allowed to use a particular e-mail address, if and - only if he is able to receive informations sent to this address, - and is able to reply to such a message. While this definition - appears to be quite plausible and natural, it can't be used for a - simple technical solution. Sending back a challenge and expecting a - reply is simply too much overhead and time delay, and not every - authorized sender is able or willing to reply (e.g. because he went - offline or is not a human). - - Within the scope of this memo, sender forgery means that the - initiator of an e-mail transfer (which is the original sender in - contrast to relays) uses a sender address which he was not - authorized to use. Being authorized to use an address means that - the owner (administrator) of the internet domain has given - permission, i.e. agrees with the use of the address by that - particular sender. This memo will cover both the permission of the - full e-mail address and the domain part only for simplicity. - - Within context of Internet and SMTP, the sender address usually - occurs twice, once as the envelope sender address in SMTP, and once - as the address given in the RFC822 mail header. While the following - considerations apply to both addresses in principle, it is - important to stress that both addresses have distinct semantics and - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 4] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - are not neccessarily the same. The envelope address identifies the - initiator of the transport, while the header identifies the author - of the message content. Since this memo deals with the message - transport only and completely ignores the message content, the - method should naturally be applied to the envelope sender address. - -2.1.2. Spam - - A common and well known problem is the dramatic increase of - unsolicited e-mail, commonly called "spam". Again, the majority of - examined e-mails had forged sender addresses. The abused domains - were mainly those of common webmailers as hotmail or yahoo, or - well-known companies. - - Unfortunately, there is no accurate definition of spam availabe - yet, and neither are the concise technical criterions to filter or - block spam with technical mechanisms. There are efforts to design - content based filters, but these filters are expensive in - calculation time (and sometimes money), and they do not reliably - provide predictable results. Usually they give false positives - and/or require user interaction. Content filters in general suffer - from a design problem described later in this memo. Therefore, - this proposal does not use the content based approach to block - spam. - - As analysis of spam messages showed, most of spam messages were - sent with forged envelope sender addresses. This has mainly three - reasons. The first reason is, that spam senders usually do not - want to be contacted by e-mail. The second reason is, that they do - not want to be blacklisted easily. The third reason is, that spam - is or is going to be unlawful in many countries, and the sender - does not want to reveal his identity. Therefore, spam is considered - to be a special case of sender forgery. - -2.1.3. E-Mail Worms - - Another example of sender forgery is the reproduction of e-mail - worms. Most worms do choose random sender addresses, e.g. using - the addresses found in mailboxes on the infected system. In most - cases analyzed by the author, the e-mails sent by the reproduction - process can also be categorized as forged, since the infected - system would under normal circumstances not be authorized to send - e-mails with such e-mail addresses. So forgery does not require a - malicious human to be directly involved. This memo covers any kind - of e-mail sender address forgery, included those generated by - malicious software. - -2.1.4. E-Mail spoofing and fraud - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 5] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - Forging e-mail sender addresses for fraud or other kinds of - deception ("human engineering") has also dramatically increased. - There are many known cases where single or mass e-mails were sent - with wrong sender addresses, pretending to come from service - provider, software manufacturers etc., and asking the receiver to - install any software or patches, or to reply with any confidential - information. The Internet is becoming more and more a scene of - crime, and so are it's services, including e-mail. It is obvious - that crime based on e-mail is eased by the fact that SMTP allows - arbitrary sender address spoofing. - -2.2. Indirect damage caused by forgery - - As observed by the author, mass mails and worms with forged sender - addresses can cause a severe damage for the real owner of the - abused sender addresses. If a sender A is sending an e-mail to the - receiver B, pretending to be C by using a sender address of C's - domain, then C has currently no chance to prevent this, since C's - machines and software are not involved in any way in the delivery - process between A and B. B will nevertheless send any error - messages (virus/spam alert, "no such user", etc.) to C, erroneously - assuming that the message was sent by C. The author found several - cases where this flood of error messages caused a severe denial of - service or a dramatic increase of costs, e.g. when C was - downloading the e-mail through expensive or low bandwidth - connections (e.g. modem or mobile phones), or where disk space was - limited. The author examined mass mailings, where several tens or - hundreds of thousands of messages were sent to several addresses - around the world, where these messages caused only annoyance. But - since several thousands of these addresses were invalid or didn't - accept the message, the owner of the DNS domain which was abused by - the spammer to forge sender addresses was flooded for several - months with thousands of error messages, jamming the e-mail system - and causing severe costs and damages. - - As a consequence, when A sends a message to B, pretending to be C, - there must be any mechanism to allow C to inform B about the fact, - that A is not authorized to use C as a sender address. This is what - this memo is about. - -2.3. Technical problem analysis - - Why does e-mail forgery actually exist? Because of the lack of the - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol SMTP[2] to provide any kind of sender - authentication, authorisation, or verification. This protocol was - designed at a time where security was not an issue. Efforts have - been made to block forged e-mails by requiring the sender address - domain part to be resolvable. This method provides protection from - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 6] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - e-mails with non-existing sender domains, and indeed, for some time - it blocked most spam e-mails. However, since attackers and spam - senders began to abuse existing domain names, this method was - rendered ineffective. - -2.4. Shortcomings of cryptographical approaches - - At a first glance, the problem of sender address forgery might - appear to be solvable with cryptographic methods such as challenge - response authentications or digital signatures. A deeper analysis - shows that only a small, closed user group could be covered with - cryptographical methods. Any method used to stop spam forgery must - be suitable to detect forgery not only for a small number of - particular addresses, but for all addresses on the world. An - attacker does not need to know the secrets belonging to a - particular address. It is sufficient to be able to forge any - address and thus to know any secret key. Since there are several - hundreds of millions of users, there will always be a large amount - of compromised keys, thus spoiling any common cryptographic method. - Furthermore, cryptography has proven to be far too complicated and - error prone to be commonly administered and reliably implemented. - Many e-mail and DNS administrators do not have the knowledge - required to deal with cryptographic mechanisms. Many legislations - do not allow the general deployment of cryptography and a directory - service with public keys. For these reasons, cryptography is - applicable only to a small and closed group of users, but not to - all participants of the e-mail service. - -3. A DNS based sender address verification - -3.1. Overview - - To gain improvement in e-mail authenticity while keeping as much - SMTP compatibility as possible, a method is suggested which doesn't - change SMTP at all. - - The idea is to store informations about how to verify who is - authorized to transmit e-mails through SMTP with a particular - sender address (either full address or - for simplicity - only the - domain part of the address) in a directory service, which is - currently the DNS. To be precise, the verification consists of two - steps, the classical pair of authentication and authorization: - - The first step is the authentication. While several methods are - possible to perform authentication (see below), the most important - and robust method is the verification of the sender's IP address. - This is done implicitely by TCP/IP and the TCP sequence number. The - authenticated identity is the IP address. It has to be stressed - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 7] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - that this TCP/IP "authentication" is a weak authentication and - vulnerable to several attacks. It is nevertheless sufficient for - this purpose, especially for blocking spam. It doesn't take any - implementation and it doesn't cost: It is already there, it is a - functionality of TCP/IP. An incoming SMTP connection based on - TCP/IP already carries the sender's IP address without any - modification of SMTP. See below (section Entry types) for more - details about authentication methods. - - The second step is the authorization. It is based on the identity - given by the previous authentication step, e.g. the IP address of - the originator of the incoming SMTP connection, and on the - envelope sender address. The mechanism proposed in this memo - answers the question "Is that particular sender (IP address,...) - allowed to send with that sender address" by querying and - processing informations stored in a directory service, which is - DNS. - - When the sender has issued the "MAIL FROM:" SMTP command, the - receiving mail transfer agent (MTA) can - and modern MTAs do - - perform some authorization checks, e.g. run a local rule database - or check whether the sender domain is resolvable. - - The suggested method is to let the DNS server for the sender domain - provide informations about who - this means for example which IP - address - is authorized to use an address or a domain as a part of - it. After receiving the "MAIL FROM:" SMTP command, the receiving - MTA can verify, whether e. g. the IP address of the sending MTA is - authorized to send mails with this domain name. Therefore, a list - of entries with authorized IP addresses or other informations is - provided by the authoritative DNS server of that domain. The entry - types are described in the subsequent chapters. Some of these - methods are - - - An IPv4 or IPv6 network address and mask - - A fully qualified domain name referring to an A record - - A fully qualified domain name referring to an APL record - - RMX records of these types would look like this: - - somedomain.de. IN RMX ipv4:10.0.0.0/8 - rmxtest.de. IN RMX host:relay.provider.com - danisch.de. IN RMX apl:relays.rackland.de - relays.rackland.de. IN APL 1:213.133.101.23/32 1:1.2.3.0/24 - - where the machine with the example address 213.133.101.23 and the - machines in the example subnet 1.2.3.0/24 are the only machines - allowed to send e-mails with an envelope sender address of domain - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 8] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - danisch.de. Since the APL records do not necessarily belong to the - same domain or zone table as the RMX records, this easily allows to - refer to APL records defined by someone else, e.g. the internet - access or server hosting provider, thus reducing administrative - overhead to a minimum. In the example given above, the domain - danisch.de and several other domains are hosted by the service - provider Rackland. So if the relay structure of Rackland is - modified, only the zone of rackland.de needs to be modified. The - domain owners don't need to care about such details. - -3.2. Envelope vs. header sender address - - Questions were raised why the proposed mechanism is based on the - envelope sender address, and not on the sender address given in the - message header. Technically, both can be used. Actually, it makes - sense to use the envelope address. - - In common, the header sender address identifies the author of the - content, while the envelope sender tells who caused the - transmission. The approach proposed in this memo is transmission - based, not content based. We can not authorize the author of a - message if we don't have contact with him, if the message does not - already contain a signature. In contrast, the sending MTA is linked - to an IP address which can be used for authentication. This - mechanism might not be very strong, but it is available and - sufficient to solve today's e-mail security problems. - - Some people argued that it is the header address and not the sender - address, which is displayed in common mail readers (MUAs), and - where the receiver believes the mail comes from. That's true, but - it doesn't help. There are many cases where the header sender - differs from the envelope sender for good reasons (see below in the - consequences chapter for the discussion about relaying). Relaying, - mailing lists etc. require to replace the sender address used for - RMX. If this were the header address, the message header would have - to be modified. This is undesirable. - -3.3. Domain part vs. full sender address - - Former versions of this draft were limited to the domain part of - the sender address. The first reason is that it is common and MX- - like, to lookup only the domain part of an e-mail address in DNS. - The second reason is, that it was left to the private business of - the domain administration to handle details of user verification. - The idea was that the domain administration takes care to verify - the left part of an e-mail address with an arbitrary method of - their individual taste. RMX was originally designed to ignore the - left part of the address and to expect the domain administration to - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 9] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - take over responsibility for enforcing their policy. If, e.g., a - spam message arrived and passed the RMX mechanism, it is known to - be authorized by the domain administration and they can be blamed, - no matter what is on the left side of the sender address - it's - their private problem what happens on the left side of the @. By - far the most of the comments to prior versions of this draft agreed - with that. A few comments asked for a finer granularity. - - And indeed, there is no technical reason against a finer - granularity. All it takes is a mapping from a given envelope - sender address to a DNS name, and the RMX lookup for that - particular e-mail address could be done instead of a lookup for the - domain part only. However, to my knowledge, most domain - administrators would not like to provide an RMX entry for every - single e-mail address. In many cases, this would also overload DNS - servers. - - It is to be discussed how to cover both views. One method could be - to query the full address, and if no RMX records were found to - query the domain part only. A different approach would be to query - the domain part only, and if it's RMX record contain a special - entry, then a new query for the full address is triggered. A third - way would be to always query the full address and to leave the - problem to the wildcard mechanism of DNS. This still has to be - discussed and will be described in future versions of this draft. - - - - - - - - - - - -4. Mapping of E-Mail addresses to DNS names - - To perform the RMX query, a mapping is needed from E-Mail addresses - to DNS fully qualified domain names. - - This chapter is under development and just a first approach. - -4.1. Domain part only - - Mapping of the domain part is trivial, since the domain part of an - e-mail address itself is a valid DNS name and does not need - translation. It might be nevertheless desirable to distinguish the - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 10] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - RMX entries from other entries, depending of the encoding of the - records. If the RMX entries are encoded in TXT record types, they - might collide with other uses of TXT records. It might be - necessary to prepend the domain part with a special prefix, e.g. - _rmx. So the e-mail address some.user@example.com could be mapped - to example.com or _rmx.example.com. - -4.2. Full address - - Mapping a full address is slightly more difficult. The @ sign must - be unambiguously translated, and therefore can not be simply - translated into a dot. The e-mail addresses some.user@example.com - and some@user.example.com must have different mappings. Therefore, - the @ sign could be translated into _rmx, implicitely assuming that - this is not an allowed domain name component of normal domain - names. Then the rightmost _rmx in the mapped DNS name always - corresponds to the @ sign. some.user@example.com would e translated - into some.user._rmx.example.com and can be covered by a wildcard - entry like *._rmx.example.com. - - Character encoding and character sets are still to be discussed. - -4.3. Empty address - - Unfortunately, SMTP allows empty envelope sender addresses to be - used for error messages. Empty sender addresses can therefore not - be prohibited. As observed, a significant amount of spam was sent - with such an empty sender address. To solve this problem, the host - name given in the HELO or EHLO command is taken to lookup the RMX - records instead. This makes sense, since such messages were - generated by the machine, not a human. - - - - -5. Mandatory entry types and their syntax - - The entry types described in this section MUST be supported by any - implementation of this draft. - -5.1. Overall structure - - Similar to APL, an RMX record is just a concatenation of zero or - more RMX entries. The entries within one record form an ordered - rule base as commonly usual in packet filtes and firewall rulesets, - i. e. they are processed one ofter another until the first entry - matches. This entry determines the result of the query. Once a - matching entry is found, the RMX processing is finished. - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 11] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - For any domain name there should not exist more than a single RMX - record. Due to the structure of DNS, it is nevertheless possible to - have more than a single RMX record. Multiple RMX records are - treated as a single record consisting of the concatenation of all - records. While the entries in a record are ordered, the records are - not ordered and may be processed in arbitrary order. If the order - of the entries matters, it is the zone maintainer's responsibility - to keep those entries in a single record. For example, there are - negative entries, which exclude IP addresses from authorization. - It is important that these entries are processed before positive - entries giving permission to a wider address range. Since order is - guaranteed only within a record, corresponding negative and - positive entries must be put in the same record. - - An RMX record may consist of one or more entries, where the entries - are separated by whitespace. An entry must not contain white space. - Each entry consists of an optional exclamation sign, a tag, a - colon, and the entry data: - - [!] TAG : ENTRY-SPECIFIC-DATA - - If the entry starts with an exclamation sign, the entry is negated. - See the entry type description below for details. - - The TAG is the mnemonic type identifier or the decimal number of - the entry. The TAG is case-insensitive. It is immediately followed - by a colon. - - The syntax and semantics of ENTRY-SPECIFIC-DATA depends of the the - entry type. See description below. - - Example: - - danisch.de. IN RMX apl:relays.rackland.de !ipv4:1.2.3.5 - ipv4:1.2.3.0/24 - -5.2. Unused - - This is a primitive entry which just says that this sender address - will never be used as a sender address under any circumstances. - Example: - - testdomain.danisch.de IN RMX unused: - -5.3. IPv4 and IPv6 address ranges - - These entry types contain a bit sequence representing a CIDR - address part. If that bit sequence matches the given IP address, - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 12] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - authorization is granted or denied, depending on the negation flag. - - The entry is prepended with the tag "IPv4" or "IPv6". The colon is - followed with an IPv4 or IPv6 address in standard notation, - optionally followed by a slash and a mask length. If the negation - flag is set, then the given address range is excluded. Examples: - - danisch.de IN RMX ipv4:213.133.101.23 ipv6:fe00::0 - IN RMX ipv4:10.0.0.0/8 ipv6:fec0::0/16 - IN RMX !ipv4:1.2.3.4 - - (Please note that it does not make much sense to use - RFC1918-Addresses in RMX records, this is just to give a syntax - example.) - - -5.4. DNS Hostname - - This entry type simply contains a regular DNS name, which is to be - resolved as a host name (fetch the A record or IPv6 equivalent). If - the given IP address matches the result, authorization is granted - or denied, depending on the negation flag. It is still to be - defined how to treat unresolvable entries. - - The entry is prepended with the tag "host", followed by a colon and - the hostname. Examples: - - danisch.de IN RMX host:relay.provider.de - IN RMX !host:badmachine.domain.de apl:relays.domain.de - -5.4.1. Road warriors and DynDNS entries - - Several people argued against RMX that it would break their - existing installation which delivers e-mail from dynamically - assigned IP addresses, because their IP providers didn't assign a - static address, or because they are a road warrior, plugging their - notebook in any hotel room on the world. - - RMX provides a simple solution. If such a machine has a dynamically - updated DNS entry (e.g. DynDNS), all it takes is an RMX entry of - the hostname type pointing to this dynamic DNS entry. - - The cleaner solution would be to deliver mail the same way as it is - received: If downloaded by POP from a central relay with a static - address, where the MX points to, then it would be a good idea to - deliver e-mail the same way in reverse direction. Unfortunately, - plain POP does not support uploading yet. - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 13] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - -5.5. APL Reference - - This entry type simply contains a regular DNS name, which is to be - resolved as an APL record index (fetch the APL record). If the - given IP address positively matches the APL, authorization is - granted. Details of the semantic (espially when the negation bit is - set) are still to be defined. It is still to be defined how to - treat unresolvable entries. - - The entry is prepended with the tag "host", followed by a colon and - the hostname. Example: - - danisch.de IN RMX apl:relays.rackland.de - -5.6. Domain Member - - In many cases it is desirable to cover all hosts of a given domain - with an RMX record without the need to duplicate the list of these - hosts. This entry type does it (thanks to Eric A. Hall for pointing - out this entry type). It contains a regular DNS name. - - If this entry type is given, a reverse DNS query for the IP address - of the sending MTA is performed to find its official fully - qualified domain name. To prevent spoofing, this domain name is - accepted only if a subsequent address query to the given domain - name points to exactly the IP address of the sending MTA (the usual - procedure to verify PTR records). - - The entry matches if the fully qualified domain name of the sending - MTA ends in the given domain. The negation flag works as usual. - - The tag for this entry type is "domain". After the colon the domain - name is given, but might be empty, thus pointing to itself. - Example: - - somedomain.org IN RMX domain:somedomain.org domain:provider.com - - would authorize all machines which's hostname can be verified - through an PTR and A query, and which ends in "somedomain.org" or - "provider.com". - - With such an entry, large companies with different networks can - easily be covered with just a single and simple RMX entry. - Obviously, it requires proper PTR records. - - As a special shortcut, the DNS name may be empty. In this case the - domain name of the zone itself is taken. Thus, with a very simple - entry of the type - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 14] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - somecompany.com IN RMX domain: - - a company could authorize all machines which's IP addresses map to - DNS names end in somecompany.com, which applies in the majority of - companies. - - - - -5.7. Full Address Query - - As described above, RMX records will in most cases apply to the - domain part of the sender address. In special cases it might be - desirable to query the RMX record for a particular address. An RMX - entry of the Full Address Query type may occur in a domain RMX - record only. It signals that the RMX record for the full address is - to be fetched and processed. - - This entry type does not take arguments. The negation flag is not - supported. The tag is "full". - - If such a full address query is to be performed, the mail address - must be mapped to a valid and non-ambiguos DNS name. This mapping - is still to be defined. It is not sufficient to simply replace the - @ with a dot, because of case sensitivity, character sets, etc. The - e-mail addresses - - john.doe@example.org - John.Doe@example.org - john@doe.example.org - - must all be mapped to different DNS entries. This entry type might - vanish in future versions of the draft, depending on the discussion - about whether to query the domain name part only or the full - address. - -5.8. DNS mapped authorization - - As I learned from comments to prior versions of the draft and from - alternative proposals, many users wish to have a DNS mapped - authorization table, i. e. the client queries a DNS entry of the - form a.b.c.d.domain, where a.b.c.d is the sender's IP address. - Since people wish to have this, RMX will now include such a mapping - entry. The entry has a parameter giving the DNS domain name where - to look at. If the parameter is empty, then the same domain is - taken as for the RMX lookup. - - As this is currently under construction and discussion in an IETF - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 15] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - group, details will be published in future versions of this draft. - -5.9. RMX reference - - This entry type has no parameters. It means that all those machines - are authorized, which are pointed to by an MX record. - -6. Optional and experimental entry types - - The following subsections roughly describe further entry types - which might not be supported by all implementations and might not - be allowed in all legislations. These methods might vanish in - future versions of the draft and are just considerations about what - to include in RMX and what to not include. The main purpose of this - section is to start discussion about such entry types. - - The disadvantage of the following methods is that they violate the - basic idea of RMX, i. e. to be simple, robust, easy to implement - and easy to administer. I personally do not believe that it is a - good idea or even feasible to implement cryptography for a world - wide e-mail transfer network. Keep in mind that cryptographic keys - can be copied. If only <0.1% of cryptographic keys were revealed, - this completely compromises and spoils RMX. Cryptography is simply - the wrong tool for the problem RMX is intended to solve. I - nevertheless like to discuss these methods. - -6.1. TLS fingerprint - - The sender is considered to be authorized if the message was - transmitted through SMTP and TLS, and the sender used a certificate - matching the fingerprint given in the RMX record. - -6.2. TLS and LDAP - - This means that the receiver should perform an LDAP query for the - sender address (through the LDAP SRV record or given in the RMX - record), fetch the X.509 certificate for the sender. The sender is - considered to be authorized when the message was transmitted - through SMTP and TLS using this certificate. - -6.3. PGP or S/MIME signature - - It would be possible to accept a message only if it was signed with - PGP or S/MIME with a key which's fingerprint is given in the RMX - record or to be fetched from LDAP or any PGP database. This is - just for discussion, since it violates the idea of RMX to focus on - the transport, not on the content. It would also allow replay - attacks and not cover the envelope sender address or message - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 16] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - header. - -6.4. Transparent Challenge/Response - - It would also be possible to implement a challenge-response - mechanism without modifying the syntax of SMTP. For example, the - receiving MTA could issue a challenge with it's very first greeting - message, the sending MTA could hide the response in the HELO - parameter and when the receiving MTA later learns the sender - envelope address, it could verify the response based on - informations in the RMX record. - -6.5. SASL Challenge/Response - - Modern SMTP implementations already include a SASL mechanisms, - which easily allows to plugin new authentication mechanisms. While - common SASL mechanisms require to use a previously shared password, - a new mechanism could perform a challenge response authentication - as a SASL method. - - - - - - -7. Encoding - -7.1. Alternative encoding as TXT records - - The main objection against the prior versions of this draft was - that it requires a new RR entry type and upgrading all DNS servers. - - Therefore and alternative encoding is proposed. Instead of using a - new RR type, the TXT record type is used to contain the RMX record. - The records would simply look as described in the entry type - chapters above, e.g. - - _rmx.danisch.de. IN TXT "apl:relays.rackland.de" - - To allow smooth introduction of RMX without the need to immediately - upgrade all DNS servers, all clients (which have to be newly - installed anyway) MUST support both the TXT and the RMX records. A - client has to perform an ANY or a TXT and a RMX query. Servers/zone - tables may currently use TXT entries but SHOULD use RMX entries in - future. - -7.2. RMX Records - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 17] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - -7.2.1. Overall structure - - Each entry starts with an octet containting the entry type and the - negation flag: - - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------ - | N | Entry Type Code | Parameters... - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------ - - N If this bit (MSB) is set, an IP address - matching this entry is not authorized, - but explicitely rejected. See entry - type descriptions for details. - - Entry Type A 7bit number simply determining the entry - type. - - - Currently, entries do not have an explicit length field, the entry - length is determined implicitely by the entry type. Applications - are required to abort if an unknown entry type is found, instead of - skipping unknown entries. - -7.2.2. Record encoding - - A RMX record is simply a concatenation of RMX entries. - -7.2.3. Encoding of IPv4 and IPv6 address ranges - - After the entry type tag as described above, one octet follows - giving the length L of the bit sequence. Then a sequence of exactly - as many octets follows as needed to carry L bits of information (= - trunc((L+7)/8) ). - - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | N | Entry Type Code (1 or 2) | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | Length Field L | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | Bit Field | - / ((L+7)/8) Octets / - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - - -7.2.4. Encoding of DNS - - After the entry type tag immediately follows a DNS encoded and - compressed [3] domain name. - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 18] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | N | Entry Type Code (3..5) | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | Length Field L | - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | Encoded DNS | - / Name as described in RFC1035 / - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - - In contrast to earlier versions of this draft, the DNS name cannot - be compressed, since this would cause decompression errors when a - DNS server is part of the query chain which does not know this - particular RR type. - -7.2.5. Encoding of unused and full query - - These entries do not contain parameters and does not allow the - negation flag. So the encoding is quite simple: - - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - | 0 | Entry Type Code (6 or 7)| - +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ - - - -7.2.6. Additional Records - - In order to avoid the need of a second query to resolve the given - host name, a DNS server should enclose the A record for that domain - name in the additional section of the additional section of the DNS - reply, if the server happens to be authoritative. - - In order to avoid the need of a second query to resolve the given - host name, a DNS server should enclose the APL record for that - domain name in the additional section of the additional section of - the DNS reply, if the server happens to be authoritative. - - - -8. Message Headers - - An RMX query must be followed by any kind of action depending on - the RMX result. One action might be to reject the message. Another - action might be to add a header line to the message body, thus - allowing MUAs and delivery programs to filter or sort messages. - - In future, the RMX result might be melted into the Received: header - line. - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 19] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - The details of such entries are to be discussed. As a proposal the - following form is suggested: - - X-RMX: RESULT addr ADDRESS by HOST on DATE mechanism MECHANISM - - where - - RESULT is one of "Granted", "Denied", "NotInRMX", "NoRMX", - "TempFail", "BadData", "Trusted". - - ADDRESS is the IP address of the sending machine - - HOST is the name of the machine performing the RMX query. - - DATE is the date of the query. - - MECHANISM is the RMX method used to authorize the sender. - - - -9. SMTP error messages - - If a message is rejected because of RMX records, an error message - should be issued which explains the details. It is to be discussed - whether new SMTP error codes are to be defined. - - -10. Message relaying and forwarding - -10.1. Problem description - - Message forwarding and relaying means that an MTA which received an - e-mail by SMTP does not deliver it locally, but resends the message - - usually unchanged except for an additional Received header line - and maybe the recipient's address rewritten - to the next SMTP MTA. - Message forwarding is an essential functionality of e-mail - transport services, for example: - - - Message transport from outer MX relay to the intranet - - Message forwarding and Cc-ing by .forward or .procmail-alike - mechanisms - - Mailing list processing - - Message reception by mail relays with low MX priority, - usually provided by third parties as a stand-by service - in case of relay failure or maintenance - - "Forwarding" and "Bouncing" as a MUA functionality - - In all these cases a message is sent by SMTP from a host which is - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 20] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - not covered by the original sender domain's RMX records. While the - RMX records would forbid accepting this message, it still must be - accepted. The following subsections explain how to cope with - relaying. - -10.2. Trusted relaying/forwarding - - In some cases the receiving MTA trusts the sending MTA to not fake - messages and to already have checked the RMX records at message - reception. As a typical example, a company might have an outer mail - relay which receives messages from the Internet and checks the RMX - records. This relay then forwards the messages to the different - department's mail servers. It does not make sense for these - department mail servers to check the RMX record, since the RMX - records have already been checked and - since the message was - relayed by the outer relay - always would deny the message. In this - case there is a trust relationship between the department relays - and the outer relay. So RMX checking is turned off for trusted - relays. In this example, the department relays would not check - messages from the outer relay (but for intranet security, they - could still check RMX records of the other departments sub-domains - to avoid internal forgery between departments). - - Another common example are the low-priority MX relays, which - receive and cache e-mails when the high-priority relays are down. - In this case, the high-priority relay would trust the low-priority - relay to have verified the sender authorization and would not - perform another RMX verification (which would obviously fail). - - When a relay forwards a message to a trusting machine, the envelope - sender address should remain unchanged. - -10.3. Untrusted relaying/forwarding - - If the receiving MTA does not trust the forwarding MTA, then there - is no chance to leave the sender envelope address unchanged. At a - first glance this might appear impracticable, but this is - absolutely necessary. If an untrusted MTA could claim to have - forwarded a message from a foreign sender address, it could have - forged the message as well. Spammers and forgers would just have to - act as such a relay. - - Therefore, it is required that, when performing untrusted - forwarding, the envelope sender address has to be replaced by the - sender address of someone responsible for the relaying mechanism, - e.g. the owner of the mailing list or the mail address of the user - who's .forward caused the transmission. It is important to stress - that untrusted relaying/forwarding means taking over responsibility - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 21] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - for the message. It is the idea of RMX records to tie - responsibility to message transmission. Untrusted relaying without - replacing the sender address would mean to transmit without taking - responsibility. - - The disadvantage is that the original sender address is lost. - Therefore, whenever a sender address replacement happens, the - Received-Line must contain the old address. Many of today's MTAs - already insert the envelope recipient address, but not the sender - address into the Received header line. It seems reasonable to - require every Received line to include both the sender and - recipient address of the incoming SMTP connection. - - -11. Security Considerations - -11.1. Draft specific considerations - -11.1.1. Authentication strength - - It is important to stress, that the suggested method does not - provide high level security and does not completely prevent forged - e-mails or spam under any circumstances. It is a robust, but not - highly reliable and completely secure security mechanism. Keep in - mind that it is based on DNS, and DNS is not secure today. - Authorization is based on the IP address. The very same machine - with the very same IP address could be authorized to send e-mail - with a given sender address and sending spam at the same time. - Maybe because several users are logged in. Or because several - customers use the same relay of the same ISP, where one customer - could use the sender address of a different customer. It is up to - the ISP to prevent this or not. Machines can still be hijacked. - Spammers are also domain owners. They can simply use their own - domain and authorize themselves. You will always find people on the - world who do not care about security and open their relays and RMX - records for others to abuse them. RMX is to be considered as a - very cheap and simple light weight mechanism, which can - nevertheless provide a significant improvement in mail security - against a certain class of attacks, until a successor of SMTP has - been defined and commonly accepted. - -11.1.2. Where Authentication and Authorization end - - Previous versions of RMX records did not cover the local part of - the e-mail address, i.e. what's on the left side of the @ sign. - This is still to be discussed. Authentication and authorization are - limited to the sending MTA's IP address. The authentication is - limited to the TCP functionality, which is sufficient for light - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 22] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - weight authentication. The RMX records authorize the IP address of - the sending host only, not the particular sender of the message. So - if a machine is authorized to use sender addresses of more than a - single domain, the authentication scheme does not prevent that any - user on this machine can send with any of these domains. RMX is not - a substitute for the host security of the involved machines. - - The proposed authentication scheme can be seen as a "half way - authentication": It does not track back an e-mail to the effective - sender. It tracks only half of the way, i. e. it tracks back to the - domain and it's DNS administrators who authorized that particular - sender IP address to use it for sending e-mail. How the party - responsible for that domain performs user authentication, whom it - grants access to, how it helds people responsible for abuse, is - completely left as the private business of those who are in charge - of that domain. So this draft does not interfere with the domain's - individual security policy or any legislation about such policies. - On the other hand, the proposed authentication scheme does not give - any statement about the nature and quality of the domain's security - policy. This is an essential feature of the proposal: E-mail - authentication must be deployed world wide, otherwise it won't do - the job. Any security scheme interfering with the local - legislations or the domain's security policy will not be accepted - and can't effectively deployed. Therefore, the security policy must - remain the domain's private business, no matter how lousy the - policy might be. - - In order to achieve this and to make use of the only existing world - wide Internet directory scheme (DNS), the approach of this proposal - is to just ignore the local part of the sender address (i.e. what's - left of the @ part) and limit view to the domain part. After all, - that's what we do anyway when delivering to a given address with - SMTP. - -11.1.3. Vulnerability of DNS - - DNS is an essential part of the proposed authentication scheme, - since it requires any directory service, and DNS is currently the - only one available. Unfortunately, DNS is vulnerable and can be - spoofed and poisoned. This flaw is commonly known and weakens many - network services, but for reasons beyond that draft DNS has not - been significantly improved yet. After the first version of this - draft, I received several comments who asked me not to use DNS - because of its lack of security. I took this into consideration, - but came to the conclusion that this is unfeasible: Any - authentication scheme linked to some kind of symbolic identity (in - this case the domain name) needs some kind of infrastructure and - trusted assignment. There are basically two ways to do it: Do it - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 23] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - yourself and trust nobody else, or let someone else do it. There - are methods to do it the former way, e.g. to give someone some kind - of authentication information after a first successful e-mail - exchange, e.g. some kind of cookie or special e-mail address. This - is certainly interesting and powerful, but it does not solve the - problem on a world wide scale and is far to complicated and error - prone for the average user, i. e. 99% of the users. - - The latter method to let someone else do the symbolic name - assignment and create the authentication framework is well known. - It context of public key cryptography, this is called a Public Key - Infrastructure (PKI). On of the best known facts about PKIs is - that, until now, we don't have any covering a significant part of - the Internet. And we won't have any in near future. The complexity - is far too high, it is too expensive, and it involves cooperation - of every single user, which is simply unrealistic and extremely - error prone. So what do we have we can use? All we have is the DNS - and the Whois database. And we have countries who don't allow - cryptography. So the proposal was designed to use DNS without - cryptography. It does not avoid DNS because of its vulnerability, - it asks for a better DNS, but accepts the DNS as it is for the - moment. Currently there are two main threats caused by the DNS - weakness: - - - A spammer/forger could spoof DNS in order to gain false - authorization to send fake e-mails. - - - An attacker could spoof DNS in order to block delivery from - authorized machines, i. e. perform a Denial of Service attack. - - The first one is rather unrealistic, because it would require an - average spammer to poison a significant part of the DNS servers of - its victims. A spammer sending messages to one million receipients - would need to poison at least 1-10% which is 10,000 to 100,000 - receipient's DNS servers. This should be unfeasible in most cases. - - In contrast, the second threat is a severe one. If an attacker - wanted to block messages from one company to another, he just needs - to poison the recipients DNS server with a wrong RMX record in - order to make the recipient's SMTP machine reject all messages. And - this is feasible since the attacker needs to poison only a single - DNS server. But does this make SMTP more vulnerable? No. Because - the attacker can already do even more without RMX. By poisoning the - sender's DNS server with wrong MX records, the attacker can also - block message delivery or even redirect the messages to the - attacker's machine, thus preventing any delivery error messages and - furthermore getting access to the messages. - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 24] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - As a consequence, e-mail delivery by SMTP requires a better DNS - anyway. The requirements are not significantly expanded by RMX. - -11.1.4. Sneaking RMX attack? - - While writing a test implementation, a certain kind of attack came - into my mind. I'm still not sure, whether this attack is possible - on any DNS server, but I believe it should be mentioned: - - Imagine an unauthorized sender is sending a forged mail (e.g. - spam). At connection time, before querying the RMX record, the - receiving MTA usually performs a PTR query for the IP address of - the sending MTA. If the sender has control over the authoritative - name server for that particular IP address, the sender could give a - normal PTR answer, but could append a wrong RMX, APL, or A record - in the additional section of the query. A subsequent RMX query - could receive wrong DNS data if the DNS server used by the - receiving MTA accepted those forged records. - -11.1.5. Open SMTP relays - - Open SMTP relays (i.e. machines who accept any e-mail message from - anyone and deliver to the world) abused by spammers are a one of - the main problems of spam defense and sender backtracking. In most - cases this problem just vanishes because foreign open relay - machines will not be covered by the RMX records of the forged - sender address. But there are two special cases: - - If the spammer knows about a domain which authorizes this - particular machine, that domain can be used for forgery. But in - this case, the IP address of the relay machine and the RMX records - of the domain track back to the persons responsible. Both can be - demanded to fix the relay or remove the RMX record for this - machine. An open relay is a security flaw like leaving the machine - open for everybody to login and send random mails from inside. Once - the administrative persons refuse to solve the problem, they can be - identified as spammers and held responsible. - - The second special case is when a domain authorizes all IP - addresses by having the network 0.0.0.0/0 in the RMX/APL record. In - this case, open relays don't make things worse. It's up to the - recipient's MTA to reject mails from domains with loose security - policies. - -11.1.6. Unforged Spam - - This proposal does not prevent spam (which is, by the way, not yet - exactly defined), it prevents forgery. Since spam is against law - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 25] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - and violates the recipients rights, spam depends on untracability - of the sender. In practice the sender forges the sender address - (other cases see below). This proposal is designed to detect such - forgeries. - - However, the RMX approach is rendered ineffective, if the sender - doesn't forge. If the sender uses just a normal address of it's own - domain, this is just a plain, normal e-mail, which needs to be let - through. Since it is up to the human's taste whether this is spam - or not, there's no technical way to reliably identify this as spam. - But since the sender domain is known, this domain can be - blacklisted or legal steps can be gone into. - -11.1.7. Reliability of Whois Entries - - Once the RMX infrastructure gets deployed, what's the security - gain? It allows to determine the domain which's DNS zone - authorized the sending machine. What's that good for? There are - some immediate uses of the domain name, e.g. in black- and - whitelisting. But in most cases this is just the starting point of - further investigations, either performed automatically before - message acceptance, or manually after spam has been received and - complainted about. - - The next step after determining the domain is determining the - people responsible for this domain. This can sometimes be achieved - by querying the Whois databases. Unfortunately, many whois entries - are useless because they are incomplete, wrong, obsolete, or in - uncommon languages. Furthermore, there are several formats of - address informations which make it difficult to automatically - extract the address. Sometimes the whois entry identifies the - provider and not the owner of the domain. Whois servers are not - built for high availability and sometimes unreachable. - - Therefore, a mandatory standard is required about the contents and - the format of whois entries, and the availability of the servers. - After receiving the MAIL FROM SMTP command with the sender envelope - address, the receiving MTA could check the RMX record and Whois - entry. If it doesn't point to a real human, the message could be - rejected and an error message like "Ask your provider to fix your - Whois entry" could be issued. Obviously, domain providers must be - held responsible for wrong entries. It might still be acceptable to - allow anonymous domains, i. e. domains which don't point to a - responsible human. But it is the receivers choice to accept e-mails - from such domains or not. - -11.1.8. Hazards for Freedom of Speech - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 26] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - Currently, some governments try to enforce limitations of internet - traffic in order to cut unwanted content providers from the - network. Some of these governments try to hide a whole country - behind firewalls, others try to force Internet providers to poison - DNS servers with wrong A records for web servers, e.g. one county - administration in Germany tries to do so. If message reception - depends on DNS entries, the same governments will try to block not - only HTTP, but SMTP also. - - However, since most MTAs already reject messages from unresolvable - domain names this is not a new threat. - -11.2. General Considerations about spam defense - - After discussing security requirements of the proposal, now the - security advantages of the RMX approach over content based filters - will be explained. Basically, there are three kinds of content - filters: - - - Those who upload the message or some digest to an external - third party and ask "Is this spam"? - - - Those who download a set of patterns and rules from a third - party and apply this set to incoming messages in order to - determine whether it is spam. - - - Those who are independent and don't contact any third party, - but try to learn themselves what is spam and what isn't. - - - The message filters provided by some e-mail service providers are - usually not a kind of their own, but a combination of the first two - kinds. - -11.2.1. Action vs. reaction - - Content filters suffer from a fundamental design problem: They are - late. They need to see some content of the same kind before in - order to learn and to block further distribution. - - This works for viruses and worms, which redistribute. This doesn't - work for spam, since spam is usually not redistributed after the - first delivery. When the filters have learned or downloaded new - pattern sets, it's too late. - - This proposal does not have this problem. - -11.2.2. Content based Denial of Service attacks - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 27] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - All three kinds of content filters, but especially the second and - the third kind are vulnerable to content based Denial of Service - attacks. - - If some kind of third party (e.g. non-democratic government, - intellectual property warriors, religious groups, military, secret - services, patriots, public relation agents, etc.) wants certain - contents not to be distributed, they could either poison the - pattern/rule databases or feed wrong sets to particular receivers. - - Such pattern/rule sets are the perfect tool for censoring e-mail - traffic and denial of service attacks by governments and other - parties, and a similar threat are virus filters. E. g. the content - industry could demand to teach all virus and spam filters to delete - all e-mails containing the URL of an MP3 web server outside the - legislations. Software manufacturers could try to block all e-mails - containing software license keys, thus trying to make unallowed - distribution more difficult. Governments could try to block - distribution of unwanted informations. - - This proposal does not have this problem. - - -12. Privacy Considerations - - (It was proposed on the 56th IETF meeting to have a privacy section - in drafts and RFCs.) - -12.1. Draft specific considerations - -12.1.1. No content leaking - - Since the RMX approach doesn't touch the contents of a message in - any way, there is obviously no way of leaking out any information - about the content of the message. RMX is based solely on the - envelope recipient address. However, methods to fix problems not - covered by RMX might allow content leaking, e.g. if the acceptance - of a message with an empty sender address requires the reference to - the message id of an e-mail recently sent, this allows an attacker - to verify whether a certain message was delivered from there. - -12.1.2. Message reception and sender domain - - Message delivery triggers RMX and APL requests by the recipient. - Thus, the admin of the DNS server or an eavesdropper could learn - that the given machine has just received a message with a sender - from this address, even if the SMTP traffic itself had been - encrypted. - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 28] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - However, most of today's MTAs do query the MX and A records of the - domain after the MAIL FROM command, so this is not a real new - threat. - -12.1.3. Network structure - - Since RMX and its associated APL records provide a complete list of - all IP addresses of hosts authorized to send messages from this - address, they do reveal informations about the network structure - and maybe the lifestyle of the domain owner, since a growing number - of domains are owned by single persons or families. E.g. the RMX - records could reveal where someone has his job or spends his time - at weekends. - - If such informations are to be kept secret, it is the user's job to - not sent e-mails from there and to relay them from non-compromising - IP addresses. - -12.1.4. Owner information distribution - - As described above, RMX depends partly on the reliability of the - whois database entries. It does not make anonymous domains - impossible, but it requires to keep the database entries "true", i. - e. if a whois entry does not contain informations about the - responsible person, this must be unambigously labeled as anonymous. - It must not contain fake names and addresses to pretend a non- - existing person. However, since most Internet users on the world - feel extremely annoyed by spam, they will urge their MTA admin to - reject messages from anonymous domains. The domain owner will have - the choice to either remain anonymous but be not able to send e- - mail to everyone in the world, or to be able but to reveal his - identity to everyone on the world. - - It would be possible to provide whois-like services only to - recipients of recent messages, but this would make things too - complicated to be commonly adopted. - -12.2. General Considerations about spam defense - -12.2.1. Content leaking of content filters - - As described above in the Security chapter, there are spam filters - which inherently allow leakage of the message body. Those filters - upload either the message body, or in most cases just some kind of - checksum to a third party, which replies whether this is to be seen - as spam or not. The idea is to keep a databases of all digests of - all messages. If a message is sent more often than some threshold, - it is to be considered as a mass mail and therefore tagged as spam. - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 29] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - While the digest itself does not reveal the content of the message, - it perfectly reveals where a particular message has been delivered - to. If a government finds just a single unwanted message, if a - software manufacturer finds a single message with a stolen product - license key, if someone finds a message with unpatriotic content, - it takes just a single database lookup to get a list of all people - who received this particular message. Content filters with digest - upload are the perfect "Big Brother". - -12.2.2. Black- and Whitelists - - Some proposals against spam are based on a central database of - white- or blacklisted IP addresses, Sender names, Message IDs or - whatever. Again, there is a central database which learns who has - received which e-mail or from which sender with every query. This - allows tracking relations between persons, which is also a breach - of privacy. - - - -13. Deployment Considerations - -13.1. Compatibility - -13.1.1. Compatibility with old mail receivers - - Since the suggested extension doesn't change the SMTP protocol at - all, it is fully compatible with old mail receivers. They simply - don't ask for the RMX records and don't perform the check. - -13.1.2. Compatibility with old mail senders - - Since the SMTP protocol is unchanged and the SMTP sender is not - involved in the check, the method is fully compatible with old mail - senders. - -13.1.3. Compatibility with old DNS clients - - Since the RMX is a new RR, the existing DNS protocol and zone - informations remain completely untouched. - - If RMX is provided as a TXT record instead, it must be ensured that - no other software is misinterpreting this entry. - -13.1.4. Compatibility with old DNS servers - - Full compatibility: If the server does not support RMX records, RMX - in TXT records can be used. - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 30] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - -13.2. Enforcement policy - - Obviously, for reasons of backward compatibility and smooth - introduction of this scheme, RMX records can't be required - immediately. Domains without RMX records must temporarily be - treated the same way as they are treated right now, i.e. e-mail - must be accepted from anywhere. But once the scheme becomes - sufficiently widespread, mail relays can start to refuse e-mails - with sender addresses from domains without RMX records, thus - forcing the owner of the domain to include a statement of - authorization into the domain's zone table. Domain owners will - still be free to have an RMX record with a network and mask - 0.0.0.0/0, i.e. to allow e-mails with that domain from everywhere. - On the other hand, mail receivers will be free to refuse mails from - domains without RMX records or RMX records which are too loose. - Advanced MTAs might have a configuration option to set the maximum - number of IP addresses authorized to use a domain. E-mails from a - domain, which's RMX records exceed this limit, would be rejected. - For example, a relay could reject e-mails from domains which - authorize more than 8 IP addresses. That allows to accept e-mails - only from domains with a reasonable security policy. - - - -14. General considerations about fighting spam - - Is there a concise technical solution against spam? Yes. - - Will it be deployed? Certainly not. - - Why not? Because of the strong non-technical interests of several - parties against a solution to the problem, as described below. - Since these are non-technical reasons, they might be beyond the - scope of such a draft. But since they are the main problems that - prevent fighting spam, it is unavoidable to address them. This - chapter exists temporarily only and should support the discussion - of solutions. It is not supposed to be included in a later RFC. - -14.1. The economical problem - - As has been recently illustrated in the initial session of the - IRTF's Anti Spam Research Group (ASRG) on the 56th IETF meeting, - sending spam is a business with significant revenues. - - But a much bigger business is selling Anti-Spam software. This is a - billion dollar market, and it is rapidly growing. Any simple and - effective solution against spam would defeat revenues and drive - several companies into bankrupt, would make consultants jobless. - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 31] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - Therefore, spam is essential for the Anti-Spam business. If there - is no spam, then no Anti-Spam software can be sold, similar to the - Anti-Virus business. There are extremely strong efforts to keep - this market growing. Viruses, Worms, and now spam are just perfect - to keep this market alive: It is not sufficient to just buy a - software. Databases need to be updated continuously, thus making - the cash flow continuously. Have a single, simple, and permanent - solution to the problem and - boom - this billion dollar market is - dead. - - That's one of the reasons why people are expected to live with - spam. They have to live with it to make them buy Anti-Spam - software. Content filters are perfect products to keep this market - alive. - -14.2. The POP problem - - Another problem is the history of mail delivery. Once upon a time, - there used to be very few SMTP relays which handled the e-mail - traffic of all the world, and everybody was happy with that. Then - odd things like Personal Computers, which are sometimes switched - off, portable computers, dynamicly assigned IP addresses, IP access - from hotel rooms, etc. was invented, and people became unhappy, - because SMTP does not support delivery to such machines. To make - them happy again, the Post Office Protocol[4] was invented, which - turned the last part of message delivery from SMTP's push style - into a pull style, thus making virtually every computer on the - world with any random IP address a potential receiver of mails for - random domains. Unfortunately, only receiving e-mail was covered, - but sending e-mail was left to SMTP. - - The result is that today we have only very few SMTP relays pointed - to by MX records, but an extreme number of hosts sending e-mail - with SMTP from any IP address with sender addresses from any - domain. Mail delivery has become very asymmetric. Insecurity, - especially forgeability, has become an essential part of mail - transport. - - That problem could easily be fixed: Use protocols which allow - uploading of messages to be delivered. If a host doesn't receive - messages by SMTP, it shouldn't deliver by SMTP. Mail delivery - should go the same way back that incoming mail went in. This is - not a limitation to those people on the road who plug their - portable computer in any hotel room's phone plug and use any - provider. If there is a POP server granting download access from - anywhere, then the same server should be ready to accept uploading - of outgoing messages. - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 32] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - But as I saw from the comments on the first version of this draft, - people religiously insist on sending e-mail with their domain from - any computer with any IP address in the world, e.g. when visiting a - friend using her computer. It appears to be impossible to convince - people that stopping mail forgery requires every one of them to - give up forging. - -14.3. The network structure problem - - A subsequent problem is that many organisations failed to implement - a proper mail delivery structure and heavily based their network on - this asymmetry. I received harsh comments from Universities who - were unable to give their network a good structure. While they do - have a central mail relay for incoming mail to the universities - domain, they developed a structure where every member of the - University randomly sends e-mails with that University's domain as - a sender address from home or everywhere in the world with any - dynamically assigned IP address from any provider. So this domain - is to be used from every possible IP address on earth, and they are - unable to operate any authentication scheme. Furthermore, they were - unable to understand that such a policy heavily supports spam and - that they have to expect that people don't accept such e-mails - anymore once they become blacklisted. - - As long as organisations insist on having such policies, spammers - will have a perfect playground. - -14.4. The mentality problem - - Another problem is the mentality of many internet users of certain - countries. I received harsh comments from people who strongly - insisted on the freedom to send any e-mail with any sender address - from anywhere, and who heavily refused any kind of authentication - step or any limitation, because they claimed that this would - infringe their constitutional "Freedom of speech". They are - undeviatingly convinced that "Freedom of speech" guarantees their - right to talk to everybody with any sender address, and that is has - to be kept the recipient's own problem to sort out what he doesn't - want to read - on the recipient's expense. - - It requires a clear statement that the constitutional "Freedom of - Speech" does not cover molesting people with unsolicited e-mail - with forged sender address. - -14.5. The identity problem - - How does one fight against mail forgery? With authentication. What - is authentication? In simple words: Making sure that the sender's - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 33] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - - real identity meets the recipients idea of who is the sender, based - on the sender address which came with the message. - - What is identity? It is the main problem. Several countries have - different ideas of "identity", which turn out to be somehow - incompatible. In some countries people have identity cards and - never change their name and birthday. Identities are created by - human birth, not by identity changes. Other countries do not have - such a tight idea about identity. People's temporary identity is - based on nothing more than a driving license and a social security - number. With this background, it is virtually impossible to create - a trustworthy PKI covering all Internet users. I learned that it is - extremely difficult to convince some people to give up random e- - mail sending. - -14.6. The multi-legislation problem - - Many proposals about fighting spam are feasible under certain - legislations only, and are inacceptable under some of the - legislations. But a world wide applicable method is required. - That's why the approach to ask everone on the world to sign - messages with cryptographic keys is not feasible. - - -Implementation and further Information - - Further informations and a test implementation are available at - - http://www.danisch.de/work/security/antispam.html - http://www.danisch.de/software/rmx/ - - - Additional informations and a technology overview are also - available at - - http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/ - - -References - - - -1. S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Lev- - els," RFC 2119 (March 1997). - -2. J. Klensin, "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol," RFC 2821 (April 2001). - - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 34] - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS RMX RR Oct 2003 - - -3. P. Mockapetris, "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION," - RFC 1035 (November 1987). - -4. J. Myers, M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3," RFC 1939 - (May 1996). - - -Draft History - - 00 Dec 2002 - 01 Apr 2003 - 02 Jun 2003 - 03 Oct 2003 - -Author's Address - - Hadmut Danisch - - Tennesseeallee 58 - 76149 Karlsruhe - Germany - - Phone: ++49-721-843004 or ++49-351-4850477 - E-Mail: rfc@danisch.de - -Comments - - Please send comments to rfc@danisch.de. - -Expiry - - This drafts expires on Apr 1, 2004. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Hadmut Danisch Experimental [Page 35] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-dnsext-opcode-discover-02.txt b/doc/draft/draft-dnsext-opcode-discover-02.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 7b5e8cc4455..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-dnsext-opcode-discover-02.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,241 +0,0 @@ - -IETF DNSEXT WG Bill Manning -draft-dnsext-opcode-discover-02.txt ep.net - Paul Vixie - ISC - 13 Oct 2003 - - - The DISCOVER opcode - -This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of -Section 10 of RFC2026. - -Comments may be submitted to the group mailing list at "mdns@zocalo.net" -or the authors. - -Distribution of this memo is unlimited. - -Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task -Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups -may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. - -Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and -may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It -is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite -them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - -The capitalized keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", -"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this -document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 - -0. Abstract: - - The QUERY opcode in the DNS is designed for unicast. With the - development of multicast capabilities in the DNS, it is desireable - to have a more robust opcode for server interactions since a single - request may generate replies from multiple responders. So DISCOVER - is defined to deal with replies from multiple responders. - - As such, this document extends the core DNS specifications to allow - clients to have a method for coping with replies from multiple - responders. Use of this new opcode may facilitate DNS operations in - modern networking topologies. A prototype of the DISCOVER opcode - was developed during the TBDS project (1999-2000), funded under DARPA - grant F30602-99-1-0523. - -1. Introduction: - - This document describes an experimental extension to the DNS to receive - multiple responses which is the likely result when using DNS that has - enabled multicast queries. This approach was developed as part of the - TBDS research project, funded under DARPA grant F30602-99-1-0523. The - full processing rules used by TBDS are documented here for possible - incorporation in a future revision of the DNS specification." - -2. Method: - - DISCOVER works like QUERY except: - - 1. it can be sent to a broadcast or multicast destination. QUERY - isn't defined for non-unicast, and arguably shouldn't be. - - 2. the Question section, if present, has - tuples. TBDS tried to augment this structure as follows: - . While this worked for our purposes in - TBDS, it is cleaner to place the SRV question in a separate pass. - - 3. if QDCOUNT equals 0 then only servers willing to do recursion should - answer. Other servers must silently discard the DISCOVER request. - - 4. if QDCOUNT is not equal to 0 then only servers who are authoritative - for the zones named by some QNAME should answer. - - 5. responses may echo the request's Question section or leave it blank, - just like QUERY. - - 6. responses have standard Answer, Authority, and Additional sections. - e.g. the response is the same as that to a QUERY. It is desireable - that zero content answers not be sent to avoid badly formed or - unfulfilled requests. Responses should be sent to the unicast - address of the requester and the source address should reflect - the unicast address of the responder. - - Example usage for gethostby{name,addr}-style requestors: - - Compute the zone name of the enclosing in-addr.arpa, ip6.int, or - ip6.arpa domain. - - DISCOVER whether anyone in-scope is authoritative for this zone. - - If so, query these authoritative servers for local - in-addr/ip6 names. - - If not, DISCOVER whether there are recursive servers available. - - If so, query these recursive servers for local - in-addr/ip6 names. - - So, a node will issue a multicast request with the DISCOVER opcode at - some particular multicast scope. Then determine, from the replies, - whether there are any DNS servers which are authoritative (or support - recursion) for the zone. Replies to DISCOVER requests MUST set the - Recursion Available (RA) flag in the DNS message header. - - It is important to recognize that a requester must be prepared to - receive multiple replies from multiple responders. We expect that - there will be a single response per responder. - - Once one learns a host's FQDN by the above means, repeat the process - for discovering the closest enclosing authoritative server of such - local name. - - Cache all NS and A data learned in this process, respecting TTL's. - - TBDS usage for SRV requestors: - - Do the gethostbyaddr() and gethostbyname() on one's own link-local - address, using the above process. - - Assume that the closest enclosing zone for which an authority server - answers an in-scope DISCOVER packet is "this host's parent domain". - - Compute the SRV name as _service._transport.*.parentdomain. - - This is a change to the definition as defined in RFC 1034. - A wildcard label ("*") in the QNAME used in a DNS message with - opcode DISCOVER SHOULD be evaluated with special rules. The - wildcard matches any label for which the DNS server data is - authoritative. For example 'x.*.example.com.' would match - 'x.y.example.com.' and 'x.yy.example.com.' provided that the - server was authoritative for 'example.com.' In this particular - case, we suggest the follwing considerations be made: - - getservbyname() can be satisfied by issuing a request with - this computed SRV name. This structure can be - populated by values returned from a request as follows: - - s_name The name of the service, "_service" without the - preceding underscore. - s_aliases The names returned in the SRV RRs in replies - to the query. - s_port The port number in the SRV RRs replies to the - query. If these port numbers disagree - one - of the port numbers is chosen, and only those - names which correspond are returned. - s_proto The transport protocol from named by the - "_transport" label, without the preceding - underscore. - - Send SRV query for this name to discovered local authoritative servers. - - Usage for disconnected networks with no authoritative servers: - - Hosts should run a "stub server" which acts as though its FQDN is a - zone name. Computed SOA gives the host's FQDN as MNAME, "." as the - ANAME, seconds-since-1Jan2000 as the SERIAL, low constants for EXPIRE - and the other timers. Compute NS as the host's FQDN. Compute the - glue as the host's link-local address. Or Hosts may run a - "DNS stub server" which acts as though its FQDN is a zone name. The - rules governing the behavior of this stub server are given elsewhere - [1] [2]. - - Such stub servers should answer DISCOVER packets for its zone, and - will be found by the iterative "discover closest enclosing authority - server" by DISCOVER clients, either in the gethostbyname() or SRV - cases described above. Note that stub servers only answer with - zone names which exactly match QNAME's, not with zone names which - are owned by QNAME's. - - The main deviation from the DNS[3][4] model is that a host (like, say, a - printer offering LPD services) has a DNS server which answers authoritatively - for something which hasn't been delegated to it. However, the only way that - such DNS servers can be discovered is with a new opcode, DISCOVER, which - is explicitly defined to discover undelegated zones for tightly scoped - purposes. Therefore this isn't officially a violation of DNS's coherency - principles. In some cases a responder to DISCOVER may not be traditional - DNS software, it could be special purpose software. - -3. IANA Considerations - - As a new opcode, the IANA will need to assign a numeric value - for the memnonic. The last OPCODE assigned was "5", for UPDATE. - Test implementations have used OPCODE "6". - -4. Security Considerations - - No new security considerations are known to be introduced with any new - opcode, however using multicast for service discovery has the potential - for denial of service, primarly from flooding attacks. It may also be - possible to enable deliberate misconfiguration of clients simply by - running a malicious DNS resolver that claims to be authoritative for - things that it is not. One possible way to mitigate this effect is by - use of credentials, such as CERT resource records within an RR set. - The TBDS project took this approach. - -5. Attribution: - - This material was generated in discussions on the mdns mailing list -hosted by Zocalo in March 2000. Updated by discussion in September/October -2003. David Lawrence, Scott Rose, Stuart Cheshire, Bill Woodcock, -Erik Guttman, Bill Manning and Paul Vixie were active contributors. - -6. Author's Address - - Bill Manning - PO 12317 - Marina del Rey, CA. 90295 - +1.310.322.8102 - bmanning@karoshi.com - - Paul Vixie - Internet Software Consortium - 950 Charter Street - Redwood City, CA 94063 - +1 650 779 7001 - - -7. References - -Informational References: - -[1] Esibov, L., Aboba, B., Thaler, D., "Multicast DNS", - draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-00.txt, November 2000. Expired - -[2] Woodcock, B., Manning, B., "Multicast Domain Name Service", - draft-manning-dnsext-mdns-00.txt, August 2000. Expired. - -Normative References: -[3] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", - RFC 1034, November 1987. -[4] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION", - RFC 1035, November 1987 - - ----------------------------EOL----------------------- - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-durand-dnsop-dynreverse-00.txt b/doc/draft/draft-durand-dnsop-dynreverse-00.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 224e7ad1697..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-durand-dnsop-dynreverse-00.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,240 +0,0 @@ -Internet Engineering Task Force Alain Durand -INTERNET-DRAFT SUN Microsystems -Feb 21, 2003 -Expires Aug 2, 2003 - - - - Dynamic reverse DNS for IPv6 - - - - -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 [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 describes a method to dynamically generate PTR records - and corresponding A or AAAA records when the reverse path DNS tree is - not populated. - - A special domain dynrev.arpa. is reserved for that purpose. - - -1. Introduction - - In IPv4, the reverse path tree of the DNS under in-addr.arpa. - although not perfectly maintained, is still mostly usable and its - existence is important for a number of applications that relies on - its existence and decent status. Some applications performs some - (very) weak security checks based on it. Mail relays relies on it for - some anti-spams checks an some FTP server will not let you in unless - your IP address resolve properly with a PTR record. - - IPv6 addresses being much longer (and cumbersome) than IPv4 - addresses, it is to fear that the reverse path tree under ip6.arpa. - would not be as well maintained. Also, tools like 6to4, Isatap and - others have made creative use of the 128 bits of an IPv6 address to - automatically embed an IPv4 address to enable seamless connection to - the IPv6 Internet. However, no provision has been made to make sure - the reverse path tree gets automatically updated as well for those - new IPv6 addresses. One step furter, RFC3041 describes a mechanism - to basically use random bits in the bottom part of an IPv6 address to - preserver anonymity. If those addresses are to resolve in the reverse - path tree, it obviously has to be with anonymous data as well. - Another point to note is that home customer ISPs in IPv4 have a - current practice to pre-populate the reverse path tree with names - automatically derived from the IP addresses. This practice is no - longer possible in IPv6, where IP address allocation is not dense as - it is the case in IPv4. The mere size of typical customer allocation - (2^48 according to the recommendation of RFC3177) makes it - impossible. - - Applications that check the existence of PTR records usually follow - this by checking if the name pointed by the PTR resolve in a A (or - AAAA for IPv6) that match the original IP address. Thus the forward - path tree must also include the corresponding data. - - One simple approach of this problem is to simply declare the usage of - the reverse path DNS as described above obsolete. The author believe - this is too strong an approach for now. - - Similarly, a completely different approach would be to deprecate the - usage of DNS for the reverse tree altogether and replace it by - something inspired from ICMP name-info messages. The author believes - that this approached is an important departure from the current - practise and thus not very realistic. Also, there are some concerns - about the the security implications of this method as any node could - easily impersonate any name. This approach would fundamentally change - the underlying assumption of "I trust what has been put in the DNS by - the local administrators" to "I trust what has been configured on - each machine I query directly". - - - -2. Dynamic record generation - - If static pre-population of the tree is not possible anymore and data - still need to be returned to applications using getnameinfo(), the - alternative is dynamic record generation. This can be done is two - places: in the DNS servers responsible for the allocated space (/64 - or /48) in the ip6.arpa. domain. or in the DNS resolvers (either the - sub resolver library or the recursive DNS server). - - 2.1. On the resolver side. - - The resolver, either in the recursive DNS server or in the stub - library could theoretically generate this data. - - In case DNSsec is in place, the recursive DNS server would have to - pretend these records are authentic. - - If the synthesis is done in the stub-resolver library, no record - needs to be actually generated, only the right information needs to - be passed to getnameinfo() and getaddrinfo(). If the synthesis is - done in the recursive DNS server, no modification is required to - existing stub resolvers. - - -2.2. On the server side. - - PTR records could be generated automatically by the server - responsible for the reverse path tree of an IPv6 prefix (a /64 or /48 - prefixes or basically anything in between) when static data is not - available. - - There could be impact on DNSsec as the zone or some parts of the zone - may need to be resigned each time a DNS query is made for an - unpopulated address. This can be seen as a DOS attack on a DNSsec - zone, so server side synthesis is not recommended if DNSsec is - deployed. - - - -3. Synthesis - - The algorithm is simple: Do the normal queries. If the query returns - No such domain, replace this answer by the synthetized one if - possible. - -3.1. PTR synthesis - - The synthetized PTR for a DNS string [X] is simply [X].dynrev.arpa. - where [X] is any valid DNS name. - - The fact that the synthetized PTR points to the dynrev.arpa. domain - is an indication to the applications that this record has been - dynamically generated. - - -3.2. A synthesis - - If [X] is in the form a.b.c.d.in-addr.arpa, one can synthetized an A - record for the string [X].dynrev.arpa. which value is d.c.b.a. with - a,b,c & d being integer [0..255] - - -3.3. AAAA synthesis - - If [X] is in the form - a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z.A.B.C.D.E.F.in- - addr.arpa, one can synthetized a AAAA record for the string - [X].dynrev.arpa. which value is - FEDC:BAzy:xwvu:tsrq:ponm:lkji:hgfe:dcba with - a,b,c....x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F being hexadecimal digits. - - -3.4. Server side synthesis - - If synthesis is done on the server side, PTR could be set not to use - the dynrev.arpa domain but the local domain name instead. It culd be - for instance dynrev.mydomain.com. - - Note also that server side synthesis is not incompatible with - resolver side synthesis. - - - -4. IANA considerations - - The dynrev.arpa. domain is reserved for the purpose of this document. - - - -5. Security considerations - - Section 2. discusses the the interactions with DNSsec. - - - -6. Authors addresses - - Alain Durand - SUN Microsystems, Inc - 17, Network Circle - UMPK17-202 - Menlo Park, CA 94025 - USA - Mail: Alain.Durand@sun.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt deleted file mode 100644 index fa41e7635e2..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,928 +0,0 @@ - -INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd -Obsoletes RFC 2929, Updates RFC 1183 Motorola Laboratories -Expires: February 2006 August 2005 - - - - Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations - ------ ---- ------ ----- ---- -------------- - - - - -Status of This Document - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become - the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929. Comments should be sent to the - DNS Working Group mailing list . - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than a "work in progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - - - -Abstract - - Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment - considerations are given for the allocation of Domain Name System - (DNS) classes, RR types, operation codes, error codes, RR header - bits, and AFSDB subtypes. - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - -Table of Contents - - Status of This Document....................................1 - Abstract...................................................1 - - Table of Contents..........................................2 - - 1. Introduction............................................3 - 2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................3 - 2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4 - 2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4 - 2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5 - 3. DNS Resource Records....................................6 - 3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations............................7 - 3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy...........................8 - 3.1.2 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................9 - 3.1.3 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field...........................9 - 3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations...........................9 - 3.3 RR NAME Considerations................................11 - 4. Security Considerations................................11 - - Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929...........................12 - - Copyright and Disclaimer..................................13 - Normative References......................................13 - Informative References....................................14 - - Authors Addresses.........................................16 - Expiration and File Name..................................16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - -1. Introduction - - The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure - hierarchical databases which hierarchically store "resource records" - (RRs) under domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and - zones which can be independently maintained. See [RFC 1034, 1035, - 2136, 2181, 4033] familiarity with which is assumed. - - This document provides, either directly or by reference, general IANA - parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query and - response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA - considerations that apply to only a particular RR type or - query/response opcode. See the specific RFC defining that RR type or - query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been - defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC 1183] which are - included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC 2929]. - - IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See - . - - "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required", - and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC 2434]. - - - -2. DNS Query/Response Headers - - The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the - following diagram taken from [RFC 2136, 2929]: - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | ID | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - |QR| Opcode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | ARCOUNT | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - - The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so - they can be matched. - - The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response. - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 3] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - - The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful - only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However, - many DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value - of the response header without clearing bits. Thus any attempt to - use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define - a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous given existing - implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF - Standards Action. - - The unsigned fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count (ANCOUNT), - authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information count (ARCOUNT) - express the number of records in each section for all opcodes except - Update. These fields have the same structure and data type for - Update but are instead the counts for the zone (ZOCOUNT), - prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional information - (ARCOUNT) sections. - - - -2.1 One Spare Bit? - - There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being - on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for - a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS - implementations ignore this bit. - - Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action. - - - -2.2 Opcode Assignment - - Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows: - - OpCode Name Reference - - 0 Query [RFC 1035] - 1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC 3425] - 2 Status [RFC 1035] - 3 available for assignment - 4 Notify [RFC 1996] - 5 Update [RFC 2136] - 6-15 available for assignment - - New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified - by [RFC 4020]. - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 4] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - -2.3 RCODE Assignment - - It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of - RCODE, or response/error code are available. However, RCODEs can - appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside - OPT RRs [RFC 2671], TSIG RRs [RFC 2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC 2930]. - The OPT RR provides an eight bit extension resulting in a 12 bit - RCODE field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16 bit RCODE field. - - Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types - all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of - error code 16 which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its - meaning in other contexts. See table below. - - RCODE Name Description Reference - Decimal - Hexadecimal - 0 NoError No Error [RFC 1035] - 1 FormErr Format Error [RFC 1035] - 2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC 1035] - 3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC 1035] - 4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC 1035] - 5 Refused Query Refused [RFC 1035] - 6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC 2136] - 7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC 2136] - 8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC 2136] - 9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC 2136] - 10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC 2136] - 11 - 15 Available for assignment - 16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC 2671] - 16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC 2845] - 17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC 2845] - 18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC 2845] - 19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RPC 2930] - 20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RPF 2930] - 21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RPF 2930] - - 22 - 3,840 - 0x0016 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment - - 3,841 - 4,095 - 0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use - - 4,096 - 65,534 - 0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment - - 65,535 - 0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF - Standards Action. - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - - Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability, - assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment" - requires an IETF Consensus. - - - -3. DNS Resource Records - - All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below - taken from [RFC 1035]: - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | | - / / - / NAME / - | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | TYPE | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | CLASS | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | TTL | - | | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | RDLENGTH | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--| - / RDATA / - / / - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - - NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this - resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described - in section 3.2. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more - labels each of which has a label type [RFC 1035, 2671]. - - TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR TYPE - codes. See section 3.1. - - CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS - codes. See section 3.2. - - TTL is a four octet (32 bit) bit unsigned integer that specifies the - number of seconds that the resource record may be cached before the - source of the information should again be consulted. Zero is - interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the transaction - in progress. - - RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16 bit integer that specifies the length in - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - - octets of the RDATA field. - - RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the - resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE - and in some cases the CLASS of the resource record. - - - -3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations - - There are three subcategories of RR TYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, - and MetaTYPEs. - - Data TYPEs are the primary means of storing data. QTYPES can only be - used in queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with - an particular DNS message and in some cases can also be used in - queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upwards plus - the block from 100 through 103 while Q and Meta Types have been - assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR which is - assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which made - caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the RR - TYPE. - - There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC 2671], TSIG - [RFC 2845], and TKEY [RFC 2930]. - - There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (all), MAILA, MAILB, - AXFR, and IXFR. - - Considerations for the allocation of new RR TYPEs are as follows: - - Decimal - Hexadecimal - - 0 - 0x0000 - TYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR [RFC - 2535] and in other circumstances and must never be allocated - for ordinary use. - - 1 - 127 - 0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining TYPEs in this range are assigned for data - TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in - section 3.1.1. - - 128 - 255 - 0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining TYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q and - Meta TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in - section 3.1.1. - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 7] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - - 256 - 32,767 - 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned for data, Q, or Meta TYPE use by the DNS - TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1. - - 32,768 - 65,279 - 0x8000 - 0xFEFF - Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434]. - - 65,280 - 65534 - 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. - - 65,535 - 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. - - - -3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy - - Parameter values specified above as assigned based on DNS TYPE - Allocation Policy. That is, Expert Review with the additional - requirement that the review be based on a complete template as - specified below which has been posted for three weeks to the - namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list. - - Partial or draft templates may be posted with the intend of - soliciting feedback. - - - DNS RR TYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE - - Date: - - Name and email of originator: - - Pointer to internet-draft or other document giving a detailed - description of the protocol use of the new RR Type: - - What need is the new RR TYPE intended to fix? - - What existing RR TYPE(s) come closest to filling that need and why are - they unsatisfactory? - - Does the proposed RR TYPR require special handling within the DNS - different from an Unknown RR TYPE? - - Comments: - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - -3.1.2 Special Note on the OPT RR - - The OPT (OPTion) RR, number 41, is specified in [RFC 2671]. Its - primary purpose is to extend the effective field size of various DNS - fields including RCODE, label type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA - size. In particular, for resolvers and servers that recognize it, it - extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits. - - - -3.1.3 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field - - The AFSDB RR [RFC 1183] is a CLASS insensitive RR that has the same - RDATA field structure as the MX RR but the 16 bit unsigned integer - field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as - follows: - - Decimal - Hexadecimal - - 0 - 0x0000 - Allocation requires IETF Standards Action. - - 1 - 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC 1183]. - - 2 - 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC 1183]. - - 3 - 65,279 - 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Consensus. - - 65,280 - 65,534 - 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. - - 65,535 - 0xFFFF - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action. - - - -3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations - - DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of - the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary - relationship between the name space or root servers for one CLASS and - those for another CLASS. The same name can have completely different - meanings in different CLASSes; however, the label types are the same - and the null label is usable only as root in every CLASS. However, - as global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS - has dominated DNS use. - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 9] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - - There are two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal data containing - classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries or updates. - - The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future - assignments are as follows: - - Decimal - Hexadecimal - - 0 - 0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action. - - 1 - 0x0001 - Internet (IN). - - 2 - 0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS. - - 3 - 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon 1981]. - - 4 - 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 1987]. - - 5 - 127 - 0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for data - CLASSes only. - - 128 - 253 - 0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for - QCLASSes only. - - 254 - 0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136]. - - 255 - 0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035]. - - 256 - 32,767 - 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus. - - 32,768 - 65,279 - 0x8000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned based on Specification Required as defined - in [RFC 2434]. - - 65,280 - 65,534 - 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. - - 65,535 - 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 10] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - -3.3 RR NAME Considerations - - DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC 1035]. The last label in each - NAME is "ROOT" which is the zero length label. By definition, the - null or ROOT label can not be used for any other NAME purpose. - - At the present time, there are two categories of label types, data - labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to - data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to - shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. The two existing data label - types are sometimes referred to as Text and Binary. Text labels can, - in fact, include any octet value including zero value octets but most - current uses involve only [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are - defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching - [insensitive]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673]. The - Binary label type is Experimental [RFC 3363]. - - IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC 2671]. - - NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer 1987] and Chaos [Moon - 1981] CLASSes are essentially for local use. The IN or Internet - CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at - this time. - - A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class - is given in [RFC 1591]. Some information on reserved top level - domain names is in BCP 32 [RFC 2606]. - - - -4. Security Considerations - - This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of - general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC 4033, 4034, 4035] for - secure DNS considerations. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 11] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - -Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929 - - RFC Editor: This Appendix should be deleted for publication. - - Changes from RFC 2929 to this draft: - - 1. Changed many "IETF Consensus" for RR TYPEs to be "DNS TYPE - Allocation Policy" and add the specification of that policy. Change - some remaining "IETF Standards Action" allocation requirements to say - "as modified by [RFC 4020]". - - 2. Updated various RFC references. - - 3. Mentioned that the Binary label type is now Experimental and - IQuery is Obsolete. - - 4. Changed allocation status of RR Type 0xFFFF and RCODE 0xFFFF to be - IETF Standards Action required. - - 5. Add an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field. - - 6. Addition of reference to case insensitive draft. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 12] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - -Copyright and Disclaimer - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to - the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except - as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - - -Normative References - - [RFC 1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and - Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [RFC 1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and - Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [RFC 1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. - Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990. - - [RFC 1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone - Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996. - - [RFC 2136] - Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound, - "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, - April 1997. - - [RFC 2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS - Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. - - [RFC 2434] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an - IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. - - [RFC 2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC - 2671, August 1999. - - [RFC 2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", - RFC 2673, August 1999. - - [RFC 2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. - Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", - RFC 2845, May 2000. - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 13] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - - [RFC 2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY - RR)", September 2000. - - [RFC 3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. - Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in - the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. - - [RFC 3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November - 2002. - - [RFC 4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of - Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. - - [RFC 4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March - 2005. - - [RFC 4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - [RFC 4044] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC - 4035, March 2005. - - [US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange", - X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968. - - - -Informative References - - [Dyer 1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena - Technical Plan - Name Service, April 1987, - - [Moon 1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts - Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June - 1981. - - [RFC 1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and - Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. - - [RFC 2929] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning, - "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929, - September 2000. - - [RFC 2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS - Names", RFC 2606, June 1999. - - [insensitive] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 14] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - - Insensitivity Clarification", draft-ietf-dnsext-insensitive-*.txt, - work in progress. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 15] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2005 - - -Authors Addresses - - Donald E. Eastlake 3rd - Motorola Laboratories - 155 Beaver Street - Milford, MA 01757 USA - - Telephone: +1-508-786-7554 (w) - email: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com - - - -Expiration and File Name - - This draft expires February 2006. - - Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 16] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f0ce70ab1c9..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,393 +0,0 @@ - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Andreas Gustafsson -draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt Nominum Inc. - November 2002 - - - DNS Zone Transfer Protocol Clarifications - - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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 - - In the Domain Name System, zone data is replicated among - authoritative DNS servers by means of the "zone transfer" protocol, - also known as the "AXFR" protocol. This memo clarifies, updates, and - adds missing detail to the original AXFR protocol specification in - RFC1034. - -1. Introduction - - The original definition of the DNS zone transfer protocol consists of - a single paragraph in [RFC1034] section 4.3.5 and some additional - notes in [RFC1035] section 6.3. It is not sufficiently detailed to - serve as the sole basis for constructing interoperable - implementations. This document is an attempt to provide a more - complete definition of the protocol. Where the text in RFC1034 - conflicts with existing practice, the existing practice has been - codified in the interest of interoperability. - - - - -Expires May 2003 [Page 1] - -draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt November 2002 - - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. - -2. The zone transfer request - - To initiate a zone transfer, the slave server sends a zone transfer - request to the master server over a reliable transport such as TCP. - The form of this request is specified in sufficient detail in RFC1034 - and needs no further clarification. - - Implementers are advised that one server implementation in widespread - use sends AXFR requests where the TCP message envelope size exceeds - the DNS request message size by two octets. - -3. The zone transfer response - - If the master server is unable or unwilling to provide a zone - transfer, it MUST respond with a single DNS message containing an - appropriate RCODE other than NOERROR. If the master is not - authoritative for the requested zone, the RCODE SHOULD be 9 - (NOTAUTH). - - Slave servers should note that some master server implementations - will simply close the connection when denying the slave access to the - zone. Therefore, slaves MAY interpret an immediate graceful close of - the TCP connection as equivalent to a "Refused" response (RCODE 5). - - If a zone transfer can be provided, the master server sends one or - more DNS messages containing the zone data as described below. - -3.1. Multiple answers per message - - The zone data in a zone transfer response is a sequence of answer - RRs. These RRs are transmitted in the answer section(s) of one or - more DNS response messages. - - The AXFR protocol definition in RFC1034 does not make a clear - distinction between response messages and answer RRs. Historically, - DNS servers always transmitted a single answer RR per message. This - encoding is wasteful due to the overhead of repeatedly sending DNS - message headers and the loss of domain name compression - opportunities. To improve efficiency, some newer servers support a - mode where multiple RRs are transmitted in a single DNS response - message. - - A master MAY transmit multiple answer RRs per response message up to - the largest number that will fit within the 65535 byte limit on TCP - - - -Expires May 2003 [Page 2] - -draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt November 2002 - - - DNS message size. In the case of a small zone, this can cause the - entire transfer to be transmitted in a single response message. - - Slaves MUST accept messages containing any number of answer RRs. For - compatibility with old slaves, masters that support sending multiple - answers per message SHOULD be configurable to revert to the - historical mode of one answer per message, and the configuration - SHOULD be settable on a per-slave basis. - -3.2. DNS message header contents - - RFC1034 does not specify the contents of the DNS message header of - the zone transfer response messages. The header of each message MUST - be as follows: - - ID Copy from request - QR 1 - OPCODE QUERY - AA 1, but MAY be 0 when RCODE is not NOERROR - TC 0 - RD Copy from request, or 0 - RA Set according to availability of recursion, or 0 - Z 0 - AD 0 - CD 0 - RCODE NOERROR on success, error code otherwise - - The slave MUST check the RCODE in each message and abort the transfer - if it is not NOERROR. It SHOULD check the ID of the first message - received and abort the transfer if it does not match the ID of the - request. The ID SHOULD be ignored in subsequent messages, and fields - other than RCODE and ID SHOULD be ignored in all messages, to ensure - interoperability with certain older implementations which transmit - incorrect or arbitrary values in these fields. - -3.3. Additional section and SIG processing - - Zone transfer responses are not subject to any kind of additional - section processing or automatic inclusion of SIG records. SIG RRs in - the zone data are treated exactly the same as any other RR type. - -3.4. The question section - - RFC1034 does not specify whether zone transfer response messages have - a question section or not. The initial message of a zone transfer - response SHOULD have a question section identical to that in the - request. Subsequent messages SHOULD NOT have a question section, - though the final message MAY. The receiving slave server MUST accept - - - -Expires May 2003 [Page 3] - -draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt November 2002 - - - any combination of messages with and without a question section. - -3.5. The authority section - - The master server MUST transmit messages with an empty authority - section. Slaves MUST ignore any authority section contents they may - receive from masters that do not comply with this requirement. - -3.6. The additional section - - The additional section MAY contain additional RRs such as transaction - signatures. The slave MUST ignore any unexpected RRs in the - additional section. It MUST NOT treat additional section RRs as zone - data. - -4. Zone data - - The purpose of the zone transfer mechanism is to exactly replicate at - each slave the set of RRs associated with a particular zone at its - primary master. An RR is associated with a zone by being loaded from - the master file of that zone at the primary master server, or by some - other, equivalent method for configuring zone data. - - This replication shall be complete and unaltered, regardless of how - many and which intermediate masters/slaves are involved, and - regardless of what other zones those intermediate masters/slaves do - or do not serve, and regardless of what data may be cached in - resolvers associated with the intermediate masters/slaves. - - Therefore, in a zone transfer the master MUST send exactly those - records that are associated with the zone, whether or not their owner - names would be considered to be "in" the zone for purposes of - resolution, and whether or not they would be eligible for use as glue - in responses. The transfer MUST NOT include any RRs that are not - associated with the zone, such as RRs associated with zones other - than the one being transferred or present in the cache of the local - resolver, even if their owner names are in the zone being transferred - or are pointed to by NS records in the zone being transferred. - - The slave MUST associate the RRs received in a zone transfer with the - specific zone being transferred, and maintain that association for - purposes of acting as a master in outgoing transfers. - -5. Transmission order - - RFC1034 states that "The first and last messages must contain the - data for the top authoritative node of the zone". This is not - consistent with existing practice. All known master implementations - - - -Expires May 2003 [Page 4] - -draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt November 2002 - - - send, and slave implementations expect to receive, the zone's SOA RR - as the first and last record of the transfer. - - Therefore, the quoted sentence is hereby superseded by the sentence - "The first and last RR transmitted must be the SOA record of the - zone". - - The initial and final SOA record MUST be identical, with the possible - exception of case and compression. In particular, they MUST have the - same serial number. The slave MUST consider the transfer to be - complete when, and only when, it has received the message containing - the second SOA record. - - The transmission order of all other RRs in the zone is undefined. - Each of them SHOULD be transmitted only once, and slaves MUST ignore - any duplicate RRs received. - -6. Security Considerations - - The zone transfer protocol as defined in [RFC1034] and clarified by - this memo does not have any built-in mechanisms for the slave to - securely verify the identity of the master server and the integrity - of the transferred zone data. The use of a cryptographic mechanism - for ensuring authenticity and integrity, such as TSIG [RFC2845], - IPSEC, or TLS, is RECOMMENDED. - - The zone transfer protocol allows read-only public access to the - complete zone data. Since data in the DNS is public by definition, - this is generally acceptable. Sites that wish to avoid disclosing - their full zone data MAY restrict zone transfer access to authorized - slaves. - - These clarifications are not believed to themselves introduce any new - security problems, nor to solve any existing ones. - -Acknowledgements - - Many people have contributed input and commentary to earlier versions - of this document, including but not limited to Bob Halley, Dan - Bernstein, Eric A. Hall, Josh Littlefield, Kevin Darcy, Robert Elz, - Levon Esibov, Mark Andrews, Michael Patton, Peter Koch, Sam - Trenholme, and Brian Wellington. - -References - - [RFC1034] - Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities, P. Mockapetris, - November 1987. - - - - -Expires May 2003 [Page 5] - -draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt November 2002 - - - [RFC1035] - Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications, P. - Mockapetris, November 1987. - - [RFC2119] - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, - S. Bradner, BCP 14, March 1997. - - [RFC2845] - Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG). P. - Vixie, O. Gudmundsson, D. Eastlake, B. Wellington, May 2000. - -Author's Address - - Andreas Gustafsson - Nominum Inc. - 2385 Bay Rd - Redwood City, CA 94063 - USA - - Phone: +1 650 381 6004 - - Email: gson@nominum.com - - -Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000 - 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 implmentation 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 - - - -Expires May 2003 [Page 6] - -draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt November 2002 - - - MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Expires May 2003 [Page 7] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-12.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-12.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 07749d95494..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-12.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,674 +0,0 @@ - - - - -DNSEXT M. Stapp -Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. -Expires: September 1, 2006 T. Lemon - Nominum, Inc. - A. Gustafsson - Araneus Information Systems Oy - February 28, 2006 - - - A DNS RR for Encoding DHCP Information (DHCID RR) - - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - It is possible for DHCP clients to attempt to update the same DNS - FQDN or attempt to update a DNS FQDN that has been added to the DNS - for another purpose as they obtain DHCP leases. Whether the DHCP - server or the clients themselves perform the DNS updates, conflicts - can arise. To resolve such conflicts, "Resolution of DNS Name - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - - Conflicts" [1] proposes storing client identifiers in the DNS to - unambiguously associate domain names with the DHCP clients to which - they refer. This memo defines a distinct RR type for this purpose - for use by DHCP clients and servers, the "DHCID" RR. - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. The DHCID RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.1. DHCID RDATA format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.2. DHCID Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.3. The DHCID RR Identifier Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.4. The DHCID RR Digest Type Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.5. Computation of the RDATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.5.1. Using the Client's DUID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.5.2. Using the Client Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.5.3. Using the Client's htype and chaddr . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.6.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.6.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.6.3. Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4. Use of the DHCID RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5. Updater Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - -1. Terminology - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2]. - - -2. Introduction - - A set of procedures to allow DHCP [6] [10] clients and servers to - automatically update the DNS (RFC 1034 [3], RFC 1035 [4]) is proposed - in "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts" [1]. - - Conflicts can arise if multiple DHCP clients wish to use the same DNS - name or a DHCP client attempts to use a name added for another - purpose. To resolve such conflicts, "Resolution of DNS Name - Conflicts" [1] proposes storing client identifiers in the DNS to - unambiguously associate domain names with the DHCP clients using - them. In the interest of clarity, it is preferable for this DHCP - information to use a distinct RR type. This memo defines a distinct - RR for this purpose for use by DHCP clients or servers, the "DHCID" - RR. - - In order to obscure potentially sensitive client identifying - information, the data stored is the result of a one-way SHA-256 hash - computation. The hash includes information from the DHCP client's - message as well as the domain name itself, so that the data stored in - the DHCID RR will be dependent on both the client identification used - in the DHCP protocol interaction and the domain name. This means - that the DHCID RDATA will vary if a single client is associated over - time with more than one name. This makes it difficult to 'track' a - client as it is associated with various domain names. - - -3. The DHCID RR - - The DHCID RR is defined with mnemonic DHCID and type code [TBD]. The - DHCID RR is only defined in the IN class. DHCID RRs cause no - additional section processing. The DHCID RR is not a singleton type. - -3.1. DHCID RDATA format - - The RDATA section of a DHCID RR in transmission contains RDLENGTH - octets of binary data. The format of this data and its - interpretation by DHCP servers and clients are described below. - - DNS software should consider the RDATA section to be opaque. DHCP - clients or servers use the DHCID RR to associate a DHCP client's - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - - identity with a DNS name, so that multiple DHCP clients and servers - may deterministically perform dynamic DNS updates to the same zone. - From the updater's perspective, the DHCID resource record RDATA - consists of a 2-octet identifier type, in network byte order, - followed by a 1-octet digest type, followed by one or more octets - representing the actual identifier: - - < 2 octets > Identifier type code - < 1 octet > Digest type code - < n octets > Digest (length depends on digest type) - -3.2. DHCID Presentation Format - - In DNS master files, the RDATA is represented as a single block in - base 64 encoding identical to that used for representing binary data - in RFC 3548 [7]. The data may be divided up into any number of white - space separated substrings, down to single base 64 digits, which are - concatenated to form the complete RDATA. These substrings can span - lines using the standard parentheses. - -3.3. The DHCID RR Identifier Type Codes - - The DHCID RR Identifier Type Code specifies what data from the DHCP - client's request was used as input into the hash function. The - identifier type codes are defined in a registry maintained by IANA, - as specified in Section 7. The initial list of assigned values for - the identifier type code is: - - 0x0000 = htype, chaddr from a DHCPv4 client's DHCPREQUEST [6]. - 0x0001 = The data octets (i.e., the Type and Client-Identifier - fields) from a DHCPv4 client's Client Identifier option [9]. - 0x0002 = The client's DUID (i.e., the data octets of a DHCPv6 - client's Client Identifier option [10] or the DUID field from a - DHCPv4 client's Client Identifier option [12]). - - 0x0003 - 0xfffe = Available to be assigned by IANA. - - 0xffff = RESERVED - -3.4. The DHCID RR Digest Type Code - - The DHCID RR Digest Type Code is an identifier for the digest - algorithm used. The digest is calculated over an identifier and the - canonical FQDN as described in the next section. - - The digest type codes are defined in a registry maintained by IANA, - as specified in Section 7. The initial list of assigned values for - the digest type codes is: value 0 is reserved and value 1 is SHA-256. - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - - Reserving other types requires IETF standards action. Defining new - values will also require IETF standards action to document how DNS - updaters are to deal with multiple digest types. - -3.5. Computation of the RDATA - - The DHCID RDATA is formed by concatenating the 2-octet identifier - type code with variable-length data. - - The RDATA for all type codes other than 0xffff, which is reserved for - future expansion, is formed by concatenating the 2-octet identifier - type code, the 1-octet digest type code, and the digest value (32 - octets for SHA-256). - - < identifier-type > < digest-type > < digest > - - The input to the digest hash function is defined to be: - - digest = SHA-256(< identifier > < FQDN >) - - The FQDN is represented in the buffer in unambiguous canonical form - as described in RFC 4034 [8], section 6.1. The identifier type code - and the identifier are related as specified in Section 3.3: the - identifier type code describes the source of the identifier. - - A DHCPv4 updater uses the 0x0002 type code if a Client Identifier - option is present in the DHCPv4 messages and it is encoded as - specified in [12]. Otherwise, the updater uses 0x0001 if a Client - Identifier option is present and 0x0000 if not. - - A DHCPv6 updater always uses the 0x0002 type code. - -3.5.1. Using the Client's DUID - - When the updater is using the Client's DUID (either from a DHCPv6 - Client Identifier option or from a portion of the DHCPv4 Client - Identifier option encoded as specified in [12]), the first two octets - of the DHCID RR MUST be 0x0002, in network byte order. The third - octet is the digest type code (1 for SHA-256). The rest of the DHCID - RR MUST contain the results of computing the SHA-256 hash across the - octets of the DUID followed by the FQDN. - -3.5.2. Using the Client Identifier Option - - When the updater is using the DHCPv4 Client Identifier option sent by - the client in its DHCPREQUEST message, the first two octets of the - DHCID RR MUST be 0x0001, in network byte order. The third octet is - the digest type code (1 for SHA-256). The rest of the DHCID RR MUST - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - - contain the results of computing the SHA-256 hash across the data - octets (i.e., the Type and Client-Identifier fields) of the option, - followed by the FQDN. - -3.5.3. Using the Client's htype and chaddr - - When the updater is using the client's link-layer address as the - identifier, the first two octets of the DHCID RDATA MUST be zero. - The third octet is the digest type code (1 for SHA-256). To generate - the rest of the resource record, the updater computes a one-way hash - using the SHA-256 algorithm across a buffer containing the client's - network hardware type, link-layer address, and the FQDN data. - Specifically, the first octet of the buffer contains the network - hardware type as it appeared in the DHCP 'htype' field of the - client's DHCPREQUEST message. All of the significant octets of the - 'chaddr' field in the client's DHCPREQUEST message follow, in the - same order in which the octets appear in the DHCPREQUEST message. - The number of significant octets in the 'chaddr' field is specified - in the 'hlen' field of the DHCPREQUEST message. The FQDN data, as - specified above, follows. - -3.6. Examples - -3.6.1. Example 1 - - A DHCP server allocating the IPv4 address 10.0.0.1 to a client with - Ethernet MAC address 01:02:03:04:05:06 using domain name - "client.example.com" uses the client's link-layer address to identify - the client. The DHCID RDATA is composed by setting the two type - octets to zero, the 1-octet digest type to 1 for SHA-256, and - performing an SHA-256 hash computation across a buffer containing the - Ethernet MAC type octet, 0x01, the six octets of MAC address, and the - domain name (represented as specified in Section 3.5). - - client.example.com. A 10.0.0.1 - client.example.com. DHCID ( AAABxLmlskllE0MVjd57zHcWmEH3pCQ6V - ytcKD//7es/deY= ) - - If the DHCID RR type is not supported, the RDATA would be encoded - [13] as: - - \# 35 ( 000001c4b9a5b249651343158dde7bcc77169841f7a4243a572b5c283 - fffedeb3f75e6 ) - -3.6.2. Example 2 - - A DHCP server allocates the IPv4 address 10.0.12.99 to a client which - included the DHCP client-identifier option data 01:07:08:09:0a:0b:0c - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - - in its DHCP request. The server updates the name "chi.example.com" - on the client's behalf, and uses the DHCP client identifier option - data as input in forming a DHCID RR. The DHCID RDATA is formed by - setting the two type octets to the value 0x0001, the 1-octet digest - type to 1 for SHA-256, and performing a SHA-256 hash computation - across a buffer containing the seven octets from the client-id option - and the FQDN (represented as specified in Section 3.5). - - chi.example.com. A 10.0.12.99 - chi.example.com. DHCID ( AAEBOSD+XR3Os/0LozeXVqcNc7FwCfQdW - L3b/NaiUDlW2No= ) - - If the DHCID RR type is not supported, the RDATA would be encoded - [13] as: - - \# 35 ( 0001013920fe5d1dceb3fd0ba3379756a70d73b17009f41d58bddbfcd - 6a2503956d8da ) - -3.6.3. Example 3 - - A DHCP server allocates the IPv6 address 2000::1234:5678 to a client - which included the DHCPv6 client-identifier option data 00:01:00:06: - 41:2d:f1:66:01:02:03:04:05:06 in its DHCPv6 request. The server - updates the name "chi6.example.com" on the client's behalf, and uses - the DHCP client identifier option data as input in forming a DHCID - RR. The DHCID RDATA is formed by setting the two type octets to the - value 0x0002, the 1-octet digest type to 1 for SHA-256, and - performing a SHA-256 hash computation across a buffer containing the - 14 octets from the client-id option and the FQDN (represented as - specified in Section 3.5). - - chi6.example.com. AAAA 2000::1234:5678 - chi6.example.com. DHCID ( AAIBY2/AuCccgoJbsaxcQc9TUapptP69l - OjxfNuVAA2kjEA= ) - - If the DHCID RR type is not supported, the RDATA would be encoded - [13] as: - - \# 35 ( 000201636fc0b8271c82825bb1ac5c41cf5351aa69b4febd94e8f17cd - b95000da48c40 ) - - -4. Use of the DHCID RR - - This RR MUST NOT be used for any purpose other than that detailed in - "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts" [1]. Although this RR contains - data that is opaque to DNS servers, the data must be consistent - across all entities that update and interpret this record. - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - - Therefore, new data formats may only be defined through actions of - the DHC Working Group, as a result of revising [1]. - - -5. Updater Behavior - - The data in the DHCID RR allows updaters to determine whether more - than one DHCP client desires to use a particular FQDN. This allows - site administrators to establish policy about DNS updates. The DHCID - RR does not establish any policy itself. - - Updaters use data from a DHCP client's request and the domain name - that the client desires to use to compute a client identity hash, and - then compare that hash to the data in any DHCID RRs on the name that - they wish to associate with the client's IP address. If an updater - discovers DHCID RRs whose RDATA does not match the client identity - that they have computed, the updater SHOULD conclude that a different - client is currently associated with the name in question. The - updater SHOULD then proceed according to the site's administrative - policy. That policy might dictate that a different name be selected, - or it might permit the updater to continue. - - -6. Security Considerations - - The DHCID record as such does not introduce any new security problems - into the DNS. In order to obscure the client's identity information, - a one-way hash is used. And, in order to make it difficult to - 'track' a client by examining the names associated with a particular - hash value, the FQDN is included in the hash computation. Thus, the - RDATA is dependent on both the DHCP client identification data and on - each FQDN associated with the client. - - However, it should be noted that an attacker that has some knowledge, - such as of MAC addresses commonly used in DHCP client identification - data, may be able to discover the client's DHCP identify by using a - brute-force attack. Even without any additional knowledge, the - number of unknown bits used in computing the hash is typically only - 48 to 80. - - Administrators should be wary of permitting unsecured DNS updates to - zones, whether or not they are exposed to the global Internet. Both - DHCP clients and servers SHOULD use some form of update - authentication (e.g., TSIG [11]) when performing DNS updates. - - -7. IANA Considerations - - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - - IANA is requested to allocate a DNS RR type number for the DHCID - record type. - - This specification defines a new number-space for the 2-octet - identifier type codes associated with the DHCID RR. IANA is - requested to establish a registry of the values for this number- - space. Three initial values are assigned in Section 3.3, and the - value 0xFFFF is reserved for future use. New DHCID RR identifier - type codes are assigned through Standards Action, as defined in RFC - 2434 [5]. - - This specification defines a new number-space for the 1-octet digest - type codes associated with the DHCID RR. IANA is requested to - establish a registry of the values for this number-space. Two - initial values are assigned in Section 3.4. New DHCID RR digest type - codes are assigned through Standards Action, as defined in RFC 2434 - [5]. - - -8. Acknowledgements - - Many thanks to Harald Alvestrand, Ralph Droms, Olafur Gudmundsson, - Sam Hartman, Josh Littlefield, Pekka Savola, and especially Bernie - Volz for their review and suggestions. - - -9. References - -9.1. Normative References - - [1] Stapp, M. and B. Volz, "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts Among - DHCP Clients (draft-ietf-dhc-dns-resolution-*)", February 2006. - - [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [3] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [4] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [5] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA - Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. - - - - - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - -9.2. Informative References - - [6] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, - March 1997. - - [7] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", - RFC 3548, July 2003. - - [8] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - [9] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor - Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. - - [10] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. - Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 - (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. - - [11] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D., and B. Wellington, - "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", - RFC 2845, May 2000. - - [12] Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-specific Client Identifiers - for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version Four (DHCPv4)", - RFC 4361, February 2006. - - [13] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) - Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Mark Stapp - Cisco Systems, Inc. - 1414 Massachusetts Ave. - Boxborough, MA 01719 - USA - - Phone: 978.936.1535 - Email: mjs@cisco.com - - - Ted Lemon - Nominum, Inc. - 950 Charter St. - Redwood City, CA 94063 - USA - - Email: mellon@nominum.com - - - Andreas Gustafsson - Araneus Information Systems Oy - Ulappakatu 1 - 02320 Espoo - Finland - - Email: gson@araneus.fi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft The DHCID RR February 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Stapp, et al. Expires September 1, 2006 [Page 12] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 438e8008a4c..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1397 +0,0 @@ -DNS Extensions Working Group G. Sisson -Internet-Draft B. Laurie -Expires: January 11, 2006 Nominet - July 10, 2005 - - - Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor and Successor - draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-00 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 11, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - This document describes two methods for deriving the canonically- - ordered predecessor and successor of a DNS name. These methods may - be used for dynamic NSEC resource record synthesis, enabling - security-aware name servers to provide authenticated denial of - existence without disclosing other owner names in a DNSSEC-secured - zone. - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Absolute Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.1. Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.2. Derivation of DNS Name Successor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. Modified Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4.1. Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4.2. Derivation of DNS Name Successor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5.1. Case Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5.2. Choice of Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5.3. Wild Card Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5.4. Possible Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5.4.1. Restriction of Effective Maximum DNS Name Length . . . 8 - 5.4.2. Use of Modified Method With Zones Containing - SRV RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6.1. Examples of Immediate Predecessors Using Absolute - Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6.2. Examples of Immediate Successors Using Absolute Method . . 13 - 6.3. Examples of Predecessors Using Modified Method . . . . . . 19 - 6.4. Examples of Successors Using Modified Method . . . . . . . 20 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - A.1. Changes from sisson-02 to ietf-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - A.2. Changes from sisson-01 to sisson-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - A.3. Changes from sisson-00 to sisson-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - -1. Introduction - - One of the proposals for avoiding the exposure of zone information - during the deployment DNSSEC is dynamic NSEC resource record (RR) - synthesis. This technique is described in [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec- - trans] and [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing], and involves the - generation of NSEC RRs that just span the query name for non-existent - owner names. In order to do this, the DNS names which would occur - just prior to and just following a given query name must be - calculated in real time, as maintaining a list of all possible owner - names that might occur in a zone would be impracticable. - - Section 6.1 of [RFC4034] defines canonical DNS name order. This - document does not amend or modify this definition. However, the - derivation of immediate predecessor and successor, while trivial, is - non-obvious. Accordingly, several methods are described here as an - aid to implementors and a reference to other interested parties. - - This document describes two methods: - - 1. An ``absolute method'', which returns the immediate predecessor - or successor of a domain name such that no valid DNS name could - exist between that DNS name and the predecessor or successor. - - 2. A ``modified method'', which returns a predecessor and successor - which are more economical in size and computation. This method - is restricted to use with zones consisting only of single-label - owner names where a maximum-length owner name would not result in - a DNS name exceeding the maximum DNS name length. This is, - however, the type of zone for which the technique of online- - signing is most likely to be used. - - -2. Notational Conventions - - The following notational conventions are used in this document for - economy of expression: - - N: An unspecified DNS name. - - P(N): Immediate predecessor to N (absolute method). - - S(N): Immediate successor to N (absolute method). - - P'(N): Predecessor to N (modified method). - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - S'(N): Successor to N (modified method). - - -3. Absolute Method - - These derivations assume that all uppercase US-ASCII letters in N - have already been replaced by their corresponding lowercase - equivalents. Unless otherwise specified, processing stops after the - first step in which a condition is met. - -3.1. Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor - - To derive P(N): - - 1. If N is the same as the owner name of the zone apex, prepend N - repeatedly with labels of the maximum length possible consisting - of octets of the maximum sort value (e.g. 0xff) until N is the - maximum length possible; otherwise continue to the next step. - - 2. If the least significant (left-most) label of N consists of a - single octet of the minimum sort value (e.g. 0x00), remove that - label; otherwise continue to the next step. - - 3. If the least significant (right-most) octet in the least - significant (left-most) label of N is the minimum sort value, - remove the least significant octet and continue with step 5. - - 4. Decrement the value of the least significant (right-most) octet, - skipping any values that correspond to uppercase US-ASCII - letters, and then append the label with as many octets as - possible of the maximum sort value. Continue to the next step. - - 5. Prepend N repeatedly with labels of as long a length as possible - consisting of octets of the maximum sort value until N is the - maximum length possible. - -3.2. Derivation of DNS Name Successor - - To derive S(N): - - 1. If N is two or more octets shorter than the maximum DNS name - length, prepend N with a label containing a single octet of the - minimum sort value (e.g. 0x00); otherwise continue to the next - step. - - 2. If N is one or more octets shorter than the maximum DNS name - length and the least significant (left-most) label is one or more - octets shorter than the maximum label length, append an octet of - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - the minimum sort value to the least significant label; otherwise - continue to the next step. - - 3. Increment the value of the least significant (right-most) octet - in the least significant (left-most) label that is less than the - maximum sort value (e.g. 0xff), skipping any values that - correspond to uppercase US-ASCII letters, and then remove any - octets to the right of that one. If all octets in the label are - the maximum sort value, then continue to the next step. - - 4. Remove the least significant (left-most) label. If N is now the - same as the owner name of the zone apex, do nothing. (This will - occur only if N is the maximum possible name in canonical DNS - name order, and thus has wrapped to the owner name of zone apex.) - Otherwise repeat starting at step 2. - - -4. Modified Method - - This method is for use with zones consisting only of single-label - owner names where an owner name consisting of label of maximum length - would not result in a DNS name which exceeded the maximum DNS name - length. This method is computationally simpler and returns values - which are more economical in size than the absolute method. It - differs from the absolute method detailed above in the following - ways: - - 1. Step 1 of the derivation P(N) has been omitted as the existence - of the owner name of the zone apex never requires denial. - - 2. A new step 1 has been introduced which removes unnecessary - labels. - - 3. Step 4 of the derivation P(N) has been omitted as it is only - necessary for zones containing owner names consisting of more - than one label. This omission generally results in a significant - reduction of the length of derived predecessors. - - 4. Step 1 of the derivation S(N) had been omitted as it is only - necessary for zones containing owner names consisting of more - than one label. This omission results in a tiny reduction of the - length of derived successors, and maintains consistency with the - modification of step 4 of the derivation P(N) described above. - - 5. Steps 2 and 4 of the derivation S(N) have been modified to - eliminate checks for maximum DNS name length, as it is an - assumption of this method that no DNS name in the zone can exceed - the maximum DNS name length. - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - These derivations assume that all uppercase US-ASCII letters in N - have already been replaced by their corresponding lowercase - equivalents. Unless otherwise specified, processing stops after the - first step in which a condition is met. - -4.1. Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor - - To derive P'(N): - - 1. If N has more labels than the number of labels in the owner name - of the apex + 1, repeatedly remove the least significant (left- - most) label until N has no more labels than the number of labels - in the owner name of the apex + 1; otherwise continue to next - step. - - 2. If the least significant (left-most) label of N consists of a - single octet of the minimum sort value (e.g. 0x00), remove that - label; otherwise continue to the next step. - - 3. If the least significant (right-most) octet in the least - significant (left-most) label of N is the minimum sort value, - remove the least significant octet. - - 4. Decrement the value of the least significant (right-most) octet, - skipping any values which correspond to uppercase US-ASCII - letters, and then append the label with as many octets as - possible of the maximum sort value. - -4.2. Derivation of DNS Name Successor - - To derive S'(N): - - 1. If N has more labels than the number of labels in the owner name - of the apex + 1, repeatedly remove the least significant (left- - most) label until N has no more labels than the number of labels - in the owner name of the apex + 1. Continue to next step. - - 2. If the least significant (left-most) label of N is one or more - octets shorter than the maximum label length, append an octet of - the minimum sort value to the least significant label; otherwise - continue to the next step. - - 3. Increment the value of the least significant (right-most) octet - in the least significant (left-most) label that is less than the - maximum sort value (e.g. 0xff), skipping any values which - correspond to uppercase US-ASCII letters, and then remove any - octets to the right of that one. If all octets in the label are - the maximum sort value, then continue to the next step. - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - 4. Remove the least significant (left-most) label. (This will occur - only if the least significant label is the maximum label length - and consists entirely of octets of the maximum sort value, and - thus has wrapped to the owner name of the zone apex.) - - -5. Notes - -5.1. Case Considerations - - Section 3.5 of [RFC1034] specifies that "while upper and lower case - letters are allowed in [DNS] names, no significance is attached to - the case". Additionally, Section 6.1 of [RFC4034] states that when - determining canonical DNS name order, "uppercase US-ASCII letters are - treated as if they were lowercase US-ASCII letters". Consequently, - values corresponding to US-ASCII uppercase letters must be skipped - when decrementing and incrementing octets in the derivations - described in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2. - - The following pseudo-code is illustrative: - - Decrement the value of an octet: - - if (octet == '[') // '[' is just after uppercase 'Z' - octet = '@'; // '@' is just prior to uppercase 'A' - else - octet--; - - Increment the value of an octet: - - if (octet == '@') // '@' is just prior to uppercase 'A' - octet = '['; // '[' is just after uppercase 'Z' - else - octet++; - -5.2. Choice of Range - - [RFC2181] makes the clarification that "any binary string whatever - can be used as the label of any resource record". Consequently the - minimum sort value may be set as 0x00 and the maximum sort value as - 0xff, and the range of possible values will be any DNS name which - contains octets of any value other than those corresponding to - uppercase US-ASCII letters. - - However, if all owner names in a zone are in the letter-digit-hyphen, - or LDH, format specified in [RFC1034], it may be desirable to - restrict the range of possible values to DNS names containing only - LDH values. This has the effect of: - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - 1. making the output of tools such as `dig' and `nslookup' less - subject to confusion; - - 2. minimising the impact that NSEC RRs containing DNS names with - non-LDH values (or non-printable values) might have on faulty DNS - resolver implementations; and - - 3. preventing the possibility of results which are wildcard DNS - names (see Section 5.3). - - This may be accomplished by using a minimum sort value of 0x1f (US- - ASCII character `-') and a maximum sort value of 0x7a (US-ASCII - character lowercase `z'), and then skipping non-LDH, non-lowercase - values when incrementing or decrementing octets. - -5.3. Wild Card Considerations - - Neither derivation avoids the possibility that the result may be a - DNS name containing a wildcard label, i.e. a label containing a - single octet with the value 0x2a (US-ASCII character `*'). With - additional tests, wildcard DNS names may be explicitly avoided; - alternatively, if the range of octet values can be restricted to - those corresponding to letter-digit-hyphen, or LDH, characters (see - Section 5.2), such DNS names will not occur. - - Note that it is improbable that a result which is a wildcard DNS name - will occur unintentionally; even if one does occur either as the - owner name of, or in the RDATA of an NSEC RR, it is treated as a - literal DNS name with no special meaning. - -5.4. Possible Modifications - -5.4.1. Restriction of Effective Maximum DNS Name Length - - [RFC1034] specifies that "the total number of octets that represent a - [DNS] name (i.e., the sum of all label octets and label lengths) is - limited to 255", including the null (zero-length) label which - represents the root. For the purpose of deriving predecessors and - successors during NSEC RR synthesis, the maximum DNS name length may - be effectively restricted to the length of the longest DNS name in - the zone. This will minimise the size of responses containing - synthesised NSEC RRs but, especially in the case of the modified - method, may result in some additional computational complexity. - - Note that this modification will have the effect of revealing - information about the longest name in the zone. Moreover, when the - contents of the zone changes, e.g. during dynamic updates and zone - transfers, care must be taken to ensure that the effective maximum - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - DNS name length agrees with the new contents. - -5.4.2. Use of Modified Method With Zones Containing SRV RRs - - Normally the modified method cannot be used in zones that contain - SRV RRs [RFC2782], as SRV RRs have owner names which contain multiple - labels. However the use of SRV RRs can be accommodated by various - techniques. There are at least four possible ways to do this: - - 1. Use conventional NSEC RRs for the region of the zone that - contains first-level labels beginning with the underscore (`_') - character. For the purposes of generating these NSEC RRs, the - existence of (possibly fictional) ownernames `9{63}' and `a' - could be assumed, providing a lower and upper bound for this - region. Then all queries where the QNAME doesn't exist but - contains a first-level label beginning with an underscore could - be handled using the normal DNSSEC protocol. - - This approach would make it possible to enumerate all DNS names - in the zone containing a first-level label beginning with - underscore, including all SRV RRs, but this may be of less a - concern to the zone administrator than incurring the overhead of - the absolute method or of the following variants of the modified - method. - - 2. The absolute method could be used for synthesising NSEC RRs for - all queries where the QNAME contains a leading underscore. - However this re-introduces the susceptibility of the absolute - method to denial of service activity, as an attacker could send - queries for an effectively inexhaustible supply of domain names - beginning with a leading underscore. - - 3. A variant of the modified method could be used for synthesising - NSEC RRs for all queries where the QNAME contains a leading - underscore. This variant would assume that all predecessors and - successors to queries where the QNAME contains a leading - underscore may consist of two lablels rather than only one. This - introduces a little additional complexity without incurring the - full increase in response size and computational complexity as - the absolute method. - - 4. Finally, a variant the modified method which assumes that all - owner names in the zone consist of one or two labels could be - used. However this negates much of the reduction in response - size of the modified method and may be nearly as computationally - complex as the absolute method. - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - -6. Examples - - In the following examples: - - the owner name of the zone apex is "example.com."; - - the range of octet values is 0x00 - 0xff excluding values - corresponding to uppercase US-ASCII letters; and - - non-printable octet values are expressed as three-digit decimal - numbers preceded by a backslash (as specified in Section 5.1 of - [RFC1035]). - -6.1. Examples of Immediate Predecessors Using Absolute Method - - Example of typical case: - - P(foo.example.com.) = - - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255.\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255.fon\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - \255{49}.\255{63}.\255{63}.fon\255{60}.example.com. - - where {n} represents the number of repetitions of an octet. - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where least significant (left-most) label of DNS name - consists of a single octet of the minimum sort value: - - P(\000.foo.example.com.) = foo.example.com. - - Example where least significant (right-most) octet of least - significant (left-most) label has the minimum sort value: - - P(foo\000.example.com.) = - - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255.\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255.\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255.foo.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - \255{45}.\255{63}.\255{63}.\255{63}.foo.example.com. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name contains an octet which must be decremented by - skipping values corresponding to US-ASCII uppercase letters: - - P(fo\[.example.com.) = - - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255.\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255.fo\@\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - \255{49}.\255{63}.\255{63}.fo\@\255{60}.example.com. - - where {n} represents the number of repetitions of an octet. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name is the owner name of the zone apex, and - consequently wraps to the DNS name with the maximum possible sort - order in the zone: - - P(example.com.) = - - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255.\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255.\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - \255{49}.\255{63}.\255{63}.\255{63}.example.com. - -6.2. Examples of Immediate Successors Using Absolute Method - - Example of typical case: - - S(foo.example.com.) = \000.foo.example.com. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name is one octet short of the maximum DNS name - length: - - N = fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - .ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fo{47}.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - S(N) = - - fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - \000.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooo.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fo{47}\000.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name is the maximum DNS name length: - - N = fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - o.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - ooooooooooooooooo.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.oooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - o.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fo{48}.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - S(N) = - - fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - p.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - ooooooooooooooooo.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.oooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - o.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fo{47}p.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name is the maximum DNS name length and the least - significant (left-most) label has the maximum sort value: - - N = \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooo.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - \255{49}.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - S(N) = - - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooop.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.oooooooooooooooo - ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. - example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - o{62}p.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name is the maximum DNS name length and the eight - least significant (right-most) octets of the least significant (left- - most) label have the maximum sort value: - - N = foooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255.ooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fo{40}\255{8}.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - S(N) = - - fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop.oooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - ooooooooo.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - ooooooooooooooooooooooooo.oooooooooooooooooooooo - ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fo{39}p.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name is the maximum DNS name length and contains an - octet which must be incremented by skipping values corresponding to - US-ASCII uppercase letters: - - N = fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - \@.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oo.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fo{47}\@.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - S(N) = - - fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - \[.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - oo.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fo{47}\[.o{63}.o{63}.o{63}.example.com. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name has the maximum possible sort order in the - zone, and consequently wraps to the owner name of the zone apex: - - N = \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255.\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255.\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - \255{49}.\255{63}.\255{63}.\255{63}.example.com. - - S(N) = example.com. - -6.3. Examples of Predecessors Using Modified Method - - Example of typical case: - - P'(foo.example.com.) = - - fon\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - fon\255{60}.example.com. - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where DNS name contains more labels than DNS names in the - zone: - - P'(bar.foo.example.com.) = foo.example.com. - - Example where least significant (right-most) octet of least - significant (left-most) label has the minimum sort value: - - P'(foo\000.example.com.) = foo.example.com. - - Example where least significant (left-most) label has the minimum - sort value: - - P'(\000.example.com.) = example.com. - - Example where DNS name is the owner name of the zone apex, and - consequently wraps to the DNS name with the maximum possible sort - order in the zone: - - P'(example.com.) = - - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - \255{63}.example.com. - -6.4. Examples of Successors Using Modified Method - - Example of typical case: - - S'(foo.example.com.) = foo\000.example.com. - - Example where DNS name contains more labels than DNS names in the - zone: - - S'(bar.foo.example.com.) = foo\000.example.com. - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - - Example where least significant (left-most) label has the maximum - sort value, and consequently wraps to the owner name of the zone - apex: - - N = \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255.example.com. - - or, in alternate notation: - - \255{63}.example.com. - - S'(N) = example.com. - - -7. Security Considerations - - The derivation of some predecessors/successors requires the testing - of more conditions than others. Consequently the effectiveness of a - denial-of-service attack may be enhanced by sending queries that - require more conditions to be tested. The modified method involves - the testing of fewer conditions than the absolute method and - consequently is somewhat less susceptible to this exposure. - - -8. IANA Considerations - - This document has no IANA actions. - - Note to RFC Editor: This section is included to make it clear during - pre-publication review that this document has no IANA actions. It - may therefore be removed should it be published as an RFC. - - -9. Acknowledgments - - The authors would like to thank Olaf Kolkman, Olafur Gudmundsson and - Niall O'Reilly for their review and input. - - -10. References - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - -10.1 Normative References - - [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS - Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. - - [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for - specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, - February 2000. - - [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4034, March 2005. - -10.2 Informative References - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing] - Ihren, J. and S. Weiler, "Minimally Covering NSEC Records - and DNSSEC On-line Signing", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-00 (work in - progress), May 2005. - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans] - Arends, R., Koch, P., and J. Schlyter, "Evaluating DNSSEC - Transition Mechanisms", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-02 (work in progress), - February 2005. - - -Appendix A. Change History - -A.1. Changes from sisson-02 to ietf-00 - - o Added notes on use of SRV RRs with modified method. - - o Changed reference from weiler-dnssec-online-signing to ietf- - dnsext-dnssec-online-signing. - - o Changed reference from ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records to RFC 4034. - - o Miscellaneous minor changes to text. - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 22] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - -A.2. Changes from sisson-01 to sisson-02 - - o Added modified version of derivation (with supporting examples). - - o Introduced notational conventions N, P(N), S(N), P'(N) and S'(N). - - o Added clarification to derivations about when processing stops. - - o Miscellaneous minor changes to text. - -A.3. Changes from sisson-00 to sisson-01 - - o Split step 3 of derivation of DNS name predecessor into two - distinct steps for clarity. - - o Added clarifying text and examples related to the requirement to - avoid uppercase characters when decrementing or incrementing - octets. - - o Added optimisation using restriction of effective maximum DNS name - length. - - o Changed examples to use decimal rather than octal notation as per - [RFC1035]. - - o Corrected DNS name length of some examples. - - o Added reference to weiler-dnssec-online-signing. - - o Miscellaneous minor changes to text. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 23] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Geoffrey Sisson - Nominet - Sandford Gate - Sandy Lane West - Oxford - OX4 6LB - GB - - Phone: +44 1865 332339 - Email: geoff@nominet.org.uk - - - Ben Laurie - Nominet - 17 Perryn Road - London - W3 7LR - GB - - Phone: +44 20 8735 0686 - Email: ben@algroup.co.uk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 24] - -Internet-Draft DNS Name Predecessor and Successor July 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Sisson & Laurie Expires January 11, 2006 [Page 25] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-06.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-06.txt deleted file mode 100644 index bcc2b4ec516..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-06.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,442 +0,0 @@ - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Samuel Weiler -Expires: June 2004 December 15, 2003 -Updates: RFC 2535, [DS] - - Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation Signer - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-06.txt - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions - of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six - months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other - documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts - as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in - progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - - Comments should be sent to the author or to the DNSEXT WG mailing - list: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org - -Abstract - - As the DNS Security (DNSSEC) specifications have evolved, the - syntax and semantics of the DNSSEC resource records (RRs) have - changed. Many deployed nameservers understand variants of these - semantics. Dangerous interactions can occur when a resolver that - understands an earlier version of these semantics queries an - authoritative server that understands the new delegation signer - semantics, including at least one failure scenario that will cause - an unsecured zone to be unresolvable. This document changes the - type codes and mnemonics of the DNSSEC RRs (SIG, KEY, and NXT) to - avoid those interactions. - -Changes between 05 and 06: - - Signifigantly reworked the IANA section -- went back to one - algorithm registry. - - Removed Diffie-Hellman from the list of zone-signing algorithms - (leaving only DSA, RSA/SHA-1, and private algorithms). - - Added a DNSKEY flags field registry. - -Changes between 04 and 05: - - IESG approved publication. - - Cleaned up an internal reference in the acknowledgements section. - - Retained KEY and SIG for TKEY, too. Added TKEY (2930) reference. - - Changed the names of both new registries. Added algorithm - mnemonics to the new zone signing algorithm registry. Minor - rewording in the IANA section for clarity. - - Cleaned up formatting of references. Replaced unknown-rr draft - references with RFC3597. Bumped DS version number. - -Changes between 03 and 04: - - Clarified that RRSIG(0) may be defined by standards action. - - Created a new algorithm registry and renamed the old algorithm - registry for SIG(0) only. Added references to the appropriate - crypto algorithm and format specifications. - - Several minor rephrasings. - -Changes between 02 and 03: - - KEY (as well as SIG) retained for SIG(0) use only. - -Changes between 01 and 02: - - SIG(0) still uses SIG, not RRSIG. Added 2931 reference. - - Domain names embedded in NSECs and RRSIGs are not compressible and - are not downcased. Added unknown-rrs reference (as informative). - - Simplified the last paragraph of section 3 (NSEC doesn't always - signal a negative answer). - - Changed the suggested type code assignments. - - Added 2119 reference. - - Added definitions of "unsecure delegation" and "unsecure referral", - since they're not clearly defined elsewhere. - - Moved 2065 to informative references, not normative. - -1. Introduction - - The DNSSEC protocol has been through many iterations whose syntax - and semantics are not completely compatible. This has occurred as - part of the ordinary process of proposing a protocol, implementing - it, testing it in the increasingly complex and diverse environment - of the Internet, and refining the definitions of the initial - Proposed Standard. In the case of DNSSEC, the process has been - complicated by DNS's criticality and wide deployment and the need - to add security while minimizing daily operational complexity. - - A weak area for previous DNS specifications has been lack of detail - in specifying resolver behavior, leaving implementors largely on - their own to determine many details of resolver function. This, - combined with the number of iterations the DNSSEC spec has been - through, has resulted in fielded code with a wide variety of - behaviors. This variety makes it difficult to predict how a - protocol change will be handled by all deployed resolvers. The - risk that a change will cause unacceptable or even catastrophic - failures makes it difficult to design and deploy a protocol change. - One strategy for managing that risk is to structure protocol - changes so that existing resolvers can completely ignore input that - might confuse them or trigger undesirable failure modes. - - This document addresses a specific problem caused by Delegation - Signer's [DS] introduction of new semantics for the NXT RR that are - incompatible with the semantics in RFC 2535 [RFC2535]. Answers - provided by DS-aware servers can trigger an unacceptable failure - mode in some resolvers that implement RFC 2535, which provides a - great disincentive to sign zones with DS. The changes defined in - this document allow for the incremental deployment of DS. - -1.1 Terminology - - In this document, the term "unsecure delegation" means any - delegation for which no DS record appears at the parent. An - "unsecure referral" is an answer from the parent containing an NS - RRset and a proof that no DS record exists for that name. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. - -1.2 The Problem - - Delegation Signer introduces new semantics for the NXT RR that are - incompatible with the semantics in RFC 2535. In RFC 2535, NXT - records were only required to be returned as part of a - non-existence proof. With DS, an unsecure referral returns, in - addition to the NS, a proof of non-existence of a DS RR in the form - of an NXT and SIG(NXT). RFC 2535 didn't specify how a resolver was - to interpret a response with both an NS and an NXT in the authority - section, RCODE=0, and AA=0. Some widely deployed 2535-aware - resolvers interpret any answer with an NXT as a proof of - non-existence of the requested record. This results in unsecure - delegations being invisible to 2535-aware resolvers and violates - the basic architectural principle that DNSSEC must do no harm -- - the signing of zones must not prevent the resolution of unsecured - delegations. - -2. Possible Solutions - - This section presents several solutions that were considered. - Section 3 describes the one selected. - -2.1. Change SIG, KEY, and NXT type codes - - To avoid the problem described above, legacy (RFC2535-aware) - resolvers need to be kept from seeing unsecure referrals that - include NXT records in the authority section. The simplest way to - do that is to change the type codes for SIG, KEY, and NXT. - - The obvious drawback to this is that new resolvers will not be able - to validate zones signed with the old RRs. This problem already - exists, however, because of the changes made by DS, and resolvers - that understand the old RRs (and have compatibility issues with DS) - are far more prevalent than 2535-signed zones. - -2.2. Change a subset of type codes - - The observed problem with unsecure referrals could be addressed by - changing only the NXT type code or another subset of the type codes - that includes NXT. This has the virtue of apparent simplicity, but - it risks introducing new problems or not going far enough. It's - quite possible that more incompatibilities exist between DS and - earlier semantics. Legacy resolvers may also be confused by seeing - records they recognize (SIG and KEY) while being unable to find - NXTs. Although it may seem unnecessary to fix that which is not - obviously broken, it's far cleaner to change all of the type codes - at once. This will leave legacy resolvers and tools completely - blinded to DNSSEC -- they will see only unknown RRs. - -2.3. Replace the DO bit - - Another way to keep legacy resolvers from ever seeing DNSSEC - records with DS semantics is to have authoritative servers only - send that data to DS-aware resolvers. It's been proposed that - assigning a new EDNS0 flag bit to signal DS-awareness (tentatively - called "DA"), and having authoritative servers send DNSSEC data - only in response to queries with the DA bit set, would accomplish - this. This bit would presumably supplant the DO bit described in - RFC 3225. - - This solution is sufficient only if all 2535-aware resolvers zero - out EDNS0 flags that they don't understand. If one passed through - the DA bit unchanged, it would still see the new semantics, and it - would probably fail to see unsecure delegations. Since it's - impractical to know how every DNS implementation handles unknown - EDNS0 flags, this is not a universal solution. It could, though, - be considered in addition to changing the RR type codes. - -2.4. Increment the EDNS version - - Another possible solution is to increment the EDNS version number - as defined in RFC 2671 [RFC2671], on the assumption that all - existing implementations will reject higher versions than they - support, and retain the DO bit as the signal for DNSSEC awareness. - This approach has not been tested. - -2.5. Do nothing - - There is a large deployed base of DNS resolvers that understand - DNSSEC as defined by the standards track RFC 2535 and RFC 2065 - and, due to under specification in those documents, interpret any - answer with an NXT as a non-existence proof. So long as that is - the case, zone owners will have a strong incentive to not sign any - zones that contain unsecure delegations, lest those delegations be - invisible to such a large installed base. This will dramatically - slow DNSSEC adoption. - - Unfortunately, without signed zones there's no clear incentive for - operators of resolvers to upgrade their software to support the new - version of DNSSEC, as defined in [DS]. Historical data suggests - that resolvers are rarely upgraded, and that old nameserver code - never dies. - - Rather than wait years for resolvers to be upgraded through natural - processes before signing zones with unsecure delegations, - addressing this problem with a protocol change will immediately - remove the disincentive for signing zones and allow widespread - deployment of DNSSEC. - -3. Protocol changes - - This document changes the type codes of SIG, KEY, and NXT. This - approach is the cleanest and safest of those discussed above, - largely because the behavior of resolvers that receive unknown type - codes is well understood. This approach has also received the most - testing. - - To avoid operational confusion, it's also necessary to change the - mnemonics for these RRs. DNSKEY will be the replacement for KEY, - with the mnemonic indicating that these keys are not for - application use, per [RFC3445]. RRSIG (Resource Record SIGnature) - will replace SIG, and NSEC (Next SECure) will replace NXT. These - new types completely replace the old types, except that SIG(0) - [RFC2931] and TKEY [RFC2930] will continue to use SIG and KEY. - - The new types will have exactly the same syntax and semantics as - specified for SIG, KEY, and NXT in RFC 2535 and [DS] except for - the following: - - 1) Consistent with [RFC3597], domain names embedded in - RRSIG and NSEC RRs MUST NOT be compressed, - - 2) Embedded domain names in RRSIG and NSEC RRs are not downcased - for purposes of DNSSEC canonical form and ordering nor for - equality comparison, and - - 3) An RRSIG with a type-covered field of zero has undefined - semantics. The meaning of such a resource record may only be - defined by IETF Standards Action. - - If a resolver receives the old types, it SHOULD treat them as - unknown RRs and SHOULD NOT assign any special meaning to them or - give them any special treatment. It MUST NOT use them for DNSSEC - validations or other DNS operational decision making. For example, - a resolver MUST NOT use DNSKEYs to validate SIGs or use KEYs to - validate RRSIGs. If SIG, KEY, or NXT RRs are included in a zone, - they MUST NOT receive special treatment. As an example, if a SIG - is included in a signed zone, there MUST be an RRSIG for it. - Authoritative servers may wish to give error messages when loading - zones containing SIG or NXT records (KEY records may be included - for SIG(0) or TKEY). - - As a clarification to previous documents, some positive responses, - particularly wildcard proofs and unsecure referrals, will contain - NSEC RRs. Resolvers MUST NOT treat answers with NSEC RRs as - negative answers merely because they contain an NSEC. - -4. IANA Considerations - -4.1 DNS Resource Record Types - - This document updates the IANA registry for DNS Resource Record - Types by assigning types 46, 47, and 48 to the RRSIG, NSEC, and - DNSKEY RRs, respectively. - - Types 24 and 25 (SIG and KEY) are retained for SIG(0) [RFC2931] and - TKEY [RFC2930] use only. - - Type 30 (NXT) should be marked as Obsolete. - -4.2 DNS Security Algorithm Numbers - - To allow zone signing (DNSSEC) and transaction security mechanisms - (SIG(0) and TKEY) to use different sets of algorithms, the existing - "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry is modified to include - the applicability of each algorithm. Specifically, two new columns - are added to the registry, showing whether each algorithm may be - used for zone signing, transaction security mechanisms, or both. - Only algorithms usable for zone signing may be used in DNSKEY, - RRSIG, and DS RRs. Only algorithms usable for SIG(0) and/or TSIG - may be used in SIG and KEY RRs. - - All currently defined algorithms remain usable for transaction - security mechanisms. Only RSA/SHA-1, DSA/SHA-1, and private - algorithms (types 253 and 254) may be used for zone signing. Note - that the registry does not contain the requirement level of each - algorithm, only whether or not an algorithm may be used for the - given purposes. For example, RSA/MD5, while allowed for - transaction security mechanisms, is NOT RECOMMENDED, per RFC3110. - - Additionally, the presentation format algorithm mnemonics from - RFC2535 Section 7 are added to the registry. This document assigns - RSA/SHA-1 the mnemonic RSASHA1. - - As before, assignment of new algorithms in this registry requires - IETF Standards Action. Additionally, modification of algorithm - mnemonics or applicability requires IETF Standards Action. - Documents defining a new algorithm must address the applicability - of the algorithm and should assign a presentation mnemonic to the - algorithm. - -4.3 DNSKEY Flags - - Like the KEY resource record, DNSKEY contains a 16-bit flags field. - This document creates a new registry for the DNSKEY flags field. - - Initially, this registry only contains an assignment for bit 7 (the - ZONE bit). Bits 0-6 and 8-15 are available for assignment by IETF - Standards Action. - -4.4 DNSKEY Protocol Octet - - Like the KEY resource record, DNSKEY contains an eight bit protocol - field. The only defined value for this field is 3 (DNSSEC). No - other values are allowed, hence no IANA registry is needed for this - field. - -5. Security Considerations - - The changes introduced here do not materially affect security. - The implications of trying to use both new and legacy types - together are not well understood, and attempts to do so would - probably lead to unintended and dangerous results. - - Changing type codes will leave code paths in legacy resolvers that - are never exercised. Unexercised code paths are a frequent source - of security holes, largely because those code paths do not get - frequent scrutiny. - - Doing nothing, as described in section 2.5, will slow DNSSEC - deployment. While this does not decrease security, it also fails - to increase it. - -6. Normative references - - [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", - RFC 2535, March 1999. - - [DS] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer Resource Record", - draft-ietf-dnsext-delegation-signer-15.txt, work in - progress, June 2003. - - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [RFC2931] Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures - (SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000. - - [RFC2930] Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY - RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000. - - [RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name - System (DNS)", RFC 2436, March 1999. - - [RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the - Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999. - - [RFC3110] Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the - Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001. - -7. Informative References - - [RFC2065] Eastlake, D. and C. Kaufman, "Domain Name System Security - Extensions", RFC 2065, January 1997. - - [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC - 2671, August 1999. - - [RFC3225] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC", RFC - 3225, December 2001. - - [RFC2929] Eastlake, D., E. Brunner-Williams, and B. Manning, - "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, - RFC 2929, September 2000. - - [RFC3445] Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Limiting the Scope of the KEY - Resource Record (RR)", RFC 3445, December 2002. - - [RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource - Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. - -8. Acknowledgments - - The changes introduced here and the analysis of alternatives had - many contributors. With apologies to anyone overlooked, those - include: Micheal Graff, John Ihren, Olaf Kolkman, Mark Kosters, Ed - Lewis, Bill Manning, and Suzanne Woolf. - - Thanks to Jakob Schlyter and Mark Andrews for identifying the - incompatibility described in section 1.2. - - In addition to the above, the author would like to thank Scott - Rose, Olafur Gudmundsson, and Sandra Murphy for their substantive - comments. - -9. Author's Address - - Samuel Weiler - SPARTA, Inc. - 7075 Samuel Morse Drive - Columbia, MD 21046 - USA - weiler@tislabs.com - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-01.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 3a800f98880..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-01.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,616 +0,0 @@ - - - -Network Working Group S. Weiler -Internet-Draft SPARTA, Inc -Updates: 4034, 4035 (if approved) May 23, 2005 -Expires: November 24, 2005 - - - Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNSSECbis - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-01 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 2005. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - This document is a collection of minor technical clarifications to - the DNSSECbis document set. It is meant to serve as a resource to - implementors as well as an interim repository of possible DNSSECbis - errata. - - - - - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - -Proposed additions in future versions - - An index sorted by the section of DNSSECbis being clarified. - - A list of proposed protocol changes being made in other documents, - such as NSEC3 and Epsilon. This document would not make those - changes, merely provide an index into the documents that are making - changes. - -Changes between -00 and -01 - - Document significantly restructured. - - Added section on QTYPE=ANY. - -Changes between personal submission and first WG draft - - Added Section 2.1 based on namedroppers discussions from March 9-10, - 2005. - - Added Section 3.4, Section 3.3, Section 4.3, and Section 2.2. - - Added the DNSSECbis RFC numbers. - - Figured out the confusion in Section 4.1. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.1 Structure of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Significant Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1 Clarifications on Non-Existence Proofs . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.2 Empty Non-Terminal Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.3 Validating Responses to an ANY Query . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3. Interoperability Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1 Unknown DS Message Digest Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.2 Private Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.3 Caution About Local Policy and Multiple RRSIGs . . . . . . 6 - 3.4 Key Tag Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.1 Finding Zone Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.2 Clarifications on DNSKEY Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.3 Errors in Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - -1. Introduction and Terminology - - This document lists some minor clarifications and corrections to - DNSSECbis, as described in [1], [2], and [3]. - - It is intended to serve as a resource for implementors and as a - repository of items that need to be addressed when advancing the - DNSSECbis documents from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. - - In this version (-01 of the WG document), feedback is particularly - solicited on the structure of the document and whether the text in - the recently added sections is correct and sufficient. - - Proposed substantive additions to this document should be sent to the - namedroppers mailing list as well as to the editor of this document. - The editor would greatly prefer text suitable for direct inclusion in - this document. - -1.1 Structure of this Document - - The clarifications to DNSSECbis are sorted according to the editor's - impression of their importance, starting with ones which could, if - ignored, lead to security and stability problems and progressing down - to clarifications that are likely to have little operational impact. - Mere typos and awkward phrasings are not addressed unless they could - lead to misinterpretation of the DNSSECbis documents. - -1.2 Terminology - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4]. - -2. Significant Concerns - - This section provides clarifications that, if overlooked, could lead - to security issues or major interoperability problems. - -2.1 Clarifications on Non-Existence Proofs - - RFC4035 Section 5.4 slightly underspecifies the algorithm for - checking non-existence proofs. In particular, the algorithm there - might incorrectly allow the NSEC from the parent side of a zone cut - to prove the non-existence of either other RRs at that name in the - child zone or other names in the child zone. It might also allow a - NSEC at the same name as a DNAME to prove the non-existence of names - beneath that DNAME. - - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - - A parent-side delegation NSEC (one with the NS bit set, but no SOA - bit set, and with a singer field that's shorter than the owner name) - must not be used to assume non-existence of any RRs below that zone - cut (both RRs at that ownername and at ownernames with more leading - labels, no matter their content). Similarly, an NSEC with the DNAME - bit set must not be used to assume the non-existence of any - descendant of that NSEC's owner name. - -2.2 Empty Non-Terminal Proofs - - To be written, based on Roy Arends' May 11th message to namedroppers. - -2.3 Validating Responses to an ANY Query - - RFC4035 does not address now to validate responses when QTYPE=*. As - described in Section 6.2.2 of RFC1034, a proper response to QTYPE=* - may include a subset of the RRsets at a given name -- it is not - necessary to include all RRsets at the QNAME in the response. - - When validating a response to QTYPE=*, validate all received RRsets - that match QNAME and QCLASS. If any of those RRsets fail validation, - treat the answer as Bogus. If there are no RRsets matching QNAME and - QCLASS, validate that fact using the rules in RFC4035 Section 5.4 (as - clarified in this document). To be clear, a validator must not - insist on receiving all records at the QNAME in response to QTYPE=*. - -3. Interoperability Concerns - -3.1 Unknown DS Message Digest Algorithms - - Section 5.2 of RFC4035 includes rules for how to handle delegations - to zones that are signed with entirely unsupported algorithms, as - indicated by the algorithms shown in those zone's DS RRsets. It does - not explicitly address how to handle DS records that use unsupported - message digest algorithms. In brief, DS records using unknown or - unsupported message digest algorithms MUST be treated the same way as - DS records referring to DNSKEY RRs of unknown or unsupported - algorithms. - - The existing text says: - - If the validator does not support any of the algorithms listed - in an authenticated DS RRset, then the resolver has no supported - authentication path leading from the parent to the child. The - resolver should treat this case as it would the case of an - authenticated NSEC RRset proving that no DS RRset exists, as - described above. - - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - - To paraphrase the above, when determining the security status of a - zone, a validator discards (for this purpose only) any DS records - listing unknown or unsupported algorithms. If none are left, the - zone is treated as if it were unsigned. - - Modified to consider DS message digest algorithms, a validator also - discards any DS records using unknown or unsupported message digest - algorithms. - -3.2 Private Algorithms - - As discussed above, section 5.2 of RFC4035 requires that validators - make decisions about the security status of zones based on the public - key algorithms shown in the DS records for those zones. In the case - of private algorithms, as described in RFC4034 Appendix A.1.1, the - eight-bit algorithm field in the DS RR is not conclusive about what - algorithm(s) is actually in use. - - If no private algorithms appear in the DS set or if any supported - algorithm appears in the DS set, no special processing will be - needed. In the remaining cases, the security status of the zone - depends on whether or not the resolver supports any of the private - algorithms in use (provided that these DS records use supported hash - functions, as discussed in Section 3.1). In these cases, the - resolver MUST retrieve the corresponding DNSKEY for each private - algorithm DS record and examine the public key field to determine the - algorithm in use. The security-aware resolver MUST ensure that the - hash of the DNSKEY RR's owner name and RDATA matches the digest in - the DS RR. If they do not match, and no other DS establishes that - the zone is secure, the referral should be considered BAD data, as - discussed in RFC4035. - - This clarification facilitates the broader use of private algorithms, - as suggested by [5]. - -3.3 Caution About Local Policy and Multiple RRSIGs - - When multiple RRSIGs cover a given RRset, RFC4035 Section 5.3.3 - suggests that "the local resolver security policy determines whether - the resolver also has to test these RRSIG RRs and how to resolve - conflicts if these RRSIG RRs lead to differing results." In most - cases, a resolver would be well advised to accept any valid RRSIG as - sufficient. If the first RRSIG tested fails validation, a resolver - would be well advised to try others, giving a successful validation - result if any can be validated and giving a failure only if all - RRSIGs fail validation. - - If a resolver adopts a more restrictive policy, there's a danger that - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - - properly-signed data might unnecessarily fail validation, perhaps - because of cache timing issues. Furthermore, certain zone management - techniques, like the Double Signature Zone-signing Key Rollover - method described in section 4.2.1.2 of [6] might not work reliably. - -3.4 Key Tag Calculation - - RFC4034 Appendix B.1 incorrectly defines the Key Tag field - calculation for algorithm 1. It correctly says that the Key Tag is - the most significant 16 of the least significant 24 bits of the - public key modulus. However, RFC4034 then goes on to incorrectly say - that this is 4th to last and 3rd to last octets of the public key - modulus. It is, in fact, the 3rd to last and 2nd to last octets. - -4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications - -4.1 Finding Zone Cuts - - Appendix C.8 of RFC4035 discusses sending DS queries to the servers - for a parent zone. To do that, a resolver may first need to apply - special rules to discover what those servers are. - - As explained in Section 3.1.4.1 of RFC4035, security-aware name - servers need to apply special processing rules to handle the DS RR, - and in some situations the resolver may also need to apply special - rules to locate the name servers for the parent zone if the resolver - does not already have the parent's NS RRset. Section 4.2 of RFC4035 - specifies a mechanism for doing that. - -4.2 Clarifications on DNSKEY Usage - - Questions of the form "can I use a different DNSKEY for signing the - X" have occasionally arisen. - - The short answer is "yes, absolutely". You can even use a different - DNSKEY for each RRset in a zone, subject only to practical limits on - the size of the DNSKEY RRset. However, be aware that there is no way - to tell resolvers what a particularly DNSKEY is supposed to be used - for -- any DNSKEY in the zone's signed DNSKEY RRset may be used to - authenticate any RRset in the zone. For example, if a weaker or less - trusted DNSKEY is being used to authenticate NSEC RRsets or all - dynamically updated records, that same DNSKEY can also be used to - sign any other RRsets from the zone. - - Furthermore, note that the SEP bit setting has no effect on how a - DNSKEY may be used -- the validation process is specifically - prohibited from using that bit by RFC4034 section 2.1.2. It possible - to use a DNSKEY without the SEP bit set as the sole secure entry - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - - point to the zone, yet use a DNSKEY with the SEP bit set to sign all - RRsets in the zone (other than the DNSKEY RRset). It's also possible - to use a single DNSKEY, with or without the SEP bit set, to sign the - entire zone, including the DNSKEY RRset itself. - -4.3 Errors in Examples - - The text in RFC4035 Section C.1 refers to the examples in B.1 as - "x.w.example.com" while B.1 uses "x.w.example". This is painfully - obvious in the second paragraph where it states that the RRSIG labels - field value of 3 indicates that the answer was not the result of - wildcard expansion. This is true for "x.w.example" but not for - "x.w.example.com", which of course has a label count of 4 - (antithetically, a label count of 3 would imply the answer was the - result of a wildcard expansion). - - The first paragraph of RFC4035 Section C.6 also has a minor error: - the reference to "a.z.w.w.example" should instead be "a.z.w.example", - as in the previous line. - -5. IANA Considerations - - This document specifies no IANA Actions. - -6. Security Considerations - - This document does not make fundamental changes to the DNSSEC - protocol, as it was generally understood when DNSSECbis was - published. It does, however, address some ambiguities and omissions - in those documents that, if not recognized and addressed in - implementations, could lead to security failures. In particular, the - validation algorithm clarifications in Section 2 are critical for - preserving the security properties DNSSEC offers. Furthermore, - failure to address some of the interoperability concerns in Section 3 - could limit the ability to later change or expand DNSSEC, including - by adding new algorithms. - -7. References - -7.1 Normative References - - [1] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [2] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - - [3] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4035, March 2005. - - [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - -7.2 Informative References - - [5] Blacka, D., "DNSSEC Experiments", - draft-blacka-dnssec-experiments-00 (work in progress), - December 2004. - - [6] Gieben, R. and O. Kolkman, "DNSSEC Operational Practices", - draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-04 (work in - progress), May 2005. - - -Author's Address - - Samuel Weiler - SPARTA, Inc - 7075 Samuel Morse Drive - Columbia, Maryland 21046 - US - - Email: weiler@tislabs.com - -Appendix A. Acknowledgments - - The editor is extremely grateful to those who, in addition to finding - errors and omissions in the DNSSECbis document set, have provided - text suitable for inclusion in this document. - - The lack of specificity about handling private algorithms, as - described in Section 3.2, and the lack of specificity in handling ANY - queries, as described in Section 2.3, were discovered by David - Blacka. - - The error in algorithm 1 key tag calculation, as described in - Section 3.4, was found by Abhijit Hayatnagarkar. Donald Eastlake - contributed text for Section 3.4. - - The bug relating to delegation NSEC RR's in Section 2.1 was found by - Roy Badami. Roy Arends found the related problem with DNAME. - - The errors in the RFC4035 examples were found by Roy Arends, who also - contributed text for Section 4.3 of this document. - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - - The editor would like to thank Olafur Gudmundsson and Scott Rose for - their substantive comments on the text of this document. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft DNSSECbis Implementation Notes May 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Weiler Expires November 24, 2005 [Page 11] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-01.txt deleted file mode 100644 index ee03583a130..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-01.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,784 +0,0 @@ - - - -DNSEXT D. Blacka -Internet-Draft Verisign, Inc. -Expires: January 19, 2006 July 18, 2005 - - - DNSSEC Experiments - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-01 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - In the long history of the development of the DNS security extensions - [1] (DNSSEC), a number of alternate methodologies and modifications - have been proposed and rejected for practical, rather than strictly - technical, reasons. There is a desire to be able to experiment with - these alternate methods in the public DNS. This document describes a - methodology for deploying alternate, non-backwards-compatible, DNSSEC - methodologies in an experimental fashion without disrupting the - deployment of standard DNSSEC. - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Definitions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5. Defining an Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 6. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 7. Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -1. Definitions and Terminology - - Throughout this document, familiarity with the DNS system (RFC 1035 - [4]) and the DNS security extensions ([1], [2], and [3]. - - The key words "MUST, "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY, and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [5]. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -2. Overview - - Historically, experimentation with DNSSEC alternatives has been a - problematic endeavor. There has typically been a desire to both - introduce non-backwards-compatible changes to DNSSEC, and to try - these changes on real zones in the public DNS. This creates a - problem when the change to DNSSEC would make all or part of the zone - using those changes appear bogus (bad) or otherwise broken to - existing DNSSEC-aware resolvers. - - This document describes a standard methodology for setting up public - DNSSEC experiments. This methodology addresses the issue of co- - existence with standard DNSSEC and DNS by using unknown algorithm - identifiers to hide the experimental DNSSEC protocol modifications - from standard DNSSEC-aware resolvers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -3. Experiments - - When discussing DNSSEC experiments, it is necessary to classify these - experiments into two broad categories: - - Backwards-Compatible: describes experimental changes that, while not - strictly adhering to the DNSSEC standard, are nonetheless - interoperable with clients and server that do implement the DNSSEC - standard. - - Non-Backwards-Compatible: describes experiments that would cause a - standard DNSSEC-aware resolver to (incorrectly) determine that all - or part of a zone is bogus, or to otherwise not interoperable with - standard DNSSEC clients and servers. - - Not included in these terms are experiments with the core DNS - protocol itself. - - The methodology described in this document is not necessary for - backwards-compatible experiments, although it certainly could be used - if desired. - - Note that, in essence, this metholodolgy would also be used to - introduce a new DNSSEC algorithm, independently from any DNSSEC - experimental protocol change. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -4. Method - - The core of the methodology is the use of strictly "unknown" - algorithms to sign the experimental zone, and more importantly, - having only unknown algorithm DS records for the delegation to the - zone at the parent. - - This technique works because of the way DNSSEC-compliant validators - are expected to work in the presence of a DS set with only unknown - algorithms. From [3], Section 5.2: - - If the validator does not support any of the algorithms listed in - an authenticated DS RRset, then the resolver has no supported - authentication path leading from the parent to the child. The - resolver should treat this case as it would the case of an - authenticated NSEC RRset proving that no DS RRset exists, as - described above. - - And further: - - If the resolver does not support any of the algorithms listed in - an authenticated DS RRset, then the resolver will not be able to - verify the authentication path to the child zone. In this case, - the resolver SHOULD treat the child zone as if it were unsigned. - - While this behavior isn't strictly mandatory (as marked by MUST), it - is unlikely that a validator would not implement the behavior, or, - more to the point, it will not violate this behavior in an unsafe way - (see below (Section 6).) - - Because we are talking about experiments, it is RECOMMENDED that - private algorithm numbers be used (see [2], appendix A.1.1. Note - that secure handling of private algorithms requires special handing - by the validator logic. See [6] for futher details.) Normally, - instead of actually inventing new signing algorithms, the recommended - path is to create alternate algorithm identifiers that are aliases - for the existing, known algorithms. While, strictly speaking, it is - only necessary to create an alternate identifier for the mandatory - algorithms, it is RECOMMENDED that all OPTIONAL defined algorithms be - aliased as well. - - It is RECOMMENDED that for a particular DNSSEC experiment, a - particular domain name base is chosen for all new algorithms, then - the algorithm number (or name) is prepended to it. For example, for - experiment A, the base name of "dnssec-experiment-a.example.com" is - chosen. Then, aliases for algorithms 3 (DSA) and 5 (RSASHA1) are - defined to be "3.dnssec-experiment-a.example.com" and "5.dnssec- - experiment-a.example.com". However, any unique identifier will - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - - suffice. - - Using this method, resolvers (or, more specificially, DNSSEC - validators) essentially indicate their ability to understand the - DNSSEC experiment's semantics by understanding what the new algorithm - identifiers signify. - - This method creates two classes of DNSSEC-aware servers and - resolvers: servers and resolvers that are aware of the experiment - (and thus recognize the experiments algorithm identifiers and - experimental semantics), and servers and resolvers that are unware of - the experiment. - - This method also precludes any zone from being both in an experiment - and in a classic DNSSEC island of security. That is, a zone is - either in an experiment and only experimentally validatable, or it - isn't. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -5. Defining an Experiment - - The DNSSEC experiment must define the particular set of (previously - unknown) algorithms that identify the experiment, and define what - each unknown algorithm identifier means. Typically, unless the - experiment is actually experimenting with a new DNSSEC algorithm, - this will be a mapping of private algorithm identifiers to existing, - known algorithms. - - Normally the experiment will choose a DNS name as the algorithm - identifier base. This DNS name SHOULD be under the control of the - authors of the experiment. Then the experiment will define a mapping - between known mandatory and optional algorithms into this private - algorithm identifier space. Alternately, the experiment MAY use the - OID private algorithm space instead (using algorithm number 254), or - may choose non-private algorithm numbers, although this would require - an IANA allocation (see below (Section 9).) - - For example, an experiment might specify in its description the DNS - name "dnssec-experiment-a.example.com" as the base name, and provide - the mapping of "3.dnssec-experiment-a.example.com" is an alias of - DNSSEC algorithm 3 (DSA), and "5.dnssec-experiment-a.example.com" is - an alias of DNSSEC algorithm 5 (RSASHA1). - - Resolvers MUST then only recognize the experiment's semantics when - present in a zone signed by one or more of these private algorithms. - - In general, however, resolvers involved in the experiment are - expected to understand both standard DNSSEC and the defined - experimental DNSSEC protocol, although this isn't required. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -6. Considerations - - There are a number of considerations with using this methodology. - - 1. Under some circumstances, it may be that the experiment will not - be sufficiently masked by this technique and may cause resolution - problem for resolvers not aware of the experiment. For instance, - the resolver may look at the not validatable response and - conclude that the response is bogus, either due to local policy - or implementation details. This is not expected to be the common - case, however. - - 2. In general, it will not be possible for DNSSEC-aware resolvers - not aware of the experiment to build a chain of trust through an - experimental zone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -7. Transitions - - If an experiment is successful, there may be a desire to move the - experiment to a standards-track extension. One way to do so would be - to move from private algorithm numbers to IANA allocated algorithm - numbers, with otherwise the same meaning. This would still leave a - divide between resolvers that understood the extension versus - resolvers that did not. It would, in essence, create an additional - version of DNSSEC. - - An alternate technique might be to do a typecode rollover, thus - actually creating a definitive new version of DNSSEC. There may be - other transition techniques available, as well. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -8. Security Considerations - - Zones using this methodology will be considered insecure by all - resolvers except those aware of the experiment. It is not generally - possible to create a secure delegation from an experimental zone that - will be followed by resolvers unaware of the experiment. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -9. IANA Considerations - - IANA may need to allocate new DNSSEC algorithm numbers if that - transition approach is taken, or the experiment decides to use - allocated numbers to begin with. No IANA action is required to - deploy an experiment using private algorithm identifiers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -10. References - -10.1 Normative References - - [1] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [2] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - [3] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4035, March 2005. - -10.2 Informative References - - [4] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [6] Weiler, S., "Clarifications and Implementation Notes for - DNSSECbis", draft-weiler-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-00 (work in - progress), March 2005. - - -Author's Address - - David Blacka - Verisign, Inc. - 21355 Ridgetop Circle - Dulles, VA 20166 - US - - Phone: +1 703 948 3200 - Email: davidb@verisign.com - URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com - - - - - - - - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments July 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Blacka Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 14] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-02.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-02.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 7503c66ab31..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-02.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,616 +0,0 @@ - - - -Network Working Group S. Weiler -Internet-Draft SPARTA, Inc -Updates: 4034, 4035 (if approved) J. Ihren -Expires: July 24, 2006 Autonomica AB - January 20, 2006 - - - Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-02 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - This document describes how to construct DNSSEC NSEC resource records - that cover a smaller range of names than called for by RFC4034. By - generating and signing these records on demand, authoritative name - servers can effectively stop the disclosure of zone contents - otherwise made possible by walking the chain of NSEC records in a - signed zone. - - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - -Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02 - - Clarified that a generated NSEC RR's type bitmap MUST have the RRSIG - and NSEC bits set, to be consistent with DNSSECbis -- previous text - said SHOULD. - - Made the applicability statement a little less oppressive. - -Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01 - - Added an applicability statement, making reference to ongoing work on - NSEC3. - - Added the phrase "epsilon functions", which has been commonly used to - describe the technique and already appeared in the header of each - page, in place of "increment and decrement functions". Also added an - explanatory sentence. - - Corrected references from 4034 section 6.2 to section 6.1. - - Fixed an out-of-date reference to [-bis] and other typos. - - Replaced IANA Considerations text. - - Escaped close parentheses in examples. - - Added some more acknowledgements. - -Changes from weiler-01 to ietf-00 - - Inserted RFC numbers for 4033, 4034, and 4035. - - Specified contents of bitmap field in synthesized NSEC RR's, pointing - out that this relaxes a constraint in 4035. Added 4035 to the - Updates header. - -Changes from weiler-00 to weiler-01 - - Clarified that this updates RFC4034 by relaxing requirements on the - next name field. - - Added examples covering wildcard names. - - In the 'better functions' section, reiterated that perfect functions - aren't needed. - - Added a reference to RFC 2119. - - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Applicability of This Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. Minimally Covering NSEC Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4. Better Epsilon Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - -1. Introduction and Terminology - - With DNSSEC [1], an NSEC record lists the next instantiated name in - its zone, proving that no names exist in the "span" between the - NSEC's owner name and the name in the "next name" field. In this - document, an NSEC record is said to "cover" the names between its - owner name and next name. - - Through repeated queries that return NSEC records, it is possible to - retrieve all of the names in the zone, a process commonly called - "walking" the zone. Some zone owners have policies forbidding zone - transfers by arbitrary clients; this side-effect of the NSEC - architecture subverts those policies. - - This document presents a way to prevent zone walking by constructing - NSEC records that cover fewer names. These records can make zone - walking take approximately as many queries as simply asking for all - possible names in a zone, making zone walking impractical. Some of - these records must be created and signed on demand, which requires - on-line private keys. Anyone contemplating use of this technique is - strongly encouraged to review the discussion of the risks of on-line - signing in Section 6. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4]. - - -2. Applicability of This Technique - - The technique presented here may be useful to a zone owner that wants - to use DNSSEC, is concerned about exposure of its zone contents via - zone walking, and is willing to bear the costs of on-line signing. - - As discussed in Section 6, on-line signing has several security - risks, including an increased likelihood of private keys being - disclosed and an increased risk of denial of service attack. Anyone - contemplating use of this technique is strongly encouraged to review - the discussion of the risks of on-line signing in Section 6. - - Furthermore, at the time this document was published, the DNSEXT - working group was actively working on a mechanism to prevent zone - walking that does not require on-line signing (tentatively called - NSEC3). The new mechanism is likely to expose slightly more - information about the zone than this technique (e.g. the number of - instantiated names), but it may be preferable to this technique. - - - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - -3. Minimally Covering NSEC Records - - This mechanism involves changes to NSEC records for instantiated - names, which can still be generated and signed in advance, as well as - the on-demand generation and signing of new NSEC records whenever a - name must be proven not to exist. - - In the 'next name' field of instantiated names' NSEC records, rather - than list the next instantiated name in the zone, list any name that - falls lexically after the NSEC's owner name and before the next - instantiated name in the zone, according to the ordering function in - RFC4034 [2] section 6.1. This relaxes the requirement in section - 4.1.1 of RFC4034 that the 'next name' field contains the next owner - name in the zone. This change is expected to be fully compatible - with all existing DNSSEC validators. These NSEC records are returned - whenever proving something specifically about the owner name (e.g. - that no resource records of a given type appear at that name). - - Whenever an NSEC record is needed to prove the non-existence of a - name, a new NSEC record is dynamically produced and signed. The new - NSEC record has an owner name lexically before the QNAME but - lexically following any existing name and a 'next name' lexically - following the QNAME but before any existing name. - - The generated NSEC record's type bitmap MUST have the RRSIG and NSEC - bits set and SHOULD NOT have any other bits set. This relaxes the - requirement in Section 2.3 of RFC4035 that NSEC RRs not appear at - names that did not exist before the zone was signed. - - The functions to generate the lexically following and proceeding - names need not be perfect nor consistent, but the generated NSEC - records must not cover any existing names. Furthermore, this - technique works best when the generated NSEC records cover as few - names as possible. In this document, the functions that generate the - nearby names are called 'epsilon' functions, a reference to the - mathematical convention of using the greek letter epsilon to - represent small deviations. - - An NSEC record denying the existence of a wildcard may be generated - in the same way. Since the NSEC record covering a non-existent - wildcard is likely to be used in response to many queries, - authoritative name servers using the techniques described here may - want to pregenerate or cache that record and its corresponding RRSIG. - - For example, a query for an A record at the non-instantiated name - example.com might produce the following two NSEC records, the first - denying the existence of the name example.com and the second denying - the existence of a wildcard: - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - - exampld.com 3600 IN NSEC example-.com ( RRSIG NSEC ) - - \).com 3600 IN NSEC +.com ( RRSIG NSEC ) - - Before answering a query with these records, an authoritative server - must test for the existence of names between these endpoints. If the - generated NSEC would cover existing names (e.g. exampldd.com or - *bizarre.example.com), a better epsilon function may be used or the - covered name closest to the QNAME could be used as the NSEC owner - name or next name, as appropriate. If an existing name is used as - the NSEC owner name, that name's real NSEC record MUST be returned. - Using the same example, assuming an exampldd.com delegation exists, - this record might be returned from the parent: - - exampldd.com 3600 IN NSEC example-.com ( NS DS RRSIG NSEC ) - - Like every authoritative record in the zone, each generated NSEC - record MUST have corresponding RRSIGs generated using each algorithm - (but not necessarily each DNSKEY) in the zone's DNSKEY RRset, as - described in RFC4035 [3] section 2.2. To minimize the number of - signatures that must be generated, a zone may wish to limit the - number of algorithms in its DNSKEY RRset. - - -4. Better Epsilon Functions - - Section 6.1 of RFC4034 defines a strict ordering of DNS names. - Working backwards from that definition, it should be possible to - define epsilon functions that generate the immediately following and - preceding names, respectively. This document does not define such - functions. Instead, this section presents functions that come - reasonably close to the perfect ones. As described above, an - authoritative server should still ensure than no generated NSEC - covers any existing name. - - To increment a name, add a leading label with a single null (zero- - value) octet. - - To decrement a name, decrement the last character of the leftmost - label, then fill that label to a length of 63 octets with octets of - value 255. To decrement a null (zero-value) octet, remove the octet - -- if an empty label is left, remove the label. Defining this - function numerically: fill the left-most label to its maximum length - with zeros (numeric, not ASCII zeros) and subtract one. - - In response to a query for the non-existent name foo.example.com, - these functions produce NSEC records of: - - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - - fon\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255.example.com 3600 IN NSEC \000.foo.example.com ( NSEC RRSIG ) - - \)\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255\255 - \255\255.example.com 3600 IN NSEC \000.*.example.com ( NSEC RRSIG ) - - The first of these NSEC RRs proves that no exact match for - foo.example.com exists, and the second proves that there is no - wildcard in example.com. - - Both of these functions are imperfect: they don't take into account - constraints on number of labels in a name nor total length of a name. - As noted in the previous section, though, this technique does not - depend on the use of perfect epsilon functions: it is sufficient to - test whether any instantiated names fall into the span covered by the - generated NSEC and, if so, substitute those instantiated owner names - for the NSEC owner name or next name, as appropriate. - - -5. IANA Considerations - - This document specifies no IANA Actions. - - -6. Security Considerations - - This approach requires on-demand generation of RRSIG records. This - creates several new vulnerabilities. - - First, on-demand signing requires that a zone's authoritative servers - have access to its private keys. Storing private keys on well-known - internet-accessible servers may make them more vulnerable to - unintended disclosure. - - Second, since generation of digital signatures tends to be - computationally demanding, the requirement for on-demand signing - makes authoritative servers vulnerable to a denial of service attack. - - Lastly, if the epsilon functions are predictable, on-demand signing - may enable a chosen-plaintext attack on a zone's private keys. Zones - using this approach should attempt to use cryptographic algorithms - that are resistant to chosen-plaintext attacks. It's worth noting - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - - that while DNSSEC has a "mandatory to implement" algorithm, that is a - requirement on resolvers and validators -- there is no requirement - that a zone be signed with any given algorithm. - - The success of using minimally covering NSEC record to prevent zone - walking depends greatly on the quality of the epsilon functions - chosen. An increment function that chooses a name obviously derived - from the next instantiated name may be easily reverse engineered, - destroying the value of this technique. An increment function that - always returns a name close to the next instantiated name is likewise - a poor choice. Good choices of epsilon functions are the ones that - produce the immediately following and preceding names, respectively, - though zone administrators may wish to use less perfect functions - that return more human-friendly names than the functions described in - Section 4 above. - - Another obvious but misguided concern is the danger from synthesized - NSEC records being replayed. It's possible for an attacker to replay - an old but still validly signed NSEC record after a new name has been - added in the span covered by that NSEC, incorrectly proving that - there is no record at that name. This danger exists with DNSSEC as - defined in [3]. The techniques described here actually decrease the - danger, since the span covered by any NSEC record is smaller than - before. Choosing better epsilon functions will further reduce this - danger. - -7. Normative References - - [1] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [2] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - [3] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4035, March 2005. - - [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - -Appendix A. Acknowledgments - - Many individuals contributed to this design. They include, in - addition to the authors of this document, Olaf Kolkman, Ed Lewis, - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - - Peter Koch, Matt Larson, David Blacka, Suzanne Woolf, Jaap Akkerhuis, - Jakob Schlyter, Bill Manning, and Joao Damas. - - In addition, the editors would like to thank Ed Lewis, Scott Rose, - and David Blacka for their careful review of the document. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Samuel Weiler - SPARTA, Inc - 7075 Samuel Morse Drive - Columbia, Maryland 21046 - US - - Email: weiler@tislabs.com - - - Johan Ihren - Autonomica AB - Bellmansgatan 30 - Stockholm SE-118 47 - Sweden - - Email: johani@autonomica.se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft NSEC Epsilon January 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Weiler & Ihren Expires July 24, 2006 [Page 11] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-07.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-07.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 17e28e8286e..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-07.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,896 +0,0 @@ - - - -DNSEXT R. Arends -Internet-Draft Telematica Instituut -Expires: January 19, 2006 M. Kosters - D. Blacka - Verisign, Inc. - July 18, 2005 - - - DNSSEC Opt-In - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-07 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - In the DNS security extensions (DNSSEC, defined in RFC 4033 [3], RFC - 4034 [4], and RFC 4035 [5]), delegations to unsigned subzones are - cryptographically secured. Maintaining this cryptography is not - practical or necessary. This document describes an experimental - "Opt-In" model that allows administrators to omit this cryptography - and manage the cost of adopting DNSSEC with large zones. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Definitions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Experimental Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. Protocol Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4.1 Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4.1.1 Delegations Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4.1.2 Insecure Delegation Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4.1.3 Wildcards and Opt-In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4.1.4 Dynamic Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.2 Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.2.1 Delegations Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.2.2 Validation Process Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.2.3 NSEC Record Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4.2.4 Use of the AD bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 7. Transition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - A. Implementing Opt-In using "Views" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - -1. Definitions and Terminology - - Throughout this document, familiarity with the DNS system (RFC 1035 - [1]), DNS security extensions ([3], [4], and [5], referred to in this - document as "standard DNSSEC"), and DNSSEC terminology (RFC 3090 - [10]) is assumed. - - The following abbreviations and terms are used in this document: - - RR: is used to refer to a DNS resource record. - RRset: refers to a Resource Record Set, as defined by [8]. In this - document, the RRset is also defined to include the covering RRSIG - records, if any exist. - signed name: refers to a DNS name that has, at minimum, a (signed) - NSEC record. - unsigned name: refers to a DNS name that does not (at least) have a - NSEC record. - covering NSEC record/RRset: is the NSEC record used to prove - (non)existence of a particular name or RRset. This means that for - a RRset or name 'N', the covering NSEC record has the name 'N', or - has an owner name less than 'N' and "next" name greater than 'N'. - delegation: refers to a NS RRset with a name different from the - current zone apex (non-zone-apex), signifying a delegation to a - subzone. - secure delegation: refers to a signed name containing a delegation - (NS RRset), and a signed DS RRset, signifying a delegation to a - signed subzone. - insecure delegation: refers to a signed name containing a delegation - (NS RRset), but lacking a DS RRset, signifying a delegation to an - unsigned subzone. - Opt-In insecure delegation: refers to an unsigned name containing - only a delegation NS RRset. The covering NSEC record uses the - Opt-In methodology described in this document. - - The key words "MUST, "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY, and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [7]. - -2. Overview - - The cost to cryptographically secure delegations to unsigned zones is - high for large delegation-centric zones and zones where insecure - delegations will be updated rapidly. For these zones, the costs of - maintaining the NSEC record chain may be extremely high relative to - the gain of cryptographically authenticating existence of unsecured - zones. - - This document describes an experimental method of eliminating the - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - superfluous cryptography present in secure delegations to unsigned - zones. Using "Opt-In", a zone administrator can choose to remove - insecure delegations from the NSEC chain. This is accomplished by - extending the semantics of the NSEC record by using a redundant bit - in the type map. - -3. Experimental Status - - This document describes an EXPERIMENTAL extension to DNSSEC. It - interoperates with non-experimental DNSSEC using the technique - described in [6]. This experiment is identified with the following - private algorithms (using algorithm 253): - - "3.optin.verisignlabs.com": is an alias for DNSSEC algorithm 3, DSA, - and - "5.optin.verisignlabs.com": is an alias for DNSSEC algorithm 5, - RSASHA1. - - Servers wishing to sign and serve zones that utilize Opt-In MUST sign - the zone with only one or more of these private algorithms. This - requires the signing tools and servers to support private algorithms, - as well as Opt-In. - - Resolvers wishing to validate Opt-In zones MUST only do so when the - zone is only signed using one or more of these private algorithms. - - The remainder of this document assumes that the servers and resolvers - involved are aware of and are involved in this experiment. - -4. Protocol Additions - - In DNSSEC, delegation NS RRsets are not signed, but are instead - accompanied by a NSEC RRset of the same name and (possibly) a DS - record. The security status of the subzone is determined by the - presence or absence of the DS RRset, cryptographically proven by the - NSEC record. Opt-In expands this definition by allowing insecure - delegations to exist within an otherwise signed zone without the - corresponding NSEC record at the delegation's owner name. These - insecure delegations are proven insecure by using a covering NSEC - record. - - Since this represents a change of the interpretation of NSEC records, - resolvers must be able to distinguish between RFC standard DNSSEC - NSEC records and Opt-In NSEC records. This is accomplished by - "tagging" the NSEC records that cover (or potentially cover) insecure - delegation nodes. This tag is indicated by the absence of the NSEC - bit in the type map. Since the NSEC bit in the type map merely - indicates the existence of the record itself, this bit is redundant - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - and safe for use as a tag. - - An Opt-In tagged NSEC record does not assert the (non)existence of - the delegations that it covers (except for a delegation with the same - name). This allows for the addition or removal of these delegations - without recalculating or resigning records in the NSEC chain. - However, Opt-In tagged NSEC records do assert the (non)existence of - other RRsets. - - An Opt-In NSEC record MAY have the same name as an insecure - delegation. In this case, the delegation is proven insecure by the - lack of a DS bit in type map and the signed NSEC record does assert - the existence of the delegation. - - Zones using Opt-In MAY contain a mixture of Opt-In tagged NSEC - records and standard DNSSEC NSEC records. If a NSEC record is not - Opt-In, there MUST NOT be any insecure delegations (or any other - records) between it and the RRsets indicated by the 'next domain - name' in the NSEC RDATA. If it is Opt-In, there MUST only be - insecure delegations between it and the next node indicated by the - 'next domain name' in the NSEC RDATA. - - In summary, - - o An Opt-In NSEC type is identified by a zero-valued (or not- - specified) NSEC bit in the type bit map of the NSEC record. - o A RFC2535bis NSEC type is identified by a one-valued NSEC bit in - the type bit map of the NSEC record. - - and, - - o An Opt-In NSEC record does not assert the non-existence of a name - between its owner name and "next" name, although it does assert - that any name in this span MUST be an insecure delegation. - o An Opt-In NSEC record does assert the (non)existence of RRsets - with the same owner name. - -4.1 Server Considerations - - Opt-In imposes some new requirements on authoritative DNS servers. - -4.1.1 Delegations Only - - This specification dictates that only insecure delegations may exist - between the owner and "next" names of an Opt-In tagged NSEC record. - Signing tools SHOULD NOT generate signed zones that violate this - restriction. Servers SHOULD refuse to load and/or serve zones that - violate this restriction. Servers also SHOULD reject AXFR or IXFR - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - responses that violate this restriction. - -4.1.2 Insecure Delegation Responses - - When returning an Opt-In insecure delegation, the server MUST return - the covering NSEC RRset in the Authority section. - - In standard DNSSEC, NSEC records already must be returned along with - the insecure delegation. The primary difference that this proposal - introduces is that the Opt-In tagged NSEC record will have a - different owner name from the delegation RRset. This may require - implementations to search for the covering NSEC RRset. - -4.1.3 Wildcards and Opt-In - - Standard DNSSEC describes the practice of returning NSEC records to - prove the non-existence of an applicable wildcard in non-existent - name responses. This NSEC record can be described as a "negative - wildcard proof". The use of Opt-In NSEC records changes the - necessity for this practice. For non-existent name responses when - the query name (qname) is covered by an Opt-In tagged NSEC record, - servers MAY choose to omit the wildcard proof record, and clients - MUST NOT treat the absence of this NSEC record as a validation error. - - The intent of the standard DNSSEC negative wildcard proof requirement - is to prevent malicious users from undetectably removing valid - wildcard responses. In order for this cryptographic proof to work, - the resolver must be able to prove: - - 1. The exact qname does not exist. This is done by the "normal" - NSEC record. - 2. No applicable wildcard exists. This is done by returning a NSEC - record proving that the wildcard does not exist (this is the - negative wildcard proof). - - However, if the NSEC record covering the exact qname is an Opt-In - NSEC record, the resolver will not be able to prove the first part of - this equation, as the qname might exist as an insecure delegation. - Thus, since the total proof cannot be completed, the negative - wildcard proof NSEC record is not useful. - - The negative wildcard proof is also not useful when returned as part - of an Opt-In insecure delegation response for a similar reason: the - resolver cannot prove that the qname does or does not exist, and - therefore cannot prove that a wildcard expansion is valid. - - The presence of an Opt-In tagged NSEC record does not change the - practice of returning a NSEC along with a wildcard expansion. Even - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - though the Opt-In NSEC will not be able to prove that the wildcard - expansion is valid, it will prove that the wildcard expansion is not - masking any signed records. - -4.1.4 Dynamic Update - - Opt-In changes the semantics of Secure DNS Dynamic Update [9]. In - particular, it introduces the need for rules that describe when to - add or remove a delegation name from the NSEC chain. This document - does not attempt to define these rules. Until these rules are - defined, servers MUST NOT process DNS Dynamic Update requests against - zones that use Opt-In NSEC records. Servers SHOULD return responses - to update requests with RCODE=REFUSED. - -4.2 Client Considerations - - Opt-In imposes some new requirements on security-aware resolvers - (caching or otherwise). - -4.2.1 Delegations Only - - As stated in the "Server Considerations" section above, this - specification restricts the namespace covered by Opt-In tagged NSEC - records to insecure delegations only. Thus, resolvers MUST reject as - invalid any records that fall within an Opt-In NSEC record's span - that are not NS records or corresponding glue records. - -4.2.2 Validation Process Changes - - This specification does not change the resolver's resolution - algorithm. However, it does change the DNSSEC validation process. - Resolvers MUST be able to use Opt-In tagged NSEC records to - cryptographically prove the validity and security status (as - insecure) of a referral. Resolvers determine the security status of - the referred-to zone as follows: - - o In standard DNSSEC, the security status is proven by the existence - or absence of a DS RRset at the same name as the delegation. The - existence of the DS RRset indicates that the referred-to zone is - signed. The absence of the DS RRset is proven using a verified - NSEC record of the same name that does not have the DS bit set in - the type map. This NSEC record MAY also be tagged as Opt-In. - o Using Opt-In, the security status is proven by the existence of a - DS record (for signed) or the presence of a verified Opt-In tagged - NSEC record that covers the delegation name. That is, the NSEC - record does not have the NSEC bit set in the type map, and the - delegation name falls between the NSEC's owner and "next" name. - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - Using Opt-In does not substantially change the nature of following - referrals within DNSSEC. At every delegation point, the resolver - will have cryptographic proof that the referred-to subzone is signed - or unsigned. - - When receiving either an Opt-In insecure delegation response or a - non-existent name response where that name is covered by an Opt-In - tagged NSEC record, the resolver MUST NOT require proof (in the form - of a NSEC record) that a wildcard did not exist. - -4.2.3 NSEC Record Caching - - Caching resolvers MUST be able to retrieve the appropriate covering - Opt-In NSEC record when returning referrals that need them. This - requirement differs from standard DNSSEC in that the covering NSEC - will not have the same owner name as the delegation. Some - implementations may have to use new methods for finding these NSEC - records. - -4.2.4 Use of the AD bit - - The AD bit, as defined by [2] and [5], MUST NOT be set when: - - o sending a Name Error (RCODE=3) response where the covering NSEC is - tagged as Opt-In. - o sending an Opt-In insecure delegation response, unless the - covering (Opt-In) NSEC record's owner name equals the delegation - name. - - This rule is based on what the Opt-In NSEC record actually proves: - for names that exist between the Opt-In NSEC record's owner and - "next" names, the Opt-In NSEC record cannot prove the non-existence - or existence of the name. As such, not all data in the response has - been cryptographically verified, so the AD bit cannot be set. - -5. Benefits - - Using Opt-In allows administrators of large and/or changing - delegation-centric zones to minimize the overhead involved in - maintaining the security of the zone. - - Opt-In accomplishes this by eliminating the need for NSEC records for - insecure delegations. This, in a zone with a large number of - delegations to unsigned subzones, can lead to substantial space - savings (both in memory and on disk). Additionally, Opt-In allows - for the addition or removal of insecure delegations without modifying - the NSEC record chain. Zones that are frequently updating insecure - delegations (e.g., TLDs) can avoid the substantial overhead of - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - modifying and resigning the affected NSEC records. - -6. Example - - Consider the zone EXAMPLE, shown below. This is a zone where all of - the NSEC records are tagged as Opt-In. - - Example A: Fully Opt-In Zone. - - EXAMPLE. SOA ... - EXAMPLE. RRSIG SOA ... - EXAMPLE. NS FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. - EXAMPLE. RRSIG NS ... - EXAMPLE. DNSKEY ... - EXAMPLE. RRSIG DNSKEY ... - EXAMPLE. NSEC FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. ( - SOA NS RRSIG DNSKEY ) - EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ... - - FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. A ... - FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG A ... - FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NSEC NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. A RRSIG - FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ... - - NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NS NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. - NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. A ... - - NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. NS NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. - NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE NSEC SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE NS RRSIG - NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE RRSIG NSEC ... - - SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NS NS.ELSEWHERE. - SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. DS ... - SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG DS ... - SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NSEC EXAMPLE. NS RRSIG DNSKEY - SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ... - - UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. NS NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. - NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. A ... - - - In this example, a query for a signed RRset (e.g., "FIRST- - SECURE.EXAMPLE A"), or a secure delegation ("WWW.SECOND- - SECURE.EXAMPLE A") will result in a standard DNSSEC response. - - A query for a nonexistent RRset will result in a response that - differs from standard DNSSEC by: the NSEC record will be tagged as - Opt-In, there may be no NSEC record proving the non-existence of a - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - matching wildcard record, and the AD bit will not be set. - - A query for an insecure delegation RRset (or a referral) will return - both the answer (in the Authority section) and the corresponding - Opt-In NSEC record to prove that it is not secure. - - Example A.1: Response to query for WWW.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. A - - - RCODE=NOERROR, AD=0 - - Answer Section: - - Authority Section: - UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. NS NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE - SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NSEC EXAMPLE. NS RRSIG DS - SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ... - - Additional Section: - NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. A ... - - In the Example A.1 zone, the EXAMPLE. node MAY use either style of - NSEC record, because there are no insecure delegations that occur - between it and the next node, FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. In other words, - Example A would still be a valid zone if the NSEC record for EXAMPLE. - was changed to the following RR: - - EXAMPLE. NSEC FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. (SOA NS - RRSIG DNSKEY NSEC ) - - However, the other NSEC records (FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. and SECOND- - SECURE.EXAMPLE.) MUST be tagged as Opt-In because there are insecure - delegations in the range they define. (NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. and - UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE., respectively). - - NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. is an example of an insecure delegation that is - part of the NSEC chain and also covered by an Opt-In tagged NSEC - record. Because NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. is a signed name, it cannot be - removed from the zone without modifying and resigning the prior NSEC - record. Delegations with names that fall between NOT-SECURE- - 2.EXAMPLE. and SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. may be added or removed without - resigning any NSEC records. - -7. Transition Issues - - Opt-In is not backwards compatible with standard DNSSEC and is - considered experimental. Standard DNSSEC compliant implementations - would not recognize Opt-In tagged NSEC records as different from - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - standard NSEC records. Because of this, standard DNSSEC - implementations, if they were to validate Opt-In style responses, - would reject all Opt-In insecure delegations within a zone as - invalid. However, by only signing with private algorithms, standard - DNSSEC implementations will treat Opt-In responses as unsigned. - - It should be noted that all elements in the resolution path between - (and including) the validator and the authoritative name server must - be aware of the Opt-In experiment and implement the Opt-In semantics - for successful validation to be possible. In particular, this - includes any caching middleboxes between the validator and - authoritative name server. - -8. Security Considerations - - Opt-In allows for unsigned names, in the form of delegations to - unsigned subzones, to exist within an otherwise signed zone. All - unsigned names are, by definition, insecure, and their validity or - existence cannot by cryptographically proven. - - In general: - - o Records with unsigned names (whether existing or not) suffer from - the same vulnerabilities as records in an unsigned zone. These - vulnerabilities are described in more detail in [12] (note in - particular sections 2.3, "Name Games" and 2.6, "Authenticated - Denial"). - o Records with signed names have the same security whether or not - Opt-In is used. - - Note that with or without Opt-In, an insecure delegation may have its - contents undetectably altered by an attacker. Because of this, the - primary difference in security that Opt-In introduces is the loss of - the ability to prove the existence or nonexistence of an insecure - delegation within the span of an Opt-In NSEC record. - - In particular, this means that a malicious entity may be able to - insert or delete records with unsigned names. These records are - normally NS records, but this also includes signed wildcard - expansions (while the wildcard record itself is signed, its expanded - name is an unsigned name). - - For example, if a resolver received the following response from the - example zone above: - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - Example S.1: Response to query for WWW.DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE. A - - RCODE=NOERROR - - Answer Section: - - Authority Section: - DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE. NS NS.FORGED. - EXAMPLE. NSEC FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. SOA NS \ - RRSIG DNSKEY - EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ... - - Additional Section: - - - The resolver would have no choice but to believe that the referral to - NS.FORGED. is valid. If a wildcard existed that would have been - expanded to cover "WWW.DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE.", an attacker could - have undetectably removed it and replaced it with the forged - delegation. - - Note that being able to add a delegation is functionally equivalent - to being able to add any record type: an attacker merely has to forge - a delegation to nameserver under his/her control and place whatever - records needed at the subzone apex. - - While in particular cases, this issue may not present a significant - security problem, in general it should not be lightly dismissed. - Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that Opt-In be used sparingly. - In particular, zone signing tools SHOULD NOT default to Opt-In, and - MAY choose to not support Opt-In at all. - -9. IANA Considerations - - None. - -10. Acknowledgments - - The contributions, suggestions and remarks of the following persons - (in alphabetic order) to this draft are acknowledged: - - Mats Dufberg, Miek Gieben, Olafur Gudmundsson, Bob Halley, Olaf - Kolkman, Edward Lewis, Ted Lindgreen, Rip Loomis, Bill Manning, - Dan Massey, Scott Rose, Mike Schiraldi, Jakob Schlyter, Brian - Wellington. - -11. References - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - -11.1 Normative References - - [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [2] Wellington, B. and O. Gudmundsson, "Redefinition of DNS - Authenticated Data (AD) bit", RFC 3655, November 2003. - - [3] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [4] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - [5] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4035, March 2005. - - [6] Blacka, D., "DNSSEC Experiments", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-01 (work in progress), - July 2005. - -11.2 Informative References - - [7] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [8] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", - RFC 2181, July 1997. - - [9] Eastlake, D., "Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update", - RFC 2137, April 1997. - - [10] Lewis, E., "DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone - Status", RFC 3090, March 2001. - - [11] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC", RFC 3225, - December 2001. - - [12] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name - System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004. - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Roy Arends - Telematica Instituut - Drienerlolaan 5 - 7522 NB Enschede - NL - - Email: roy.arends@telin.nl - - - Mark Kosters - Verisign, Inc. - 21355 Ridgetop Circle - Dulles, VA 20166 - US - - Phone: +1 703 948 3200 - Email: markk@verisign.com - URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com - - - David Blacka - Verisign, Inc. - 21355 Ridgetop Circle - Dulles, VA 20166 - US - - Phone: +1 703 948 3200 - Email: davidb@verisign.com - URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com - -Appendix A. Implementing Opt-In using "Views" - - In many cases, it may be convenient to implement an Opt-In zone by - combining two separately maintained "views" of a zone at request - time. In this context, "view" refers to a particular version of a - zone, not to any specific DNS implementation feature. - - In this scenario, one view is the secure view, the other is the - insecure (or legacy) view. The secure view consists of an entirely - signed zone using Opt-In tagged NSEC records. The insecure view - contains no DNSSEC information. It is helpful, although not - necessary, for the secure view to be a subset (minus DNSSEC records) - of the insecure view. - - In addition, the only RRsets that may solely exist in the insecure - view are non-zone-apex NS RRsets. That is, all non-NS RRsets (and - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - - the zone apex NS RRset) MUST be signed and in the secure view. - - These two views may be combined at request time to provide a virtual, - single Opt-In zone. The following algorithm is used when responding - to each query: - V_A is the secure view as described above. - V_B is the insecure view as described above. - R_A is a response generated from V_A, following RFC 2535bis. - R_B is a response generated from V_B, following DNS resolution as - per RFC 1035 [1]. - R_C is the response generated by combining R_A with R_B, as - described below. - A query is DNSSEC-aware if it either has the DO bit [11] turned - on, or is for a DNSSEC-specific record type. - - - - 1. If V_A is a subset of V_B and the query is not DNSSEC-aware, - generate and return R_B, otherwise - 2. Generate R_A. - 3. If R_A's RCODE != NXDOMAIN, return R_A, otherwise - 4. Generate R_B and combine it with R_A to form R_C: - For each section (ANSWER, AUTHORITY, ADDITIONAL), copy the - records from R_A into R_B, EXCEPT the AUTHORITY section SOA - record, if R_B's RCODE = NOERROR. - 5. Return R_C. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Opt-In July 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 19, 2006 [Page 16] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-00.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-00.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 390420abecd..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-00.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,392 +0,0 @@ - - - -DNS Extensions working group J. Jansen -Internet-Draft NLnet Labs -Expires: July 5, 2006 January 2006 - - - Use of RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records in DNSSEC - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-00 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - This document describes how to produce RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEY and RRSIG - resource records for use in the Domain Name System Security - Extensions (DNSSEC, RFC4033, RFC4034, and RFC4035). - - - - - - - - - -Jansen Expires July 5, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEYs and RRSIGS January 2006 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEY Resource Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. RSA/SHA-256 RRSIG Resource Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jansen Expires July 5, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEYs and RRSIGS January 2006 - - -1. Introduction - - The Domain Name System (DNS) is the global hierarchical distributed - database for Internet Addressing. The DNS has been extended to use - digital signatures and cryptographic keys for the verification of - data. RFC4033 [1], RFC4034 [2], and RFC4035 [3] describe these DNS - Security Extensions. - - RFC4034 describes how to store DNSKEY and RRSIG resource records, and - specifies a list of cryptographic algorithms to use. This document - extends that list with the algorithm RSA/SHA-256, and specifies how - to store RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEY data and how to produce RSA/SHA-256 RRSIG - resource records. - - Familiarity with the RSA [7] and SHA-256 [5] algorithms is assumed in - this document. - - -2. RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEY Resource Records - - RSA public keys for use with RSA/SHA-256 are stored in DNSKEY - resource records (RRs) with the algorithm number [TBA]. - - The format of the DNSKEY RR can be found in RFC4034 [2] and RFC3110 - [6]. - - -3. RSA/SHA-256 RRSIG Resource Records - - RSA/SHA-256 signatures are stored in the DNS using RRSIG resource - records (RRs) with algorithm number [TBA]. - - The value of the signature field in the RRSIG RR is calculated as - follows. The values for the fields that precede the signature data - are specified in RFC4034 [2]. - - hash = SHA-256(data) - - signature = ( 00 | 01 | FF* | 00 | prefix | hash ) ** e (mod n) - - Where SHA-256 is the message digest algorithm as specified in FIPS - 180 [5], | is concatenation, 00, 01, FF and 00 are fixed octets of - corresponding hexadecimal value, "e" is the private exponent of the - signing RSA key, and "n" is the public modulus of the signing key. - The FF octet MUST be repeated the maximum number of times so that the - total length of the signature equals the length of the modulus of the - signer's public key ("n"). "data" is the data of the resource record - set that is signed, as specified in RFC4034 [2]. - - - -Jansen Expires July 5, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEYs and RRSIGS January 2006 - - - The prefix is the ASN.1 BER SHA-256 algorithm designator prefix as - specified in PKCS 2.1 [4]: - - hex 30 31 30 0d 06 09 60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 01 05 00 04 20 - - This prefix should make the use of standard cryptographic libraries - easier. These specifications are taken directly from PKCS #1 v2.1 - section 9.2 [4]. - - -4. Implementation Considerations - - DNSSEC aware implementations MUST be able to support RRSIG resource - records with the RSA/SHA-256 algorithm. - - If both RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-1 RRSIG resource records are - available for a certain rrset, with a secure path to their keys, the - validator SHOULD ignore the SHA-1 signature. If the RSA/SHA-256 - signature does not verify the data, and the RSA/SHA-1 does, the - validator SHOULD mark the data with the security status from the RSA/ - SHA-256 signature. - - -5. IANA Considerations - - IANA has not yet assigned an algorithm number for RSA/SHA-256. - - The algorithm list from RFC4034 Appendix A.1 [2] is extended with the - following entry: - - Zone - Value Algorithm [Mnemonic] Signing References Status - ----- ----------- ----------- -------- ---------- --------- - [tba] RSA/SHA-256 [RSASHA256] y [TBA] MANDATORY - - -6. Security Considerations - - Recently, weaknesses have been discovered in the SHA-1 hashing - algorithm. It is therefore strongly encouraged to deploy SHA-256 - where SHA-1 is used now, as soon as the DNS software supports it. - - SHA-256 is considered sufficiently strong for the immediate future, - but predictions about future development in cryptography and - cryptanalysis are beyond the scope of this document. - - - - - - -Jansen Expires July 5, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEYs and RRSIGS January 2006 - - -7. Acknowledgments - - This document is a minor extension to RFC4034 [2]. Also, we try to - follow the documents RFC3110 [6] and draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256.txt - [8] for consistency. The authors of and contributors to these - documents are gratefully acknowledged for their hard work. - - The following people provided additional feedback and text: Jaap - Akkerhuis, Miek Gieben and Wouter Wijngaards. - - -8. References - -8.1. Normative References - - [1] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [2] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - [3] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4035, March 2005. - - [4] Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography Standards - (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1", - RFC 3447, February 2003. - - [5] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure Hash - Standard", FIPS PUB 180-2, August 2002. - - [6] Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name - System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001. - -8.2. Informative References - - [7] Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography Second Edition: protocols, - algorithms, and source code in C", Wiley and Sons , ISBN 0-471- - 11709-9, 1996. - - [8] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) - Resource Records (RRs)", Work in Progress Feb 2006. - - - - - - -Jansen Expires July 5, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEYs and RRSIGS January 2006 - - -Author's Address - - Jelte Jansen - NLnet Labs - Kruislaan 419 - Amsterdam 1098VA - NL - - Email: jelte@NLnetLabs.nl - URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jansen Expires July 5, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEYs and RRSIGS January 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Jansen Expires July 5, 2006 [Page 7] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-02.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-02.txt deleted file mode 100644 index dd8cbf0682e..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-02.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,839 +0,0 @@ - -DNS Extensions Working Group R. Arends -Internet-Draft Telematica Instituut -Expires: August 25, 2005 P. Koch - DENIC eG - J. Schlyter - NIC-SE - February 21, 2005 - - - Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-02.txt - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions - of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each - author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of - which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of - which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with - RFC 3668. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2005. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - This document collects and summarizes different proposals for - alternative and additional strategies for authenticated denial in DNS - responses, evaluates these proposals and gives a recommendation for a - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - - way forward. - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2.1 Mechanisms With Need of Updating DNSSEC-bis . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1.1 Dynamic NSEC Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1.2 Add Versioning/Subtyping to Current NSEC . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1.3 Type Bit Map NSEC Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.1.4 New Apex Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.1.5 NSEC White Lies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.1.6 NSEC Optional via DNSSKEY Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 2.1.7 New Answer Pseudo RR Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 2.1.8 SIG(0) Based Authenticated Denial . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 2.2 Mechanisms Without Need of Updating DNSSEC-bis . . . . . . 10 - 2.2.1 Partial Type-code and Signal Rollover . . . . . . . . 10 - 2.2.2 A Complete Type-code and Signal Rollover . . . . . . . 11 - 2.2.3 Unknown Algorithm in RRSIG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 5.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 5.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - -1. Introduction - - This report shall document the process of dealing with the NSEC - walking problem late in the Last Call for - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro, I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol, - I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records]. It preserves some of the discussion - that took place in the DNSEXT WG during the first half of June 2004 - as well as some additional ideas that came up subsequently. - - This is an edited excerpt of the chairs' mail to the WG: - The working group consents on not including NSEC-alt in the - DNSSEC-bis documents. The working group considers to take up - "prevention of zone enumeration" as a work item. - There may be multiple mechanisms to allow for co-existence with - DNSSEC-bis. The chairs allow the working group a little over a - week (up to June 12, 2004) to come to consensus on a possible - modification to the document to enable gentle rollover. If that - consensus cannot be reached the DNSSEC-bis documents will go out - as-is. - - To ease the process of getting consensus, a summary of the proposed - solutions and analysis of the pros and cons were written during the - weekend. - - This summary includes: - - An inventory of the proposed mechanisms to make a transition to - future work on authenticated denial of existence. - List the known Pros and Cons, possibly provide new arguments, and - possible security considerations of these mechanisms. - Provide a recommendation on a way forward that is least disruptive - to the DNSSEC-bis specifications as they stand and keep an open - path to other methods for authenticated denial of existence. - - The descriptions of the proposals in this document are coarse and do - not cover every detail necessary for implementation. In any case, - documentation and further study is needed before implementaion and/or - deployment, including those which seem to be solely operational in - nature. - -2. Transition Mechanisms - - In the light of recent discussions and past proposals, we have found - several ways to allow for transition to future expansion of - authenticated denial. We tried to illuminate the paths and pitfalls - in these ways forward. Some proposals lead to a versioning of - DNSSEC, where DNSSEC-bis may co-exist with DNSSEC-ter, other - proposals are 'clean' but may cause delay, while again others may be - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - - plain hacks. - - Some paths do not introduce versioning, and might require the current - DNSSEC-bis documents to be fully updated to allow for extensions to - authenticated denial mechanisms. Other paths introduce versioning - and do not (or minimally) require DNSSEC-bis documents to be updated, - allowing DNSSEC-bis to be deployed, while future versions can be - drafted independent from or partially depending on DNSSEC-bis. - -2.1 Mechanisms With Need of Updating DNSSEC-bis - - Mechanisms in this category demand updates to the DNSSEC-bis document - set. - -2.1.1 Dynamic NSEC Synthesis - - This proposal assumes that NSEC RRs and the authenticating RRSIG will - be generated dynamically to just cover the (non existent) query name. - The owner name is (the) one preceding the name queried for, the Next - Owner Name Field has the value of the Query Name Field + 1 (first - successor in canonical ordering). A separate key (the normal ZSK or - a separate ZSK per authoritative server) would be used for RRSIGs on - NSEC RRs. This is a defense against enumeration, though it has the - presumption of online signing. - -2.1.1.1 Coexistence and Migration - - There is no change in interpretation other then that the next owner - name might or might not exist. - -2.1.1.2 Limitations - - This introduces an unbalanced cost between query and response - generation due to dynamic generation of signatures. - -2.1.1.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - The current DNSSEC-bis documents might need to be updated to indicate - that the next owner name might not be an existing name in the zone. - This is not a real change to the spec since implementers have been - warned not to synthesize with previously cached NSEC records. A - specific bit to identify the dynamic signature generating key might - be useful as well, to prevent it from being used to fake positive - data. - -2.1.1.4 Cons - - Unbalanced cost is a ground for DDoS. Though this protects against - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - - enumeration, it is not really a path for versioning. - -2.1.1.5 Pros - - Hardly any amendments to DNSSEC-bis. - -2.1.2 Add Versioning/Subtyping to Current NSEC - - This proposal introduces versioning for the NSEC RR type (a.k.a. - subtyping) by adding a (one octet) version field to the NSEC RDATA. - Version number 0 is assigned to the current (DNSSEC-bis) meaning, - making this an 'Must Be Zero' (MBZ) for the to be published docset. - -2.1.2.1 Coexistence and Migration - - Since the versioning is done inside the NSEC RR, different versions - may coexist. However, depending on future methods, that may or may - not be useful inside a single zone. Resolvers cannot ask for - specific NSEC versions but may be able to indicate version support by - means of a to be defined EDNS option bit. - -2.1.2.2 Limitations - - There are no technical limitations, though it will cause delay to - allow testing of the (currently unknown) new NSEC interpretation. - - Since the versioning and signaling is done inside the NSEC RR, future - methods will likely be restricted to a single RR type authenticated - denial (as opposed to e.g. NSEC-alt, which currently proposes three - RR types). - -2.1.2.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - Full Update of the current DNSSEC-bis documents to provide for new - fields in NSEC, while specifying behavior in case of unknown field - values. - -2.1.2.4 Cons - - Though this is a clean and clear path without versioning DNSSEC, it - takes some time to design, gain consensus, update the current - dnssec-bis document, test and implement a new authenticated denial - record. - -2.1.2.5 Pros - - Does not introduce an iteration to DNSSEC while providing a clear and - clean migration strategy. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - -2.1.3 Type Bit Map NSEC Indicator - - Bits in the type-bit-map are reused or allocated to signify the - interpretation of NSEC. - - This proposal assumes that future extensions make use of the existing - NSEC RDATA syntax, while it may need to change the interpretation of - the RDATA or introduce an alternative denial mechanism, invoked by - the specific type-bit-map-bits. - -2.1.3.1 Coexistence and migration - - Old and new NSEC meaning could coexist, depending how the signaling - would be defined. The bits for NXT, NSEC, RRSIG or other outdated RR - types are available as well as those covering meta/query types or - types to be specifically allocated. - -2.1.3.2 Limitations - - This mechanism uses an NSEC field that was not designed for that - purpose. Similar methods were discussed during the Opt-In discussion - and the Silly-State discussion. - -2.1.3.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - The specific type-bit-map-bits must be allocated and they need to be - specified as 'Must Be Zero' (MBZ) when used for standard (dnssec-bis) - interpretation. Also, behaviour of the resolver and validator must - be documented in case unknown values are encountered for the MBZ - field. Currently the protocol document specifies that the validator - MUST ignore the setting of the NSEC and the RRSIG bits, while other - bits are only used for the specific purpose of the type-bit-map field - -2.1.3.4 Cons - - The type-bit-map was not designed for this purpose. It is a - straightforward hack. Text in protocol section 5.4 was put in - specially to defend against this usage. - -2.1.3.5 Pros - - No change needed to the on-the-wire protocol as specified in the - current docset. - -2.1.4 New Apex Type - - This introduces a new Apex type (parallel to the zone's SOA) - indicating the DNSSEC version (or authenticated denial) used in or - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - - for this zone. - -2.1.4.1 Coexistence and Migration - - Depending on the design of this new RR type multiple denial - mechanisms may coexist in a zone. Old validators will not understand - and thus ignore the new type, so interpretation of the new NSEC - scheme may fail, negative responses may appear 'bogus'. - -2.1.4.2 Limitations - - A record of this kind is likely to carry additional - feature/versioning indications unrelated to the current question of - authenticated denial. - -2.1.4.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - The current DNSSEC-bis documents need to be updated to indicate that - the absence of this type indicates dnssec-bis, and that the (mere) - presence of this type indicated unknown versions. - -2.1.4.4 Cons - - The only other 'zone' or 'apex' record is the SOA record. Though - this proposal is not new, it is yet unknown how it might fulfill - authenticated denial extensions. This new RR type would only provide - for a generalized signaling mechanism, not the new authenticated - denial scheme. Since it is likely to be general in nature, due to - this generality consensus is not to be reached soon. - -2.1.4.5 Pros - - This approach would allow for a lot of other per zone information to - be transported or signaled to both (slave) servers and resolvers. - -2.1.5 NSEC White Lies - - This proposal disables one part of NSEC (the pointer part) by means - of a special target (root, apex, owner, ...), leaving intact only the - ability to authenticate denial of existence of RR sets, not denial of - existence of domain names (NXDOMAIN). It may be necessary to have - one working NSEC to prove the absence of a wildcard. - -2.1.5.1 Coexistence and Migration - - The NSEC target can be specified per RR, so standard NSEC and 'white - lie' NSEC can coexist in a zone. There is no need for migration - because no versioning is introduced or intended. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - -2.1.5.2 Limitations - - This proposal breaks the protocol and is applicable to certain types - of zones only (no wildcard, no deep names, delegation only). Most of - the burden is put on the resolver side and operational consequences - are yet to be studied. - -2.1.5.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - The current DNSSEC-bis documents need to be updated to indicate that - the NXDOMAIN responses may be insecure. - -2.1.5.4 Cons - - Strictly speaking this breaks the protocol and doesn't fully fulfill - the requirements for authenticated denial of existence. Security - implications need to be carefully documented: search path problems - (forged denial of existence may lead to wrong expansion of non-FQDNs - [RFC1535]) and replay attacks to deny existence of records. - -2.1.5.5 Pros - - Hardly any amendments to DNSSEC-bis. Operational "trick" that is - available anyway. - -2.1.6 NSEC Optional via DNSSKEY Flag - - A new DNSKEY may be defined to declare NSEC optional per zone. - -2.1.6.1 Coexistence and Migration - - Current resolvers/validators will not understand the Flag bit and - will have to treat negative responses as bogus. Otherwise, no - migration path is needed since NSEC is simply turned off. - -2.1.6.2 Limitations - - NSEC can only be made completely optional at the cost of being unable - to prove unsecure delegations (absence of a DS RR [RFC3658]). A next - to this approach would just disable authenticated denial for - non-existence of nodes. - -2.1.6.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - New DNSKEY Flag to be defined. Resolver/Validator behaviour needs to - be specified in the light of absence of authenticated denial. - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - -2.1.6.4 Cons - - Doesn't fully meet requirements. Operational consequences to be - studied. - -2.1.6.5 Pros - - Official version of the "trick" presented in (8). Operational - problems can be addressed during future work on validators. - -2.1.7 New Answer Pseudo RR Type - - A new pseudo RR type may be defined that will be dynamically created - (and signed) by the responding authoritative server. The RR in the - response will cover the QNAME, QCLASS and QTYPE and will authenticate - both denial of existence of name (NXDOMAIN) or RRset. - -2.1.7.1 Coexistence and Migration - - Current resolvers/validators will not understand the pseudo RR and - will thus not be able to process negative responses so testified. A - signaling or solicitation method would have to be specified. - -2.1.7.2 Limitations - - This method can only be used with online keys and online signing - capacity. - -2.1.7.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - Signaling method needs to be defined. - -2.1.7.4 Cons - - Keys have to be held and processed online with all security - implications. An additional flag for those keys identifying them as - online or negative answer only keys should be considered. - -2.1.7.5 Pros - - Expands DNSSEC authentication to the RCODE. - -2.1.8 SIG(0) Based Authenticated Denial - - -2.1.8.1 Coexistence and Migration - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - -2.1.8.2 Limitations - - -2.1.8.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - -2.1.8.4 Cons - - -2.1.8.5 Pros - - -2.2 Mechanisms Without Need of Updating DNSSEC-bis - -2.2.1 Partial Type-code and Signal Rollover - - Carefully crafted type code/signal rollover to define a new - authenticated denial space that extends/replaces DNSSEC-bis - authenticated denial space. This particular path is illuminated by - Paul Vixie in a Message-Id <20040602070859.0F50913951@sa.vix.com> - posted to 2004-06-02. - -2.2.1.1 Coexistence and Migration - - To protect the current resolver for future versions, a new DNSSEC-OK - bit must be allocated to make clear it does or does not understand - the future version. Also, a new DS type needs to be allocated to - allow differentiation between a current signed delegation and a - 'future' signed delegation. Also, current NSEC needs to be rolled - into a new authenticated denial type. - -2.2.1.2 Limitations - - None. - -2.2.1.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - None. - -2.2.1.4 Cons - - It is cumbersome to carefully craft an TCR that 'just fits'. The - DNSSEC-bis protocol has many 'borderline' cases that needs special - consideration. It might be easier to do a full TCR, since a few of - the types and signals need upgrading anyway. - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - -2.2.1.5 Pros - - Graceful adoption of future versions of NSEC, while there are no - amendments to DNSSEC-bis. - -2.2.2 A Complete Type-code and Signal Rollover - - A new DNSSEC space is defined which can exist independent of current - DNSSEC-bis space. - - This proposal assumes that all current DNSSEC type-codes - (RRSIG/DNSKEY/NSEC/DS) and signals (DNSSEC-OK) are not used in any - future versions of DNSSEC. Any future version of DNSSEC has its own - types to allow for keys, signatures, authenticated denial, etcetera. - -2.2.2.1 Coexistence and Migration - - Both spaces can co-exist. They can be made completely orthogonal. - -2.2.2.2 Limitations - - None. - -2.2.2.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - None. - -2.2.2.4 Cons - - With this path we abandon the current DNSSEC-bis. Though it is easy - to role specific well-known and well-tested parts into the re-write, - once deployment has started this path is very expensive for - implementers, registries, registrars and registrants as well as - resolvers/users. A TCR is not to be expected to occur frequently, so - while a next generation authenticated denial may be enabled by a TCR, - it is likely that that TCR will only be agreed upon if it serves a - whole basket of changes or additions. A quick introduction of - NSEC-ng should not be expected from this path. - -2.2.2.5 Pros - - No amendments/changes to current DNSSEC-bis docset needed. It is - always there as last resort. - -2.2.3 Unknown Algorithm in RRSIG - - This proposal assumes that future extensions make use of the existing - NSEC RDATA syntax, while it may need to change the interpretation of - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - - the RDATA or introduce an alternative denial mechanism, invoked by - the specific unknown signing algorithm. The different interpretation - would be signaled by use of different signature algorithms in the - RRSIG records covering the NSEC RRs. - - When an entire zone is signed with a single unknown algorithm, it - will cause implementations that follow current dnssec-bis documents - to treat individual RRsets as unsigned. - -2.2.3.1 Coexistence and migration - - Old and new NSEC RDATA interpretation or known and unknown Signatures - can NOT coexist in a zone since signatures cover complete (NSEC) - RRSets. - -2.2.3.2 Limitations - - Validating resolvers agnostic of new interpretation will treat the - NSEC RRset as "not signed". This affects wildcard and non-existence - proof, as well as proof for (un)secured delegations. Also, all - positive signatures (RRSIGs on RRSets other than DS, NSEC) appear - insecure/bogus to an old validator. - - The algorithm version space is split for each future version of - DNSSEC. Violation of the 'modular components' concept. We use the - 'validator' to protect the 'resolver' from unknown interpretations. - -2.2.3.3 Amendments to DNSSEC-bis - - None. - -2.2.3.4 Cons - - The algorithm field was not designed for this purpose. This is a - straightforward hack. - -2.2.3.5 Pros - - No amendments/changes to current DNSSEC-bis docset needed. - -3. Recommendation - - The authors recommend that the working group commits to and starts - work on a partial TCR, allowing graceful transition towards a future - version of NSEC. Meanwhile, to accomodate the need for an - immediately, temporary, solution against zone-traversal, we recommend - On-Demand NSEC synthesis. - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - - This approach does not require any mandatory changes to DNSSEC-bis, - does not violate the protocol and fulfills the requirements. As a - side effect, it moves the cost of implementation and deployment to - the users (zone owners) of this mechanism. - -4. Acknowledgements - - The authors would like to thank Sam Weiler and Mark Andrews for their - input and constructive comments. - -5. References - -5.1 Normative References - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Massey, D., Larson, M. and S. - Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", - Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-13, October - 2004. - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol] - Arends, R., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security - Extensions", - Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-09, - October 2004. - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records] - Arends, R., "Resource Records for the DNS Security - Extensions", - Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-11, - October 2004. - - [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [RFC2931] Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( - SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000. - -5.2 Informative References - - [RFC1535] Gavron, E., "A Security Problem and Proposed Correction - With Widely Deployed DNS Software", RFC 1535, October - 1993. - - [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - - RFC 2535, March 1999. - - [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, - June 1999. - - [RFC3658] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record - (RR)", RFC 3658, December 2003. - - -Authors' Addresses - - Roy Arends - Telematica Instituut - Brouwerijstraat 1 - Enschede 7523 XC - The Netherlands - - Phone: +31 53 4850485 - Email: roy.arends@telin.nl - - - Peter Koch - DENIC eG - Wiesenh"uttenplatz 26 - Frankfurt 60329 - Germany - - Phone: +49 69 27235 0 - Email: pk@DENIC.DE - - - Jakob Schlyter - NIC-SE - Box 5774 - Stockholm SE-114 87 - Sweden - - Email: jakob@nic.se - URI: http://www.nic.se/ - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms February 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires August 25, 2005 [Page 15] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-05.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-05.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2460cb619b6..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-05.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,504 +0,0 @@ - - - -Network Working Group W. Hardaker -Internet-Draft Sparta -Expires: August 25, 2006 February 21, 2006 - - - Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs) - draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-05.txt - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - This document specifies how to use the SHA-256 digest type in DNS - Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs). DS records, when - stored in a parent zone, point to key signing DNSKEY key(s) in a - child zone. - - - - - - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC DS RRs February 2006 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Implementing the SHA-256 algorithm for DS record support . . . 3 - 2.1. DS record field values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2.2. DS Record with SHA-256 Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2.3. Example DS Record Using SHA-256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6.1. Potential Digest Type Downgrade Attacks . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6.2. SHA-1 vs SHA-256 Considerations for DS Records . . . . . . 6 - 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC DS RRs February 2006 - - -1. Introduction - - The DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035] DS RR is published in parent - zones to distribute a cryptographic digest of a child's Key Signing - Key (KSK) DNSKEY RR. The DS RRset is signed by at least one of the - parent zone's private zone data signing keys for each algorithm in - use by the parent. Each signature is published in an RRSIG resource - record, owned by the same domain as the DS RRset and with a type - covered of DS. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. - - -2. Implementing the SHA-256 algorithm for DS record support - - This document specifies that the digest type code [XXX: To be - assigned by IANA; likely 2] is to be assigned to SHA-256 [SHA256] - [SHA256CODE] for use within DS records. The results of the digest - algorithm MUST NOT be truncated and the entire 32 byte digest result - is to be published in the DS record. - -2.1. DS record field values - - Using the SHA-256 digest algorithm within a DS record will make use - of the following DS-record fields: - - Digest type: [XXX: To be assigned by IANA; likely 2] - - Digest: A SHA-256 bit digest value calculated by using the following - formula ("|" denotes concatenation). The resulting value is not - truncated and the entire 32 byte result is to used in the - resulting DS record and related calculations. - - digest = SHA_256(DNSKEY owner name | DNSKEY RDATA) - - where DNSKEY RDATA is defined by [RFC4034] as: - - DNSKEY RDATA = Flags | Protocol | Algorithm | Public Key - - The Key Tag field and Algorithm fields remain unchanged by this - document and are specified in the [RFC4034] specification. - -2.2. DS Record with SHA-256 Wire Format - - The resulting on-the-wire format for the resulting DS record will be - [XXX: IANA assignment should replace the 2 below]: - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC DS RRs February 2006 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Key Tag | Algorithm | DigestType=2 | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / / - / Digest (length for SHA-256 is 32 bytes) / - / / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| - -2.3. Example DS Record Using SHA-256 - - The following is an example DNSKEY and matching DS record. This - DNSKEY record comes from the example DNSKEY/DS records found in - section 5.4 of [RFC4034]. - - The DNSKEY record: - - dskey.example.com. 86400 IN DNSKEY 256 3 5 ( AQOeiiR0GOMYkDshWoSKz9Xz - fwJr1AYtsmx3TGkJaNXVbfi/ - 2pHm822aJ5iI9BMzNXxeYCmZ - DRD99WYwYqUSdjMmmAphXdvx - egXd/M5+X7OrzKBaMbCVdFLU - Uh6DhweJBjEVv5f2wwjM9Xzc - nOf+EPbtG9DMBmADjFDc2w/r - ljwvFw== - ) ; key id = 60485 - - The resulting DS record covering the above DNSKEY record using a SHA- - 256 digest: [RFC Editor: please replace XXX with the assigned digest - type (likely 2):] - - dskey.example.com. 86400 IN DS 60485 5 XXX ( D4B7D520E7BB5F0F67674A0C - CEB1E3E0614B93C4F9E99B83 - 83F6A1E4469DA50A ) - - -3. Implementation Requirements - - Implementations MUST support the use of the SHA-256 algorithm in DS - RRs. Validator implementations SHOULD ignore DS RRs containing SHA-1 - digests if DS RRs with SHA-256 digests are present in the DS RRset. - - -4. Deployment Considerations - - If a validator does not support the SHA-256 digest type and no other - DS RR exists in a zone's DS RRset with a supported digest type, then - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC DS RRs February 2006 - - - the validator has no supported authentication path leading from the - parent to the child. The resolver should treat this case as it would - the case of an authenticated NSEC RRset proving that no DS RRset - exists, as described in [RFC4035], section 5.2. - - Because zone administrators can not control the deployment speed of - support for SHA-256 in validators that may be referencing any of - their zones, zone operators should consider deploying both SHA-1 and - SHA-256 based DS records. This should be done for every DNSKEY for - which DS records are being generated. Whether to make use of both - digest types and for how long is a policy decision that extends - beyond the scope of this document. - - -5. IANA Considerations - - Only one IANA action is required by this document: - - The Digest Type to be used for supporting SHA-256 within DS records - needs to be assigned by IANA. This document requests that the Digest - Type value of 2 be assigned to the SHA-256 digest algorithm. - - At the time of this writing, the current digest types assigned for - use in DS records are as follows: - - VALUE Digest Type Status - 0 Reserved - - 1 SHA-1 MANDATORY - 2 SHA-256 MANDATORY - 3-255 Unassigned - - - -6. Security Considerations - -6.1. Potential Digest Type Downgrade Attacks - - A downgrade attack from a stronger digest type to a weaker one is - possible if all of the following are true: - - o A zone includes multiple DS records for a given child's DNSKEY, - each of which use a different digest type. - - o A validator accepts a weaker digest even if a stronger one is - present but invalid. - - For example, if the following conditions are all true: - - - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC DS RRs February 2006 - - - o Both SHA-1 and SHA-256 based digests are published in DS records - within a parent zone for a given child zone's DNSKEY. - - o The DS record with the SHA-1 digest matches the digest computed - using the child zone's DNSKEY. - - o The DS record with the SHA-256 digest fails to match the digest - computed using the child zone's DNSKEY. - - Then if the validator accepts the above situation as secure then this - can be used as a downgrade attack since the stronger SHA-256 digest - is ignored. - -6.2. SHA-1 vs SHA-256 Considerations for DS Records - - Users of DNSSEC are encouraged to deploy SHA-256 as soon as software - implementations allow for it. SHA-256 is widely believed to be more - resilient to attack than SHA-1, and confidence in SHA-1's strength is - being eroded by recently-announced attacks. Regardless of whether or - not the attacks on SHA-1 will affect DNSSEC, it is believed (at the - time of this writing) that SHA-256 is the better choice for use in DS - records. - - At the time of this publication, the SHA-256 digest algorithm is - considered sufficiently strong for the immediate future. It is also - considered sufficient for use in DNSSEC DS RRs for the immediate - future. However, future published attacks may weaken the usability - of this algorithm within the DS RRs. It is beyond the scope of this - document to speculate extensively on the cryptographic strength of - the SHA-256 digest algorithm. - - Likewise, it is also beyond the scope of this document to specify - whether or for how long SHA-1 based DS records should be - simultaneously published alongside SHA-256 based DS records. - - -7. Acknowledgments - - This document is a minor extension to the existing DNSSEC documents - and those authors are gratefully appreciated for the hard work that - went into the base documents. - - The following people contributed to portions of this document in some - fashion: Mark Andrews, Roy Arends, Olafur Gudmundsson, Paul Hoffman, - Olaf M. Kolkman, Edward Lewis, Scott Rose, Stuart E. Schechter, Sam - Weiler. - - - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC DS RRs February 2006 - - -8. References - -8.1. Normative References - - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", - RFC 4033, March 2005. - - [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4034, March 2005. - - [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security - Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. - - [SHA256] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure - Hash Algorithm. NIST FIPS 180-2", August 2002. - -8.2. Informative References - - [SHA256CODE] - Eastlake, D., "US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA)", - June 2005. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC DS RRs February 2006 - - -Author's Address - - Wes Hardaker - Sparta - P.O. Box 382 - Davis, CA 95617 - US - - Email: hardaker@tislabs.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC DS RRs February 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Hardaker Expires August 25, 2006 [Page 9] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2cdcdb16c92..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,928 +0,0 @@ - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS -Expires: January 2006 July 2005 - - - - Elliptic Curve KEYs in the DNS - -------- ----- ---- -- --- --- - - - Richard C. Schroeppel - Donald Eastlake 3rd - - -Status of This Document - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - This draft is intended to be become a Proposed Standard RFC. - Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent - to the DNS mailing list . - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than a "work in progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - - -Abstract - - The standard method for storing elliptic curve cryptographic keys and - signatures in the Domain Name System is specified. - - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved. - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 1] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - -Acknowledgement - - The assistance of Hilarie K. Orman in the production of this document - is greatfully acknowledged. - - - -Table of Contents - - Status of This Document....................................1 - Abstract...................................................1 - Copyright Notice...........................................1 - - Acknowledgement............................................2 - Table of Contents..........................................2 - - 1. Introduction............................................3 - 2. Elliptic Curve Data in Resource Records.................3 - 3. The Elliptic Curve Equation.............................9 - 4. How do I Compute Q, G, and Y?..........................10 - 5. Elliptic Curve SIG Resource Records....................11 - 6. Performance Considerations.............................13 - 7. Security Considerations................................13 - 8. IANA Considerations....................................13 - Copyright and Disclaimer..................................14 - - Informational References..................................15 - Normative Refrences.......................................15 - - Author's Addresses........................................16 - Expiration and File Name..................................16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 2] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - -1. Introduction - - The Domain Name System (DNS) is the global hierarchical replicated - distributed database system for Internet addressing, mail proxy, and - other information. The DNS has been extended to include digital - signatures and cryptographic keys as described in [RFC 4033, 4034, - 4035]. - - This document describes how to store elliptic curve cryptographic - (ECC) keys and signatures in the DNS so they can be used for a - variety of security purposes. Familiarity with ECC cryptography is - assumed [Menezes]. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. - - - -2. Elliptic Curve Data in Resource Records - - Elliptic curve public keys are stored in the DNS within the RDATA - portions of key RRs, such as RRKEY and KEY [RFC 4034] RRs, with the - structure shown below. - - The research world continues to work on the issue of which is the - best elliptic curve system, which finite field to use, and how to - best represent elements in the field. So, representations are - defined for every type of finite field, and every type of elliptic - curve. The reader should be aware that there is a unique finite - field with a particular number of elements, but many possible - representations of that field and its elements. If two different - representations of a field are given, they are interconvertible with - a tedious but practical precomputation, followed by a fast - computation for each field element to be converted. It is perfectly - reasonable for an algorithm to work internally with one field - representation, and convert to and from a different external - representation. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 3] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - |S M -FMT- A B Z| - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LP | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | P (length determined from LP) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LF | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | F (length determined from LF) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | DEG | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | DEGH | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | DEGI | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | DEGJ | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | TRDV | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - |S| LH | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | H (length determined from LH) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - |S| LK | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | K (length determined from LK) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LQ | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Q (length determined from LQ) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LA | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | A (length determined from LA) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ALTA | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LB | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | B (length determined from LB) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LC | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | C (length determined from LC) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LG | - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 4] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | G (length determined from LG) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | LY | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Y (length determined from LY) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - SMFMTABZ is a flags octet as follows: - - S = 1 indicates that the remaining 7 bits of the octet selects - one of 128 predefined choices of finite field, element - representation, elliptic curve, and signature parameters. - MFMTABZ are omitted, as are all parameters from LP through G. - LY and Y are retained. - - If S = 0, the remaining parameters are as in the picture and - described below. - - M determines the type of field underlying the elliptic curve. - - M = 0 if the field is a GF[2^N] field; - - M = 1 if the field is a (mod P) or GF[P^D] field with P>2. - - FMT is a three bit field describing the format of the field - representation. - - FMT = 0 for a (mod P) field. - > 0 for an extension field, either GF[2^D] or GF[P^D]. - The degree D of the extension, and the field polynomial - must be specified. The field polynomial is always monic - (leading coefficient 1.) - - FMT = 1 The field polynomial is given explicitly; D is implied. - - If FMT >=2, the degree D is given explicitly. - - = 2 The field polynomial is implicit. - = 3 The field polynomial is a binomial. P>2. - = 4 The field polynomial is a trinomial. - = 5 The field polynomial is the quotient of a trinomial by a - short polynomial. P=2. - = 6 The field polynomial is a pentanomial. P=2. - - Flags A and B apply to the elliptic curve parameters. - - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 5] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - A = 1 When P>=5, the curve parameter A is negated. If P=2, then - A=1 indicates that the A parameter is special. See the - ALTA parameter below, following A. The combination A=1, - P=3 is forbidden. - - B = 1 When P>=5, the curve parameter B is negated. If P=2 or 3, - then B=1 indicates an alternate elliptic curve equation is - used. When P=2 and B=1, an additional curve parameter C - is present. - - The Z bit SHOULD be set to zero on creation of an RR and MUST be - ignored when processing an RR (when S=0). - - Most of the remaining parameters are present in some formats and - absent in others. The presence or absence of a parameter is - determined entirely by the flags. When a parameter occurs, it is in - the order defined by the picture. - - Of the remaining parameters, PFHKQABCGY are variable length. When - present, each is preceded by a one-octet length field as shown in the - diagram above. The length field does not include itself. The length - field may have values from 0 through 110. The parameter length in - octets is determined by a conditional formula: If LL<=64, the - parameter length is LL. If LL>64, the parameter length is 16 times - (LL-60). In some cases, a parameter value of 0 is sensible, and MAY - be represented by an LL value of 0, with the data field omitted. A - length value of 0 represents a parameter value of 0, not an absent - parameter. (The data portion occupies 0 space.) There is no - requirement that a parameter be represented in the minimum number of - octets; high-order 0 octets are allowed at the front end. Parameters - are always right adjusted, in a field of length defined by LL. The - octet-order is always most-significant first, least-significant last. - The parameters H and K may have an optional sign bit stored in the - unused high-order bit of their length fields. - - LP defines the length of the prime P. P must be an odd prime. The - parameters LP,P are present if and only if the flag M=1. If M=0, the - prime is 2. - - LF,F define an explicit field polynomial. This parameter pair is - present only when FMT = 1. The length of a polynomial coefficient is - ceiling(log2 P) bits. Coefficients are in the numerical range - [0,P-1]. The coefficients are packed into fixed-width fields, from - higher order to lower order. All coefficients must be present, - including any 0s and also the leading coefficient (which is required - to be 1). The coefficients are right justified into the octet string - of length specified by LF, with the low-order "constant" coefficient - at the right end. As a concession to storage efficiency, the higher - order bits of the leading coefficient may be elided, discarding high- - order 0 octets and reducing LF. The degree is calculated by - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 6] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - determining the bit position of the left most 1-bit in the F data - (counting the right most bit as position 0), and dividing by - ceiling(log2 P). The division must be exact, with no remainder. In - this format, all of the other degree and field parameters are - omitted. The next parameters will be LQ,Q. - - If FMT>=2, the degree of the field extension is specified explicitly, - usually along with other parameters to define the field polynomial. - - DEG is a two octet field that defines the degree of the field - extension. The finite field will have P^DEG elements. DEG is - present when FMT>=2. - - When FMT=2, the field polynomial is specified implicitly. No other - parameters are required to define the field; the next parameters - present will be the LQ,Q pair. The implicit field poynomial is the - lexicographically smallest irreducible (mod P) polynomial of the - correct degree. The ordering of polynomials is by highest-degree - coefficients first -- the leading coefficient 1 is most important, - and the constant term is least important. Coefficients are ordered - by sign-magnitude: 0 < 1 < -1 < 2 < -2 < ... The first polynomial of - degree D is X^D (which is not irreducible). The next is X^D+1, which - is sometimes irreducible, followed by X^D-1, which isn't. Assuming - odd P, this series continues to X^D - (P-1)/2, and then goes to X^D + - X, X^D + X + 1, X^D + X - 1, etc. - - When FMT=3, the field polynomial is a binomial, X^DEG + K. P must be - odd. The polynomial is determined by the degree and the low order - term K. Of all the field parameters, only the LK,K parameters are - present. The high-order bit of the LK octet stores on optional sign - for K; if the sign bit is present, the field polynomial is X^DEG - K. - - When FMT=4, the field polynomial is a trinomial, X^DEG + H*X^DEGH + - K. When P=2, the H and K parameters are implicitly 1, and are - omitted from the representation. Only DEG and DEGH are present; the - next parameters are LQ,Q. When P>2, then LH,H and LK,K are - specified. Either or both of LH, LK may contain a sign bit for its - parameter. - - When FMT=5, then P=2 (only). The field polynomial is the exact - quotient of a trinomial divided by a small polynomial, the trinomial - divisor. The small polynomial is right-adjusted in the two octet - field TRDV. DEG specifies the degree of the field. The degree of - TRDV is calculated from the position of the high-order 1 bit. The - trinomial to be divided is X^(DEG+degree(TRDV)) + X^DEGH + 1. If - DEGH is 0, the middle term is omitted from the trinomial. The - quotient must be exact, with no remainder. - - When FMT=6, then P=2 (only). The field polynomial is a pentanomial, - with the degrees of the middle terms given by the three 2-octet - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 7] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - values DEGH, DEGI, DEGJ. The polynomial is X^DEG + X^DEGH + X^DEGI + - X^DEGJ + 1. The values must satisfy the inequality DEG > DEGH > DEGI - > DEGJ > 0. - - DEGH, DEGI, DEGJ are two-octet fields that define the degree of - a term in a field polynomial. DEGH is present when FMT = 4, - 5, or 6. DEGI and DEGJ are present only when FMT = 6. - - TRDV is a two-octet right-adjusted binary polynomial of degree < - 16. It is present only for FMT=5. - - LH and H define the H parameter, present only when FMT=4 and P - is odd. The high bit of LH is an optional sign bit for H. - - LK and K define the K parameter, present when FMT = 3 or 4, and - P is odd. The high bit of LK is an optional sign bit for K. - - The remaining parameters are concerned with the elliptic curve and - the signature algorithm. - - LQ defines the length of the prime Q. Q is a prime > 2^159. - - In all 5 of the parameter pairs LA+A,LB+B,LC+C,LG+G,LY+Y, the data - member of the pair is an element from the finite field defined - earlier. The length field defines a long octet string. Field - elements are represented as (mod P) polynomials of degree < DEG, with - DEG or fewer coefficients. The coefficients are stored from left to - right, higher degree to lower, with the constant term last. The - coefficients are represented as integers in the range [0,P-1]. Each - coefficient is allocated an area of ceiling(log2 P) bits. The field - representation is right-justified; the "constant term" of the field - element ends at the right most bit. The coefficients are fitted - adjacently without regard for octet boundaries. (Example: if P=5, - three bits are used for each coefficient. If the field is GF[5^75], - then 225 bits are required for the coefficients, and as many as 29 - octets may be needed in the data area. Fewer octets may be used if - some high-order coefficients are 0.) If a flag requires a field - element to be negated, each non-zero coefficient K is replaced with - P-K. To save space, 0 bits may be removed from the left end of the - element representation, and the length field reduced appropriately. - This would normally only happen with A,B,C, because the designer - chose curve parameters with some high-order 0 coefficients or bits. - - If the finite field is simply (mod P), then the field elements are - simply numbers (mod P), in the usual right-justified notation. If - the finite field is GF[2^D], the field elements are the usual right- - justified polynomial basis representation. - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 8] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - LA,A is the first parameter of the elliptic curve equation. - When P>=5, the flag A = 1 indicates A should be negated (mod - P). When P=2 (indicated by the flag M=0), the flag A = 1 - indicates that the parameter pair LA,A is replaced by the two - octet parameter ALTA. In this case, the parameter A in the - curve equation is x^ALTA, where x is the field generator. - Parameter A often has the value 0, which may be indicated by - LA=0 (with no A data field), and sometimes A is 1, which may - be represented with LA=1 and a data field of 1, or by setting - the A flag and using an ALTA value of 0. - - LB,B is the second parameter of the elliptic curve equation. - When P>=5, the flag B = 1 indicates B should be negated (mod - P). When P=2 or 3, the flag B selects an alternate curve - equation. - - LC,C is the third parameter of the elliptic curve equation, - present only when P=2 (indicated by flag M=0) and flag B=1. - - LG,G defines a point on the curve, of order Q. The W-coordinate - of the curve point is given explicitly; the Z-coordinate is - implicit. - - LY,Y is the user's public signing key, another curve point of - order Q. The W-coordinate is given explicitly; the Z- - coordinate is implicit. The LY,Y parameter pair is always - present. - - - -3. The Elliptic Curve Equation - - (The coordinates of an elliptic curve point are named W,Z instead of - the more usual X,Y to avoid confusion with the Y parameter of the - signing key.) - - The elliptic curve equation is determined by the flag octet, together - with information about the prime P. The primes 2 and 3 are special; - all other primes are treated identically. - - If M=1, the (mod P) or GF[P^D] case, the curve equation is Z^2 = W^3 - + A*W + B. Z,W,A,B are all numbers (mod P) or elements of GF[P^D]. - If A and/or B is negative (i.e., in the range from P/2 to P), and - P>=5, space may be saved by putting the sign bit(s) in the A and B - bits of the flags octet, and the magnitude(s) in the parameter - fields. - - If M=1 and P=3, the B flag has a different meaning: it specifies an - alternate curve equation, Z^2 = W^3 + A*W^2 + B. The middle term of - the right-hand-side is different. When P=3, this equation is more - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 9] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - commonly used. - - If M=0, the GF[2^N] case, the curve equation is Z^2 + W*Z = W^3 + - A*W^2 + B. Z,W,A,B are all elements of the field GF[2^N]. The A - parameter can often be 0 or 1, or be chosen as a single-1-bit value. - The flag B is used to select an alternate curve equation, Z^2 + C*Z = - W^3 + A*W + B. This is the only time that the C parameter is used. - - - -4. How do I Compute Q, G, and Y? - - The number of points on the curve is the number of solutions to the - curve equation, + 1 (for the "point at infinity"). The prime Q must - divide the number of points. Usually the curve is chosen first, then - the number of points is determined with Schoof's algorithm. This - number is factored, and if it has a large prime divisor, that number - is taken as Q. - - G must be a point of order Q on the curve, satisfying the equation - - Q * G = the point at infinity (on the elliptic curve) - - G may be chosen by selecting a random [RFC 1750] curve point, and - multiplying it by (number-of-points-on-curve/Q). G must not itself - be the "point at infinity"; in this astronomically unlikely event, a - new random curve point is recalculated. - - G is specified by giving its W-coordinate. The Z-coordinate is - calculated from the curve equation. In general, there will be two - possible Z values. The rule is to choose the "positive" value. - - In the (mod P) case, the two possible Z values sum to P. The smaller - value is less than P/2; it is used in subsequent calculations. In - GF[P^D] fields, the highest-degree non-zero coefficient of the field - element Z is used; it is chosen to be less than P/2. - - In the GF[2^N] case, the two possible Z values xor to W (or to the - parameter C with the alternate curve equation). The numerically - smaller Z value (the one which does not contain the highest-order 1 - bit of W (or C)) is used in subsequent calculations. - - Y is specified by giving the W-coordinate of the user's public - signature key. The Z-coordinate value is determined from the curve - equation. As with G, there are two possible Z values; the same rule - is followed for choosing which Z to use. - - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 10] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - During the key generation process, a random [RFC 1750] number X must - be generated such that 1 <= X <= Q-1. X is the private key and is - used in the final step of public key generation where Y is computed - as - - Y = X * G (as points on the elliptic curve) - - If the Z-coordinate of the computed point Y is wrong (i.e., Z > P/2 - in the (mod P) case, or the high-order non-zero coefficient of Z > - P/2 in the GF[P^D] case, or Z sharing a high bit with W(C) in the - GF[2^N] case), then X must be replaced with Q-X. This will - correspond to the correct Z-coordinate. - - - -5. Elliptic Curve SIG Resource Records - - The signature portion of an RR RDATA area when using the EC - algorithm, for example in the RRSIG and SIG [RFC records] RRs is - shown below. - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | R, (length determined from LQ) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | S, (length determined from LQ) .../ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - R and S are integers (mod Q). Their length is specified by the LQ - field of the corresponding KEY RR and can also be calculated from the - SIG RR's RDLENGTH. They are right justified, high-order-octet first. - The same conditional formula for calculating the length from LQ is - used as for all the other length fields above. - - The data signed is determined as specified in [RFC 2535]. Then the - following steps are taken where Q, P, G, and Y are as specified in - the public key [Schneier]: - - hash = SHA-1 ( data ) - - Generate random [RFC 4086] K such that 0 < K < Q. (Never sign two - different messages with the same K. K should be chosen from a - very large space: If an opponent learns a K value for a single - signature, the user's signing key is compromised, and a forger - can sign arbitrary messages. There is no harm in signing the - same message multiple times with the same key or different - keys.) - - R = (the W-coordinate of ( K*G on the elliptic curve )) interpreted - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 11] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - as an integer, and reduced (mod Q). (R must not be 0. In - this astronomically unlikely event, generate a new random K - and recalculate R.) - - S = ( K^(-1) * (hash + X*R) ) mod Q. - - S must not be 0. In this astronomically unlikely event, generate a - new random K and recalculate R and S. - - If S > Q/2, set S = Q - S. - - The pair (R,S) is the signature. - - Another party verifies the signature as follows: - - Check that 0 < R < Q and 0 < S < Q/2. If not, it can not be a - valid EC sigature. - - hash = SHA-1 ( data ) - - Sinv = S^(-1) mod Q. - - U1 = (hash * Sinv) mod Q. - - U2 = (R * Sinv) mod Q. - - (U1 * G + U2 * Y) is computed on the elliptic curve. - - V = (the W-coordinate of this point) interpreted as an integer - and reduced (mod Q). - - The signature is valid if V = R. - - The reason for requiring S < Q/2 is that, otherwise, both (R,S) and - (R,Q-S) would be valid signatures for the same data. Note that a - signature that is valid for hash(data) is also valid for - hash(data)+Q or hash(data)-Q, if these happen to fall in the range - [0,2^160-1]. It's believed to be computationally infeasible to - find data that hashes to an assigned value, so this is only a - cosmetic blemish. The blemish can be eliminated by using Q > - 2^160, at the cost of having slightly longer signatures, 42 octets - instead of 40. - - We must specify how a field-element E ("the W-coordinate") is to be - interpreted as an integer. The field-element E is regarded as a - radix-P integer, with the digits being the coefficients in the - polynomial basis representation of E. The digits are in the ragne - [0,P-1]. In the two most common cases, this reduces to "the - obvious thing". In the (mod P) case, E is simply a residue mod P, - and is taken as an integer in the range [0,P-1]. In the GF[2^D] - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 12] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - case, E is in the D-bit polynomial basis representation, and is - simply taken as an integer in the range [0,(2^D)-1]. For other - fields GF[P^D], it's necessary to do some radix conversion - arithmetic. - - - - 6. Performance Considerations - - Elliptic curve signatures use smaller moduli or field sizes than - RSA and DSA. Creation of a curve is slow, but not done very often. - Key generation is faster than RSA or DSA. - - DNS implementations have been optimized for small transfers, - typically less than 512 octets including DNS overhead. Larger - transfers will perform correctly and and extensions have been - standardized to make larger transfers more efficient [RFC 2671]. - However, it is still advisable at this time to make reasonable - efforts to minimize the size of RR sets stored within the DNS - consistent with adequate security. - - - - 7. Security Considerations - - Keys retrieved from the DNS should not be trusted unless (1) they - have been securely obtained from a secure resolver or independently - verified by the user and (2) this secure resolver and secure - obtainment or independent verification conform to security policies - acceptable to the user. As with all cryptographic algorithms, - evaluating the necessary strength of the key is essential and - dependent on local policy. - - Some specific key generation considerations are given in the body - of this document. - - - - 8. IANA Considerations - - The key and signature data structures defined herein correspond to - the value 4 in the Algorithm number field of the IANA registry - - Assignment of meaning to the remaining ECC data flag bits or to - values of ECC fields outside the ranges for which meaning in - defined in this document requires an IETF consensus as defined in - [RFC 2434]. - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 13] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - Copyright and Disclaimer - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2005. This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on - an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE - REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND - THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 14] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - Informational References - - [RFC 1034] - P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - concepts and - facilities", 11/01/1987. - - [RFC 1035] - P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - implementation and - specification", 11/01/1987. - - [RFC 2671] - P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", - August 1999. - - [RFC 4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and - S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [RFC 4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and - S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4035, March 2005. - - [RFC 4086] - Eastlake, D., 3rd, Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, - "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June - 2005. - - [Schneier] - Bruce Schneier, "Applied Cryptography: Protocols, - Algorithms, and Source Code in C", 1996, John Wiley and Sons - - [Menezes] - Alfred Menezes, "Elliptic Curve Public Key - Cryptosystems", 1993 Kluwer. - - [Silverman] - Joseph Silverman, "The Arithmetic of Elliptic - Curves", 1986, Springer Graduate Texts in mathematics #106. - - - - Normative Refrences - - [RFC 2119] - S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", March 1997. - - [RFC 2434] - T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an - IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", October 1998. - - [RFC 4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and - S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC - 4034, March 2005. - - - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 15] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT ECC Keys in the DNS - - - Author's Addresses - - Rich Schroeppel - 500 S. Maple Drive - Woodland Hills, UT 84653 USA - - Telephone: +1-505-844-9079(w) - Email: rschroe@sandia.gov - - - Donald E. Eastlake 3rd - Motorola Laboratories - 155 Beaver Street - Milford, MA 01757 USA - - Telephone: +1 508-786-7554 (w) - EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com - - - - Expiration and File Name - - This draft expires in January 2006. - - Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07.txt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -R. Schroeppel, et al [Page 16] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 160afc356a0..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,334 +0,0 @@ -DNS Extensions Working Group J. Schlyter -Internet-Draft May 19, 2005 -Expires: November 20, 2005 - - - RFC 3597 Interoperability Report - draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2005. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - This memo documents the result from the RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown - DNS Resource Record Types) interoperability testing. - - - - - - - - - - -Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report May 2005 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.1 Authoritative Primary Name Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.2 Authoritative Secondary Name Server . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.3 Full Recursive Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.4 Stub Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.5 DNSSEC Signer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. Problems found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - A. Test zone data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report May 2005 - - -1. Introduction - - This memo documents the result from the RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown - DNS Resource Record Types) interoperability testing. The test was - performed during June and July 2004 by request of the IETF DNS - Extensions Working Group. - -2. Implementations - - The following is a list, in alphabetic order, of implementations - tested for compliance with RFC 3597: - - DNSJava 1.6.4 - ISC BIND 8.4.5 - ISC BIND 9.3.0 - NSD 2.1.1 - Net::DNS 0.47 patchlevel 1 - Nominum ANS 2.2.1.0.d - - These implementations covers the following functions (number of - implementations tested for each function in paranthesis): - - Authoritative Name Servers (4) - Full Recursive Resolver (2) - Stub Resolver (4) - DNSSEC Zone Signers (2) - - All listed implementations are genetically different. - -3. Tests - - The following tests was been performed to validate compliance with - RFC 3597 section 3 ("Transparency"), 4 ("Domain Name Compression") - and 5 ("Text Representation"). - -3.1 Authoritative Primary Name Server - - The test zone data (Appendix A) was loaded into the name server - implementation and the server was queried for the loaded information. - -3.2 Authoritative Secondary Name Server - - The test zone data (Appendix A) was transferred using AXFR from - another name server implementation and the server was queried for the - transferred information. - - - - - - -Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report May 2005 - - -3.3 Full Recursive Resolver - - A recursive resolver was queried for resource records from a domain - with the test zone data (Appendix A). - -3.4 Stub Resolver - - A stub resolver was used to query resource records from a domain with - the test zone data (Appendix A). - -3.5 DNSSEC Signer - - A DNSSEC signer was used to sign a zone with test zone data - (Appendix A). - -4. Problems found - - Two implementations had problems with text presentation of zero - length RDATA. - - One implementation had problems with text presentation of RR type - code and classes >= 4096. - - Bug reports were filed for problems found. - -5. Summary - - Unknown type codes works in the tested authoritative servers, - recursive resolvers and stub clients. - - No changes are needed to advance RFC 3597 to draft standard. - -6. Normative References - - [1] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) - Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. - - -Author's Address - - Jakob Schlyter - - Email: jakob@rfc.se - - - - - - - - -Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report May 2005 - - -Appendix A. Test zone data - - ; A-record encoded as TYPE1 - a TYPE1 \# 4 7f000001 - a TYPE1 192.0.2.1 - a A \# 4 7f000002 - - ; draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt - sshfp TYPE44 \# 22 01 01 c691e90714a1629d167de8e5ee0021f12a7eaa1e - - ; bogus test record (from RFC 3597) - type731 TYPE731 \# 6 abcd ( - ef 01 23 45 ) - - ; zero length RDATA (from RFC 3597) - type62347 TYPE62347 \# 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report May 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 6] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-keyrr-key-signing-flag-12.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-keyrr-key-signing-flag-12.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 6bffb70423f..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-keyrr-key-signing-flag-12.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,560 +0,0 @@ - -DNS Extensions O. Kolkman -Internet-Draft RIPE NCC -Expires: June 17, 2004 J. Schlyter - - E. Lewis - ARIN - December 18, 2003 - - - DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag - draft-ietf-dnsext-keyrr-key-signing-flag-12 - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other - groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2004. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. - -Abstract - - With the Delegation Signer (DS) resource record the concept of a - public key acting as a secure entry point has been introduced. During - exchanges of public keys with the parent there is a need to - differentiate secure entry point keys from other public keys in the - DNSKEY resource record (RR) set. A flag bit in the DNSKEY RR is - defined to indicate that DNSKEY is to be used as a secure entry - point. The flag bit is intended to assist in operational procedures - to correctly generate DS resource records, or to indicate what - DNSKEYs are intended for static configuration. The flag bit is not to - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - - be used in the DNS verification protocol. This document updates RFC - 2535 and RFC 3445. - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. The Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. DNSSEC Protocol Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4. Operational Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - -1. Introduction - - "All keys are equal but some keys are more equal than others" [6] - - With the definition of the Delegation Signer Resource Record (DS RR) - [5] it has become important to differentiate between the keys in the - DNSKEY RR set that are (to be) pointed to by parental DS RRs and the - other keys in the DNSKEY RR set. We refer to these public keys as - Secure Entry Point (SEP) keys. A SEP key either used to generate a - DS RR or is distributed to resolvers that use the key as the root of - a trusted subtree[3]. - - In early deployment tests, the use of two (kinds of) key pairs for - each zone has been prevalent. For one kind of key pair the private - key is used to sign just the zone's DNSKEY resource record (RR) set. - Its public key is intended to be referenced by a DS RR at the parent - or configured statically in a resolver. The private key of the other - kind of key pair is used to sign the rest of the zone's data sets. - The former key pair is called a key-signing key (KSK) and the latter - is called a zone-signing key (ZSK). In practice there have been - usually one of each kind of key pair, but there will be multiples of - each at times. - - It should be noted that division of keys pairs into KSK's and ZSK's - is not mandatory in any definition of DNSSEC, not even with the - introduction of the DS RR. But, in testing, this distinction has - been helpful when designing key roll over (key super-cession) - schemes. Given that the distinction has proven helpful, the labels - KSK and ZSK have begun to stick. - - There is a need to differentiate the public keys for the key pairs - that are used for key signing from keys that are not used key signing - (KSKs vs ZSKs). This need is driven by knowing which DNSKEYs are to - be sent for generating DS RRs, which DNSKEYs are to be distributed to - resolvers, and which keys are fed to the signer application at the - appropriate time. - - In other words, the SEP bit provides an in-band method to communicate - a DNSKEY RR's intended use to third parties. As an example we present - 3 use cases in which the bit is useful: - - The parent is a registry, the parent and the child use secured DNS - queries and responses, with a preexisting trust-relation, or plain - DNS over a secured channel to exchange the child's DNSKEY RR - sets. Since a DNSKEY RR set will contain a complete DNSKEY RRset - the SEP bit can be used to isolate the DNSKEYs for which a DS RR - needs to be created. - - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - - An administrator has configured a DNSKEY as root for a trusted - subtree into security aware resolver. Using a special purpose tool - that queries for the KEY RRs from that domain's apex, the - administrator will be able to notice the roll over of the trusted - anchor by a change of the subset of KEY RRs with the DS flag set. - - A signer might use the SEP bit on the public key to determine - which private key to use to exclusively sign the DNSKEY RRset and - which private key to use to sign the other RRsets in the zone. - - As demonstrated in the above examples it is important to be able to - differentiate the SEP keys from the other keys in a DNSKEY RR set in - the flow between signer and (parental) key-collector and in the flow - between the signer and the resolver configuration. The SEP flag is to - be of no interest to the flow between the verifier and the - authoritative data store. - - The reason for the term "SEP" is a result of the observation that the - distinction between KSK and ZSK key pairs is made by the signer, a - key pair could be used as both a KSK and a ZSK at the same time. To - be clear, the term SEP was coined to lessen the confusion caused by - the overlap. ( Once this label was applied, it had the side effect of - removing the temptation to have both a KSK flag bit and a ZSK flag - bit.) - - The key words "MAY","MAY NOT", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", - "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT" in this document are to be - interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1]. - -2. The Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | flags |S| protocol | algorithm | - | |E| | | - | |P| | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | / - / public key / - / / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - DNSKEY RR Format - - - - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - - This document assigns the 15'th bit in the flags field as the secure - entry point (SEP) bit. If the the bit is set to 1 the key is - intended to be used as secure entry point key. One SHOULD NOT assign - special meaning to the key if the bit is set to 0. Operators can - recognize the secure entry point key by the even or odd-ness of the - decimal representation of the flag field. - -3. DNSSEC Protocol Changes - - The bit MUST NOT be used during the resolving and verification - process. The SEP flag is only used to provide a hint about the - different administrative properties of the key and therefore the use - of the SEP flag does not change the DNS resolution protocol or the - resolution process. - -4. Operational Guidelines - - The SEP bit is set by the key-pair-generator and MAY be used by the - zone signer to decide whether the public part of the key pair is to - be prepared for input to a DS RR generation function. The SEP bit is - recommended to be set (to 1) whenever the public key of the key pair - will be distributed to the parent zone to build the authentication - chain or if the public key is to be distributed for static - configuration in verifiers. - - When a key pair is created, the operator needs to indicate whether - the SEP bit is to be set in the DNSKEY RR. As the SEP bit is within - the data that is used to compute the 'key tag field' in the SIG RR, - changing the SEP bit will change the identity of the key within DNS. - In other words, once a key is used to generate signatures, the - setting of the SEP bit is to remain constant. If not, a verifier will - not be able to find the relevant KEY RR. - - When signing a zone, it is intended that the key(s) with the SEP bit - set (if such keys exist) are used to sign the KEY RR set of the zone. - The same key can be used to sign the rest of the zone data too. It - is conceivable that not all keys with a SEP bit set will sign the - DNSKEY RR set, such keys might be pending retirement or not yet in - use. - - When verifying a RR set, the SEP bit is not intended to play a role. - How the key is used by the verifier is not intended to be a - consideration at key creation time. - - Although the SEP flag provides a hint on which public key is to be - used as trusted root, administrators can choose to ignore the fact - that a DNSKEY has its SEP bit set or not when configuring a trusted - root for their resolvers. - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - - Using the SEP flag a key roll over can be automated. The parent can - use an existing trust relation to verify DNSKEY RR sets in which a - new DNSKEY RR with the SEP flag appears. - -5. Security Considerations - - As stated in Section 3 the flag is not to be used in the resolution - protocol or to determine the security status of a key. The flag is to - be used for administrative purposes only. - - No trust in a key should be inferred from this flag - trust MUST be - inferred from an existing chain of trust or an out-of-band exchange. - - Since this flag might be used for automating public key exchanges, we - think the following consideration is in place. - - Automated mechanisms for roll over of the DS RR might be vulnerable - to a class of replay attacks. This might happen after a public key - exchange where a DNSKEY RR set, containing two DNSKEY RRs with the - SEP flag set, is sent to the parent. The parent verifies the DNSKEY - RR set with the existing trust relation and creates the new DS RR - from the DNSKEY RR that the current DS RR is not pointing to. This - key exchange might be replayed. Parents are encouraged to implement a - replay defense. A simple defense can be based on a registry of keys - that have been used to generate DS RRs during the most recent roll - over. These same considerations apply to entities that configure keys - in resolvers. - -6. IANA Considerations - - The flag bits in the DNSKEY RR are assigned by IETF consensus and - registered in the DNSKEY Flags registry (created by [4]). This - document assigns the 15th bit in the DNSKEY RR as the Secure Entry - Point (SEP) bit. - -7. Internationalization Considerations - - Although SEP is a popular acronym in many different languages, there - are no internationalization considerations. - -8. Acknowledgments - - The ideas documented in this document are inspired by communications - we had with numerous people and ideas published by other folk. Among - others Mark Andrews, Rob Austein, Miek Gieben, Olafur Gudmundsson, - Daniel Karrenberg, Dan Massey, Scott Rose, Marcos Sanz and Sam Weiler - have contributed ideas and provided feedback. - - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - - This document saw the light during a workshop on DNSSEC operations - hosted by USC/ISI in August 2002. - -Normative References - - [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [2] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC - 2535, March 1999. - - [3] Lewis, E., "DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone - Status", RFC 3090, March 2001. - - [4] Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation - Signer", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-05 (work - in progress), October 2003. - -Informative References - - [5] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer Resource Record", - draft-ietf-dnsext-delegation-signer-15 (work in progress), June - 2003. - - [6] Orwell, G. and R. Steadman (illustrator), "Animal Farm; a Fairy - Story", ISBN 0151002177 (50th anniversary edition), April 1996. - - -Authors' Addresses - - Olaf M. Kolkman - RIPE NCC - Singel 256 - Amsterdam 1016 AB - NL - - Phone: +31 20 535 4444 - EMail: olaf@ripe.net - URI: http://www.ripe.net/ - - - Jakob Schlyter - Karl Gustavsgatan 15 - Goteborg SE-411 25 - Sweden - - EMail: jakob@schlyter.se - - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - - Edward P. Lewis - ARIN - 3635 Concorde Parkway Suite 200 - Chantilly, VA 20151 - US - - Phone: +1 703 227 9854 - EMail: edlewis@arin.net - URI: http://www.arin.net/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it - has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the - IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and - standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of - claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of - licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to - obtain a general license or permission for the use of such - proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can - be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive - Director. - - -Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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 assignees. - - 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 - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNSKEY RR Secure Entry Point Flag December 2003 - - - HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF - MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman, et al. Expires June 17, 2004 [Page 10] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-43.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-43.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 5de6e85ecf6..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-43.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1740 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Bernard Aboba -INTERNET-DRAFT Dave Thaler -Category: Standards Track Levon Esibov - Microsoft Corporation -29 August 2005 - - Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2005. - -Abstract - - The goal of Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) is to enable - name resolution in scenarios in which conventional DNS name - resolution is not possible. LLMNR supports all current and future - DNS formats, types and classes, while operating on a separate port - from DNS, and with a distinct resolver cache. Since LLMNR only - operates on the local link, it cannot be considered a substitute for - DNS. - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 1] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -Table of Contents - -1. Introduction .......................................... 3 - 1.1 Requirements .................................... 4 - 1.2 Terminology ..................................... 4 -2. Name Resolution Using LLMNR ........................... 4 - 2.1 LLMNR Packet Format ............................. 6 - 2.2 Sender Behavior ................................. 9 - 2.3 Responder Behavior .............................. 10 - 2.4 Unicast Queries and Responses ................... 12 - 2.5 Off-link Detection .............................. 13 - 2.6 Responder Responsibilities ...................... 13 - 2.7 Retransmission and Jitter ....................... 14 - 2.8 DNS TTL ......................................... 15 - 2.9 Use of the Authority and Additional Sections .... 15 -3. Usage model ........................................... 16 - 3.1 LLMNR Configuration ............................. 17 -4. Conflict Resolution ................................... 18 - 4.1 Uniqueness Verification ......................... 19 - 4.2 Conflict Detection and Defense .................. 20 - 4.3 Considerations for Multiple Interfaces .......... 21 - 4.4 API issues ...................................... 22 -5. Security Considerations ............................... 22 - 5.1 Denial of Service ............................... 23 - 5.2 Spoofing ...............,........................ 23 - 5.3 Authentication .................................. 24 - 5.4 Cache and Port Separation ....................... 25 -6. IANA considerations ................................... 25 -7. Constants ............................................. 25 -8. References ............................................ 25 - 8.1 Normative References ............................ 25 - 8.2 Informative References .......................... 26 -Acknowledgments .............................................. 27 -Authors' Addresses ........................................... 28 -Intellectual Property Statement .............................. 28 -Disclaimer of Validity ....................................... 29 -Copyright Statement .......................................... 29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 2] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -1. Introduction - - This document discusses Link Local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR), - which is based on the DNS packet format and supports all current and - future DNS formats, types and classes. LLMNR operates on a separate - port from the Domain Name System (DNS), with a distinct resolver - cache. - - The goal of LLMNR is to enable name resolution in scenarios in which - conventional DNS name resolution is not possible. Usage scenarios - (discussed in more detail in Section 3.1) include situations in which - hosts are not configured with the address of a DNS server; where the - DNS server is unavailable or unreachable; where there is no DNS - server authoritative for the name of a host, or where the - authoritative DNS server does not have the desired RRs, as described - in Section 2. - - Since LLMNR only operates on the local link, it cannot be considered - a substitute for DNS. Link-scope multicast addresses are used to - prevent propagation of LLMNR traffic across routers, potentially - flooding the network. LLMNR queries can also be sent to a unicast - address, as described in Section 2.4. - - Propagation of LLMNR packets on the local link is considered - sufficient to enable name resolution in small networks. In such - networks, if a network has a gateway, then typically the network is - able to provide DNS server configuration. Configuration issues are - discussed in Section 3.1. - - In the future, it may be desirable to consider use of multicast name - resolution with multicast scopes beyond the link-scope. This could - occur if LLMNR deployment is successful, the need arises for - multicast name resolution beyond the link-scope, or multicast routing - becomes ubiquitous. For example, expanded support for multicast name - resolution might be required for mobile ad-hoc networks. - - Once we have experience in LLMNR deployment in terms of - administrative issues, usability and impact on the network, it will - be possible to reevaluate which multicast scopes are appropriate for - use with multicast name resolution. IPv4 administratively scoped - multicast usage is specified in "Administratively Scoped IP - Multicast" [RFC2365]. - - Service discovery in general, as well as discovery of DNS servers - using LLMNR in particular, is outside of the scope of this document, - as is name resolution over non-multicast capable media. - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 3] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -1.1. Requirements - - In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements - of the specification. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", - "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", - and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in - [RFC2119]. - -1.2. Terminology - - This document assumes familiarity with DNS terminology defined in - [RFC1035]. Other terminology used in this document includes: - -Positively Resolved - Responses with RCODE set to zero are referred to in this document - as "positively resolved". - -Routable Address - An address other than a Link-Local address. This includes globally - routable addresses, as well as private addresses. - -Reachable - An LLMNR responder considers one of its addresses reachable over a - link if it will respond to an ARP or Neighbor Discovery query for - that address received on that link. - -Responder - A host that listens to LLMNR queries, and responds to those for - which it is authoritative. - -Sender - A host that sends an LLMNR query. - -UNIQUE - There are some scenarios when multiple responders may respond to - the same query. There are other scenarios when only one responder - may respond to a query. Names for which only a single responder is - anticipated are referred to as UNIQUE. Name uniqueness is - configured on the responder, and therefore uniqueness verification - is the responder's responsibility. - -2. Name Resolution Using LLMNR - - LLMNR is a peer-to-peer name resolution protocol that is not intended - as a replacement for DNS. LLMNR queries are sent to and received on - port 5355. The IPv4 link-scope multicast address a given responder - listens to, and to which a sender sends queries, is 224.0.0.252. The - IPv6 link-scope multicast address a given responder listens to, and - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 4] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - to which a sender sends all queries, is FF02:0:0:0:0:0:1:3. - - Typically a host is configured as both an LLMNR sender and a - responder. A host MAY be configured as a sender, but not a - responder. However, a host configured as a responder MUST act as a - sender, if only to verify the uniqueness of names as described in - Section 4. This document does not specify how names are chosen or - configured. This may occur via any mechanism, including DHCPv4 - [RFC2131] or DHCPv6 [RFC3315]. - - LLMNR usage MAY be configured manually or automatically on a per - interface basis. By default, LLMNR responders SHOULD be enabled on - all interfaces, at all times. Enabling LLMNR for use in situations - where a DNS server has been configured will result in a change in - default behavior without a simultaneous update to configuration - information. Where this is considered undesirable, LLMNR SHOULD NOT - be enabled by default, so that hosts will neither listen on the link- - scope multicast address, nor will they send queries to that address. - - By default, LLMNR queries MAY be sent only when one of the following - conditions are met: - - [1] No manual or automatic DNS configuration has been performed. - If DNS server address(es) have been configured, then LLMNR - SHOULD NOT be used as the primary name resolution mechanism, - although it MAY be used as a secondary name resolution - mechanism. A dual stack host SHOULD attempt to reach DNS - servers overall protocols on which DNS server address(es) are - configured, prior to sending LLMNR queries. For dual stack - hosts configured with DNS server address(es) for one protocol - but not another, this inplies that DNS queries SHOULD be sent - over the protocol configured with a DNS server, prior to - sending LLMNR queries. - - [2] All attempts to resolve the name via DNS on all interfaces - have failed after exhausting the searchlist. This can occur - because DNS servers did not respond, or because they - responded to DNS queries with RCODE=3 (Authoritative Name - Error) or RCODE=0, and an empty answer section. Where a - single resolver call generates DNS queries for A and AAAA RRs, - an implementation MAY choose not to send LLMNR queries if any - of the DNS queries is successful. An LLMNR query SHOULD only - be sent for the originally requested name; a searchlist - is not used to form additional LLMNR queries. - - While these conditions are necessary for sending an LLMNR query, they - are not sufficient. While an LLMNR sender MAY send a query for any - name, it also MAY impose additional conditions on sending LLMNR - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 5] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - queries. For example, a sender configured with a DNS server MAY send - LLMNR queries only for unqualified names and for fully qualified - domain names within configured zones. - - A typical sequence of events for LLMNR usage is as follows: - - [a] DNS servers are not configured or attempts to resolve the - name via DNS have failed, after exhausting the searchlist. - Also, the name to be queried satisfies the restrictions - imposed by the implementation. - - [b] An LLMNR sender sends an LLMNR query to the link-scope - multicast address(es), unless a unicast query is indicated, - as specified in Section 2.4. - - [c] A responder responds to this query only if it is authoritative - for the domain name in the query. A responder responds to a - multicast query by sending a unicast UDP response to the sender. - Unicast queries are responded to as indicated in Section 2.4. - - [d] Upon reception of the response, the sender processes it. - - The sections that follow provide further details on sender and - responder behavior. - -2.1. LLMNR Packet Format - - LLMNR is based on the DNS packet format defined in [RFC1035] Section - 4 for both queries and responses. LLMNR implementations SHOULD send - UDP queries and responses only as large as are known to be - permissible without causing fragmentation. When in doubt a maximum - packet size of 512 octets SHOULD be used. LLMNR implementations MUST - accept UDP queries and responses as large as the smaller of the link - MTU or 9194 octets (Ethernet jumbo frame size of 9KB (9216) minus 22 - octets for the header, VLAN tag and CRC). - -2.1.1. LLMNR Header Format - - LLMNR queries and responses utilize the DNS header format defined in - [RFC1035] with exceptions noted below: - - - - - - - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 6] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | ID | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - |QR| Opcode | C|TC| T| Z| Z| Z| Z| RCODE | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | QDCOUNT | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | ANCOUNT | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | NSCOUNT | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - | ARCOUNT | - +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ - - where: - -ID A 16 bit identifier assigned by the program that generates any kind - of query. This identifier is copied from the query to the response - and can be used by the sender to match responses to outstanding - queries. The ID field in a query SHOULD be set to a pseudo-random - value. For advice on generation of pseudo-random values, please - consult [RFC1750]. - -QR Query/Response. A one bit field, which if set indicates that the - message is an LLMNR response; if clear then the message is an LLMNR - query. - -OPCODE - A four bit field that specifies the kind of query in this message. - This value is set by the originator of a query and copied into the - response. This specification defines the behavior of standard - queries and responses (opcode value of zero). Future - specifications may define the use of other opcodes with LLMNR. - LLMNR senders and responders MUST support standard queries (opcode - value of zero). LLMNR queries with unsupported OPCODE values MUST - be silently discarded by responders. - -C Conflict. When set within a request, the 'C'onflict bit indicates - that a sender has received multiple LLMNR responses to this query. - In an LLMNR response, if the name is considered UNIQUE, then the - 'C' bit is clear, otherwise it is set. LLMNR senders do not - retransmit queries with the 'C' bit set. Responders MUST NOT - respond to LLMNR queries with the 'C' bit set, but may start the - uniqueness verification process, as described in Section 4.2. - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 7] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -TC TrunCation - specifies that this message was truncated due to - length greater than that permitted on the transmission channel. - The TC bit MUST NOT be set in an LLMNR query and if set is ignored - by an LLMNR responder. If the TC bit is set in an LLMNR response, - then the sender SHOULD discard the response and resend the LLMNR - query over TCP using the unicast address of the responder as the - destination address. See [RFC2181] and Section 2.4 of this - specification for further discussion of the TC bit. - -T Tentative. The 'T'entative bit is set in a response if the - responder is authoritative for the name, but has not yet verified - the uniqueness of the name. A responder MUST ignore the 'T' bit in - a query, if set. A response with the 'T' bit set is silently - discarded by the sender, except if it is a uniqueness query, in - which case a conflict has been detected and a responder MUST - resolve the conflict as described in Section 4.1. - -Z Reserved for future use. Implementations of this specification - MUST set these bits to zero in both queries and responses. If - these bits are set in a LLMNR query or response, implementations of - this specification MUST ignore them. Since reserved bits could - conceivably be used for different purposes than in DNS, - implementors are advised not to enable processing of these bits in - an LLMNR implementation starting from a DNS code base. - -RCODE - Response code -- this 4 bit field is set as part of LLMNR - responses. In an LLMNR query, the sender MUST set RCODE to zero; - the responder ignores the RCODE and assumes it to be zero. The - response to a multicast LLMNR query MUST have RCODE set to zero. A - sender MUST silently discard an LLMNR response with a non-zero - RCODE sent in response to a multicast query. - - If an LLMNR responder is authoritative for the name in a multicast - query, but an error is encountered, the responder SHOULD send an - LLMNR response with an RCODE of zero, no RRs in the answer section, - and the TC bit set. This will cause the query to be resent using - TCP, and allow the inclusion of a non-zero RCODE in the response to - the TCP query. Responding with the TC bit set is preferable to not - sending a response, since it enables errors to be diagnosed. - Errors include those defined in [RFC2845], such as BADSIG(16), - BADKEY(17) and BADTIME(18). - - Since LLMNR responders only respond to LLMNR queries for names for - which they are authoritative, LLMNR responders MUST NOT respond - with an RCODE of 3; instead, they should not respond at all. - - LLMNR implementations MUST support EDNS0 [RFC2671] and extended - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 8] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - RCODE values. - -QDCOUNT - An unsigned 16 bit integer specifying the number of entries in the - question section. A sender MUST place only one question into the - question section of an LLMNR query. LLMNR responders MUST silently - discard LLMNR queries with QDCOUNT not equal to one. LLMNR senders - MUST silently discard LLMNR responses with QDCOUNT not equal to - one. - -ANCOUNT - An unsigned 16 bit integer specifying the number of resource - records in the answer section. LLMNR responders MUST silently - discard LLMNR queries with ANCOUNT not equal to zero. - -NSCOUNT - An unsigned 16 bit integer specifying the number of name server - resource records in the authority records section. Authority - record section processing is described in Section 2.9. LLMNR - responders MUST silently discard LLMNR queries with NSCOUNT not - equal to zero. - -ARCOUNT - An unsigned 16 bit integer specifying the number of resource - records in the additional records section. Additional record - section processing is described in Section 2.9. - -2.2. Sender Behavior - - A sender MAY send an LLMNR query for any legal resource record type - (e.g., A, AAAA, PTR, SRV, etc.) to the link-scope multicast address. - As described in Section 2.4, a sender MAY also send a unicast query. - - The sender MUST anticipate receiving no replies to some LLMNR - queries, in the event that no responders are available within the - link-scope. If no response is received, a resolver treats it as a - response that the name does not exist (RCODE=3 is returned). A - sender can handle duplicate responses by discarding responses with a - source IP address and ID field that duplicate a response already - received. - - When multiple valid LLMNR responses are received with the 'C' bit - set, they SHOULD be concatenated and treated in the same manner that - multiple RRs received from the same DNS server would be. However, - responses with the 'C' bit set SHOULD NOT be concatenated with - responses with the 'C' bit clear; instead, only the responses with - the 'C' bit set SHOULD be returned. If valid LLMNR response(s) are - received along with error response(s), then the error responses are - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 9] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - silently discarded. - - If error responses are received from both DNS and LLMNR, then the - lowest RCODE value should be returned. For example, if either DNS or - LLMNR receives a response with RCODE=0, then this should returned to - the caller. - - Since the responder may order the RRs in the response so as to - indicate preference, the sender SHOULD preserve ordering in the - response to the querying application. - -2.3. Responder Behavior - - An LLMNR response MUST be sent to the sender via unicast. - - Upon configuring an IP address, responders typically will synthesize - corresponding A, AAAA and PTR RRs so as to be able to respond to - LLMNR queries for these RRs. An SOA RR is synthesized only when a - responder has another RR in addition to the SOA RR; the SOA RR MUST - NOT be the only RR that a responder has. However, in general whether - RRs are manually or automatically created is an implementation - decision. - - For example, a host configured to have computer name "host1" and to - be a member of the "example.com" domain, and with IPv4 address - 192.0.2.1 and IPv6 address 2001:0DB8::1:2:3:FF:FE:4:5:6 might be - authoritative for the following records: - - host1. IN A 192.0.2.1 - IN AAAA 2001:0DB8::1:2:3:FF:FE:4:5:6 - - host1.example.com. IN A 192.0.2.1 - IN AAAA 2001:0DB8::1:2:3:FF:FE:4:5:6 - - 1.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR host1. - IN PTR host1.example.com. - - 6.0.5.0.4.0.E.F.F.F.3.0.2.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2. - ip6.arpa IN PTR host1. (line split for formatting reasons) - IN PTR host1.example.com. - - An LLMNR responder might be further manually configured with the name - of a local mail server with an MX RR included in the "host1." and - "host1.example.com." records. - - In responding to queries: - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 10] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -[a] Responders MUST listen on UDP port 5355 on the link-scope multicast - address(es) defined in Section 2, and on UDP and TCP port 5355 on - the unicast address(es) that could be set as the source address(es) - when the responder responds to the LLMNR query. - -[b] Responders MUST direct responses to the port from which the query - was sent. When queries are received via TCP this is an inherent - part of the transport protocol. For queries received by UDP the - responder MUST take note of the source port and use that as the - destination port in the response. Responses MUST always be sent - from the port to which they were directed. - -[c] Responders MUST respond to LLMNR queries for names and addresses - they are authoritative for. This applies to both forward and - reverse lookups, with the exception of queries with the 'C' bit - set, which do not elicit a response. - -[d] Responders MUST NOT respond to LLMNR queries for names they are not - authoritative for. - -[e] Responders MUST NOT respond using data from the LLMNR or DNS - resolver cache. - -[f] If a DNS server is running on a host that supports LLMNR, the DNS - server MUST respond to LLMNR queries only for the RRSets relating - to the host on which the server is running, but MUST NOT respond - for other records for which the server is authoritative. DNS - servers also MUST NOT send LLMNR queries in order to resolve DNS - queries. - -[g] If a responder is authoritative for a name, it MUST respond with - RCODE=0 and an empty answer section, if the type of query does not - match a RR that the responder has. - - As an example, a host configured to respond to LLMNR queries for the - name "foo.example.com." is authoritative for the name - "foo.example.com.". On receiving an LLMNR query for an A RR with the - name "foo.example.com." the host authoritatively responds with A - RR(s) that contain IP address(es) in the RDATA of the resource - record. If the responder has a AAAA RR, but no A RR, and an A RR - query is received, the responder would respond with RCODE=0 and an - empty answer section. - - In conventional DNS terminology a DNS server authoritative for a zone - is authoritative for all the domain names under the zone apex except - for the branches delegated into separate zones. Contrary to - conventional DNS terminology, an LLMNR responder is authoritative - only for the zone apex. - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 11] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - For example the host "foo.example.com." is not authoritative for the - name "child.foo.example.com." unless the host is configured with - multiple names, including "foo.example.com." and - "child.foo.example.com.". As a result, "foo.example.com." cannot - reply to an LLMNR query for "child.foo.example.com." with RCODE=3 - (authoritative name error). The purpose of limiting the name - authority scope of a responder is to prevent complications that could - be caused by coexistence of two or more hosts with the names - representing child and parent (or grandparent) nodes in the DNS tree, - for example, "foo.example.com." and "child.foo.example.com.". - - Without the restriction on authority an LLMNR query for an A resource - record for the name "child.foo.example.com." would result in two - authoritative responses: RCODE=3 (authoritative name error) received - from "foo.example.com.", and a requested A record - from - "child.foo.example.com.". To prevent this ambiguity, LLMNR enabled - hosts could perform a dynamic update of the parent (or grandparent) - zone with a delegation to a child zone; for example a host - "child.foo.example.com." could send a dynamic update for the NS and - glue A record to "foo.example.com.". However, this approach - significantly complicates implementation of LLMNR and would not be - acceptable for lightweight hosts. - -2.4. Unicast Queries and Responses - - Unicast queries SHOULD be sent when: - - [a] A sender repeats a query after it received a response - with the TC bit set to the previous LLMNR multicast query, or - - [b] The sender queries for a PTR RR of a fully formed IP address - within the "in-addr.arpa" or "ip6.arpa" zones. - - Unicast LLMNR queries MUST be done using TCP and the responses MUST - be sent using the same TCP connection as the query. Senders MUST - support sending TCP queries, and responders MUST support listening - for TCP queries. If the sender of a TCP query receives a response to - that query not using TCP, the response MUST be silently discarded. - - Unicast UDP queries MUST be silently discarded. - - If TCP connection setup cannot be completed in order to send a - unicast TCP query, this is treated as a response that no records of - the specified type and class exist for the specified name (it is - treated the same as a response with RCODE=0 and an empty answer - section). - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 12] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -2.5. "Off link" Detection - - A sender MUST select a source address for LLMNR queries that is - assigned on the interface on which the query is sent. The - destination address of an LLMNR query MUST be a link-scope multicast - address or a unicast address. - - A responder MUST select a source address for responses that is - assigned on the interface on which the query was received. The - destination address of an LLMNR response MUST be a unicast address. - - On receiving an LLMNR query, the responder MUST check whether it was - sent to a LLMNR multicast addresses defined in Section 2. If it was - sent to another multicast address, then the query MUST be silently - discarded. - - Section 2.4 discusses use of TCP for LLMNR queries and responses. In - composing an LLMNR query using TCP, the sender MUST set the Hop Limit - field in the IPv6 header and the TTL field in the IPv4 header of the - response to one (1). The responder SHOULD set the TTL or Hop Limit - settings on the TCP listen socket to one (1) so that SYN-ACK packets - will have TTL (IPv4) or Hop Limit (IPv6) set to one (1). This - prevents an incoming connection from off-link since the sender will - not receive a SYN-ACK from the responder. - - For UDP queries and responses, the Hop Limit field in the IPv6 header - and the TTL field in the IPV4 header MAY be set to any value. - However, it is RECOMMENDED that the value 255 be used for - compatibility with Apple Bonjour [Bonjour]. - - Implementation note: - - In the sockets API for IPv4 [POSIX], the IP_TTL and - IP_MULTICAST_TTL socket options are used to set the TTL of - outgoing unicast and multicast packets. The IP_RECVTTL socket - option is available on some platforms to retrieve the IPv4 TTL of - received packets with recvmsg(). [RFC2292] specifies similar - options for setting and retrieving the IPv6 Hop Limit. - -2.6. Responder Responsibilities - - It is the responsibility of the responder to ensure that RRs returned - in LLMNR responses MUST only include values that are valid on the - local interface, such as IPv4 or IPv6 addresses valid on the local - link or names defended using the mechanism described in Section 4. - IPv4 Link-Local addresses are defined in [RFC3927]. IPv6 Link-Local - addresses are defined in [RFC2373]. In particular: - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 13] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - [a] If a link-scope IPv6 address is returned in a AAAA RR, - that address MUST be valid on the local link over which - LLMNR is used. - - [b] If an IPv4 address is returned, it MUST be reachable - through the link over which LLMNR is used. - - [c] If a name is returned (for example in a CNAME, MX - or SRV RR), the name MUST be resolvable on the local - link over which LLMNR is used. - - Where multiple addresses represent valid responses to a query, the - order in which the addresses are returned is as follows: - - [d] If the source address of the query is a link-scope address, - then the responder SHOULD include a link-scope address first - in the response, if available. - - [e] If the source address of the query is a routable address, - then the responder MUST include a routable address first - in the response, if available. - -2.7. Retransmission and Jitter - - An LLMNR sender uses the timeout interval LLMNR_TIMEOUT to determine - when to retransmit an LLMNR query. An LLMNR sender SHOULD either - estimate the LLMNR_TIMEOUT for each interface, or set a reasonably - high initial timeout. Suggested constants are described in Section - 7. - - If an LLMNR query sent over UDP is not resolved within LLMNR_TIMEOUT, - then a sender SHOULD repeat the transmission of the query in order to - assure that it was received by a host capable of responding to it, - while increasing the value of LLMNR_TIMEOUT exponentially. An LLMNR - query SHOULD NOT be sent more than three times. - - Where LLMNR queries are sent using TCP, retransmission is handled by - the transport layer. Queries with the 'C' bit set MUST be sent using - multicast UDP and MUST NOT be retransmitted. - - An LLMNR sender cannot know in advance if a query sent using - multicast will receive no response, one response, or more than one - response. An LLMNR sender MUST wait for LLMNR_TIMEOUT if no response - has been received, or if it is necessary to collect all potential - responses, such as if a uniqueness verification query is being made. - Otherwise an LLMNR sender SHOULD consider a multicast query answered - after the first response is received, if that response has the 'C' - bit clear. - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 14] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - However, if the first response has the 'C' bit set, then the sender - SHOULD wait for LLMNR_TIMEOUT in order to collect all possible - responses. When multiple valid answers are received, they may first - be concatenated, and then treated in the same manner that multiple - RRs received from the same DNS server would. A unicast query sender - considers the query answered after the first response is received, so - that it only waits for LLMNR_TIMEOUT if no response has been - received. - - Since it is possible for a response with the 'C' bit clear to be - followed by a response with the 'C' bit set, an LLMNR sender SHOULD - be prepared to process additional responses for the purposes of - conflict detection and LLMNR_TIMEOUT estimation, even after it has - considered a query answered. - - In order to avoid synchronization, the transmission of each LLMNR - query and response SHOULD delayed by a time randomly selected from - the interval 0 to JITTER_INTERVAL. This delay MAY be avoided by - responders responding with names which they have previously - determined to be UNIQUE (see Section 4 for details). - -2.8. DNS TTL - - The responder should insert a pre-configured TTL value in the records - returned in an LLMNR response. A default value of 30 seconds is - RECOMMENDED. In highly dynamic environments (such as mobile ad-hoc - networks), the TTL value may need to be reduced. - - Due to the TTL minimalization necessary when caching an RRset, all - TTLs in an RRset MUST be set to the same value. - -2.9. Use of the Authority and Additional Sections - - Unlike the DNS, LLMNR is a peer-to-peer protocol and does not have a - concept of delegation. In LLMNR, the NS resource record type may be - stored and queried for like any other type, but it has no special - delegation semantics as it does in the DNS. Responders MAY have NS - records associated with the names for which they are authoritative, - but they SHOULD NOT include these NS records in the authority - sections of responses. - - Responders SHOULD insert an SOA record into the authority section of - a negative response, to facilitate negative caching as specified in - [RFC2308]. The TTL of this record is set from the minimum of the - MINIMUM field of the SOA record and the TTL of the SOA itself, and - indicates how long a resolver may cache the negative answer. The - owner name of the SOA record (MNAME) MUST be set to the query name. - The RNAME, SERIAL, REFRESH, RETRY and EXPIRE values MUST be ignored - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 15] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - by senders. Negative responses without SOA records SHOULD NOT be - cached. - - In LLMNR, the additional section is primarily intended for use by - EDNS0, TSIG and SIG(0). As a result, unless the 'C' bit is set, - senders MAY only include pseudo RR-types in the additional section of - a query; unless the 'C' bit is set, responders MUST ignore the - additional section of queries containing other RR types. - - In queries where the 'C' bit is set, the sender SHOULD include the - conflicting RRs in the additional section. Since conflict - notifications are advisory, responders SHOULD log information from - the additional section, but otherwise MUST ignore the additional - section. - - Senders MUST NOT cache RRs from the authority or additional section - of a response as answers, though they may be used for other purposes - such as negative caching. - -3. Usage Model - - Since LLMNR is a secondary name resolution mechanism, its usage is in - part determined by the behavior of DNS implementations. This - document does not specify any changes to DNS resolver behavior, such - as searchlist processing or retransmission/failover policy. However, - robust DNS resolver implementations are more likely to avoid - unnecessary LLMNR queries. - - As noted in [DNSPerf], even when DNS servers are configured, a - significant fraction of DNS queries do not receive a response, or - result in negative responses due to missing inverse mappings or NS - records that point to nonexistent or inappropriate hosts. This has - the potential to result in a large number of unnecessary LLMNR - queries. - - [RFC1536] describes common DNS implementation errors and fixes. If - the proposed fixes are implemented, unnecessary LLMNR queries will be - reduced substantially, and so implementation of [RFC1536] is - recommended. - - For example, [RFC1536] Section 1 describes issues with retransmission - and recommends implementation of a retransmission policy based on - round trip estimates, with exponential backoff. [RFC1536] Section 4 - describes issues with failover, and recommends that resolvers try - another server when they don't receive a response to a query. These - policies are likely to avoid unnecessary LLMNR queries. - - [RFC1536] Section 3 describes zero answer bugs, which if addressed - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 16] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - will also reduce unnecessary LLMNR queries. - - [RFC1536] Section 6 describes name error bugs and recommended - searchlist processing that will reduce unnecessary RCODE=3 - (authoritative name) errors, thereby also reducing unnecessary LLMNR - queries. - -3.1. LLMNR Configuration - - Since IPv4 and IPv6 utilize distinct configuration mechanisms, it is - possible for a dual stack host to be configured with the address of a - DNS server over IPv4, while remaining unconfigured with a DNS server - suitable for use over IPv6. - - In these situations, a dual stack host will send AAAA queries to the - configured DNS server over IPv4. However, an IPv6-only host - unconfigured with a DNS server suitable for use over IPv6 will be - unable to resolve names using DNS. Automatic IPv6 DNS configuration - mechanisms (such as [RFC3315] and [DNSDisc]) are not yet widely - deployed, and not all DNS servers support IPv6. Therefore lack of - IPv6 DNS configuration may be a common problem in the short term, and - LLMNR may prove useful in enabling link-local name resolution over - IPv6. - - Where a DHCPv4 server is available but not a DHCPv6 server [RFC3315], - IPv6-only hosts may not be configured with a DNS server. Where there - is no DNS server authoritative for the name of a host or the - authoritative DNS server does not support dynamic client update over - IPv6 or DHCPv6-based dynamic update, then an IPv6-only host will not - be able to do DNS dynamic update, and other hosts will not be able to - resolve its name. - - For example, if the configured DNS server responds to a AAAA RR query - sent over IPv4 or IPv6 with an authoritative name error (RCODE=3) or - RCODE=0 and an empty answer section, then a AAAA RR query sent using - LLMNR over IPv6 may be successful in resolving the name of an - IPv6-only host on the local link. - - Similarly, if a DHCPv4 server is available providing DNS server - configuration, and DNS server(s) exist which are authoritative for - the A RRs of local hosts and support either dynamic client update - over IPv4 or DHCPv4-based dynamic update, then the names of local - IPv4 hosts can be resolved over IPv4 without LLMNR. However, if no - DNS server is authoritative for the names of local hosts, or the - authoritative DNS server(s) do not support dynamic update, then LLMNR - enables linklocal name resolution over IPv4. - - Where DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 is implemented, DHCP options can be used to - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 17] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - configure LLMNR on an interface. The LLMNR Enable Option, described - in [LLMNREnable], can be used to explicitly enable or disable use of - LLMNR on an interface. The LLMNR Enable Option does not determine - whether or in which order DNS itself is used for name resolution. - The order in which various name resolution mechanisms should be used - can be specified using the Name Service Search Option (NSSO) for DHCP - [RFC2937], using the LLMNR Enable Option code carried in the NSSO - data. - - It is possible that DNS configuration mechanisms will go in and out - of service. In these circumstances, it is possible for hosts within - an administrative domain to be inconsistent in their DNS - configuration. - - For example, where DHCP is used for configuring DNS servers, one or - more DHCP servers can fail. As a result, hosts configured prior to - the outage will be configured with a DNS server, while hosts - configured after the outage will not. Alternatively, it is possible - for the DNS configuration mechanism to continue functioning while - configured DNS servers fail. - - An outage in the DNS configuration mechanism may result in hosts - continuing to use LLMNR even once the outage is repaired. Since - LLMNR only enables linklocal name resolution, this represents a - degradation in capabilities. As a result, hosts without a configured - DNS server may wish to periodically attempt to obtain DNS - configuration if permitted by the configuration mechanism in use. In - the absence of other guidance, a default retry interval of one (1) - minute is RECOMMENDED. - -4. Conflict Resolution - - By default, a responder SHOULD be configured to behave as though its - name is UNIQUE on each interface on which LLMNR is enabled. However, - it is also possible to configure multiple responders to be - authoritative for the same name. For example, multiple responders - MAY respond to a query for an A or AAAA type record for a cluster - name (assigned to multiple hosts in the cluster). - - To detect duplicate use of a name, an administrator can use a name - resolution utility which employs LLMNR and lists both responses and - responders. This would allow an administrator to diagnose behavior - and potentially to intervene and reconfigure LLMNR responders who - should not be configured to respond to the same name. - - - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 18] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -4.1. Uniqueness Verification - - Prior to sending an LLMNR response with the 'T' bit clear, a - responder configured with a UNIQUE name MUST verify that there is no - other host within the scope of LLMNR query propagation that is - authoritative for the same name on that interface. - - Once a responder has verified that its name is UNIQUE, if it receives - an LLMNR query for that name, with the 'C' bit clear, it MUST - respond, with the 'T' bit clear. Prior to verifying that its name is - UNIQUE, a responder MUST set the 'T' bit in responses. - - Uniqueness verification is carried out when the host: - - - starts up or is rebooted - - wakes from sleep (if the network interface was inactive - during sleep) - - is configured to respond to LLMNR queries on an interface - enabled for transmission and reception of IP traffic - - is configured to respond to LLMNR queries using additional - UNIQUE resource records - - verifies the acquisition of a new IP address and configuration - on an interface - - To verify uniqueness, a responder MUST send an LLMNR query with the - 'C' bit clear, over all protocols on which it responds to LLMNR - queries (IPv4 and/or IPv6). It is RECOMMENDED that responders verify - uniqueness of a name by sending a query for the name with type='ANY'. - - If no response is received, the sender retransmits the query, as - specified in Section 2.7. If a response is received, the sender MUST - check if the source address matches the address of any of its - interfaces; if so, then the response is not considered a conflict, - since it originates from the sender. To avoid triggering conflict - detection, a responder that detects that it is connected to the same - link on multiple interfaces SHOULD set the 'C' bit in responses. - - If a response is received with the 'T' bit clear, the responder MUST - NOT use the name in response to LLMNR queries received over any - protocol (IPv4 or IPv6). If a response is received with the 'T' bit - set, the responder MUST check if the source IP address in the - response, interpreted as an unsigned integer, is less than the source - IP address in the query. If so, the responder MUST NOT use the name - in response to LLMNR queries received over any protocol (IPv4 or - IPv6). For the purpose of uniqueness verification, the contents of - the answer section in a response is irrelevant. - - Periodically carrying out uniqueness verification in an attempt to - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 19] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - detect name conflicts is not necessary, wastes network bandwidth, and - may actually be detrimental. For example, if network links are - joined only briefly, and are separated again before any new - communication is initiated, temporary conflicts are benign and no - forced reconfiguration is required. LLMNR responders SHOULD NOT - periodically attempt uniqueness verification. - -4.2. Conflict Detection and Defense - - Hosts on disjoint network links may configure the same name for use - with LLMNR. If these separate network links are later joined or - bridged together, then there may be multiple hosts which are now on - the same link, trying to use the same name. - - In order to enable ongoing detection of name conflicts, when an LLMNR - sender receives multiple LLMNR responses to a query, it MUST check if - the 'C' bit is clear in any of the responses. If so, the sender - SHOULD send another query for the same name, type and class, this - time with the 'C' bit set, with the potentially conflicting resource - records included in the additional section. - - Queries with the 'C' bit set are considered advisory and responders - MUST verify the existence of a conflict before acting on it. A - responder receiving a query with the 'C' bit set MUST NOT respond. - - If the query is for a UNIQUE name, then the responder MUST send its - own query for the same name, type and class, with the 'C' bit clear. - If a response is received, the sender MUST check if the source - address matches the address of any of its interfaces; if so, then the - response is not considered a conflict, since it originates from the - sender. To avoid triggering conflict detection, a responder that - detects that it is connected to the same link on multiple interfaces - SHOULD set the 'C' bit in responses. - - An LLMNR responder MUST NOT ignore conflicts once detected and SHOULD - log them. Upon detecting a conflict, an LLMNR responder MUST - immediately stop using the conflicting name in response to LLMNR - queries received over any supported protocol, if the source IP - address in the response, interpreted as an unsigned integer, is less - than the source IP address in the uniqueness verification query. - - After stopping the use of a name, the responder MAY elect to - configure a new name. However, since name reconfiguration may be - disruptive, this is not required, and a responder may have been - configured to respond to multiple names so that alternative names may - already be available. A host that has stopped the use of a name may - attempt uniqueness verification again after the expiration of the TTL - of the conflicting response. - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 20] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -4.3. Considerations for Multiple Interfaces - - A multi-homed host may elect to configure LLMNR on only one of its - active interfaces. In many situations this will be adequate. - However, should a host need to configure LLMNR on more than one of - its active interfaces, there are some additional precautions it MUST - take. Implementers who are not planning to support LLMNR on multiple - interfaces simultaneously may skip this section. - - Where a host is configured to issue LLMNR queries on more than one - interface, each interface maintains its own independent LLMNR - resolver cache, containing the responses to LLMNR queries. - - A multi-homed host checks the uniqueness of UNIQUE records as - described in Section 4. The situation is illustrated in figure 1. - - ---------- ---------- - | | | | - [A] [myhost] [myhost] - - Figure 1. Link-scope name conflict - - In this situation, the multi-homed myhost will probe for, and defend, - its host name on both interfaces. A conflict will be detected on one - interface, but not the other. The multi-homed myhost will not be - able to respond with a host RR for "myhost" on the interface on the - right (see Figure 1). The multi-homed host may, however, be - configured to use the "myhost" name on the interface on the left. - - Since names are only unique per-link, hosts on different links could - be using the same name. If an LLMNR client sends requests over - multiple interfaces, and receives replies from more than one, the - result returned to the client is defined by the implementation. The - situation is illustrated in figure 2. - - ---------- ---------- - | | | | - [A] [myhost] [A] - - - Figure 2. Off-segment name conflict - - If host myhost is configured to use LLMNR on both interfaces, it will - send LLMNR queries on both interfaces. When host myhost sends a - query for the host RR for name "A" it will receive a response from - hosts on both interfaces. - - Host myhost cannot distinguish between the situation shown in Figure - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 21] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - 2, and that shown in Figure 3 where no conflict exists. - - [A] - | | - ----- ----- - | | - [myhost] - - Figure 3. Multiple paths to same host - - This illustrates that the proposed name conflict resolution mechanism - does not support detection or resolution of conflicts between hosts - on different links. This problem can also occur with DNS when a - multi-homed host is connected to two different networks with - separated name spaces. It is not the intent of this document to - address the issue of uniqueness of names within DNS. - -4.4. API Issues - - [RFC2553] provides an API which can partially solve the name - ambiguity problem for applications written to use this API, since the - sockaddr_in6 structure exposes the scope within which each scoped - address exists, and this structure can be used for both IPv4 (using - v4-mapped IPv6 addresses) and IPv6 addresses. - - Following the example in Figure 2, an application on 'myhost' issues - the request getaddrinfo("A", ...) with ai_family=AF_INET6 and - ai_flags=AI_ALL|AI_V4MAPPED. LLMNR requests will be sent from both - interfaces and the resolver library will return a list containing - multiple addrinfo structures, each with an associated sockaddr_in6 - structure. This list will thus contain the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses - of both hosts responding to the name 'A'. Link-local addresses will - have a sin6_scope_id value that disambiguates which interface is used - to reach the address. Of course, to the application, Figures 2 and 3 - are still indistinguishable, but this API allows the application to - communicate successfully with any address in the list. - -5. Security Considerations - - LLMNR is a peer-to-peer name resolution protocol designed for use on - the local link. While LLMNR limits the vulnerability of responders - to off-link senders, it is possible for an off-link responder to - reach a sender. - - In scenarios such as public "hotspots" attackers can be present on - the same link. These threats are most serious in wireless networks - such as 802.11, since attackers on a wired network will require - physical access to the network, while wireless attackers may mount - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 22] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - attacks from a distance. Link-layer security such as [IEEE-802.11i] - can be of assistance against these threats if it is available. - - This section details security measures available to mitigate threats - from on and off-link attackers. - -5.1. Denial of Service - - Attackers may take advantage of LLMNR conflict detection by - allocating the same name, denying service to other LLMNR responders - and possibly allowing an attacker to receive packets destined for - other hosts. By logging conflicts, LLMNR responders can provide - forensic evidence of these attacks. - - An attacker may spoof LLMNR queries from a victim's address in order - to mount a denial of service attack. Responders setting the IPv6 Hop - Limit or IPv4 TTL field to a value larger than one in an LLMNR UDP - response may be able to reach the victim across the Internet. - - While LLMNR responders only respond to queries for which they are - authoritative and LLMNR does not provide wildcard query support, an - LLMNR response may be larger than the query, and an attacker can - generate multiple responses to a query for a name used by multiple - responders. A sender may protect itself against unsolicited - responses by silently discarding them as rapidly as possible. - -5.2. Spoofing - - LLMNR is designed to prevent reception of queries sent by an off-link - attacker. LLMNR requires that responders receiving UDP queries check - that they are sent to a link-scope multicast address. However, it is - possible that some routers may not properly implement link-scope - multicast, or that link-scope multicast addresses may leak into the - multicast routing system. To prevent successful setup of TCP - connections by an off-link sender, responders receiving a TCP SYN - reply with a TCP SYN-ACK with TTL set to one (1). - - While it is difficult for an off-link attacker to send an LLMNR query - to a responder, it is possible for an off-link attacker to spoof a - response to a query (such as an A or AAAA query for a popular - Internet host), and by using a TTL or Hop Limit field larger than one - (1), for the forged response to reach the LLMNR sender. Since the - forged response will only be accepted if it contains a matching ID - field, choosing a pseudo-random ID field within queries provides some - protection against off-link responders. - - Since LLMNR queries can be sent when DNS server(s) do not respond, an - attacker can execute a denial of service attack on the DNS server(s) - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 23] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - and then poison the LLMNR cache by responding to an LLMNR query with - incorrect information. As noted in "Threat Analysis of the Domain - Name System (DNS)" [RFC3833] these threats also exist with DNS, since - DNS response spoofing tools are available that can allow an attacker - to respond to a query more quickly than a distant DNS server. - However, while switched networks or link layer security may make it - difficult for an on-link attacker to snoop unicast DNS queries, - multicast LLMNR queries are propagated to all hosts on the link, - making it possible for an on-link attacker to spoof LLMNR responses - without having to guess the value of the ID field in the query. - - Since LLMNR queries are sent and responded to on the local-link, an - attacker will need to respond more quickly to provide its own - response prior to arrival of the response from a legitimate - responder. If an LLMNR query is sent for an off-link host, spoofing - a response in a timely way is not difficult, since a legitimate - response will never be received. - - Limiting the situations in which LLMNR queries are sent, as described - in Section 2, is the best protection against these attacks. If LLMNR - is given higher priority than DNS among the enabled name resolution - mechanisms, a denial of service attack on the DNS server would not be - necessary in order to poison the LLMNR cache, since LLMNR queries - would be sent even when the DNS server is available. In addition, - the LLMNR cache, once poisoned, would take precedence over the DNS - cache, eliminating the benefits of cache separation. As a result, - LLMNR is only used as a name resolution mechanism of last resort. - -5.3. Authentication - - LLMNR is a peer-to-peer name resolution protocol, and as a result, - it is often deployed in situations where no trust model can be - assumed. This makes it difficult to apply existing DNS security - mechanisms to LLMNR. - - LLMNR does not support "delegated trust" (CD or AD bits). As a - result, unless LLMNR senders are DNSSEC aware, it is not feasible to - use DNSSEC [RFC4033] with LLMNR. - - If authentication is desired, and a pre-arranged security - configuration is possible, then the following security mechanisms may - be used: - -[a] LLMNR implementations MAY support TSIG [RFC2845] and/or SIG(0) - [RFC2931] security mechanisms. "DNS Name Service based on Secure - Multicast DNS for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks" [LLMNRSec] describes - the use of TSIG to secure LLMNR responses, based on group keys. - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 24] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -[b] IPsec ESP with a null-transform MAY be used to authenticate unicast - LLMNR queries and responses or LLMNR responses to multicast - queries. In a small network without a certificate authority, this - can be most easily accomplished through configuration of a group - pre-shared key for trusted hosts. - - Where these mechanisms cannot be supported, responses to LLMNR - queries may be unauthenticated. - -5.4. Cache and Port Separation - - In order to prevent responses to LLMNR queries from polluting the DNS - cache, LLMNR implementations MUST use a distinct, isolated cache for - LLMNR on each interface. The use of separate caches is most - effective when LLMNR is used as a name resolution mechanism of last - resort, since this minimizes the opportunities for poisoning the - LLMNR cache, and decreases reliance on it. - - LLMNR operates on a separate port from DNS, reducing the likelihood - that a DNS server will unintentionally respond to an LLMNR query. - -6. IANA Considerations - - This specification creates one new name space: the reserved bits in - the LLMNR header. These are allocated by IETF Consensus, in - accordance with BCP 26 [RFC2434]. - - LLMNR requires allocation of port 5355 for both TCP and UDP. - - LLMNR requires allocation of link-scope multicast IPv4 address - 224.0.0.252, as well as link-scope multicast IPv6 address - FF02:0:0:0:0:0:1:3. - -7. Constants - - The following timing constants are used in this protocol; they are - not intended to be user configurable. - - JITTER_INTERVAL 100 ms - LLMNR_TIMEOUT 1 second (if set statically on all interfaces) - 100 ms (IEEE 802 media, including IEEE 802.11) - -8. References - -8.1. Normative References - -[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and - Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987. - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 25] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - -[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS - Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. - -[RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)", - RFC 2308, March 1998. - -[RFC2373] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing - Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. - -[RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA - Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October - 1998. - -[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671, - August 1999. - -[RFC2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. Wellington, - "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC - 2845, May 2000. - -[RFC2931] Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures - (SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000. - -8.2. Informative References - -[Bonjour] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", Internet draft - (work in progress), draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-05.txt, - June 2005. - -[DNSPerf] Jung, J., et al., "DNS Performance and the Effectiveness of - Caching", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Volume 10, - Number 5, pp. 589, October 2002. - -[DNSDisc] Durand, A., Hagino, I. and D. Thaler, "Well known site local - unicast addresses to communicate with recursive DNS servers", - Internet draft (work in progress), draft-ietf-ipv6-dns- - discovery-07.txt, October 2002. - -[IEEE-802.11i] - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Supplement - to Standard for Telecommunications and Information Exchange - Between Systems - LAN/MAN Specific Requirements - Part 11: - Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer - (PHY) Specifications: Specification for Enhanced Security", - IEEE 802.11i, July 2004. - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 26] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -[LLMNREnable] - Guttman, E., "DHCP LLMNR Enable Option", Internet draft (work - in progress), draft-guttman-mdns-enable-02.txt, April 2002. - -[LLMNRSec] - Jeong, J., Park, J. and H. Kim, "DNS Name Service based on - Secure Multicast DNS for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", ICACT - 2004, Phoenix Park, Korea, February 9-11, 2004. - -[POSIX] IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information Technology -- - Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX). Open Group - Technical Standard: Base Specifications, Issue 6, December - 2001. ISO/IEC 9945:2002. http://www.opengroup.org/austin - -[RFC1536] Kumar, A., et. al., "DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested - Fixes", RFC 1536, October 1993. - -[RFC1750] Eastlake, D., Crocker, S. and J. Schiller, "Randomness - Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994. - -[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, - March 1997. - -[RFC2292] Stevens, W. and M. Thomas, "Advanced Sockets API for IPv6", - RFC 2292, February 1998. - -[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23, RFC - 2365, July 1998. - -[RFC2553] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic - Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999. - -[RFC2937] Smith, C., "The Name Service Search Option for DHCP", RFC - 2937, September 2000. - -[RFC3315] Droms, R., et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for - IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. - -[RFC3833] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name - System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004. - -[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B. and E. Guttman, "Dynamic Configuration - of Link-Local IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3927, October 2004. - -[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirement", RFC 4033, March - 2005. - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 27] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - -Acknowledgments - - This work builds upon original work done on multicast DNS by Bill - Manning and Bill Woodcock. Bill Manning's work was funded under - DARPA grant #F30602-99-1-0523. The authors gratefully acknowledge - their contribution to the current specification. Constructive input - has also been received from Mark Andrews, Rob Austein, Randy Bush, - Stuart Cheshire, Ralph Droms, Robert Elz, James Gilroy, Olafur - Gudmundsson, Andreas Gustafsson, Erik Guttman, Myron Hattig, - Christian Huitema, Olaf Kolkman, Mika Liljeberg, Keith Moore, - Tomohide Nagashima, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, Markku Savela, Mike - St. Johns, Sander Van-Valkenburg, and Brian Zill. - -Authors' Addresses - - Bernard Aboba - Microsoft Corporation - One Microsoft Way - Redmond, WA 98052 - - Phone: +1 425 706 6605 - EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com - - Dave Thaler - Microsoft Corporation - One Microsoft Way - Redmond, WA 98052 - - Phone: +1 425 703 8835 - EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com - - Levon Esibov - Microsoft Corporation - One Microsoft Way - Redmond, WA 98052 - - EMail: levone@microsoft.com - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 28] - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 29 August 2005 - - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- - ipr@ietf.org. - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - -Open Issues - - Open issues with this specification are tracked on the following web - site: - - http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNSEXT/llmnrissues.html - - - - - - - - - - - -Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 29] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec3-04.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec3-04.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 8c6c5b1ba08..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec3-04.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2352 +0,0 @@ - - - -Network Working Group B. Laurie -Internet-Draft G. Sisson -Expires: August 5, 2006 R. Arends - Nominet - February 2006 - - - DNSSEC Hash Authenticated Denial of Existence - draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec3-04 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - The DNS Security Extensions introduces the NSEC resource record for - authenticated denial of existence. This document introduces a new - resource record as an alternative to NSEC that provides measures - against zone enumeration and allows for gradual expansion of - delegation-centric zones. - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.2. Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. NSEC versus NSEC3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3. The NSEC3 Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1. NSEC3 RDATA Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1.1. The Hash Function Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1.2. The Opt-In Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1.3. The Iterations Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.1.4. The Salt Length Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.1.5. The Salt Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.1.6. The Next Hashed Ownername Field . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.1.7. The Type Bit Maps Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.2. The NSEC3 RR Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4. Creating Additional NSEC3 RRs for Empty Non-Terminals . . . . 11 - 5. Calculation of the Hash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6. Including NSEC3 RRs in a Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 7. Responding to NSEC3 Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 8. Special Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 8.1. Proving Nonexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 8.2. Salting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 8.3. Iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 8.4. Hash Collision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 8.4.1. Avoiding Hash Collisions during generation . . . . . . 16 - 8.4.2. Second Preimage Requirement Analysis . . . . . . . . . 16 - 8.4.3. Possible Hash Value Truncation Method . . . . . . . . 17 - 8.4.4. Server Response to a Run-time Collision . . . . . . . 17 - 8.4.5. Parameters that Cover the Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 9. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - Editorial Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Appendix A. Example Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - Appendix B. Example Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - B.1. answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - B.1.1. Authenticating the Example DNSKEY RRset . . . . . . . 29 - B.2. Name Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - B.3. No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - B.3.1. No Data Error, Empty Non-Terminal . . . . . . . . . . 33 - B.4. Referral to Signed Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - B.5. Referral to Unsigned Zone using the Opt-In Flag . . . . . 35 - B.6. Wildcard Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - B.7. Wildcard No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - B.8. DS Child Zone No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - -1. Introduction - -1.1. Rationale - - The DNS Security Extensions included the NSEC RR to provide - authenticated denial of existence. Though the NSEC RR meets the - requirements for authenticated denial of existence, it introduced a - side-effect in that the contents of a zone can be enumerated. This - property introduces undesired policy issues. - - An enumerated zone can be used either directly as a source of - probable e-mail addresses for spam, or indirectly as a key for - multiple WHOIS queries to reveal registrant data which many - registries may be under strict legal obligations to protect. Many - registries therefore prohibit copying of their zone file; however the - use of NSEC RRs renders these policies unenforceable. - - A second problem was the requirement that the existence of all record - types in a zone - including unsigned delegation points - must be - accounted for, despite the fact that unsigned delegation point - records are not signed. This requirement has a side-effect that the - overhead of signed zones is not related to the increase in security - of subzones. This requirement does not allow the zones' size to grow - in relation to the growth of signed subzones. - - In the past, solutions (draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in) have been - proposed as a measure against these side effects but at the time were - regarded as secondary over the need to have a stable DNSSEC - specification. With (draft-vixie-dnssec-ter) [14] a graceful - transition path to future enhancements is introduced, while current - DNSSEC deployment can continue. This document presents the NSEC3 - Resource Record which mitigates these issues with the NSEC RR. - - The reader is assumed to be familiar with the basic DNS and DNSSEC - concepts described in RFC 1034 [1], RFC 1035 [2], RFC 4033 [3], RFC - 4034 [4], RFC 4035 [5] and subsequent RFCs that update them: RFC 2136 - [6], RFC2181 [7] and RFC2308 [8]. - -1.2. Reserved Words - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [9]. - -1.3. Terminology - - The practice of discovering the contents of a zone, i.e. enumerating - the domains within a zone, is known as "zone enumeration". Zone - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - enumeration was not practical prior to the introduction of DNSSEC. - - In this document the term "original ownername" refers to a standard - ownername. Because this proposal uses the result of a hash function - over the original (unmodified) ownername, this result is referred to - as "hashed ownername". - - "Hash order" means the order in which hashed ownernames are arranged - according to their numerical value, treating the leftmost (lowest - numbered) octet as the most significant octet. Note that this is the - same as the canonical ordering specified in RFC 4034 [4]. - - An "empty non-terminal" is a domain name that owns no resource - records but has subdomains that do. - - The "closest encloser" of a (nonexistent) domain name is the longest - domain name, including empty non-terminals, that matches the - rightmost part of the nonexistent domain name. - - "Base32 encoding" is "Base 32 Encoding with Extended Hex Alphabet" as - specified in RFC 3548bis [15]. - - -2. NSEC versus NSEC3 - - This document does NOT obsolete the NSEC record, but gives an - alternative for authenticated denial of existence. NSEC and NSEC3 - RRs can not co-exist in a zone. See draft-vixie-dnssec-ter [14] for - a signaling mechanism to allow for graceful transition towards NSEC3. - - -3. The NSEC3 Resource Record - - The NSEC3 RR provides Authenticated Denial of Existence for DNS - Resource Record Sets. - - The NSEC3 Resource Record (RR) lists RR types present at the NSEC3 - RR's original ownername. It includes the next hashed ownername in - the hash order of the zone. The complete set of NSEC3 RRs in a zone - indicates which RRsets exist for the original ownername of the RRset - and form a chain of hashed ownernames in the zone. This information - is used to provide authenticated denial of existence for DNS data, as - described in RFC 4035 [5]. To provide protection against zone - enumeration, the ownernames used in the NSEC3 RR are cryptographic - hashes of the original ownername prepended to the name of the zone. - The NSEC3 RR indicates which hash function is used to construct the - hash, which salt is used, and how many iterations of the hash - function are performed over the original ownername. The hashing - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - technique is described fully in Section 5. - - Hashed ownernames of unsigned delegations may be excluded from the - chain. An NSEC3 record which span covers the hash of an unsigned - delegation's ownername is referred to as an Opt-In NSEC3 record and - is indicated by the presence of a flag. - - The ownername for the NSEC3 RR is the base32 encoding of the hashed - ownername prepended to the name of the zone.. - - The type value for the NSEC3 RR is XX. - - The NSEC3 RR RDATA format is class independent and is described - below. - - The class MUST be the same as the original ownername's class. - - The NSEC3 RR SHOULD have the same TTL value as the SOA minimum TTL - field. This is in the spirit of negative caching [8]. - -3.1. NSEC3 RDATA Wire Format - - The RDATA of the NSEC3 RR is as shown below: - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Hash Function |O| Iterations | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Salt Length | Salt / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / Next Hashed Ownername / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / Type Bit Maps / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - "O" is the Opt-In Flag field. - -3.1.1. The Hash Function Field - - The Hash Function field identifies the cryptographic hash function - used to construct the hash-value. - - The values are as defined for the DS record (see RFC 3658 [10]). - - On reception, a resolver MUST ignore an NSEC3 RR with an unknown hash - function value. - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - -3.1.2. The Opt-In Flag Field - - The Opt-In Flag field indicates whether this NSEC3 RR covers unsigned - delegations. - - In DNSSEC, NS RRsets at delegation points are not signed, and may be - accompanied by a DS record. The security status of the subzone is - determined by the presence or absence of the DS RRset, - cryptographically proven by the NSEC record or the signed DS RRset. - The presence of the Opt-In flag expands this definition by allowing - insecure delegations to exist within an otherwise signed zone without - the corresponding NSEC3 record at the delegation's (hashed) owner - name. These delegations are proven insecure by using a covering - NSEC3 record. - - Resolvers must be able to distinguish between NSEC3 records and - Opt-In NSEC3 records. This is accomplished by setting the Opt-In - flag of the NSEC3 records that cover (or potentially cover) insecure - delegation nodes. - - An Opt-In NSEC3 record does not assert the existence or non-existence - of the insecure delegations that it covers. This allows for the - addition or removal of these delegations without recalculating or - resigning records in the NSEC3 chain. However, Opt-In NSEC3 records - do assert the (non)existence of other, authoritative RRsets. - - An Opt-In NSEC3 record MAY have the same original owner name as an - insecure delegation. In this case, the delegation is proven insecure - by the lack of a DS bit in type map and the signed NSEC3 record does - assert the existence of the delegation. - - Zones using Opt-In MAY contain a mixture of Opt-In NSEC3 records and - non-Opt-In NSEC3 records. If an NSEC3 record is not Opt-In, there - MUST NOT be any hashed ownernames of insecure delegations (nor any - other records) between it and the RRsets indicated by the 'Next - Hashed Ownername' in the NSEC3 RDATA. If it is Opt-In, there MUST - only be hashed ownernames of insecure delegations between it and the - next node indicated by the 'Next Hashed Ownername' in the NSEC3 - RDATA. - - In summary, - o An Opt-In NSEC3 type is identified by an Opt-In Flag field value - of 1. - o A non Opt-In NSEC3 type is identified by an Opt-In Flag field - value of 0. - and, - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - o An Opt-In NSEC3 record does not assert the non-existence of a hash - ownername between its ownername and next hashed ownername, - although it does assert that any hashed name in this span MUST be - of an insecure delegation. - o An Opt-In NSEC3 record does assert the (non)existence of RRsets - with the same hashed owner name. - -3.1.3. The Iterations Field - - The Iterations field defines the number of times the hash has been - iterated. More iterations results in greater resiliency of the hash - value against dictionary attacks, but at a higher cost for both the - server and resolver. See Section 5 for details of this field's use. - - Iterations make an attack more costly by making the hash computation - more computationally intensive, e.g. by iterating the hash function a - number of times. - - When generating a few hashes this performance loss will not be a - problem, as a validator can handle a delay of a few milliseconds. - But when doing a dictionary attack it will also multiply the attack - workload by a factor, which is a problem for the attacker. - -3.1.4. The Salt Length Field - - The salt length field defines the length of the salt in octets. - -3.1.5. The Salt Field - - The Salt field is not present when the Salt Length Field has a value - of 0. - - The Salt field is appended to the original ownername before hashing - in order to defend against precalculated dictionary attacks. See - Section 5 for details on how the salt is used. - - Salt is used to make dictionary attacks using precomputation more - costly. A dictionary can only be computed after the attacker has the - salt, hence a new salt means that the dictionary has to be - regenerated with the new salt. - - There MUST be a complete set of NSEC3 records covering the entire - zone that use the same salt value. The requirement exists so that, - given any qname within a zone, at least one covering NSEC3 RRset may - be found. While it may be theoretically possible to produce a set of - NSEC3s that use different salts that cover the entire zone, it is - computationally infeasible to generate such a set. See Section 8.2 - for further discussion. - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - The salt value SHOULD be changed from time to time - this is to - prevent the use of a precomputed dictionary to reduce the cost of - enumeration. - -3.1.6. The Next Hashed Ownername Field - - The Next Hashed Ownername field contains the next hashed ownername in - hash order. That is, given the set of all hashed owernames, the Next - Hashed Ownername contains the hash value that immediately follows the - owner hash value for the given NSEC3 record. The value of the Next - Hashed Ownername Field in the last NSEC3 record in the zone is the - same as the ownername of the first NSEC3 RR in the zone in hash - order. - - Hashed ownernames of glue RRsets MUST NOT be listed in the Next - Hashed Ownername unless at least one authoritative RRset exists at - the same ownername. Hashed ownernames of delegation NS RRsets MUST - be listed if the Opt-In bit is clear. - - Note that the Next Hashed Ownername field is not encoded, unlike the - NSEC3 RR's ownername. It is the unmodified binary hash value. It - does not include the name of the containing zone. - - The length of this field is the length of the hash value produced by - the hash function selected by the Hash Function field. - -3.1.7. The Type Bit Maps Field - - The Type Bit Maps field identifies the RRset types which exist at the - NSEC3 RR's original ownername. - - The Type bits for the NSEC3 RR and RRSIG RR MUST be set during - generation, and MUST be ignored during processing. - - The RR type space is split into 256 window blocks, each representing - the low-order 8 bits of the 16-bit RR type space. Each block that - has at least one active RR type is encoded using a single octet - window number (from 0 to 255), a single octet bitmap length (from 1 - to 32) indicating the number of octets used for the window block's - bitmap, and up to 32 octets (256 bits) of bitmap. - - Blocks are present in the NSEC3 RR RDATA in increasing numerical - order. - - "|" denotes concatenation - - Type Bit Map(s) Field = ( Window Block # | Bitmap Length | Bitmap ) + - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - Each bitmap encodes the low-order 8 bits of RR types within the - window block, in network bit order. The first bit is bit 0. For - window block 0, bit 1 corresponds to RR type 1 (A), bit 2 corresponds - to RR type 2 (NS), and so forth. For window block 1, bit 1 - corresponds to RR type 257, bit 2 to RR type 258. If a bit is set to - 1, it indicates that an RRset of that type is present for the NSEC3 - RR's ownername. If a bit is set to 0, it indicates that no RRset of - that type is present for the NSEC3 RR's ownername. - - Since bit 0 in window block 0 refers to the non-existing RR type 0, - it MUST be set to 0. After verification, the validator MUST ignore - the value of bit 0 in window block 0. - - Bits representing Meta-TYPEs or QTYPEs as specified in RFC 2929 [11] - (section 3.1) or within the range reserved for assignment only to - QTYPEs and Meta-TYPEs MUST be set to 0, since they do not appear in - zone data. If encountered, they must be ignored upon reading. - - Blocks with no types present MUST NOT be included. Trailing zero - octets in the bitmap MUST be omitted. The length of each block's - bitmap is determined by the type code with the largest numerical - value, within that block, among the set of RR types present at the - NSEC3 RR's actual ownername. Trailing zero octets not specified MUST - be interpreted as zero octets. - -3.2. The NSEC3 RR Presentation Format - - The presentation format of the RDATA portion is as follows: - - The Opt-In Flag Field is represented as an unsigned decimal integer. - The value is either 0 or 1. - - The Hash field is presented as a mnemonic of the hash or as an - unsigned decimal integer. The value has a maximum of 127. - - The Iterations field is presented as an unsigned decimal integer. - - The Salt Length field is not presented. - - The Salt field is represented as a sequence of case-insensitive - hexadecimal digits. Whitespace is not allowed within the sequence. - The Salt Field is represented as "-" (without the quotes) when the - Salt Length field has value 0. - - The Next Hashed Ownername field is represented as a sequence of case- - insensitive base32 digits, without whitespace. - - The Type Bit Maps Field is represented as a sequence of RR type - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - mnemonics. When the mnemonic is not known, the TYPE representation - as described in RFC 3597 [12] (section 5) MUST be used. - - -4. Creating Additional NSEC3 RRs for Empty Non-Terminals - - In order to prove the non-existence of a record that might be covered - by a wildcard, it is necessary to prove the existence of its closest - encloser. A closest encloser might be an empty non-terminal. - - Additional NSEC3 RRs are generated for empty non-terminals. These - additional NSEC3 RRs are identical in format to NSEC3 RRs that cover - existing RRs in the zone except that their type-maps only indicated - the existence of an NSEC3 RRset and an RRSIG RRset. - - This relaxes the requirement in Section 2.3 of RFC4035 that NSEC RRs - not appear at names that did not exist before the zone was signed. - [Comment.1] - - -5. Calculation of the Hash - - Define H(x) to be the hash of x using the hash function selected by - the NSEC3 record and || to indicate concatenation. Then define: - - IH(salt,x,0)=H(x || salt) - - IH(salt,x,k)=H(IH(salt,x,k-1) || salt) if k > 0 - - Then the calculated hash of an ownername is - IH(salt,ownername,iterations-1), where the ownername is the canonical - form. - - The canonical form of the ownername is the wire format of the - ownername where: - 1. The ownername is fully expanded (no DNS name compression) and - fully qualified; - 2. All uppercase US-ASCII letters are replaced by the corresponding - lowercase US-ASCII letters; - 3. If the ownername is a wildcard name, the ownername is in its - original unexpanded form, including the "*" label (no wildcard - substitution); - This form is as defined in section 6.2 of RFC 4034 ([4]). - - -6. Including NSEC3 RRs in a Zone - - Each ownername within the zone that owns authoritative RRsets MUST - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - have a corresponding NSEC3 RR. Ownernames that correspond to - unsigned delegations MAY have a corresponding NSEC3 RR, however, if - there is not, there MUST be a covering NSEC3 RR with the Opt-In flag - set to 1. Other non-authoritative RRs are not included in the set of - NSEC3 RRs. - - Each empty non-terminal MUST have an NSEC3 record. - - The TTL value for any NSEC3 RR SHOULD be the same as the minimum TTL - value field in the zone SOA RR. - - The type bitmap of every NSEC3 resource record in a signed zone MUST - indicate the presence of both the NSEC3 RR type itself and its - corresponding RRSIG RR type. - - The following steps describe the proper construction of NSEC3 - records. [Comment.2] - 1. For each unique original ownername in the zone, add an NSEC3 - RRset. If Opt-In is being used, ownernames of unsigned - delegations may be excluded, but must be considered for empty- - non-terminals. The ownername of the NSEC3 RR is the hashed - equivalent of the original owner name, prepended to the zone - name. The Next Hashed Ownername field is left blank for the - moment. If Opt-In is being used, set the Opt-In bit to one. - 2. For each RRset at the original owner name, set the corresponding - bit in the type bit map. - 3. If the difference in number of labels between the apex and the - original ownername is greater then 1, additional NSEC3s need to - be added for every empty non-terminal between the apex and the - original ownername. This process may generate NSEC3 RRs with - duplicate hashed ownernames. - 4. Sort the set of NSEC3 RRs into hash order. Hash order is the - ascending numerical order of the non-encoded hash values. - 5. Combine NSEC3 RRs with identical hashed ownernames by replacing - with a single NSEC3 RR with the type map consisting of the union - of the types represented by the set of NSEC3 RRs. - 6. In each NSEC3 RR, insert the Next Hashed Ownername by using the - value of the next NSEC3 RR in hash order. The Next Hashed - Ownername of the last NSEC3 in the zone contains the value of the - hashed ownername of the first NSEC3 in the hash order. - - -7. Responding to NSEC3 Queries - - Since NSEC3 ownernames are not represented in the NSEC3 chain like - other zone ownernames, direct queries for NSEC3 ownernames present a - special case. - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - The special case arises when the following are all true: - o The QNAME equals an existing NSEC3 ownername, and - o There are no other record types that exist at QNAME, and - o The QTYPE does not equal NSEC3. - These conditions describe a particular case: the answer should be a - NOERROR/NODATA response, but there is no NSEC3 RRset for H(QNAME) to - include in the authority section. - - However, the NSEC3 RRset with ownername equal to QNAME is able to - prove its own existence. Thus, when answering this query, the - authoritative server MUST include the NSEC3 RRset whose ownername - equals QNAME. This RRset proves that QNAME is an existing name with - types NSEC3 and RRSIG. The authoritative server MUST also include - the NSEC3 RRset that covers the hash of QNAME. This RRset proves - that no other types exist. - - When validating a NOERROR/NODATA response, validators MUST check for - a NSEC3 RRset with ownername equals to QNAME, and MUST accept that - (validated) NSEC3 RRset as proof that QNAME exists. The validator - MUST also check for an NSEC3 RRset that covers the hash of QNAME as - proof that QTYPE doesn't exist. - - Other cases where the QNAME equals an existing NSEC3 ownername may be - answered normally. - - -8. Special Considerations - - The following paragraphs clarify specific behaviour explain special - considerations for implementations. - -8.1. Proving Nonexistence - - If a wildcard resource record appears in a zone, its asterisk label - is treated as a literal symbol and is treated in the same way as any - other ownername for purposes of generating NSEC3 RRs. RFC 4035 [5] - describes the impact of wildcards on authenticated denial of - existence. - - In order to prove there exist no RRs for a domain, as well as no - source of synthesis, an RR must be shown for the closest encloser, - and non-existence must be shown for all closer labels and for the - wildcard at the closest encloser. - - This can be done as follows. If the QNAME in the query is - omega.alfa.beta.example, and the closest encloser is beta.example - (the nearest ancestor to omega.alfa.beta.example), then the server - should return an NSEC3 that demonstrates the nonexistence of - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - alfa.beta.example, an NSEC3 that demonstrates the nonexistence of - *.beta.example, and an NSEC3 that demonstrates the existence of - beta.example. This takes between one and three NSEC3 records, since - a single record can, by chance, prove more than one of these facts. - - When a verifier checks this response, then the existence of - beta.example together with the non-existence of alfa.beta.example - proves that the closest encloser is indeed beta.example. The non- - existence of *.beta.example shows that there is no wildcard at the - closest encloser, and so no source of synthesis for - omega.alfa.beta.example. These two facts are sufficient to satisfy - the resolver that the QNAME cannot be resolved. - - In practice, since the NSEC3 owner and next names are hashed, if the - server responds with an NSEC3 for beta.example, the resolver will - have to try successively longer names, starting with example, moving - to beta.example, alfa.beta.example, and so on, until one of them - hashes to a value that matches the interval (but not the ownername - nor next owner name) of one of the returned NSEC3s (this name will be - alfa.beta.example). Once it has done this, it knows the closest - encloser (i.e. beta.example), and can then easily check the other two - required proofs. - - Note that it is not possible for one of the shorter names tried by - the resolver to be denied by one of the returned NSEC3s, since, by - definition, all these names exist and so cannot appear within the - range covered by an NSEC3. Note, however, that the first name that - the resolver tries MUST be the apex of the zone, since names above - the apex could be denied by one of the returned NSEC3s. - -8.2. Salting - - Augmenting original ownernames with salt before hashing increases the - cost of a dictionary of pre-generated hash-values. For every bit of - salt, the cost of a precomputed dictionary doubles (because there - must be an entry for each word combined with each possible salt - value). The NSEC3 RR can use a maximum of 2040 bits (255 octets) of - salt, multiplying the cost by 2^2040. This means that an attacker - must, in practice, recompute the dictionary each time the salt is - changed. - - There MUST be at least one complete set of NSEC3s for the zone using - the same salt value. - - The salt SHOULD be changed periodically to prevent precomputation - using a single salt. It is RECOMMENDED that the salt be changed for - every resigning. - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - Note that this could cause a resolver to see records with different - salt values for the same zone. This is harmless, since each record - stands alone (that is, it denies the set of ownernames whose hashes, - using the salt in the NSEC3 record, fall between the two hashes in - the NSEC3 record) - it is only the server that needs a complete set - of NSEC3 records with the same salt in order to be able to answer - every possible query. - - There is no prohibition with having NSEC3 with different salts within - the same zone. However, in order for authoritative servers to be - able to consistently find covering NSEC3 RRs, the authoritative - server MUST choose a single set of parameters (algorithm, salt, and - iterations) to use when selecting NSEC3s. In the absence of any - other metadata, the server does this by using the parameters from the - zone apex NSEC3, recognizable by the presence of the SOA bit in the - type map. If there is more than one NSEC3 record that meets this - description, then the server may arbitrarily choose one. Because of - this, if there is a zone apex NSEC3 RR within a zone, it MUST be part - of a complete NSEC3 set. Conversely, if there exists an incomplete - set of NSEC3 RRs using the same parameters within a zone, there MUST - NOT be an NSEC3 RR using those parameters with the SOA bit set. - -8.3. Iterations - - Setting the number of iterations used allows the zone owner to choose - the cost of computing a hash, and so the cost of generating a - dictionary. Note that this is distinct from the effect of salt, - which prevents the use of a single precomputed dictionary for all - time. - - Obviously the number of iterations also affects the zone owner's cost - of signing the zone as well as the verifiers cost of verifying the - zone. We therefore impose an upper limit on the number of - iterations. We base this on the number of iterations that - approximately doubles the cost of signing the zone. - - A zone owner MUST NOT use a value higher than shown in the table - below for iterations. A resolver MAY treat a response with a higher - value as bogus. - - +--------------+------------+ - | RSA Key Size | Iterations | - +--------------+------------+ - | 1024 | 3,000 | - | 2048 | 20,000 | - | 4096 | 150,000 | - +--------------+------------+ - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - +--------------+------------+ - | DSA Key Size | Iterations | - +--------------+------------+ - | 1024 | 1,500 | - | 2048 | 5,000 | - +--------------+------------+ - - This table is based on 150,000 SHA-1's per second, 50 RSA signs per - second for 1024 bit keys, 7 signs per second for 2048 bit keys, 1 - sign per second for 4096 bit keys, 100 DSA signs per second for 1024 - bit keys and 30 signs per second for 2048 bit keys. - - Note that since RSA verifications are 10-100 times faster than - signatures (depending on key size), in the case of RSA the legal - values of iterations can substantially increase the cost of - verification. - -8.4. Hash Collision - - Hash collisions occur when different messages have the same hash - value. The expected number of domain names needed to give a 1 in 2 - chance of a single collision is about 2^(n/2) for a hash of length n - bits (i.e. 2^80 for SHA-1). Though this probability is extremely - low, the following paragraphs deal with avoiding collisions and - assessing possible damage in the event of an attack using hash - collisions. - -8.4.1. Avoiding Hash Collisions during generation - - During generation of NSEC3 RRs, hash values are supposedly unique. - In the (academic) case of a collision occurring, an alternative salt - MUST be chosen and all hash values MUST be regenerated. - -8.4.2. Second Preimage Requirement Analysis - - A cryptographic hash function has a second-preimage resistance - property. The second-preimage resistance property means that it is - computationally infeasible to find another message with the same hash - value as a given message, i.e. given preimage X, to find a second - preimage X' != X such that hash(X) = hash(X'). The work factor for - finding a second preimage is of the order of 2^160 for SHA-1. To - mount an attack using an existing NSEC3 RR, an adversary needs to - find a second preimage. - - Assuming an adversary is capable of mounting such an extreme attack, - the actual damage is that a response message can be generated which - claims that a certain QNAME (i.e. the second pre-image) does exist, - while in reality QNAME does not exist (a false positive), which will - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - either cause a security aware resolver to re-query for the non- - existent name, or to fail the initial query. Note that the adversary - can't mount this attack on an existing name but only on a name that - the adversary can't choose and does not yet exist. - -8.4.3. Possible Hash Value Truncation Method - - The previous sections outlined the low probability and low impact of - a second-preimage attack. When impact and probability are low, while - space in a DNS message is costly, truncation is tempting. Truncation - might be considered to allow for shorter ownernames and rdata for - hashed labels. In general, if a cryptographic hash is truncated to n - bits, then the expected number of domains required to give a 1 in 2 - probability of a single collision is approximately 2^(n/2) and the - work factor to produce a second preimage is 2^n. - - An extreme hash value truncation would be truncating to the shortest - possible unique label value. This would be unwise, since the work - factor to produce second preimages would then approximate the size of - the zone (sketch of proof: if the zone has k entries, then the length - of the names when truncated down to uniqueness should be proportional - to log_2(k). Since the work factor to produce a second pre-image is - 2^n for an n-bit hash, then in this case it is 2^(C log_2(k)) (where - C is some constant), i.e. C'k - a work factor of k). - - Though the mentioned truncation can be maximized to a certain - extreme, the probability of collision increases exponentially for - every truncated bit. Given the low impact of hash value collisions - and limited space in DNS messages, the balance between truncation - profit and collision damage may be determined by local policy. Of - course, the size of the corresponding RRSIG RR is not reduced, so - truncation is of limited benefit. - - Truncation could be signaled simply by reducing the length of the - first label in the ownername. Note that there would have to be a - corresponding reduction in the length of the Next Hashed Ownername - field. - -8.4.4. Server Response to a Run-time Collision - - In the astronomically unlikely event that a server is unable to prove - nonexistence because the hash of the name that does not exist - collides with a name that does exist, the server is obviously broken, - and should, therefore, return a response with an RCODE of 2 (server - failure). - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - -8.4.5. Parameters that Cover the Zone - - Secondary servers (and perhaps other entities) need to reliably - determine which NSEC3 parameters (that is, hash, salt and iterations) - are present at every hashed ownername, in order to be able to choose - an appropriate set of NSEC3 records for negative responses. This is - indicated by the parameters at the apex: any set of parameters that - is used in an NSEC3 record whose original ownername is the apex of - the zone MUST be present throughout the zone. - - A method to determine which NSEC3 in a complete chain corresponds to - the apex is to look for a NSEC3 RRset which has the SOA bit set in - the RDATA bit type maps field. - - -9. Performance Considerations - - Iterated hashes impose a performance penalty on both authoritative - servers and resolvers. Therefore, the number of iterations should be - carefully chosen. In particular it should be noted that a high value - for iterations gives an attacker a very good denial of service - attack, since the attacker need not bother to verify the results of - their queries, and hence has no performance penalty of his own. - - On the other hand, nameservers with low query rates and limited - bandwidth are already subject to a bandwidth based denial of service - attack, since responses are typically an order of magnitude larger - than queries, and hence these servers may choose a high value of - iterations in order to increase the difficulty of offline attempts to - enumerate their namespace without significantly increasing their - vulnerability to denial of service attacks. - - -10. IANA Considerations - - IANA needs to allocate a RR type code for NSEC3 from the standard RR - type space (type XXX requested). IANA needs to open a new registry - for the NSEC3 Hash Functions. The range for this registry is 0-127. - Defined types are: - - 0 is reserved. - 1 is SHA-1 ([13]). - 127 is experimental. - - -11. Security Considerations - - The NSEC3 records are still susceptible to dictionary attacks (i.e. - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - the attacker retrieves all the NSEC3 records, then calculates the - hashes of all likely domain names, comparing against the hashes found - in the NSEC3 records, and thus enumerating the zone). These are - substantially more expensive than enumerating the original NSEC - records would have been, and in any case, such an attack could also - be used directly against the name server itself by performing queries - for all likely names, though this would obviously be more detectable. - The expense of this off-line attack can be chosen by setting the - number of iterations in the NSEC3 RR. - - Domains are also susceptible to a precalculated dictionary attack - - that is, a list of hashes for all likely names is computed once, then - NSEC3 is scanned periodically and compared against the precomputed - hashes. This attack is prevented by changing the salt on a regular - basis. - - Walking the NSEC3 RRs will reveal the total number of records in the - zone, and also what types they are. This could be mitigated by - adding dummy entries, but certainly an upper limit can always be - found. - - Hash collisions may occur. If they do, it will be impossible to - prove the non-existence of the colliding domain - however, this is - fantastically unlikely, and, in any case, DNSSEC already relies on - SHA-1 to not collide. - - Responses to queries where QNAME equals an NSEC3 ownername that has - no other types may be undetectably changed from a NOERROR/NODATA - response to a NAME ERROR response. - - The Opt-In Flag (O) allows for unsigned names, in the form of - delegations to unsigned subzones, to exist within an otherwise signed - zone. All unsigned names are, by definition, insecure, and their - validity or existence cannot by cryptographically proven. - - In general: - Records with unsigned names (whether existing or not) suffer from - the same vulnerabilities as records in an unsigned zone. These - vulnerabilities are described in more detail in [16] (note in - particular sections 2.3, "Name Games" and 2.6, "Authenticated - Denial"). - Records with signed names have the same security whether or not - Opt-In is used. - - Note that with or without Opt-In, an insecure delegation may be - undetectably altered by an attacker. Because of this, the primary - difference in security when using Opt-In is the loss of the ability - to prove the existence or nonexistence of an insecure delegation - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - within the span of an Opt-In NSEC3 record. - - In particular, this means that a malicious entity may be able to - insert or delete records with unsigned names. These records are - normally NS records, but this also includes signed wildcard - expansions (while the wildcard record itself is signed, its expanded - name is an unsigned name). - - For example, if a resolver received the following response from the - example zone above: - - Example S.1: Response to query for WWW.DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE. A - - RCODE=NOERROR - - Answer Section: - - Authority Section: - DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE. NS NS.FORGED. - EXAMPLE. NSEC FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. SOA NS \ - RRSIG DNSKEY - abcd... RRSIG NSEC3 ... - - Additional Section: - - The resolver would have no choice but to accept that the referral to - NS.FORGED. is valid. If a wildcard existed that would have been - expanded to cover "WWW.DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE.", an attacker could - have undetectably removed it and replaced it with the forged - delegation. - - Note that being able to add a delegation is functionally equivalent - to being able to add any record type: an attacker merely has to forge - a delegation to nameserver under his/her control and place whatever - records needed at the subzone apex. - - While in particular cases, this issue may not present a significant - security problem, in general it should not be lightly dismissed. - Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that Opt-In be used sparingly. - In particular, zone signing tools SHOULD NOT default to using Opt-In, - and MAY choose to not support Opt-In at all. - - -12. References - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - -12.1. Normative References - - [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [3] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [4] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - [5] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4035, March 2005. - - [6] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, "Dynamic - Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, - April 1997. - - [7] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", - RFC 2181, July 1997. - - [8] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)", - RFC 2308, March 1998. - - [9] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [10] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)", - RFC 3658, December 2003. - - [11] Eastlake, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning, "Domain - Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929, - September 2000. - - [12] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) - Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. - - [13] Eastlake, D. and P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA1)", - RFC 3174, September 2001. - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - -12.2. Informative References - - [14] Vixie, P., "Extending DNSSEC-BIS (DNSSEC-TER)", - draft-vixie-dnssec-ter-01 (work in progress), June 2004. - - [15] Josefsson, Ed., S,., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data - Encodings.", draft-josefsson-rfc3548bis-00 (work in progress), - October 2005. - - [16] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name - System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004. - -Editorial Comments - - [Comment.1] Although, strictly speaking, the names *did* exist. - - [Comment.2] Note that this method makes it impossible to detect - (extremely unlikely) hash collisions. - - -Appendix A. Example Zone - - This is a zone showing its NSEC3 records. They can also be used as - test vectors for the hash algorithm. - - The data in the example zone is currently broken, as it uses a - different base32 alphabet. This shall be fixed in the next release. - - - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 ) - 3600 RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - RtctD6aLUU5Md5wOOItilS7JXX1tf58Ql3sK - mTXkL13jqLiUFOGg0uzqRh1U9GbydS0P7M0g - qYIt90txzE/4+g== ) - 3600 NS ns1.example. - 3600 NS ns2.example. - 3600 RRSIG NS 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - hNyyin2JpECIFxW4vsj8RhHcWCQKUXgO+z4l - m7g2zM8q3Qpsm/gYIXSF2Rhj6lAG7esR/X9d - 1SH5r/wfjuCg+g== ) - 3600 MX 1 xx.example. - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 22] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - 3600 RRSIG MX 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - L/ZDLMSZJKITmSxmM9Kni37/wKQsdSg6FT0l - NMm14jy2Stp91Pwp1HQ1hAMkGWAqCMEKPMtU - S/o/g5C8VM6ftQ== ) - 3600 DNSKEY 257 3 5 ( - AQOnsGyJvywVjYmiLbh0EwIRuWYcDiB/8blX - cpkoxtpe19Oicv6Zko+8brVsTMeMOpcUeGB1 - zsYKWJ7BvR2894hX - ) ; Key ID = 21960 - 3600 DNSKEY 256 3 5 ( - AQO0gEmbZUL6xbD/xQczHbnwYnf+jQjwz/sU - 5k44rHTt0Ty+3aOdYoome9TjGMhwkkGby1TL - ExXT48OGGdbfIme5 - ) ; Key ID = 62699 - 3600 RRSIG DNSKEY 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - e6EB+K21HbyZzoLUeRDb6+g0+n8XASYe6h+Z - xtnB31sQXZgq8MBHeNFDQW9eZw2hjT9zMClx - mTkunTYzqWJrmQ== ) - 3600 RRSIG DNSKEY 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 21960 example. - SnWLiNWLbOuiKU/F/wVMokvcg6JVzGpQ2VUk - ZbKjB9ON0t3cdc+FZbOCMnEHRJiwgqlnncik - 3w7ZY2UWyYIvpw== ) - 5pe7ctl7pfs2cilroy5dcofx4rcnlypd.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - 7nomf47k3vlidh4vxahhpp47l3tgv7a2 - NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - PTWYq4WZmmtgh9UQif342HWf9DD9RuuM4ii5 - Z1oZQgRi5zrsoKHAgl2YXprF2Rfk1TLgsiFQ - sb7KfbaUo/vzAg== ) - 7nomf47k3vlidh4vxahhpp47l3tgv7a2.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - dw4o7j64wnel3j4jh7fb3c5n7w3js2yb - MX NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - YTcqole3h8EOsTT3HKnwhR1QS8borR0XtZaA - ZrLsx6n0RDC1AAdZONYOvdqvcal9PmwtWjlo - MEFQmc/gEuxojA== ) - a.example. 3600 IN NS ns1.a.example. - 3600 IN NS ns2.a.example. - 3600 DS 58470 5 1 3079F1593EBAD6DC121E202A8B - 766A6A4837206C ) - 3600 RRSIG DS 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 23] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - 20050612112304 62699 example. - QavhbsSmEvJLSUzGoTpsV3SKXCpaL1UO3Ehn - cB0ObBIlex/Zs9kJyG/9uW1cYYt/1wvgzmX2 - 0kx7rGKTc3RQDA== ) - ns1.a.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.5 - ns2.a.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.6 - ai.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.9 - 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - plY5M26ED3Owe3YX0pBIhgg44j89NxUaoBrU - 6bLRr99HpKfFl1sIy18JiRS7evlxCETZgubq - ZXW5S+1VjMZYzQ== ) - 3600 HINFO "KLH-10" "ITS" - 3600 RRSIG HINFO 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - AR0hG/Z/e+vlRhxRQSVIFORzrJTBpdNHhwUk - tiuqg+zGqKK84eIqtrqXelcE2szKnF3YPneg - VGNmbgPnqDVPiA== ) - 3600 AAAA 2001:db8:0:0:0:0:f00:baa9 - 3600 RRSIG AAAA 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - PNF/t7+DeosEjhfuL0kmsNJvn16qhYyLI9FV - ypSCorFx/PKIlEL3syomkYM2zcXVSRwUXMns - l5/UqLCJJ9BDMg== ) - b.example. 3600 IN NS ns1.b.example. - 3600 IN NS ns2.b.example. - ns1.b.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.7 - ns2.b.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.8 - dw4o7j64wnel3j4jh7fb3c5n7w3js2yb.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - gmnfcccja7wkax3iv26bs75myptje3qk - MX DNSKEY NS SOA NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - VqEbXiZLJVYmo25fmO3IuHkAX155y8NuA50D - C0NmJV/D4R3rLm6tsL6HB3a3f6IBw6kKEa2R - MOiKMSHozVebqw== ) - gmnfcccja7wkax3iv26bs75myptje3qk.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - jt4bbfokgbmr57qx4nqucvvn7fmo6ab6 - DS NS NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - ZqkdmF6eICpHyn1Cj7Yvw+nLcbji46Qpe76/ - ZetqdZV7K5sO3ol5dOc0dZyXDqsJp1is5StW - OwQBGbOegrW/Zw== ) - jt4bbfokgbmr57qx4nqucvvn7fmo6ab6.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 24] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - kcll7fqfnisuhfekckeeqnmbbd4maanu - NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - FXyCVQUdFF1EW1NcgD2V724/It0rn3lr+30V - IyjmqwOMvQ4G599InTpiH46xhX3U/FmUzHOK - 94Zbq3k8lgdpZA== ) - kcll7fqfnisuhfekckeeqnmbbd4maanu.example. 3600 NSEC3 1 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - n42hbhnjj333xdxeybycax5ufvntux5d - MX NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - d0g8MTOvVwByOAIwvYV9JrTHwJof1VhnMKuA - IBj6Xaeney86RBZYgg7Qyt9WnQSK3uCEeNpx - TOLtc5jPrkL4zQ== ) - n42hbhnjj333xdxeybycax5ufvntux5d.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - nimwfwcnbeoodmsc6npv3vuaagaevxxu - A NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - MZGzllh+YFqZbY8SkHxARhXFiMDPS0tvQYyy - 91tj+lbl45L/BElD3xxB/LZMO8vQejYtMLHj - xFPFGRIW3wKnrA== ) - nimwfwcnbeoodmsc6npv3vuaagaevxxu.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - vhgwr2qgykdkf4m6iv6vkagbxozphazr - HINFO A AAAA NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - c3zQdK68cYTHTjh1cD6pi0vblXwzyoU/m7Qx - z8kaPYikbJ9vgSl9YegjZukgQSwybHUC0SYG - jL33Wm1p07TBdw== ) - ns1.example. 3600 A 192.0.2.1 - 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - QLGkaqWXxRuE+MHKkMvVlswg65HcyjvD1fyb - BDZpcfiMHH9w4x1eRqRamtSDTcqLfUrcYkrr - nWWLepz1PjjShQ== ) - ns2.example. 3600 A 192.0.2.2 - 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - UoIZaC1O6XHRWGHBOl8XFQKPdYTkRCz6SYh3 - P2mZ3xfY22fLBCBDrEnOc8pGDGijJaLl26Cz - AkeTJu3J3auUiA== ) - vhgwr2qgykdkf4m6iv6vkagbxozphazr.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 25] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - wbyijvpnyj33pcpi3i44ecnibnaj7eiw - HINFO A AAAA NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - leFhoF5FXZAiNOxK4OBOOA0WKdbaD5lLDT/W - kLoyWnQ6WGBwsUOdsEcVmqz+1n7q9bDf8G8M - 5SNSHIyfpfsi6A== ) - *.w.example. 3600 MX 1 ai.example. - 3600 RRSIG MX 5 3 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - sYNUPHn1/gJ87wTHNksGdRm3vfnSFa2BbofF - xGfJLF5A4deRu5f0hvxhAFDCcXfIASj7z0wQ - gQlgxEwhvQDEaQ== ) - x.w.example. 3600 MX 1 xx.example. - 3600 RRSIG MX 5 3 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - s1XQ/8SlViiEDik9edYs1Ooe3XiXo453Dg7w - lqQoewuDzmtd6RaLNu52W44zTM1EHJES8ujP - U9VazOa1KEIq1w== ) - x.y.w.example. 3600 MX 1 xx.example. - 3600 RRSIG MX 5 4 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - aKVCGO/Fx9rm04UUsHRTTYaDA8o8dGfyq6t7 - uqAcYxU9xiXP+xNtLHBv7er6Q6f2JbOs6SGF - 9VrQvJjwbllAfA== ) - wbyijvpnyj33pcpi3i44ecnibnaj7eiw.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - zjxfz5o7t4ty4u3f6fa7mhhqzjln4mui - A NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - ledFAaDCqDxapQ1FvBAjjK2DP06iQj8AN6gN - ZycTeSmobKLTpzbgQp8uKYYe/DPHjXYmuEhd - oorBv4xkb0flXw== ) - xx.example. 3600 A 192.0.2.10 - 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - XSuMVjNxovbZUsnKU6oQDygaK+WB+O5HYQG9 - tJgphHIX7TM4uZggfR3pNM+4jeC8nt2OxZZj - cxwCXWj82GVGdw== ) - 3600 HINFO "KLH-10" "TOPS-20" - 3600 RRSIG HINFO 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - ghS2DimOqPSacG9j6KMgXSfTMSjLxvoxvx3q - OKzzPst4tEbAmocF2QX8IrSHr67m4ZLmd2Fk - KMf4DgNBDj+dIQ== ) - 3600 AAAA 2001:db8:0:0:0:0:f00:baaa - 3600 RRSIG AAAA 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 26] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - 20050612112304 62699 example. - rto7afZkXYB17IfmQCT5QoEMMrlkeOoAGXzo - w8Wmcg86Fc+MQP0hyXFScI1gYNSgSSoDMXIy - rzKKwb8J04/ILw== ) - zjxfz5o7t4ty4u3f6fa7mhhqzjln4mui.example. 3600 NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - 5pe7ctl7pfs2cilroy5dcofx4rcnlypd - MX NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 3600 RRSIG NSEC3 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - eULkdWjcjmM+wXQcr7zXNfnGLgHjZSJINGkt - 7Zmvp7WKVAqoHMm1RXV8IfBH1aRgv5+/Lgny - OcFlrPGPMm48/A== ) - - -Appendix B. Example Responses - - The examples in this section show response messages using the signed - zone example in Appendix A. - -B.1. answer - - A successful query to an authoritative server. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 27] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - x.w.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - x.w.example. 3600 IN MX 1 xx.example. - x.w.example. 3600 IN RRSIG MX 5 3 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - s1XQ/8SlViiEDik9edYs1Ooe3XiXo453Dg7w - lqQoewuDzmtd6RaLNu52W44zTM1EHJES8ujP - U9VazOa1KEIq1w== ) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN NS ns1.example. - example. 3600 IN NS ns2.example. - example. 3600 IN RRSIG NS 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - hNyyin2JpECIFxW4vsj8RhHcWCQKUXgO+z4l - m7g2zM8q3Qpsm/gYIXSF2Rhj6lAG7esR/X9d - 1SH5r/wfjuCg+g== ) - - ;; Additional - xx.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.10 - xx.example. 3600 IN RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - XSuMVjNxovbZUsnKU6oQDygaK+WB+O5HYQG9 - tJgphHIX7TM4uZggfR3pNM+4jeC8nt2OxZZj - cxwCXWj82GVGdw== ) - xx.example. 3600 IN AAAA 2001:db8::f00:baaa - xx.example. 3600 IN RRSIG AAAA 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - rto7afZkXYB17IfmQCT5QoEMMrlkeOoAGXzo - w8Wmcg86Fc+MQP0hyXFScI1gYNSgSSoDMXIy - rzKKwb8J04/ILw== ) - ns1.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1 - ns1.example. 3600 IN RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - QLGkaqWXxRuE+MHKkMvVlswg65HcyjvD1fyb - BDZpcfiMHH9w4x1eRqRamtSDTcqLfUrcYkrr - nWWLepz1PjjShQ== ) - ns2.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.2 - ns2.example. 3600 IN RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - UoIZaC1O6XHRWGHBOl8XFQKPdYTkRCz6SYh3 - P2mZ3xfY22fLBCBDrEnOc8pGDGijJaLl26Cz - AkeTJu3J3auUiA== ) - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 28] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - The query returned an MX RRset for "x.w.example". The corresponding - RRSIG RR indicates that the MX RRset was signed by an "example" - DNSKEY with algorithm 5 and key tag 62699. The resolver needs the - corresponding DNSKEY RR in order to authenticate this answer. The - discussion below describes how a resolver might obtain this DNSKEY - RR. - - The RRSIG RR indicates the original TTL of the MX RRset was 3600, - and, for the purpose of authentication, the current TTL is replaced - by 3600. The RRSIG RR's labels field value of 3 indicates that the - answer was not the result of wildcard expansion. The "x.w.example" - MX RRset is placed in canonical form, and, assuming the current time - falls between the signature inception and expiration dates, the - signature is authenticated. - -B.1.1. Authenticating the Example DNSKEY RRset - - This example shows the logical authentication process that starts - from a configured root DNSKEY RRset (or DS RRset) and moves down the - tree to authenticate the desired "example" DNSKEY RRset. Note that - the logical order is presented for clarity. An implementation may - choose to construct the authentication as referrals are received or - to construct the authentication chain only after all RRsets have been - obtained, or in any other combination it sees fit. The example here - demonstrates only the logical process and does not dictate any - implementation rules. - - We assume the resolver starts with a configured DNSKEY RRset for the - root zone (or a configured DS RRset for the root zone). The resolver - checks whether this configured DNSKEY RRset is present in the root - DNSKEY RRset (or whether a DS RR in the DS RRset matches some DNSKEY - RR in the root DNSKEY RRset), whether this DNSKEY RR has signed the - root DNSKEY RRset, and whether the signature lifetime is valid. If - all these conditions are met, all keys in the DNSKEY RRset are - considered authenticated. The resolver then uses one (or more) of - the root DNSKEY RRs to authenticate the "example" DS RRset. Note - that the resolver may have to query the root zone to obtain the root - DNSKEY RRset or "example" DS RRset. - - Once the DS RRset has been authenticated using the root DNSKEY, the - resolver checks the "example" DNSKEY RRset for some "example" DNSKEY - RR that matches one of the authenticated "example" DS RRs. If such a - matching "example" DNSKEY is found, the resolver checks whether this - DNSKEY RR has signed the "example" DNSKEY RRset and the signature - lifetime is valid. If these conditions are met, all keys in the - "example" DNSKEY RRset are considered authenticated. - - Finally, the resolver checks that some DNSKEY RR in the "example" - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 29] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - DNSKEY RRset uses algorithm 5 and has a key tag of 62699. This - DNSKEY is used to authenticate the RRSIG included in the response. - If multiple "example" DNSKEY RRs match this algorithm and key tag, - then each DNSKEY RR is tried, and the answer is authenticated if any - of the matching DNSKEY RRs validate the signature as described above. - -B.2. Name Error - - An authoritative name error. The NSEC3 RRs prove that the name does - not exist and that no covering wildcard exists. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 30] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=3 - ;; - ;; Question - a.c.x.w.example. IN A - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 IN RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - RtctD6aLUU5Md5wOOItilS7JXX1tf58Ql3sK - mTXkL13jqLiUFOGg0uzqRh1U9GbydS0P7M0g - qYIt90txzE/4+g== ) - 7nomf47k3vlidh4vxahhpp47l3tgv7a2.example. 3600 IN NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - dw4o7j64wnel3j4jh7fb3c5n7w3js2yb - MX NSEC3 RRSIG ) - 7nomf47k3vlidh4vxahhpp47l3tgv7a2.example. 3600 IN RRSIG NSEC3 ( - 5 2 3600 20050712112304 - 20050612112304 62699 example. - YTcqole3h8EOsTT3HKnwhR1QS8borR0XtZaA - ZrLsx6n0RDC1AAdZONYOvdqvcal9PmwtWjlo - MEFQmc/gEuxojA== ) - nimwfwcnbeoodmsc6npv3vuaagaevxxu.example. 3600 IN NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - vhgwr2qgykdkf4m6iv6vkagbxozphazr - HINFO A AAAA NSEC3 RRSIG ) - nimwfwcnbeoodmsc6npv3vuaagaevxxu.example. 3600 IN RRSIG NSEC3 ( - 5 2 3600 20050712112304 - 20050612112304 62699 example. - c3zQdK68cYTHTjh1cD6pi0vblXwzyoU/m7Qx - z8kaPYikbJ9vgSl9YegjZukgQSwybHUC0SYG - jL33Wm1p07TBdw== ) - ;; Additional - ;; (empty) - - The query returned two NSEC3 RRs that prove that the requested data - does not exist and no wildcard applies. The negative reply is - authenticated by verifying both NSEC3 RRs. The NSEC3 RRs are - authenticated in a manner identical to that of the MX RRset discussed - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 31] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - above. At least one of the owner names of the NSEC3 RRs will match - the closest encloser. At least one of the NSEC3 RRs prove that there - exists no longer name. At least one of the NSEC3 RRs prove that - there exists no wildcard RRsets that should have been expanded. The - closest encloser can be found by hashing the apex ownername (The SOA - RR's ownername, or the ownername of the DNSKEY RRset referred by an - RRSIG RR), matching it to the ownername of one of the NSEC3 RRs, and - if that fails, continue by adding labels. In other words, the - resolver first hashes example, checks for a matching NSEC3 ownername, - then hashes w.example, checks, and finally hashes w.x.example and - checks. - - In the above example, the name 'x.w.example' hashes to - '7nomf47k3vlidh4vxahhpp47l3tgv7a2'. This indicates that this might - be the closest encloser. To prove that 'c.x.w.example' and - '*.x.w.example' do not exists, these names are hashed to respectively - 'qsgoxsf2lanysajhtmaylde4tqwnqppl' and - 'cvljzyf6nsckjowghch4tt3nohocpdka'. The two NSEC3 records prove that - these hashed ownernames do not exists, since the names are within the - given intervals. - -B.3. No Data Error - - A "no data" response. The NSEC3 RR proves that the name exists and - that the requested RR type does not. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 32] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - ns1.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 IN RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - RtctD6aLUU5Md5wOOItilS7JXX1tf58Ql3sK - mTXkL13jqLiUFOGg0uzqRh1U9GbydS0P7M0g - qYIt90txzE/4+g== ) - wbyijvpnyj33pcpi3i44ecnibnaj7eiw.example. 3600 IN NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - zjxfz5o7t4ty4u3f6fa7mhhqzjln4mui - A NSEC3 RRSIG ) - wbyijvpnyj33pcpi3i44ecnibnaj7eiw.example. 3600 IN RRSIG NSEC3 ( - 5 2 3600 20050712112304 - 20050612112304 62699 example. - ledFAaDCqDxapQ1FvBAjjK2DP06iQj8AN6gN - ZycTeSmobKLTpzbgQp8uKYYe/DPHjXYmuEhd - oorBv4xkb0flXw== ) - ;; Additional - ;; (empty) - - The query returned an NSEC3 RR that proves that the requested name - exists ("ns1.example." hashes to "wbyijvpnyj33pcpi3i44ecnibnaj7eiw"), - but the requested RR type does not exist (type MX is absent in the - type code list of the NSEC RR). The negative reply is authenticated - by verifying the NSEC3 RR. The NSEC3 RR is authenticated in a manner - identical to that of the MX RRset discussed above. - -B.3.1. No Data Error, Empty Non-Terminal - - A "no data" response because of an empty non-terminal. The NSEC3 RR - proves that the name exists and that the requested RR type does not. - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 33] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - y.w.example. IN A - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 IN RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - RtctD6aLUU5Md5wOOItilS7JXX1tf58Ql3sK - mTXkL13jqLiUFOGg0uzqRh1U9GbydS0P7M0g - qYIt90txzE/4+g== ) - jt4bbfokgbmr57qx4nqucvvn7fmo6ab6.example. 3600 IN NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - kcll7fqfnisuhfekckeeqnmbbd4maanu - NSEC3 RRSIG ) - jt4bbfokgbmr57qx4nqucvvn7fmo6ab6.example. 3600 IN RRSIG NSEC3 ( - 5 2 3600 20050712112304 - 20050612112304 62699 example. - FXyCVQUdFF1EW1NcgD2V724/It0rn3lr+30V - IyjmqwOMvQ4G599InTpiH46xhX3U/FmUzHOK - 94Zbq3k8lgdpZA== ) - - The query returned an NSEC3 RR that proves that the requested name - exists ("y.w.example." hashes to "jt4bbfokgbmr57qx4nqucvvn7fmo6ab6"), - but the requested RR type does not exist (Type A is absent in the - type-bit-maps of the NSEC3 RR). The negative reply is authenticated - by verifying the NSEC3 RR. The NSEC3 RR is authenticated in a manner - identical to that of the MX RRset discussed above. Note that, unlike - generic empty non terminal proof using NSECs, this is identical to - proving a No Data Error. This example is solely mentioned to be - complete. - -B.4. Referral to Signed Zone - - Referral to a signed zone. The DS RR contains the data which the - resolver will need to validate the corresponding DNSKEY RR in the - child zone's apex. - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 34] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR DO RCODE=0 - ;; - - ;; Question - mc.a.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - a.example. 3600 IN NS ns1.a.example. - a.example. 3600 IN NS ns2.a.example. - a.example. 3600 IN DS 58470 5 1 ( - 3079F1593EBAD6DC121E202A8B766A6A4837 - 206C ) - a.example. 3600 IN RRSIG DS 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - QavhbsSmEvJLSUzGoTpsV3SKXCpaL1UO3Ehn - cB0ObBIlex/Zs9kJyG/9uW1cYYt/1wvgzmX2 - 0kx7rGKTc3RQDA== ) - - ;; Additional - ns1.a.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.5 - ns2.a.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.6 - - The query returned a referral to the signed "a.example." zone. The - DS RR is authenticated in a manner identical to that of the MX RRset - discussed above. This DS RR is used to authenticate the "a.example" - DNSKEY RRset. - - Once the "a.example" DS RRset has been authenticated using the - "example" DNSKEY, the resolver checks the "a.example" DNSKEY RRset - for some "a.example" DNSKEY RR that matches the DS RR. If such a - matching "a.example" DNSKEY is found, the resolver checks whether - this DNSKEY RR has signed the "a.example" DNSKEY RRset and whether - the signature lifetime is valid. If all these conditions are met, - all keys in the "a.example" DNSKEY RRset are considered - authenticated. - -B.5. Referral to Unsigned Zone using the Opt-In Flag - - The NSEC3 RR proves that nothing for this delegation was signed in - the parent zone. There is no proof that the delegation exists - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 35] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - mc.b.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - b.example. 3600 IN NS ns1.b.example. - b.example. 3600 IN NS ns2.b.example. - kcll7fqfnisuhfekckeeqnmbbd4maanu.example. 3600 IN NSEC3 1 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - n42hbhnjj333xdxeybycax5ufvntux5d - MX NSEC3 RRSIG ) - kcll7fqfnisuhfekckeeqnmbbd4maanu.example. 3600 IN RRSIG NSEC3 ( - 5 2 3600 20050712112304 - 20050612112304 62699 example. - d0g8MTOvVwByOAIwvYV9JrTHwJof1VhnMKuA - IBj6Xaeney86RBZYgg7Qyt9WnQSK3uCEeNpx - TOLtc5jPrkL4zQ== ) - - ;; Additional - ns1.b.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.7 - ns2.b.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.8 - - The query returned a referral to the unsigned "b.example." zone. The - NSEC3 proves that no authentication leads from "example" to - "b.example", since the hash of "b.example" - ("ldjpfcucebeks5azmzpty4qlel4cftzo") is within the NSEC3 interval and - the NSEC3 opt-in bit is set. The NSEC3 RR is authenticated in a - manner identical to that of the MX RRset discussed above. - -B.6. Wildcard Expansion - - A successful query that was answered via wildcard expansion. The - label count in the answer's RRSIG RR indicates that a wildcard RRset - was expanded to produce this response, and the NSEC3 RR proves that - no closer match exists in the zone. - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 36] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - a.z.w.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - a.z.w.example. 3600 IN MX 1 ai.example. - a.z.w.example. 3600 IN RRSIG MX 5 3 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - sYNUPHn1/gJ87wTHNksGdRm3vfnSFa2BbofF - xGfJLF5A4deRu5f0hvxhAFDCcXfIASj7z0wQ - gQlgxEwhvQDEaQ== ) - ;; Authority - example. 3600 NS ns1.example. - example. 3600 NS ns2.example. - example. 3600 IN RRSIG NS 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - hNyyin2JpECIFxW4vsj8RhHcWCQKUXgO+z4l - m7g2zM8q3Qpsm/gYIXSF2Rhj6lAG7esR/X9d - 1SH5r/wfjuCg+g== ) - zjxfz5o7t4ty4u3f6fa7mhhqzjln4mui.example. 3600 IN NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - 5pe7ctl7pfs2cilroy5dcofx4rcnlypd - MX NSEC3 RRSIG ) - zjxfz5o7t4ty4u3f6fa7mhhqzjln4mui.example. 3600 IN RRSIG NSEC3 ( - 5 2 3600 20050712112304 - 20050612112304 62699 example. - eULkdWjcjmM+wXQcr7zXNfnGLgHjZSJINGkt - 7Zmvp7WKVAqoHMm1RXV8IfBH1aRgv5+/Lgny - OcFlrPGPMm48/A== ) - ;; Additional - ai.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.9 - ai.example. 3600 IN RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - plY5M26ED3Owe3YX0pBIhgg44j89NxUaoBrU - 6bLRr99HpKfFl1sIy18JiRS7evlxCETZgubq - ZXW5S+1VjMZYzQ== ) - ai.example. 3600 AAAA 2001:db8::f00:baa9 - ai.example. 3600 IN RRSIG AAAA 5 2 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - PNF/t7+DeosEjhfuL0kmsNJvn16qhYyLI9FV - ypSCorFx/PKIlEL3syomkYM2zcXVSRwUXMns - l5/UqLCJJ9BDMg== ) - - The query returned an answer that was produced as a result of - wildcard expansion. The answer section contains a wildcard RRset - expanded as it would be in a traditional DNS response, and the - corresponding RRSIG indicates that the expanded wildcard MX RRset was - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 37] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - signed by an "example" DNSKEY with algorithm 5 and key tag 62699. - The RRSIG indicates that the original TTL of the MX RRset was 3600, - and, for the purpose of authentication, the current TTL is replaced - by 3600. The RRSIG labels field value of 2 indicates that the answer - is the result of wildcard expansion, as the "a.z.w.example" name - contains 4 labels. The name "a.z.w.example" is replaced by - "*.w.example", the MX RRset is placed in canonical form, and, - assuming that the current time falls between the signature inception - and expiration dates, the signature is authenticated. - - The NSEC3 proves that no closer match (exact or closer wildcard) - could have been used to answer this query, and the NSEC3 RR must also - be authenticated before the answer is considered valid. - -B.7. Wildcard No Data Error - - A "no data" response for a name covered by a wildcard. The NSEC3 RRs - prove that the matching wildcard name does not have any RRs of the - requested type and that no closer match exists in the zone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 38] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - a.z.w.example. IN AAAA - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 IN RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - RtctD6aLUU5Md5wOOItilS7JXX1tf58Ql3sK - mTXkL13jqLiUFOGg0uzqRh1U9GbydS0P7M0g - qYIt90txzE/4+g== ) - zjxfz5o7t4ty4u3f6fa7mhhqzjln4mui.example. 3600 IN NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - 5pe7ctl7pfs2cilroy5dcofx4rcnlypd - MX NSEC3 RRSIG ) - zjxfz5o7t4ty4u3f6fa7mhhqzjln4mui.example. 3600 IN RRSIG NSEC3 ( - 5 2 3600 20050712112304 - 20050612112304 62699 example. - eULkdWjcjmM+wXQcr7zXNfnGLgHjZSJINGkt - 7Zmvp7WKVAqoHMm1RXV8IfBH1aRgv5+/Lgny - OcFlrPGPMm48/A== ) - ;; Additional - ;; (empty) - - The query returned NSEC3 RRs that prove that the requested data does - not exist and no wildcard applies. The negative reply is - authenticated by verifying both NSEC3 RRs. - -B.8. DS Child Zone No Data Error - - A "no data" response for a QTYPE=DS query that was mistakenly sent to - a name server for the child zone. - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 39] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - example. IN DS - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 IN RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20050712112304 ( - 20050612112304 62699 example. - RtctD6aLUU5Md5wOOItilS7JXX1tf58Ql3sK - mTXkL13jqLiUFOGg0uzqRh1U9GbydS0P7M0g - qYIt90txzE/4+g== ) - dw4o7j64wnel3j4jh7fb3c5n7w3js2yb.example. 3600 IN NSEC3 0 1 1 ( - deadbeaf - gmnfcccja7wkax3iv26bs75myptje3qk - MX DNSKEY NS SOA NSEC3 RRSIG ) - dw4o7j64wnel3j4jh7fb3c5n7w3js2yb.example. 3600 IN RRSIG NSEC3 ( - 5 2 3600 20050712112304 - 20050612112304 62699 example. - VqEbXiZLJVYmo25fmO3IuHkAX155y8NuA50D - C0NmJV/D4R3rLm6tsL6HB3a3f6IBw6kKEa2R - MOiKMSHozVebqw== ) - - ;; Additional - ;; (empty) - - The query returned NSEC RRs that shows the requested was answered by - a child server ("example" server). The NSEC RR indicates the - presence of an SOA RR, showing that the answer is from the child . - Queries for the "example" DS RRset should be sent to the parent - servers ("root" servers). - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 40] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Ben Laurie - Nominet - 17 Perryn Road - London W3 7LR - England - - Phone: +44 (20) 8735 0686 - Email: ben@algroup.co.uk - - - Geoffrey Sisson - Nominet - - - Roy Arends - Nominet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 41] - -Internet-Draft nsec3 February 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Laurie, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 42] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-01.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 90d1a0609d4..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-01.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,840 +0,0 @@ - - - -Network Working Group R. Austein -Internet-Draft ISC -Expires: July 15, 2006 January 11, 2006 - - - DNS Name Server Identifier Option (NSID) - draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-01 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - With the increased use of DNS anycast, load balancing, and other - mechanisms allowing more than one DNS name server to share a single - IP address, it is sometimes difficult to tell which of a pool of name - servers has answered a particular query. While existing ad-hoc - mechanism allow an operator to send follow-up queries when it is - necessary to debug such a configuration, the only completely reliable - way to obtain the identity of the name server which responded is to - have the name server include this information in the response itself. - This note defines a protocol extension to support this functionality. - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.1. Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1. Resolver Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.2. Name Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.3. The NSID Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.4. Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1. The NSID Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.2. NSID Is Not Transitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.3. User Interface Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.4. Truncation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -1. Introduction - - With the increased use of DNS anycast, load balancing, and other - mechanisms allowing more than one DNS name server to share a single - IP address, it is sometimes difficult to tell which of a pool of name - servers has answered a particular query. - - Existing ad-hoc mechanisms allow an operator to send follow-up - queries when it is necessary to debug such a configuration, but there - are situations in which this is not a totally satisfactory solution, - since anycast routing may have changed, or the server pool in - question may be behind some kind of extremely dynamic load balancing - hardware. Thus, while these ad-hoc mechanisms are certainly better - than nothing (and have the advantage of already being deployed), a - better solution seems desirable. - - Given that a DNS query is an idempotent operation with no retained - state, it would appear that the only completely reliable way to - obtain the identity of the name server which responded to a - particular query is to have that name server include identifying - information in the response itself. This note defines a protocol - enhancement to achieve this. - -1.1. Reserved Words - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -2. Protocol - - This note uses an EDNS [RFC2671] option to signal the resolver's - desire for information identifying the name server and to hold the - name server's response, if any. - -2.1. Resolver Behavior - - A resolver signals its desire for information identifying a name - server by sending an empty NSID option (Section 2.3) in an EDNS OPT - pseudo-RR in the query message. - - The resolver MUST NOT include any NSID payload data in the query - message. - - The semantics of an NSID request are not transitive. That is: the - presence of an NSID option in a query is a request that the name - server which receives the query identify itself. If the name server - side of a recursive name server receives an NSID request, the client - is asking the recursive name server to identify itself; if the - resolver side of the recursive name server wishes to receive - identifying information, it is free to add NSID requests in its own - queries, but that is a separate matter. - -2.2. Name Server Behavior - - A name server which understands the NSID option and chooses to honor - a particular NSID request responds by including identifying - information in a NSID option (Section 2.3) in an EDNS OPT pseudo-RR - in the response message. - - The name server MUST ignore any NSID payload data that might be - present in the query message. - - The NSID option is not transitive. A name server MUST NOT send an - NSID option back to a resolver which did not request it. In - particular, while a recursive name server may choose to add an NSID - option when sending a query, this has no effect on the presence or - absence of the NSID option in the recursive name server's response to - the original client. - - As stated in Section 2.1, this mechanism is not restricted to - authoritative name servers; the semantics are intended to be equally - applicable to recursive name servers. - -2.3. The NSID Option - - The OPTION-CODE for the NSID option is [TBD]. - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - - The OPTION-DATA for the NSID option is an opaque byte string the - semantics of which are deliberately left outside the protocol. See - Section 3.1 for discussion. - -2.4. Presentation Format - - User interfaces MUST read and write the content of the NSID option as - a sequence of hexadecimal digits, two digits per payload octet. - - The NSID payload is binary data. Any comparison between NSID - payloads MUST be a comparison of the raw binary data. Copy - operations MUST NOT assume that the raw NSID payload is null- - terminated. Any resemblance between raw NSID payload data and any - form of text is purely a convenience, and does not change the - underlying nature of the payload data. - - See Section 3.3 for discussion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -3. Discussion - - This section discusses certain aspects of the protocol and explains - considerations that led to the chosen design. - -3.1. The NSID Payload - - The syntax and semantics of the content of the NSID option is - deliberately left outside the scope of this specification. This - section describe some of the kinds of data that server administrators - might choose to provide as the content of the NSID option, and - explains the reasoning behind choosing a simple opaque byte string. - - There are several possibilities for the payload of the NSID option: - - o It could be the "real" name of the specific name server within the - name server pool. - - o It could be the "real" IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) of the name - server within the name server pool. - - o It could be some sort of pseudo-random number generated in a - predictable fashion somehow using the server's IP address or name - as a seed value. - - o It could be some sort of probabilisticly unique identifier - initially derived from some sort of random number generator then - preserved across reboots of the name server. - - o It could be some sort of dynamicly generated identifier so that - only the name server operator could tell whether or not any two - queries had been answered by the same server. - - o It could be a blob of signed data, with a corresponding key which - might (or might not) be available via DNS lookups. - - o It could be a blob of encrypted data, the key for which could be - restricted to parties with a need to know (in the opinion of the - server operator). - - o It could be an arbitrary string of octets chosen at the discretion - of the name server operator. - - Each of these options has advantages and disadvantages: - - o Using the "real" name is simple, but the name server may not have - a "real" name. - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - - o Using the "real" address is also simple, and the name server - almost certainly does have at least one non-anycast IP address for - maintenance operations, but the operator of the name server may - not be willing to divulge its non-anycast address. - - o Given that one common reason for using anycast DNS techniques is - an attempt to harden a critical name server against denial of - service attacks, some name server operators are likely to want an - identifier other than the "real" name or "real" address of the - name server instance. - - o Using a hash or pseudo-random number can provide a fixed length - value that the resolver can use to tell two name servers apart - without necessarily being able to tell where either one of them - "really" is, but makes debugging more difficult if one happens to - be in a friendly open environment. Furthermore, hashing might not - add much value, since a hash based on an IPv4 address still only - involves a 32-bit search space, and DNS names used for servers - that operators might have to debug at 4am tend not to be very - random. - - o Probabilisticly unique identifiers have similar properties to - hashed identifiers, but (given a sufficiently good random number - generator) are immune to the search space issues. However, the - strength of this approach is also its weakness: there is no - algorithmic transformation by which even the server operator can - associate name server instances with identifiers while debugging, - which might be annoying. This approach also requires the name - server instance to preserve the probabilisticly unique identifier - across reboots, but this does not appear to be a serious - restriction, since authoritative nameservers almost always have - some form of nonvolatile storage in any case, and in the rare case - of a name server that does not have any way to store such an - identifier, nothing terrible will happen if the name server just - generates a new identifier every time it reboots. - - o Using an arbitrary octet string gives name server operators yet - another thing to configure, or mis-configure, or forget to - configure. Having all the nodes in an anycast name server - constellation identify themselves as "My Name Server" would not be - particularly useful. - - Given all of the issues listed above, there does not appear to be a - single solution that will meet all needs. Section 2.3 therefore - defines the NSID payload to be an opaque byte string and leaves the - choice up to the implementor and name server operator. The following - guidelines may be useful to implementors and server operators: - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - - o Operators for whom divulging the unicast address is an issue could - use the raw binary representation of a probabilisticly unique - random number. This should probably be the default implementation - behavior. - - o Operators for whom divulging the unicast address is not an issue - could just use the raw binary representation of a unicast address - for simplicity. This should only be done via an explicit - configuration choice by the operator. - - o Operators who really need or want the ability to set the NSID - payload to an arbitrary value could do so, but this should only be - done via an explicit configuration choice by the operator. - - This approach appears to provide enough information for useful - debugging without unintentionally leaking the maintenance addresses - of anycast name servers to nogoodniks, while also allowing name - server operators who do not find such leakage threatening to provide - more information at their own discretion. - -3.2. NSID Is Not Transitive - - As specified in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, the NSID option is not - transitive. This is strictly a hop-by-hop mechanism. - - Most of the discussion of name server identification to date has - focused on identifying authoritative name servers, since the best - known cases of anycast name servers are a subset of the name servers - for the root zone. However, given that anycast DNS techniques are - also applicable to recursive name servers, the mechanism may also be - useful with recursive name servers. The hop-by-hop semantics support - this. - - While there might be some utility in having a transitive variant of - this mechanism (so that, for example, a stub resolver could ask a - recursive server to tell it which authoritative name server provided - a particular answer to the recursive name server), the semantics of - such a variant would be more complicated, and are left for future - work. - -3.3. User Interface Issues - - Given the range of possible payload contents described in - Section 3.1, it is not possible to define a single presentation - format for the NSID payload that is efficient, convenient, - unambiguous, and aesthetically pleasing. In particular, while it is - tempting to use a presentation format that uses some form of textual - strings, attempting to support this would significantly complicate - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - - what's intended to be a very simple debugging mechanism. - - In some cases the content of the NSID payload may be binary data - meaningful only to the name server operator, and may not be - meaningful to the user or application, but the user or application - must be able to capture the entire content anyway in order for it to - be useful. Thus, the presentation format must support arbitrary - binary data. - - In cases where the name server operator derives the NSID payload from - textual data, a textual form such as US-ASCII or UTF-8 strings might - at first glance seem easier for a user to deal with. There are, - however, a number of complex issues involving internationalized text - which, if fully addressed here, would require a set of rules - significantly longer than the rest of this specification. See - [RFC2277] for an overview of some of these issues. - - It is much more important for the NSID payload data to be passed - unambiguously from server administrator to user and back again than - it is for the payload data data to be pretty while in transit. In - particular, it's critical that it be straightforward for a user to - cut and paste an exact copy of the NSID payload output by a debugging - tool into other formats such as email messages or web forms without - distortion. Hexadecimal strings, while ugly, are also robust. - -3.4. Truncation - - In some cases, adding the NSID option to a response message may - trigger message truncation. This specification does not change the - rules for DNS message truncation in any way, but implementors will - need to pay attention to this issue. - - Including the NSID option in a response is always optional, so this - specification never requires name servers to truncate response - messages. - - By definition, a resolver that requests NSID responses also supports - EDNS, so a resolver that requests NSID responses can also use the - "sender's UDP payload size" field of the OPT pseudo-RR to signal a - receive buffer size large enough to make truncation unlikely. - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -4. IANA Considerations - - This mechanism requires allocation of one ENDS option code for the - NSID option (Section 2.3). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -5. Security Considerations - - This document describes a channel signaling mechanism, intended - primarily for debugging. Channel signaling mechanisms are outside - the scope of DNSSEC per se. Applications that require integrity - protection for the data being signaled will need to use a channel - security mechanism such as TSIG [RFC2845]. - - Section 3.1 discusses a number of different kinds of information that - a name server operator might choose to provide as the value of the - NSID option. Some of these kinds of information are security - sensitive in some environments. This specification deliberately - leaves the syntax and semantics of the NSID option content up to the - implementation and the name server operator. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -6. Acknowledgements - - Joe Abley, Harald Alvestrand, Mark Andrews, Roy Arends, Steve - Bellovin, Randy Bush, David Conrad, Johan Ihren, Daniel Karrenberg, - Peter Koch, Mike Patton, Mike StJohns, Paul Vixie, Sam Weiler, and - Suzanne Woolf. Apologies to anyone inadvertently omitted from the - above list. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -7. References - -7.1. Normative References - - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. - - [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", - RFC 2671, August 1999. - - [RFC2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B. - Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS - (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000. - -7.2. Informative References - - [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and - Languages", RFC 2277, BCP 18, January 1998. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -Author's Address - - Rob Austein - ISC - 950 Charter Street - Redwood City, CA 94063 - USA - - Email: sra@isc.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft DNS NSID January 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Austein Expires July 15, 2006 [Page 15] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 5b6d655297e..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,464 +0,0 @@ - -INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS -OBSOLETES: RFC 2536 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd - Motorola Laboratories -Expires: January 2006 July 2005 - - - DSA Keying and Signature Information in the DNS - --- ------ --- --------- ----------- -- --- --- - - Donald E. Eastlake 3rd - - -Status of This Document - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent - to the DNS extensions working group mailing list - . - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than a "work in progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - - -Abstract - - The standard method of encoding US Government Digital Signature - Algorithm keying and signature information for use in the Domain Name - System is specified. - - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2005. All Rights Reserved. - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS - - -Table of Contents - - Status of This Document....................................1 - Abstract...................................................1 - Copyright Notice...........................................1 - - Table of Contents..........................................2 - - 1. Introduction............................................3 - 2. DSA Keying Information..................................3 - 3. DSA Signature Information...............................4 - 4. Performance Considerations..............................4 - 5. Security Considerations.................................5 - 6. IANA Considerations.....................................5 - Copyright and Disclaimer...................................5 - - Normative References.......................................7 - Informative References.....................................7 - - Authors Address............................................8 - Expiration and File Name...................................8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS - - -1. Introduction - - The Domain Name System (DNS) is the global hierarchical replicated - distributed database system for Internet addressing, mail proxy, and - other information [RFC 1034, 1035]. The DNS has been extended to - include digital signatures and cryptographic keys as described in - [RFC 4033, 4034, 4035] and additional work is underway which would - require the storage of keying and signature information in the DNS. - - This document describes how to encode US Government Digital Signature - Algorithm (DSA) keys and signatures in the DNS. Familiarity with the - US Digital Signature Algorithm is assumed [FIPS 186-2, Schneier]. - - - -2. DSA Keying Information - - When DSA public keys are stored in the DNS, the structure of the - relevant part of the RDATA part of the RR being used is the fields - listed below in the order given. - - The period of key validity is not included in this data but is - indicated separately, for example by an RR such as RRSIG which signs - and authenticates the RR containing the keying information. - - Field Size - ----- ---- - T 1 octet - Q 20 octets - P 64 + T*8 octets - G 64 + T*8 octets - Y 64 + T*8 octets - - As described in [FIPS 186-2] and [Schneier], T is a key size - parameter chosen such that 0 <= T <= 8. (The meaning if the T octet - is greater than 8 is reserved and the remainder of the data may have - a different format in that case.) Q is a prime number selected at - key generation time such that 2**159 < Q < 2**160. Thus Q is always - 20 octets long and, as with all other fields, is stored in "big- - endian" network order. P, G, and Y are calculated as directed by the - [FIPS 186-2] key generation algorithm [Schneier]. P is in the range - 2**(511+64T) < P < 2**(512+64T) and thus is 64 + 8*T octets long. G - and Y are quantities modulo P and so can be up to the same length as - P and are allocated fixed size fields with the same number of octets - as P. - - During the key generation process, a random number X must be - generated such that 1 <= X <= Q-1. X is the private key and is used - in the final step of public key generation where Y is computed as - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 3] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS - - - Y = G**X mod P - - - -3. DSA Signature Information - - The portion of the RDATA area used for US Digital Signature Algorithm - signature information is shown below with fields in the order they - are listed and the contents of each multi-octet field in "big-endian" - network order. - - Field Size - ----- ---- - T 1 octet - R 20 octets - S 20 octets - - First, the data signed must be determined. Then the following steps - are taken, as specified in [FIPS 186-2], where Q, P, G, and Y are as - specified in the public key [Schneier]: - - hash = SHA-1 ( data ) - - Generate a random K such that 0 < K < Q. - - R = ( G**K mod P ) mod Q - - S = ( K**(-1) * (hash + X*R) ) mod Q - - For information on the SHA-1 hash function see [FIPS 180-2] and [RFC - 3174]. - - Since Q is 160 bits long, R and S can not be larger than 20 octets, - which is the space allocated. - - T is copied from the public key. It is not logically necessary in - the SIG but is present so that values of T > 8 can more conveniently - be used as an escape for extended versions of DSA or other algorithms - as later standardized. - - - -4. Performance Considerations - - General signature generation speeds are roughly the same for RSA [RFC - 3110] and DSA. With sufficient pre-computation, signature generation - with DSA is faster than RSA. Key generation is also faster for DSA. - However, signature verification is an order of magnitude slower than - RSA when the RSA public exponent is chosen to be small, as is - recommended for some applications. - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 4] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS - - - Current DNS implementations are optimized for small transfers, - typically less than 512 bytes including DNS overhead. Larger - transfers will perform correctly and extensions have been - standardized [RFC 2671] to make larger transfers more efficient, it - is still advisable at this time to make reasonable efforts to - minimize the size of RR sets containing keying and/or signature - inforamtion consistent with adequate security. - - - -5. Security Considerations - - Keys retrieved from the DNS should not be trusted unless (1) they - have been securely obtained from a secure resolver or independently - verified by the user and (2) this secure resolver and secure - obtainment or independent verification conform to security policies - acceptable to the user. As with all cryptographic algorithms, - evaluating the necessary strength of the key is essential and - dependent on local policy. - - The key size limitation of a maximum of 1024 bits ( T = 8 ) in the - current DSA standard may limit the security of DSA. For particular - applications, implementors are encouraged to consider the range of - available algorithms and key sizes. - - DSA assumes the ability to frequently generate high quality random - numbers. See [random] for guidance. DSA is designed so that if - biased rather than random numbers are used, high bandwidth covert - channels are possible. See [Schneier] and more recent research. The - leakage of an entire DSA private key in only two DSA signatures has - been demonstrated. DSA provides security only if trusted - implementations, including trusted random number generation, are - used. - - - -6. IANA Considerations - - Allocation of meaning to values of the T parameter that are not - defined herein (i.e., > 8 ) requires an IETF standards actions. It - is intended that values unallocated herein be used to cover future - extensions of the DSS standard. - - - -Copyright and Disclaimer - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to - the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except - as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS - - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS - - -Normative References - - [FIPS 186-2] - U.S. Federal Information Processing Standard: Digital - Signature Standard, 27 January 2000. - - [RFC 4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - - -Informative References - - [RFC 1034] - "Domain names - concepts and facilities", P. - Mockapetris, 11/01/1987. - - [RFC 1035] - "Domain names - implementation and specification", P. - Mockapetris, 11/01/1987. - - [RFC 2671] - "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", P. Vixie, August - 1999. - - [RFC 3110] - "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System - (DNS)", D. Eastlake 3rd. May 2001. - - [RFC 3174] - "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA1)", D. Eastlake, P. - Jones, September 2001. - - [RFC 4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March - 2005. - - [RFC 4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC - 4035, March 2005. - - [RFC 4086] - Eastlake, D., 3rd, Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, - "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005. - - [Schneier] - "Applied Cryptography Second Edition: protocols, - algorithms, and source code in C" (second edition), Bruce Schneier, - 1996, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0-471-11709-9. - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 7] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS - - -Authors Address - - Donald E. Eastlake 3rd - Motorola Labortories - 155 Beaver Street - Milford, MA 01757 USA - - Telephone: +1-508-786-7554(w) - EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com - - - -Expiration and File Name - - This draft expires in January 2006. - - Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-04.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-04.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2ec9dbec512..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-04.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,840 +0,0 @@ - - - -Network Working Group S. Josefsson -Internet-Draft August 30, 2005 -Expires: March 3, 2006 - - - Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS) - draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-04 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 3, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - Cryptographic public keys are frequently published and their - authenticity demonstrated by certificates. A CERT resource record - (RR) is defined so that such certificates and related certificate - revocation lists can be stored in the Domain Name System (DNS). - - This document obsoletes RFC 2538. - - - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. The CERT Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2.1. Certificate Type Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.2. Text Representation of CERT RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.3. X.509 OIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3. Appropriate Owner Names for CERT RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1. Content-based X.509 CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.2. Purpose-based X.509 CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.3. Content-based OpenPGP CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.4. Purpose-based OpenPGP CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.5. Owner names for IPKIX, ISPKI, and IPGP . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 9. Changes since RFC 2538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Appendix A. Copying conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - -1. Introduction - - Public keys are frequently published in the form of a certificate and - their authenticity is commonly demonstrated by certificates and - related certificate revocation lists (CRLs). A certificate is a - binding, through a cryptographic digital signature, of a public key, - a validity interval and/or conditions, and identity, authorization, - or other information. A certificate revocation list is a list of - certificates that are revoked, and incidental information, all signed - by the signer (issuer) of the revoked certificates. Examples are - X.509 certificates/CRLs in the X.500 directory system or OpenPGP - certificates/revocations used by OpenPGP software. - - Section 2 below specifies a CERT resource record (RR) for the storage - of certificates in the Domain Name System [1] [2]. - - Section 3 discusses appropriate owner names for CERT RRs. - - Sections 4, 5, and 6 below cover performance, IANA, and security - considerations, respectively. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in [3]. - - -2. The CERT Resource Record - - The CERT resource record (RR) has the structure given below. Its RR - type code is 37. - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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 | key tag | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | algorithm | / - +---------------+ certificate or CRL / - / / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| - - The type field is the certificate type as defined in section 2.1 - below. - - The key tag field is the 16 bit value computed for the key embedded - in the certificate, using the RRSIG Key Tag algorithm described in - Appendix B of [10]. This field is used as an efficiency measure to - pick which CERT RRs may be applicable to a particular key. The key - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - - tag can be calculated for the key in question and then only CERT RRs - with the same key tag need be examined. However, the key must always - be transformed to the format it would have as the public key portion - of a DNSKEY RR before the key tag is computed. This is only possible - if the key is applicable to an algorithm (and limits such as key size - limits) defined for DNS security. If it is not, the algorithm field - MUST BE zero and the tag field is meaningless and SHOULD BE zero. - - The algorithm field has the same meaning as the algorithm field in - DNSKEY and RRSIG RRs [10], except that a zero algorithm field - indicates the algorithm is unknown to a secure DNS, which may simply - be the result of the algorithm not having been standardized for - DNSSEC. - -2.1. Certificate Type Values - - The following values are defined or reserved: - - Value Mnemonic Certificate Type - ----- -------- ---------------- - 0 reserved - 1 PKIX X.509 as per PKIX - 2 SPKI SPKI certificate - 3 PGP OpenPGP packet - 4 IPKIX The URL of an X.509 data object - 5 ISPKI The URL of an SPKI certificate - 6 IPGP The URL of an OpenPGP packet - 7-252 available for IANA assignment - 253 URI URI private - 254 OID OID private - 255-65534 available for IANA assignment - 65535 reserved - - The PKIX type is reserved to indicate an X.509 certificate conforming - to the profile being defined by the IETF PKIX working group. The - certificate section will start with a one-byte unsigned OID length - and then an X.500 OID indicating the nature of the remainder of the - certificate section (see 2.3 below). (NOTE: X.509 certificates do - not include their X.500 directory type designating OID as a prefix.) - - The SPKI type is reserved to indicate the SPKI certificate format - [13], for use when the SPKI documents are moved from experimental - status. - - The PGP type indicates an OpenPGP packet as described in [6] and its - extensions and successors. Two uses are to transfer public key - material and revocation signatures. The data is binary, and MUST NOT - be encoded into an ASCII armor. An implementation SHOULD process - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - - transferable public keys as described in section 10.1 of [6], but it - MAY handle additional OpenPGP packets. - - The IPKIX, ISPKI and IPGP types indicate a URL which will serve the - content that would have been in the "certificate, CRL or URL" field - of the corresponding (PKIX, SPKI or PGP) packet types. These types - are known as "indirect". These packet types MUST be used when the - content is too large to fit in the CERT RR, and MAY be used at the - implementer's discretion. They SHOULD NOT be used where the entire - UDP packet would have fit in 512 bytes. - - The URI private type indicates a certificate format defined by an - absolute URI. The certificate portion of the CERT RR MUST begin with - a null terminated URI [5] and the data after the null is the private - format certificate itself. The URI SHOULD be such that a retrieval - from it will lead to documentation on the format of the certificate. - Recognition of private certificate types need not be based on URI - equality but can use various forms of pattern matching so that, for - example, subtype or version information can also be encoded into the - URI. - - The OID private type indicates a private format certificate specified - by an ISO OID prefix. The certificate section will start with a one- - byte unsigned OID length and then a BER encoded OID indicating the - nature of the remainder of the certificate section. This can be an - X.509 certificate format or some other format. X.509 certificates - that conform to the IETF PKIX profile SHOULD be indicated by the PKIX - type, not the OID private type. Recognition of private certificate - types need not be based on OID equality but can use various forms of - pattern matching such as OID prefix. - -2.2. Text Representation of CERT RRs - - The RDATA portion of a CERT RR has the type field as an unsigned - decimal integer or as a mnemonic symbol as listed in section 2.1 - above. - - The key tag field is represented as an unsigned decimal integer. - - The algorithm field is represented as an unsigned decimal integer or - a mnemonic symbol as listed in [10]. - - The certificate / CRL portion is represented in base 64 [14] and may - be divided up into any number of white space separated substrings, - down to single base 64 digits, which are concatenated to obtain the - full signature. These substrings can span lines using the standard - parenthesis. - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - - Note that the certificate / CRL portion may have internal sub-fields, - but these do not appear in the master file representation. For - example, with type 254, there will be an OID size, an OID, and then - the certificate / CRL proper. But only a single logical base 64 - string will appear in the text representation. - -2.3. X.509 OIDs - - OIDs have been defined in connection with the X.500 directory for - user certificates, certification authority certificates, revocations - of certification authority, and revocations of user certificates. - The following table lists the OIDs, their BER encoding, and their - length-prefixed hex format for use in CERT RRs: - - id-at-userCertificate - = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 36 } - == 0x 03 55 04 24 - id-at-cACertificate - = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 37 } - == 0x 03 55 04 25 - id-at-authorityRevocationList - = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 38 } - == 0x 03 55 04 26 - id-at-certificateRevocationList - = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 39 } - == 0x 03 55 04 27 - - -3. Appropriate Owner Names for CERT RRs - - It is recommended that certificate CERT RRs be stored under a domain - name related to their subject, i.e., the name of the entity intended - to control the private key corresponding to the public key being - certified. It is recommended that certificate revocation list CERT - RRs be stored under a domain name related to their issuer. - - Following some of the guidelines below may result in the use in DNS - names of characters that require DNS quoting which is to use a - backslash followed by the octal representation of the ASCII code for - the character (e.g., \000 for NULL). - - The choice of name under which CERT RRs are stored is important to - clients that perform CERT queries. In some situations, the clients - may not know all information about the CERT RR object it wishes to - retrieve. For example, a client may not know the subject name of an - X.509 certificate, or the e-mail address of the owner of an OpenPGP - key. Further, the client might only know the hostname of a service - that uses X.509 certificates or the Key ID of an OpenPGP key. - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - - Therefore, two owner name guidelines are defined: content-based owner - names and purpose-based owner names. A content-based owner name is - derived from the content of the CERT RR data; for example, the - Subject field in an X.509 certificate or the User ID field in OpenPGP - keys. A purpose-based owner name is a name that a client retrieving - CERT RRs MUST already know; for example, the host name of an X.509 - protected service or the Key ID of an OpenPGP key. The content-based - and purpose-based owner name MAY be the same; for example, when a - client looks up a key based on the From: address of an incoming - e-mail. - - Implementations SHOULD use the purpose-based owner name guidelines - described in this document, and MAY use CNAMEs of content-based owner - names (or other names), pointing to the purpose-based owner name. - -3.1. Content-based X.509 CERT RR Names - - Some X.509 versions permit multiple names to be associated with - subjects and issuers under "Subject Alternate Name" and "Issuer - Alternate Name". For example, X.509v3 has such Alternate Names with - an ASN.1 specification as follows: - - GeneralName ::= CHOICE { - otherName [0] INSTANCE OF OTHER-NAME, - rfc822Name [1] IA5String, - dNSName [2] IA5String, - x400Address [3] EXPLICIT OR-ADDRESS.&Type, - directoryName [4] EXPLICIT Name, - ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName, - uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String, - iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING, - registeredID [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER - } - - The recommended locations of CERT storage are as follows, in priority - order: - 1. If a domain name is included in the identification in the - certificate or CRL, that should be used. - 2. If a domain name is not included but an IP address is included, - then the translation of that IP address into the appropriate - inverse domain name should be used. - 3. If neither of the above is used, but a URI containing a domain - name is present, that domain name should be used. - 4. If none of the above is included but a character string name is - included, then it should be treated as described for OpenPGP - names below. - - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - - 5. If none of the above apply, then the distinguished name (DN) - should be mapped into a domain name as specified in [4]. - - Example 1: An X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=John Doe /DC=Doe/ - DC=com/DC=xy/O=Doe Inc/C=XY/ with Subject Alternative Names of (a) - string "John (the Man) Doe", (b) domain name john-doe.com, and (c) - uri . The storage locations - recommended, in priority order, would be - 1. john-doe.com, - 2. www.secure.john-doe.com, and - 3. Doe.com.xy. - - Example 2: An X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=James Hacker/ - L=Basingstoke/O=Widget Inc/C=GB/ with Subject Alternate names of (a) - domain name widget.foo.example, (b) IPv4 address 10.251.13.201, and - (c) string "James Hacker ". The - storage locations recommended, in priority order, would be - 1. widget.foo.example, - 2. 201.13.251.10.in-addr.arpa, and - 3. hacker.mail.widget.foo.example. - -3.2. Purpose-based X.509 CERT RR Names - - Due to the difficulty for clients that do not already possess a - certificate to reconstruct the content-based owner name, purpose- - based owner names are recommended in this section. Recommendations - for purpose-based owner names vary per scenario. The following table - summarizes the purpose-based X.509 CERT RR owner name guidelines for - use with S/MIME [16], SSL/TLS [11], and IPSEC [12]: - - Scenario Owner name - ------------------ ---------------------------------------------- - S/MIME Certificate Standard translation of an RFC 2822 email - address. Example: An S/MIME certificate for - "postmaster@example.org" will use a standard - hostname translation of the owner name, - "postmaster.example.org". - - TLS Certificate Hostname of the TLS server. - - IPSEC Certificate Hostname of the IPSEC machine and/or, for IPv4 - or IPv6 addresses, the fully qualified domain - name in the appropriate reverse domain. - - An alternate approach for IPSEC is to store raw public keys [15]. - - - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - -3.3. Content-based OpenPGP CERT RR Names - - OpenPGP signed keys (certificates) use a general character string - User ID [6]. However, it is recommended by OpenPGP that such names - include the RFC 2822 [8] email address of the party, as in "Leslie - Example ". If such a format is used, the CERT - should be under the standard translation of the email address into a - domain name, which would be leslie.host.example in this case. If no - RFC 2822 name can be extracted from the string name, no specific - domain name is recommended. - - If a user has more than one email address, the CNAME type can be used - to reduce the amount of data stored in the DNS. Example: - - $ORIGIN example.org. - smith IN CERT PGP 0 0 - john.smith IN CNAME smith - js IN CNAME smith - -3.4. Purpose-based OpenPGP CERT RR Names - - Applications that receive an OpenPGP packet containing encrypted or - signed data but do not know the email address of the sender will have - difficulties constructing the correct owner name and cannot use the - content-based owner name guidelines. However, these clients commonly - know the key fingerprint or the Key ID. The key ID is found in - OpenPGP packets, and the key fingerprint is commonly found in - auxilliary data that may be available. In this case, use of an owner - name identical to the key fingerprint and the key ID expressed in - hexadecimal [14] is recommended. Example: - - $ORIGIN example.org. - 0424D4EE81A0E3D119C6F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... - F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... - B565716F IN CERT PGP ... - - If the same key material is stored for several owner names, the use - of CNAME may be used to avoid data duplication. Note that CNAME is - not always applicable, because it maps one owner name to the other - for all purposes, which may be sub-optimal when two keys with the - same Key ID are stored. - -3.5. Owner names for IPKIX, ISPKI, and IPGP - - These types are stored under the same owner names, both purpose- and - content-based, as the PKIX, SPKI and PGP types. - - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - -4. Performance Considerations - - Current Domain Name System (DNS) implementations are optimized for - small transfers, typically not more than 512 bytes including - overhead. While larger transfers will perform correctly and work is - underway to make larger transfers more efficient, it is still - advisable at this time to make every reasonable effort to minimize - the size of certificates stored within the DNS. Steps that can be - taken may include using the fewest possible optional or extension - fields and using short field values for necessary variable length - fields. - - The RDATA field in the DNS protocol may only hold data of size 65535 - octets (64kb) or less. This means that each CERT RR MUST NOT contain - more than 64kb of payload, even if the corresponding certificate or - certificate revocation list is larger. This document addresses this - by defining "indirect" data types for each normal type. - - -5. Contributors - - The majority of this document is copied verbatim from RFC 2538, by - Donald Eastlake 3rd and Olafur Gudmundsson. - - -6. Acknowledgements - - Thanks to David Shaw and Michael Graff for their contributions to - earlier works that motivated, and served as inspiration for, this - document. - - This document was improved by suggestions and comments from Olivier - Dubuisson, Olaf M. Kolkman, Ben Laurie, Edward Lewis, Jason - Sloderbeck, Samuel Weiler, and Florian Weimer. No doubt the list is - incomplete. We apologize to anyone we left out. - - -7. Security Considerations - - By definition, certificates contain their own authenticating - signature. Thus, it is reasonable to store certificates in non- - secure DNS zones or to retrieve certificates from DNS with DNS - security checking not implemented or deferred for efficiency. The - results MAY be trusted if the certificate chain is verified back to a - known trusted key and this conforms with the user's security policy. - - Alternatively, if certificates are retrieved from a secure DNS zone - with DNS security checking enabled and are verified by DNS security, - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - - the key within the retrieved certificate MAY be trusted without - verifying the certificate chain if this conforms with the user's - security policy. - - If an organization chooses to issue certificates for it's employees, - placing CERT RR's in the DNS by owner name, and if DNSSEC (with NSEC) - is in use, it is possible for someone to enumerate all employees of - the organization. This is usually not considered desirable, for the - same reason enterprise phone listings are not often publicly - published and are even mark confidential. - - When the URI type is used, it should be understood that it introduces - an additional indirection that may allow for a new attack vector. - One method to secure that indirection is to include a hash of the - certificate in the URI itself. - - CERT RRs are not used by DNSSEC [9], so there are no security - considerations related to CERT RRs and securing the DNS itself. - - If DNSSEC is used, then the non-existence of a CERT RR and, - consequently, certificates or revocation lists can be securely - asserted. Without DNSSEC, this is not possible. - - -8. IANA Considerations - - Certificate types 0x0000 through 0x00FF and 0xFF00 through 0xFFFF can - only be assigned by an IETF standards action [7]. This document - assigns 0x0001 through 0x0006 and 0x00FD and 0x00FE. Certificate - types 0x0100 through 0xFEFF are assigned through IETF Consensus [7] - based on RFC documentation of the certificate type. The availability - of private types under 0x00FD and 0x00FE should satisfy most - requirements for proprietary or private types. - - The CERT RR reuses the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers registry. In - particular, the CERT RR requires that algorithm number 0 remain - reserved, as described in Section 2. The IANA is directed to - reference the CERT RR as a user of this registry and value 0, in - particular. - - -9. Changes since RFC 2538 - - 1. Editorial changes to conform with new document requirements, - including splitting reference section into two parts and - updating the references to point at latest versions, and to add - some additional references. - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - - 2. Improve terminology. For example replace "PGP" with "OpenPGP", - to align with RFC 2440. - 3. In section 2.1, clarify that OpenPGP public key data are binary, - not the ASCII armored format, and reference 10.1 in RFC 2440 on - how to deal with OpenPGP keys, and acknowledge that - implementations may handle additional packet types. - 4. Clarify that integers in the representation format are decimal. - 5. Replace KEY/SIG with DNSKEY/RRSIG etc, to align with DNSSECbis - terminology. Improve reference for Key Tag Algorithm - calculations. - 6. Add examples that suggest use of CNAME to reduce bandwidth. - 7. In section 3, appended the last paragraphs that discuss - "content-based" vs "purpose-based" owner names. Add section 3.2 - for purpose-based X.509 CERT owner names, and section 3.4 for - purpose-based OpenPGP CERT owner names. - 8. Added size considerations. - 9. The SPKI types has been reserved, until RFC 2692/2693 is moved - from the experimental status. - 10. Added indirect types IPKIX, ISPKI, and IPGP. - - -Appendix A. Copying conditions - - Regarding the portion of this document that was written by Simon - Josefsson ("the author", for the remainder of this section), the - author makes no guarantees and is not responsible for any damage - resulting from its use. The author grants irrevocable permission to - anyone to use, modify, and distribute it in any way that does not - diminish the rights of anyone else to use, modify, and distribute it, - provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain - misleading author or version information. Derivative works need not - be licensed under similar terms. - - -10. References - -10.1. Normative References - - [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [4] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R., and S. Sataluri, - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - - "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished Names", RFC 2247, - January 1998. - - [5] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform - Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, - August 1998. - - [6] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., and R. Thayer, - "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 2440, November 1998. - - [7] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA - Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, - October 1998. - - [8] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. - - [9] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [10] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - -10.2. Informative References - - [11] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", - RFC 2246, January 1999. - - [12] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the - Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. - - [13] Ellison, C., Frantz, B., Lampson, B., Rivest, R., Thomas, B., - and T. Ylonen, "SPKI Certificate Theory", RFC 2693, - September 1999. - - [14] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", - RFC 3548, July 2003. - - [15] Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying Material in - DNS", RFC 4025, March 2005. - - [16] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions - (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851, - July 2004. - - - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - -Author's Address - - Simon Josefsson - - Email: simon@josefsson.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft Storing Certificates in the DNS August 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Josefsson Expires March 3, 2006 [Page 15] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 5e6cb1d09e2..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,580 +0,0 @@ - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS -OBSOLETES: RFC 2539 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd - Motorola Laboratories -Expires: January 2006 July 2005 - - - - - Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keying Information in the DNS - ------- -- -------------- ------ ----------- -- --- --- - - - - -Status of This Document - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent - to the DNS extensions working group mailing list - . - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than a "work in progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - - -Abstract - - The standard method for encoding Diffie-Hellman keys in the Domain - Name System is specified. - - - -Copyright - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2005. - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - -Acknowledgements - - Part of the format for Diffie-Hellman keys and the description - thereof was taken from a work in progress by Ashar Aziz, Tom Markson, - and Hemma Prafullchandra. In addition, the following persons - provided useful comments that were incorporated into the predecessor - of this document: Ran Atkinson, Thomas Narten. - - - -Table of Contents - - Status of This Document....................................1 - Abstract...................................................1 - Copyright..................................................1 - - Acknowledgements...........................................2 - Table of Contents..........................................2 - - 1. Introduction............................................3 - 1.1 About This Document....................................3 - 1.2 About Diffie-Hellman...................................3 - 2. Encoding Diffie-Hellman Keying Information..............4 - 3. Performance Considerations..............................5 - 4. IANA Considerations.....................................5 - 5. Security Considerations.................................5 - Copyright and Disclaimer...................................5 - - Normative References.......................................7 - Informative Refences.......................................7 - - Author Address.............................................8 - Expiration and File Name...................................8 - - Appendix A: Well known prime/generator pairs...............9 - A.1. Well-Known Group 1: A 768 bit prime..................9 - A.2. Well-Known Group 2: A 1024 bit prime.................9 - A.3. Well-Known Group 3: A 1536 bit prime................10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - -1. Introduction - - The Domain Name System (DNS) is the global hierarchical replicated - distributed database system for Internet addressing, mail proxy, and - similar information [RFC 1034, 1035]. The DNS has been extended to - include digital signatures and cryptographic keys as described in - [RFC 4033, 4034, 4035] and additonal work is underway which would use - the storage of keying information in the DNS. - - - -1.1 About This Document - - This document describes how to store Diffie-Hellman keys in the DNS. - Familiarity with the Diffie-Hellman key exchange algorithm is assumed - [Schneier, RFC 2631]. - - - -1.2 About Diffie-Hellman - - Diffie-Hellman requires two parties to interact to derive keying - information which can then be used for authentication. Thus Diffie- - Hellman is inherently a key agreement algorithm. As a result, no - format is defined for Diffie-Hellman "signature information". For - example, assume that two parties have local secrets "i" and "j". - Assume they each respectively calculate X and Y as follows: - - X = g**i ( mod p ) - - Y = g**j ( mod p ) - - They exchange these quantities and then each calculates a Z as - follows: - - Zi = Y**i ( mod p ) - - Zj = X**j ( mod p ) - - Zi and Zj will both be equal to g**(i*j)(mod p) and will be a shared - secret between the two parties that an adversary who does not know i - or j will not be able to learn from the exchanged messages (unless - the adversary can derive i or j by performing a discrete logarithm - mod p which is hard for strong p and g). - - The private key for each party is their secret i (or j). The public - key is the pair p and g, which must be the same for the parties, and - their individual X (or Y). - - For further information about Diffie-Hellman and precautions to take - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 3] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - - in deciding on a p and g, see [RFC 2631]. - - - -2. Encoding Diffie-Hellman Keying Information - - When Diffie-Hellman keys appear within the RDATA portion of a RR, - they are encoded as shown below. - - The period of key validity is not included in this data but is - indicated separately, for example by an RR such as RRSIG which signs - and authenticates the RR containing the keying information. - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | KEY flags | protocol | algorithm=2 | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | prime length (or flag) | prime (p) (or special) / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / prime (p) (variable length) | generator length | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | generator (g) (variable length) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | public value length | public value (variable length)/ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / public value (g^i mod p) (variable length) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - Prime length is the length of the Diffie-Hellman prime (p) in bytes - if it is 16 or greater. Prime contains the binary representation of - the Diffie-Hellman prime with most significant byte first (i.e., in - network order). If "prime length" field is 1 or 2, then the "prime" - field is actually an unsigned index into a table of 65,536 - prime/generator pairs and the generator length SHOULD be zero. See - Appedix A for defined table entries and Section 4 for information on - allocating additional table entries. The meaning of a zero or 3 - through 15 value for "prime length" is reserved. - - Generator length is the length of the generator (g) in bytes. - Generator is the binary representation of generator with most - significant byte first. PublicValueLen is the Length of the Public - Value (g**i (mod p)) in bytes. PublicValue is the binary - representation of the DH public value with most significant byte - first. - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 4] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - -3. Performance Considerations - - Current DNS implementations are optimized for small transfers, - typically less than 512 bytes including DNS overhead. Larger - transfers will perform correctly and extensions have been - standardized [RFC 2671] to make larger transfers more efficient. But - it is still advisable at this time to make reasonable efforts to - minimize the size of RR sets containing keying information consistent - with adequate security. - - - -4. IANA Considerations - - Assignment of meaning to Prime Lengths of 0 and 3 through 15 requires - an IETF consensus as defined in [RFC 2434]. - - Well known prime/generator pairs number 0x0000 through 0x07FF can - only be assigned by an IETF standards action. [RFC 2539], the - Proposed Standard predecessor of this document, assigned 0x0001 - through 0x0002. This document additionally assigns 0x0003. Pairs - number 0s0800 through 0xBFFF can be assigned based on RFC - documentation. Pairs number 0xC000 through 0xFFFF are available for - private use and are not centrally coordinated. Use of such private - pairs outside of a closed environment may result in conflicts and/or - security failures. - - - -5. Security Considerations - - Keying information retrieved from the DNS should not be trusted - unless (1) it has been securely obtained from a secure resolver or - independently verified by the user and (2) this secure resolver and - secure obtainment or independent verification conform to security - policies acceptable to the user. As with all cryptographic - algorithms, evaluating the necessary strength of the key is important - and dependent on security policy. - - In addition, the usual Diffie-Hellman key strength considerations - apply. (p-1)/2 should also be prime, g should be primitive mod p, p - should be "large", etc. See [RFC 2631, Schneier]. - - - -Copyright and Disclaimer - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to - the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except - as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - -Normative References - - [RFC 2631] - "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method", E. Rescorla, June - 1999. - - [RFC 2434] - "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section - in RFCs", T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, October 1998. - - [RFC 4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - - -Informative Refences - - [RFC 1034] - "Domain names - concepts and facilities", P. - Mockapetris, November 1987. - - [RFC 1035] - "Domain names - implementation and specification", P. - Mockapetris, November 1987. - - [RFC 2539] - "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the Domain Name - System (DNS)", D. Eastlake, March 1999, obsoleted by this RFC. - - [RFC 2671] - "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", P. Vixie, August - 1999. - - [RFC 4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March - 2005. - - [RFC 4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC - 4035, March 2005. - - [Schneier] - Bruce Schneier, "Applied Cryptography: Protocols, - Algorithms, and Source Code in C" (Second Edition), 1996, John Wiley - and Sons. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 7] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - -Author Address - - Donald E. Eastlake 3rd - Motorola Laboratories - 155 Beaver Street - Milford, MA 01757 USA - - Telephone: +1-508-786-7554 - EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com - - - -Expiration and File Name - - This draft expires in January 2006. - - Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - -Appendix A: Well known prime/generator pairs - - These numbers are copied from the IPSEC effort where the derivation of - these values is more fully explained and additional information is - available. - Richard Schroeppel performed all the mathematical and computational - work for this appendix. - - - -A.1. Well-Known Group 1: A 768 bit prime - - The prime is 2^768 - 2^704 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^638 pi] + 149686 }. Its - decimal value is - 155251809230070893513091813125848175563133404943451431320235 - 119490296623994910210725866945387659164244291000768028886422 - 915080371891804634263272761303128298374438082089019628850917 - 0691316593175367469551763119843371637221007210577919 - - Prime modulus: Length (32 bit words): 24, Data (hex): - FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 - 29024E08 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD - EF9519B3 CD3A431B 302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 - E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9 A63A3620 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF - - Generator: Length (32 bit words): 1, Data (hex): 2 - - - -A.2. Well-Known Group 2: A 1024 bit prime - - The prime is 2^1024 - 2^960 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^894 pi] + 129093 }. - Its decimal value is - 179769313486231590770839156793787453197860296048756011706444 - 423684197180216158519368947833795864925541502180565485980503 - 646440548199239100050792877003355816639229553136239076508735 - 759914822574862575007425302077447712589550957937778424442426 - 617334727629299387668709205606050270810842907692932019128194 - 467627007 - - Prime modulus: Length (32 bit words): 32, Data (hex): - FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 - 29024E08 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD - EF9519B3 CD3A431B 302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 - E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9 A637ED6B 0BFF5CB6 F406B7ED - EE386BFB 5A899FA5 AE9F2411 7C4B1FE6 49286651 ECE65381 - FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF - - Generator: Length (32 bit words): 1, Data (hex): 2 - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 9] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS - - -A.3. Well-Known Group 3: A 1536 bit prime - - The prime is 2^1536 - 2^1472 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^1406 pi] + 741804 }. - Its decimal value is - 241031242692103258855207602219756607485695054850245994265411 - 694195810883168261222889009385826134161467322714147790401219 - 650364895705058263194273070680500922306273474534107340669624 - 601458936165977404102716924945320037872943417032584377865919 - 814376319377685986952408894019557734611984354530154704374720 - 774996976375008430892633929555996888245787241299381012913029 - 459299994792636526405928464720973038494721168143446471443848 - 8520940127459844288859336526896320919633919 - - Prime modulus Length (32 bit words): 48, Data (hex): - FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 - 29024E08 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD - EF9519B3 CD3A431B 302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 - E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9 A637ED6B 0BFF5CB6 F406B7ED - EE386BFB 5A899FA5 AE9F2411 7C4B1FE6 49286651 ECE45B3D - C2007CB8 A163BF05 98DA4836 1C55D39A 69163FA8 FD24CF5F - 83655D23 DCA3AD96 1C62F356 208552BB 9ED52907 7096966D - 670C354E 4ABC9804 F1746C08 CA237327 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF - - Generator: Length (32 bit words): 1, Data (hex): 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 10] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-01.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0af13c616f9..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-01.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,755 +0,0 @@ - - -Network Working Group B. Laurie -Internet-Draft Nominet -Expires: March 2, 2005 R. Loomis - SAIC - September 2004 - - - - Requirements related to DNSSEC Signed Proof of Non-Existence - draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-01 - - -Status of this Memo - - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions - of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each - author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of - which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of - which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with - RFC 3668. - - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - - 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. - - - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2005. - - -Copyright Notice - - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). - - -Abstract - - - DNSSEC-bis uses the NSEC record to provide authenticated denial of - existence of RRsets. NSEC also has the side-effect of permitting - zone enumeration, even if zone transfers have been forbidden. - Because some see this as a problem, this document has been assembled - to detail the possible requirements for denial of existence A/K/A - signed proof of non-existence. - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 1] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - -Table of Contents - - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Non-purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Zone Enumeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4. Zone Enumeration II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5. Zone Enumeration III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 6. Exposure of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 7. Zone Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 8. Single Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 9. Empty Non-terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 10. Prevention of Precomputed Dictionary Attacks . . . . . . . . 6 - 11. DNSSEC-Adoption and Zone-Growth Relationship . . . . . . . . 6 - 12. Non-overlap of denial records with possible zone records . . 7 - 13. Exposure of Private Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 14. Minimisation of Zone Signing Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 15. Minimisation of Asymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 16. Minimisation of Client Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 17. Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 18. Purity of Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 19. Replay Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 20. Compatibility with NSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 21. Compatibility with NSEC II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 22. Compatibility with NSEC III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 23. Coexistence with NSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 24. Coexistence with NSEC II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 25. Protocol Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 26. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 27. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 28. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 29. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 30. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 30.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 30.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 2] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - -1. Introduction - - - NSEC records allow trivial enumeration of zones - a situation that - has existed for several years but which has recently been raised as a - significant concern for DNSSECbis deployment in several zones. - Alternate proposals have been made that make zone enumeration more - difficult, and some previous proposals to modify DNSSEC had related - requirements/desirements that are relevant to the discussion. In - addition the original designs for NSEC/NXT records were based on - working group discussions and the choices made were not always - documented with context and requirements-- so some of those choices - may need to be restated as requirements. Overall, the working group - needs to better understand the requirements for denial of existence - (and certain other requirements related to DNSSECbis deployment) in - order to evaluate the proposals that may replace NSEC. - - - In the remainder of this document, "NSEC++" is used as shorthand for - "a denial of existence proof that will replace NSEC". "NSECbis" has - also been used as shorthand for this, but we avoid that usage since - NSECbis will not be part of DNSSECbis and therefore there might be - some confusion. - - -2. Non-purposes - - - This document does not currently document the reasons why zone - enumeration might be "bad" from a privacy, security, business, or - other perspective--except insofar as those reasons result in - requirements. Once the list of requirements is complete and vaguely - coherent, the trade-offs (reducing zone enumeration will have X cost, - while providing Y benefit) may be revisited. The editors of this - compendium received inputs on the potential reasons why zone - enumeration is bad (and there was significant discussion on the - DNSEXT WG mailing list) but that information fell outside the scope - of this document. - - - Note also that this document does not assume that NSEC *must* be - replaced with NSEC++, if the requirements can be met through other - methods (e.g., "white lies" with the current NSEC). As is stated - above, this document is focused on requirements collection and - (ideally) prioritization rather than on the actual implementation. - - -3. Zone Enumeration - - - Authenticated denial should not permit trivial zone enumeration. - - - Additional discussion: NSEC (and NXT before it) provide a linked - list that could be "walked" to trivially enumerate all the signed - records in a zone. This requirement is primarily (though not - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 3] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - - exclusively) important for zones that either are delegation-only/ - -mostly or do not have reverse lookup (PTR) records configured, since - enterprises that have PTR records for all A records have already - provided a similar capability to enumerate the contents of DNS zones. - - - Contributor: various - - -4. Zone Enumeration II - - - Zone enumeration should be at least as difficult as it would be to - effect a dictionary attack using simple DNS queries to do the same in - an unsecured zone. - - - (Editor comment: it is not clear how to measure difficulty in this - case. Some examples could be monetary cost, bandwidth, processing - power or some combination of these. It has also been suggested that - the requirement is that the graph of difficulty of enumeration vs. - the fraction of the zone enumerated should be approximately the same - shape in the two cases) - - - Contributor: Nominet - - -5. Zone Enumeration III - - - Enumeration of a zone with random contents should computationally - infeasible. - - - Editor comment: this is proposed as a way of evaluating the - effectiveness of a proposal rather than as a requirement anyone would - actually have in practice. - - - Contributor: Alex Bligh - - -6. Exposure of Contents - - - NSEC++ should not expose any of the contents of the zone (apart from - the NSEC++ records themselves, of course). - - - Editor comment: this is a weaker requirement than prevention of - enumeration, but certainly any zone that satisfied this requirement - would also satisfy the trivial prevention of enumeration requirement. - - - Contributor: Ed Lewis - - -7. Zone Size - - - Requirement: NSEC++ should make it possible to take precautions - against trivial zone size estimates. Since not all zone owners care - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 4] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - - about others estimation of the size of a zone, it is not always - necessary to prohibit trivial estimation of the size of the zone but - NSEC++ should allow such measures. - - - Additional Discussion: Even with proposals based on obfuscating names - with hashes it is trivial to give very good estimates of the number - of domains in a certain zone. Just send 10 random queries and look - at the range between the two hash values returned in each NSEC++. As - hash output can be assumed to follow a rectangular random - distribution, using the mean difference between the two values, you - can estimate the total number of records. It is probably sufficient - to look at even one NSEC++, since the two hash values should follow a - (I believe) Poisson distribution. - - - The concern is motivated by some wording remembered from NSEC, which - stated that NSEC MUST only be present for existing owner names in the - zone, and MUST NOT be present for non-existing owner names. If - similar wording were carried over to NSEC++, introducing bogus owner - names in the hash chain (an otherwise simple solution to guard - against trivial estimates of zone size) wouldn't be allowed. - - - One simple attempt at solving this is to describe in the - specifications how zone signer tools can add a number of random - "junk" records. - - - Editor's comment: it is interesting that obfuscating names might - actually make it easier to estimate zone size. - - - Contributor: Simon Josefsson. - - -8. Single Method - - - Requirement: A single NSEC++ method must be able to carry both - old-style denial (i.e. plain labels) and whatever the new style - looks like. Having two separate denial methods could result in - cornercases where one method can deny the other and vice versa. - - - Additional discussion: This requirement can help -bis folks to a - smooth upgrade to -ter. First they'd change the method while the - content is the same, then they can change content of the method. - - - Contributor: Roy Arends. - - -9. Empty Non-terminals - - - Requirement: Empty-non-terminals (ENT) should remain empty. In - other words, adding NSEC++ records to an existing DNS structure - should not cause the creation of NSEC++ records (or related records) - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 5] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - - at points that are otherwise ENT. - - - Additional discussion: Currently NSEC complies with ENT requirement: - b.example.com NSEC a.c.example.com implies the existence of an ENT - with ownername c.example.com. NSEC2 breaks that requirement, since - the ownername is entirely hashed causing the structure to disappear. - This is why EXIST was introduced. But EXIST causes ENT to be - non-empty-terminals. Next to the dissappearance of ENT, it causes - (some) overhead since an EXIST record needs a SIG, NSEC2 and - SIG(NSEC2). DNSNR honours this requirement by hashing individual - labels instead of ownernames. However this causes very long labels. - Truncation is a measure against very long ownernames, but that is - controversial. There is a fair discussion of the validity of - truncation in the DNSNR draft, but that hasn't got proper review yet. - - - Contributor: Roy Arends. - - - (Editor comment: it is not clear to us that an EXIST record needs an - NSEC2 record, since it is a special purpose record only used for - denial of existence) - - -10. Prevention of Precomputed Dictionary Attacks - - - Requirement: NSEC++ needs to provide a method to reduce the - effectiveness of precomputed dictionary attacks. - - - Additional Discussion: Salt is a measure against dictionary attacks. - There are other possible measures (such as iterating hashes in - NSEC2). The salt needs to be communicated in every response, since - it is needed in every verification. Some have suggested to move the - salt to a special record instead of the denial record. I think this - is not wise. Response size has more priority over zone size. An - extra record causes a larger response than a larger existing record. - - - Contributor: Roy Arends. - - - (Editor comment: the current version of NSEC2 also has the salt in - every NSEC2 record) - - -11. DNSSEC-Adoption and Zone-Growth Relationship - - - Background: Currently with NSEC, when a delegation centric zone - deploys DNSSEC, the zone-size multiplies by a non-trivial factor even - when the DNSSEC-adoption rate of the subzones remains low--because - each delegation point creates at least one NSEC record and - corresponding signature in the parent even if the child is not - signed. - - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 6] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - - Requirements: A delegation-only (or delegation-mostly) zone that is - signed but which has no signed child zones should initially need only - to add SIG(SOA), DNSKEY, and SIG(DNSKEY) at the apex, along with some - minimal set of NSEC++ records to cover zone contents. Further, - during the transition of a delegation-only zone from 0% signed - children to 100% signed children, the growth in the delegation-only - zone should be roughly proportional to the percentage of signed child - zones. - - - Additional Discussion: This is why DNSNR has the Authoritative Only - bit. This is similar to opt-in for delegations only. This (bit) is - currently the only method to help delegation-centric zone cope with - zone-growth due to DNSSEC adoption. As an example, A delegation only - zone which deploys DNSSEC with the help of this bit, needs to add - SIG(SOA), DNSKEY, SIG(DNSKEY), DNSNR, SIG(DNSNR) at the apex. No - more than that. - - - Contributor: Roy Arends. - - -12. Non-overlap of denial records with possible zone records - - - Requirement: NSEC++ records should in some way be differentiated - from regular zone records, so that there is no possibility that a - record in the zone could be duplicated by a non-existence proof - (NSEC++) record. - - - Additional discussion: This requirement is derived from a discussion - on the DNSEXT mailing list related to copyrights and domain names. - As was outlined there, one solution is to put NSEC++ records in a - separate namespace, e.g.: $ORIGIN co.uk. - 873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e IN NS jim.rfc1035.com ; your - delegation 873bcdba87401b485022b8dcd4190e3e._no IN NSEC++ 881345... - ; for amazon.co.uk. - - - Contributor: various - - - (Editor comment: One of us still does not see why a conflict - matters. Even if there is an apparent conflict or overlap, the - "conflicting" NSEC2 name _only_ appears in NSEC2 records, and the - other name _never_ appears in NSEC2 records.) - - -13. Exposure of Private Keys - - - Private keys associated with the public keys in the DNS should be - exposed as little as possible. It is highly undesirable for private - keys to be distributed to nameservers, or to otherwise be available - in the run-time environment of nameservers. - - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 7] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - - Contributors: Nominet, Olaf Kolkman, Ed Lewis - - -14. Minimisation of Zone Signing Cost - - - The additional cost of creating an NSEC++ signed zone should not - significantly exceed the cost of creating an ordinary signed zone. - - - Contributor: Nominet - - -15. Minimisation of Asymmetry - - - Nameservers should have to do as little additional work as necessary. - More precisely, it is desirable for any increase in cost incurred by - the nameservers to be offset by a proportionate increase in cost to - DNS `clients', e.g. stub and/or `full-service' resolvers. - - - Contributor: Nominet - - -16. Minimisation of Client Complexity - - - Caching, wildcards, CNAMEs, DNAMEs should continue to work without - adding too much complexity at the client side. - - - Contributor: Olaf Kolkman - - -17. Completeness - - - A proof of nonexistence should be possible for all nonexistent data - in the zone. - - - Contributor: Olaf Kolkman - - -18. Purity of Namespace - - - The name space should not be muddied with fake names or data sets. - - - Contributor: Ed Lewis - - -19. Replay Attacks - - - NSEC++ should not allow a replay to be used to deny existence of an - RR that actually exists. - - - Contributor: Ed Lewis - - -20. Compatibility with NSEC - - - NSEC++ should not introduce changes incompatible with NSEC. - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 8] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - - Contributor: Ed Lewis - - -21. Compatibility with NSEC II - - - NSEC++ should differ from NSEC in a way that is transparent to the - resolver or validator. - - - Contributor: Ed Lewis - - -22. Compatibility with NSEC III - - - NSEC++ should differ from NSEC as little as possible whilst achieving - other requirements. - - - Contributor: Alex Bligh - - -23. Coexistence with NSEC - - - NSEC++ should be optional, allowing NSEC to be used instead. - - - Contributor: Ed Lewis, Alex Bligh - - -24. Coexistence with NSEC II - - - NSEC++ should not impose extra work on those content with NSEC. - - - Contributor: Ed Lewis - - -25. Protocol Design - - - A good security protocol would allow signing the nonexistence of some - selected names without revealing anything about other names. - - - Contributor: Dan Bernstein - - -26. Process - - - Clearly not all of these requirements can be met. Therefore the next - phase of this document will be to either prioritise them or narrow - them down to a non-contradictory set, which should then allow us to - judge proposals on the basis of their fit. - - -27. Acknowledgements - - -28. Requirements notation - - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 9] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - - document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. - - -29. Security Considerations - - - There are currently no security considerations called out in this - draft. There will be security considerations in the choice of which - requirements will be implemented, but there are no specific security - requirements during the requirements collection process. - - -30. References - - -30.1 Normative References - - - [dnssecbis-protocol] - "DNSSECbis Protocol Definitions", BCP XX, RFC XXXX, Some - Month 2004. - - -30.2 Informative References - - - [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision - 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. - - - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - - [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and - Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. - - - -Authors' Addresses - - - Ben Laurie - Nominet - 17 Perryn Road - London W3 7LR - England - - - Phone: +44 (20) 8735 0686 - EMail: ben@algroup.co.uk - - - - Rip Loomis - Science Applications International Corporation - 7125 Columbia Gateway Drive, Suite 300 - Columbia, MD 21046 - US - - - EMail: gilbert.r.loomis@saic.com - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 10] -Internet-Draft signed-nonexistence-requirements September 2004 - - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - - -Copyright Statement - - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - - -Acknowledgment - - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - - -Laurie & Loomis Expires March 2, 2005 [Page 11] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-renewal-mode-05.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-renewal-mode-05.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 9c73c68befd..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-renewal-mode-05.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1292 +0,0 @@ - - - - - -DNS Extensions Yuji Kamite -Internet-Draft NTT Communications -Expires: April 15, 2005 Masaya Nakayama - The University of Tokyo - October 14, 2004 - - - - TKEY Secret Key Renewal Mode - draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-renewal-mode-05 - - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions - of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each - author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of - which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of - which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with - RFC 3668. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2005. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). - -Abstract - - This document defines a new mode in TKEY and proposes an atomic - method for changing secret keys used for TSIG periodically. - Originally, TKEY provides methods of setting up shared secrets other - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 1] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - than manual exchange, but it cannot control timing of key renewal - very well though it can add or delete shared keys separately. This - proposal is a systematical key renewal procedure intended for - preventing signing DNS messages with old and non-safe keys - permanently. - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.1 Defined Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.2 New Format and Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.3 Overview of Secret Key Renewal Mode . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Shared Secret Key Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1 Key Usage Time Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2 Partial Revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.3 Key Renewal Message Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.3.1 Query for Key Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.3.2 Response for Key Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.3.3 Attributes of Generated Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 2.3.4 TKEY RR structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 2.4 Key Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 2.4.1 Query for Key Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 2.4.2 Response for Key Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 2.5 Keying Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 2.5.1 DH Exchange for Key Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 2.5.2 Server Assigned Keying for Key Renewal . . . . . . . . 12 - 2.5.3 Resolver Assigned Keying for Key Renewal . . . . . . . 13 - 2.6 Considerations about Non-compliant Hosts . . . . . . . . . 14 - 3. Secret Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 4. Compulsory Key Revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 4.1 Compulsory Key Revocation by Server . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 4.2 Authentication Methods Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 5. Special Considerations for Two Servers' Case . . . . . . . . 16 - 5.1 To Cope with Collisions of Renewal Requests . . . . . . . 16 - 6. Key Name Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 7. Example Usage of Secret Key Renewal Mode . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 23 - - - - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 2] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - -1. Introduction - - TSIG [RFC2845] provides DNS message integrity and the - request/transaction authentication by means of message authentication - codes (MAC). TSIG is a practical solution in view of calculation - speed and availability. However, TSIG does not have exchanging - mechanism of shared secret keys between server and resolver, and - administrators might have to exchange secret keys manually. TKEY - [RFC2930] is introduced to solve such problem and it can exchange - secrets for TSIG via networks. - - In various modes of TKEY, a server and a resolver can add or delete a - secret key be means of TKEY message exchange. However, the existing - TKEY does not care fully about the management of keys which became - too old, or dangerous after long time usage. - - It is ideal that the number of secret which a pair of hosts share - should be limited only one, because having too many keys for the same - purpose might not only be a burden to resolvers for managing and - distinguishing according to servers to query, but also does not seem - to be safe in terms of storage and protection against attackers. - Moreover, perhaps holding old keys long time might give attackers - chances to compromise by scrupulous calculation. - - Therefore, when a new shared secret is established by TKEY, the - previous old secret should be revoked immediately. To accomplish - this, DNS servers must support a protocol for key renewal. This - document specifies procedure to refresh secret keys between two hosts - which is defined within the framework of TKEY, and it is called "TKEY - Secret Key Renewal Mode". - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY" and - "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in - [RFC2119]. - - -1.1. Defined Words - - * Inception Time: Beginning of the shared secret key lifetime. This - value is determined when the key is generated. - - * Expiry Limit: Time limit of the key's validity. This value is - determined when a new key is generated. After Expiry Limit, server - and client (resolver) must not authenticate TSIG signed with the key. - Therefore, Renewal to the next key should be carried out before - Expiry Limit. - - * Partial Revocation Time: Time when server judges the key is too old - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 3] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - and must be updated. It must be between Inception Time and Expiry - Limit. This value is determined by server freely following its - security policy. e.g., If the time from Inception to Partial - Revocation is short, renewal will be carried out more often, which - might be safer. - - * Revocation Time: Time when the key becomes invalid and can be - removed. This value is not determined in advance because it is the - actual time when revocation is completed. - - * Adoption Time: Time when the new key is adopted as the next key - formally. After Adoption, the key is valid and server and client can - generate or verify TSIG making use of it. Adoption Time also means - the time when it becomes possible to remove the previous key, so - Revocation and Adoption are usually done at the same time. - - - Partial - Inception Revocation Revocation Expiry Limit - | | | | - |----------------|- - - - - - >>|- (revoked) -| - | | | | - previous key | | | - |- - - -|-------------------->> time - | | new key - Inception Adoption - - -1.2. New Format and Assigned Numbers - - TSIG - ERROR = (PartialRevoke), TBD - - TKEY - Mode = (server assignment for key renewal), TBD - Mode = (Diffie-Hellman exchange for key renewal), TBD - Mode = (resolver assignment for key renewal), TBD - Mode = (key adoption), TBD - - -1.3. Overview of Secret Key Renewal Mode - - When a server receives a query from a client signed with a TSIG key, - It always checks if the present time is within the range of usage - duration it considers safe. If it is judged that the key is too old, - i.e., after Partial Revocation Time, the server comes to be in - Partial Revocation state about the key, and this key is called - partially revoked. - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 4] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - In this state, if a client sends a normal query (e.g., question about - A RR) other than TKEY Renewal request with TSIG signed with the old - key, the server returns an error message to notify that the time to - renew has come. This is called "PartialRevoke" error message. It is - server's choice whether it returns PartialRevoke or not. If and only - if the server is ready for changing its own key, it decides to return - PartialRevoke. - - The client which got this error is able to notice that it is - necessary to refresh the secret. To make a new shared secret, it - sends a TKEY Renewal request, in which several keying methods are - available. It can make use of TSIG authentication signed with the - partially revoked key mentioned above. - - After new secret establishment, the client sends a TKEY Adoption - request for renewal confirmation. This can also be authenticated with - the partially revoked key. If this is admitted by the server, the new - key is formally adopted, and at the same time the corresponding old - secret is invalidated. Then the client can send the first query again - signed with the new key. - - Key renewal procedure is executed based on two-phase commit - mechanism. The first phase is the TKEY Renewal request and its - response, which means preparatory confirmation for key update. The - second phase is Adoption request and its response. If the server gets - request and client receives the response successfully, they can - finish renewal process. If any error happens and renewal process - fails during these phases, client should roll back to the beginning - of the first phase, and send TKEY Renewal request again. This - rollback can be done until the Expiry Limit of the key. - - -2. Shared Secret Key Renewal - - Suppose a server and a client agree to change their TSIG keys - periodically. Key renewal procedure is defined between two hosts. - -2.1. Key Usage Time Check - - Whenever a server receives a query with TSIG and can find a key that - is used for signing it, the server checks its Inception Time, Partial - Revocation Time and Expiry Limit (this information is usually - memorized by the server). - - When the present time is before Inception Time, the server MUST NOT - verify TSIG with the key, and server acts the same way as when the - key used by the client is not recognized. It follows [RFC2845] 4.5.1. - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 5] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - When the present time is equal to Inception Time, or between - Inception Time and Partial Revocation Time, the behavior of the - server is the same as when a valid key is found. It follows [RFC2845] - 4.5.2 and 4.5.3. - - When the present time is the same as the Partial Revocation Time, or - between the Partial Revocation Time and Expiry Limit, the server - comes to be in Partial Revocation state about the TSIG key and - behaves according to the next section. - - When the present time is the same as the Expiry Time or after it, the - server MUST NOT verify TSIG with the key, and returns error messages - in the same way as when the key used by the client is not recognized. - It follows [RFC2845] 4.5.1. - - -2.2. Partial Revocation - - In Partial Revocation state, we say the server has partially revoked - the key and the key has become a "partially revoked key". - - If server has received a query signed with the partially revoked key - for TKEY Renewal request (See section 2.3.) or Key Adoption request - (See section 2.4.), then server does proper process following each - specification. If it is for TKEY key deletion request ([RFC2930] - 4.2), server MAY process usual deletion operation defined therein. - - If server receives other types of query signed with the partially - revoked key, and both the corresponding MAC and signed TIME are - verified, then server begins returning answer whose TSIG error code - is "PartialRevoke" (See section 9.). Server MUST randomly but with - increasing frequency return PartialRevoke when in the Partial - Revocation state. - - Server can decide when it actually sends PartialRevoke, checking if - it is appropriate time for renewal. Server MUST NOT return - PartialRevoke if this is apart long lived TSIG transaction (such as - AXFR) that started before the Partial Revocation Time. - - If the client receives PartialRevoke and understands it, then it MUST - retry the query with the old key unless a new key has been adopted. - Client SHOULD start the process to renew the TSIG key. For key - renewal procedure, see details in Section 2.3 and 2.4. - - PartialRevoke period (i.e., time while server returns PartialRevoke - randomely) SHOULD be small, say 2-5% of key lifetime. This is - server's choice. - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 6] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - Server MUST keep track of clients ignoring PartialRevoke, thus - indicating ignorance of this TKEY mode. - - PartialRevoke error messages have the role to inform clients of the - keys' partial revocation and urge them to send TKEY Renewal requests. - These error responses MUST be signed with those partial revoked keys - if the queries are signed with them. They are sent only when the - signing keys are found to be partially revoked. If the MAC of TSIG - cannot be verified with the partially revoked keys, servers MUST NOT - return PartialRevoke error with MAC, but MUST return another error - such as "BADSIG" without MAC (following [RFC2845] 4.5.3); in other - words, a server informs its key's partial revocation only when the - MAC in the received query is valid. - - -2.3. Key Renewal Message Exchange - -2.3.1. Query for Key Renewal - - If a client has received a PartialRevoke error and authenticated the - response based on TSIG MAC, it sends a TKEY query for Key Renewal (in - this document, we call it Renewal request, too.) to the server. The - request MUST be signed with TSIG or SIG(0) [RFC2931] for - authentication. If TSIG is selected, the client can sign it with the - partial revoked key. - - Key Renewal can use one of several keying methods which is indicated - in "Mode" field of TKEY RR, and its message structure is dependent on - that method. - - -2.3.2. Response for Key Renewal - - The server which has received Key Renewal request first tries to - verify TSIG or SIG(0) accompanying it. If the TSIG is signed and - verified with the partially revoked key, the request MUST be - authenticated. - - After authentication, server must check existing old key's validity. - If the partially revoked key indicated in the request TKEY's OldName - and OldAlgorithm field (See section 2.3.4.) does not exist at the - server, "BADKEY" [RFC2845] is given in Error field for response. If - any other error happens, server returns appropriate error messages - following the specification described in section 2.5. If there are no - errors, server returns a Key Renewal answer. This answer MUST be - signed with TSIG or SIG(0) for authentication. - - When this answer is successfully returned and no error is detected by - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 7] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - client, a new shared secret can be established. The details of - concrete keying procedure are given in the section 2.5. - - Note: - Sometimes Adoption message and new Renewal request will cross on - the wire. In this case the newly generated key Adoption message is - resent. - - -2.3.3. Attributes of Generated Key - - As a result of this message exchange, client comes to know the newly - generated key's attributes such as key's name, Inception Time and - Expiry Limit. They are decided by the server and told to the client; - in particular, however, once the server has decided Expiry Limit and - returned a response, it should obey the decision as far as it can. In - other words, they SHOULD NOT change time values for checking Expiry - Limit in the future without any special reason, such as security - issue like "Emergency Compulsory Revocation" described in section 8. - - On the other hand, Partial Revocation Time of this generated key is - not decided based on the request, and not informed to the client. The - server can determine any value as long as it is between Inception - Time and Expiry Limit. However, the period from Inception to Partial - Revocation SHOULD be fixed as the server side's configuration or be - set the same as the corresponding old key's one. - - Note: - Even if client sends Key Renewal request though the key described - in OldName has not been partially revoked yet, server does renewal - processes. At the moment when the server accepts such requests - with valid authentication, it MUST forcibly consider the key is - already partially revoked, that is, the key's Partial Revocation - Time must be changed into the present time (i.e., the time when - the server receives the request). - - -2.3.4. TKEY RR structure - - TKEY RR for Key Renewal message has the structure given below. In - principle, format and definition for each field follows [RFC2930]. - Note that each keying scheme sometimes needs different interpretation - of RDATA field; for detail, see section 2.5. - - Field Type Comment - ------- ------ ------- - NAME domain used for a new key, see below - TYPE u_int16_t (defined in [RFC2930]) - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 8] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - CLASS u_int16_t (defined in [RFC2930]) - TTL u_int32_t (defined in [RFC2930]) - RDLEN u_int16_t (defined in [RFC2930]) - RDATA: - Algorithm: domain algorithm for a new key - Inception: u_int32_t about the keying material - Expiration: u_int32_t about the keying material - Mode: u_int16_t scheme for key agreement - see section 9. - Error: u_int16_t see description below - Key Size: u_int16_t see description below - Key Data: octet-stream - Other Size: u_int16_t (defined in [RFC2930]) - size of other data - Other Data: newly defined: see description below - - - For "NAME" field, both non-root and root name are allowed. It may - be used for a new key's name in the same manner as [RFC2930] 2.1. - - "Algorithm" specifies which algorithm is used for agreed keying - material, which is used for identification of the next key. - - "Inception" and "Expiration" are used for the valid period of - keying material. The meanings differ somewhat according to whether - the message is request or answer, and its keying scheme. - - "Key Data" has different meanings according to keying schemes. - - "Mode" field stores the value in accordance with the keying method, - and see section 2.5. Servers and clients supporting TKEY Renewal - method MUST implement "Diffie-Hellman exchange for key renewal" - scheme. All other modes are OPTIONAL. - - "Error" is an extended RCODE which includes "PartialRevoke" value - too. See section 9. - - "Other Data" field has the structure given below. They describe - attributes of the key to be renewed. - - in Other Data filed: - - Field Type Comment - ------- ------ ------- - OldNAME domain name of the old key - OldAlgorithm domain algorithm of the old key - - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 9] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - "OldName" indicates the name of the previous key (usually, - this is partially revoked key's name that client noticed by - PartialRevoke answer from server), and "OldAlogirthm" - indicates its algorithm. - - -2.4. Key Adoption - -2.4.1. Query for Key Adoption - - After receiving a TKEY Renewal answer, the client gets the same - secret as the server. Then, it sends a TKEY Adoption request. The - request's question section's QNAME field is the same as the NAME - filed of TKEY written below. In additional section, there is one TKEY - RR that has the structure and values described below. - - "NAME" field is the new key's name to be adopted which was already - generated by Renewal message exchange. "Algorithm" is its - algorithm. "Inception" means the key's Inception Time, and - "Expiration" means Expiry Limit. - - "Mode" field is the value of "key adoption". See section 9. - - "Other Data" field in Adoption has the same structure as that of - Renewal request message. "OldName" means the previous old key, and - "OldAlogirthm" means its algorithm. - - Key Adoption request MUST be signed with TSIG or SIG(0) for - authentication. The client can sign TSIG with the previous key. Note - that until Adoption is finished, the new key is treated as invalid, - thus it cannot be used for authentication immediately. - - -2.4.2. Response for Key Adoption - - The server which has received Adoption request, it verifies TSIG or - SIG(0) accompanying it. If the TSIG is signed with the partially - revoked key and can be verified, the message MUST be authenticated. - - If the next new key indicated by the request TKEY's "NAME" is not - present at the server, BADNAME [RFC2845] is given in Error field and - the error message is returned. - - If the next key exists but it has not been adopted formally yet, the - server confirms the previous key's existence indicated by the - "OldName" and "OldAlgorithm" field. If it succeeds, the server - executes Adoption of the next key and Revocation of the previous key. - Response message duplicates the request's TKEY RR with NOERROR, - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 10] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - including "OldName" and "OldAlgorithm" that indicate the revoked key. - - If the next key exists but it is already adopted, the server returns - a response message regardless of the substance of the request TKEY's - "OldName". In this response, Response TKEY RR has the same data as - the request's one except as to its "Other Data" that is changed into - null (i.e., "Other Size" is zero), which is intended for telling the - client that the previous key name was ignored, and the new key is - already available. - - Client sometimes has to retry Adoption request. Suppose the client - sent request signed with the partially revoked key, but its response - did not return successfully (e.g., due to the drop of UDP packet). - Client will probably retry Adoption request; however, the request - will be refused in the form of TSIG "BADKEY" error because the - previous key was already revoked. In this case, client will - retransmit Adoption request signed with the next key, and expect a - response which has null "Other Data" for confirming the completion of - renewal. - - -2.5. Keying Schemes - - In Renewal message exchanges, there are no limitations as to which - keying method is actually used. The specification of keying - algorithms is independent of the general procedure of Renewal that is - described in section 2.3. - - Now this document specifies three algorithms in this section, but - other future documents can make extensions defining other methods. - - -2.5.1. DH Exchange for Key Renewal - - This scheme is defined as an extended method of [RFC2930] 4.1. This - specification only describes the difference from it and special - notice; assume that all other points, such as keying material - computation, are the exactly same as the specification of [RFC2930] - 4.1. - - Query - In Renewal request for type TKEY with this mode, there is one TKEY - RR and one KEY RR in the additional information section. KEY RR is - the client's Diffie-Hellman public key [RFC2539]. - - QNAME in question section is the same as that of "NAME" field in - TKEY RR, i.e., it means the requested new key's name. - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 11] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - TKEY "Mode" field stores the value of "DH exchange for key - renewal". See section 9. - - TKEY "Inception" and "Expiration" are those requested for the - keying material, that is, requested usage period of a new key. - - TKEY "Key Data" is used as a random, following [RFC2930] 4.1. - - Response - The server which received this request first verifies the TSIG, - SIG(0) or DNSSEC lookup of KEY RR used. After authentication, the - old key's existence validity is checked, following section 2.3. If - any incompatible DH key is found in the request, "BADKEY" - [RFC2845] is given in Error field for response. "FORMERR" is given - if the query included no DH KEY. - - If there are no errors, the server processes a response according - to Diffie-Hellman algorithm and returns the answer. In this - answer, there is one TKEY RR in answer section and KEY RR(s) in - additional section. - - As long as no error has occurred, all values of TKEY are equal to - that of the request message except TKEY NAME, TKEY RDLEN, RDATA's - Inception, Expiration, Key Size and Key Data. - - TKEY "NAME" field in the answer specifies the name of newly - produced key which the client MUST use. - - TKEY "Inception" and "Expiration" mean the periods of the produced - key usage. "Inception" is set to be the time when the new key is - actually generated or the time before it, and it will be regarded - as Inception Time. "Expiration" is determined by the server, and - it will be regarded as Expiry Limit. - - TKEY "Key Data" is used as an additional nonce, following - [RFC2930] 4.1. - - The resolver supplied Diffie-Hellman KEY RR SHOULD be echoed in - the additional section and a server Diffie-Hellman KEY RR will - also be present in the answer section, following [RFC2930] 4.1. - - -2.5.2. Server Assigned Keying for Key Renewal - - This scheme is defined as an extended method of [RFC2930] 4.4. This - specification only describes the difference from it and special - notice; assume that all other points, such as secret encrypting - method, are the exactly same as the specification of [RFC2930] 4.4. - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 12] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - Query - In Renewal request for type TKEY with this mode, there is one TKEY - RR and one KEY RR in the additional information section. KEY RR is - used in encrypting the response. - - QNAME in question section is the same as that of "NAME" field in - TKEY RR, i.e., it means the requested new key's name. - - TKEY "Mode" field stores the value of "server assignment for key - renewal". See section 9. - - TKEY "Inception" and "Expiration" are those requested for the - keying material, that is, requested usage period of a new key. - - TKEY "Key Data" is provided following the specification of - [RFC2930] 4.4. - - Response - The server which received this request first verifies the TSIG, - SIG(0) or DNSSEC lookup of KEY RR used. After authentication, the - old key's existence validity is checked, following section 2.3. - "FORMERR" is given if the query specified no encryption key. - - If there are no errors, the server response contains one TKEY RR - in the answer section, and echoes the KEY RR provided in the query - in the additional information section. - - TKEY "NAME" field in the answer specifies the name of newly - produced key which the client MUST use. - - TKEY "Inception" and "Expiration" mean the periods of the produced - key usage. "Inception" is set to be the time when the new key is - actually generated or the time before it, and it will be regarded - as Inception Time. "Expiration" is determined by the server, and - it will be regarded as Expiry Limit. - - TKEY "Key Data" is the assigned keying data encrypted under the - public key in the resolver provided KEY RR, which is the same as - [RFC2930] 4.4. - - -2.5.3. Resolver Assigned Keying for Key Renewal - - This scheme is defined as an extended method of [RFC2930] 4.5. This - specification only describes the difference from it and special - notice; assume that all other points, such as secret encrypting - method, are the exactly same as the specification of [RFC2930] 4.5. - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 13] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - Query - In Renewal request for type TKEY with this mode, there is one TKEY - RR and one KEY RR in the additional information section. TKEY RR - has the encrypted keying material and KEY RR is the server public - key used to encrypt the data. - - QNAME in question section is the same as that of "NAME" field in - TKEY RR, i.e., it means the requested new key's name. - - TKEY "Mode" field stores the value of "resolver assignment for key - renewal". See section 9. - - TKEY "Inception" and "Expiration" are those requested for the - keying material, that is, requested usage period of a new key. - - TKEY "Key Data" is the encrypted keying material. - - Response - The server which received this request first verifies the TSIG, - SIG(0) or DNSSEC lookup of KEY RR used. After authentication, the - old key's existence validity is checked, following section 2.3. - "FORMERR" is given if the server does not have the corresponding - private key for the KEY RR that was shown sin the request. - - If there are no errors, the server returns a response. The - response contains a TKEY RR in the answer section to tell the - shared key's name and its usage time values. - - TKEY "NAME" field in the answer specifies the name of newly - produced key which the client MUST use. - - TKEY "Inception" and "Expiration" mean the periods of the produced - key usage. "Inception" is set to be the time when the new key is - actually generated or the time before it, and it will be regarded - as Inception Time. "Expiration" is determined by the server, and - it will be regarded as Expiry Limit. - - -2.6. Considerations about Non-compliant Hosts - - Key Renewal requests and responses must be exchanged between hosts - which can understand them and do proper processes. PartialRevoke - error messages will be only ignored if they should be returned to - non-compliant hosts. - - Note that server does not inform actively the necessity of renewal to - clients, but inform it as responses invoked by client's query. - Server needs not care whether the PartialRevoke errors has reached - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 14] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - client or not. If client has not received yet because of any reasons - such as packet drops, it will resend the queries, and finally will be - able to get PartialRevoke information. - - -3. Secret Storage - - Every server keeps all secrets and attached information, e.g., - Inception Time, Expiry Limit, etc. safely to be able to recover from - unexpected stop. To accomplish this, formally adopted keys SHOULD be - memorized not only on memory, but also be stored in the form of some - files. It will become more secure if they are stored in ecrypted - form. - - -4. Compulsory Key Revocation - -4.1. Compulsory Key Revocation by Server - - There is a rare but possible case that although servers have already - partially revoked keys, clients do not try to send any Renewal - requests. If this state continues, in the future it will become the - time of Expiry Limit. After Expiry Limit, the keys will be expired - and completely removed, so this is called Compulsory Key Revocation - by server. - - If Expiry Limit is too distant from the Partial Revocation Time, then - even though very long time passes, clients will be able to refresh - secrets only if they add TSIG signed with those old partially revoked - keys into requests, which is not safe. - - On the other hand, if Expiry Limit is too close to Partial Revocation - Time, perhaps clients might not be able to notice their keys' Partial - Revocation by getting "PartialRevoke" errors. - - Therefore, servers should set proper Expiry Limit to their keys, - considering both their keys' safety, and enough time for clients to - send requests and process renewal. - - -4.2. Authentication Methods Considerations - - It might be ideal to provide both SIG(0) and TSIG as authentication - methods. For example: - - A client and a server start SIG(0) authentication at first, to - establish TSIG shared keys by means of "Query for Diffie-Hellman - Exchanged Keying" as described in [RFC2930] 4.1. Once they get - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 15] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - shared secret, they keep using TSIG for queries and responses. - After a while the server returns a "ParitalRevoke" error and they - begin a key renewal process. Both TSIG signed with partially - revoked keys and SIG(0) are okay for authentication, but TSIG would - be easier to use considering calculation efficiency. - - Suppose now client is halted for long time with some reason. - Because server does not execute any renewal process, it will - finally do Compulsory Revocation. Even if client restarts and sends - a key Renewal request, it will fail because old key is already - deleted at server. - - At this moment, however, if client also uses SIG(0) as another - authentication method, it can make a new shared key again and - recover successfully by sending "Query for Diffie-Hellman Exchanged - Keying" with SIG(0). - - -5. Special Considerations for Two servers' Case - - This section refers to the case where both hosts are DNS servers - which can act as full resolvers as well and using one shared key - only. If one server (called Server A) wants to refresh a shared key - (called "Key A-B"), it will await a TKEY Renewal request from the - other server (called Server B). However, perhaps Server A wants to - refresh the key right now. - - In this case, Server A is allowed to send a Renewal request to Server - B, if Server A knows the Key A-B is too old and wants to renew it - immediately. - - Note that the initiative in key renewal belongs to Server A because - it can notice the Partial Revocation Time and decide key renewal. If - Server B has information about Partial Revocation Time as well, it - can also decide for itself to send Renewal request to Server A. - However, it is not essential for both two servers have information - about key renewal timing. - -5.1. To Cope with Collisions of Renewal Requests - - At least one of two hosts which use Key Renewal must know their key - renewal information such as Partial Revocation Time. It is okay that - both hosts have it. - - Provided that both two servers know key renewal timing information, - there is possibility for them to begin partial revocation and sending - Renewal requests to each other at the same time. Such collisions will - not happen so often because Renewal requests are usually invoked when - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 16] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - hosts want to send queries, but it is possible. - - When one of two servers tries to send Renewal requests, it MUST - protect old secrets that it has partially revoked and prevent it from - being refreshed by any requests from the other server (i.e., it must - lock the old secret during the process of renewal). While the server - is sending Renewal requests and waiting responses, it ignores the - other server's Renewal requests. - - Therefore, servers might fail to change secrets by means of their own - requests to others. After failure they will try to resend, but they - should wait for random delays by the next retries. If they get any - Renewal requests from others while they are waiting, their shared - keys may be refreshed, then they do not need to send any Renewal - requests now for themselves. - - -6. Key Name Considerations - - Since both servers and clients have only to distinguish new secrets - and old ones, keys' names do not need to be specified strictly. - However, it is recommended that some serial number or key generation - time be added to the name and that the names of keys between the same - pair of hosts should have some common labels among their keys. For - example, suppose A.example.com. and B.example.com. share the key - ".A.example.com.B.example.com." such as - "10010.A.example.com.B.example.com.". After key renewal, they change - their secret and name into "10011.A.example.com.B.example.com." - - Servers and clients must be able to use keys properly for each query. - Because TSIG secret keys themselves do not have any particular IDs to - be distinguished and would be identified by their names and - algorithm, it must be understood correctly what keys are refreshed. - - -7. Example Usage of Secret Key Renewal Mode - - This is an example of Renewal mode usage where a Server, - server.example.com, and a Client, client.exmple.com have an initial - shared secret key named "00.client.example.com.server.example.com". - - (1) The time values for key - "00.client.example.com.server.example.com" was set as follows: - Inception Time is at 1:00, Expiry Limit is at 21:00. - - (2) At Server, renewal time has been set: Partial Revocation Time - is at 20:00. - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 17] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - (3) Suppose the present time is 19:55. If Client sends a query - signed with key "00.client.example.com.server.example.com" to ask - the IP address of "www.example.com", finally it will get a proper - answer from Server with valid TSIG (NOERROR). - - (4) At 20:05. Client sends a query to ask the IP address of - "www2.example.com". It is signed with key - "00.client.example.com.server.example.com". Server returns an - answer for the IP address. However, server has begun retuning - PartialRevoke Error randomely. This answer includes valid TSIG MAC - signed with "00.client.example.com.server.example.com", and its - Error Code indicates PartialRevoke. Client understands that the - current key is partially revoked. - - (5) At 20:06. Client sends a Renewal request to Server. This - request is signed with key - "00.client.example.com.server.example.com". It includes data such - as: - - Question Section: - QNAME = 01.client.example.com. (Client can set this freely) - TYPE = TKEY - - Additional Section: - 01.client.example.com. TKEY - Algorithm = hmac-md5-sig-alg.reg.int. - Inception = (value meaning 20:00) - Expiration = (value meaning next day's 16:00) - Mode = (DH exchange for key renewal) - OldName = 00.client.example.com.server.example.com. - OldAlgorithm = hmac-md5-sig-alg.reg.int. - - Additional Section also contains a KEY RR for DH and a TSIG RR. - - (6) As soon as Server receives this request, it verifies TSIG. It - is signed with the partially revoked key - "00.client.example.com.server.example.com". and Server accepts the - request. It creates a new key by Diffie-Hellman calculation and - returns an answer which includes data such as: - - Answer Section: - 01.client.example.com.server.example.com. TKEY - Algorithm = hmac-md5-sig-alg.reg.int. - Inception = (value meaning 20:00) - Expiration = (value meaning next day's 16:00) - Mode = (DH exchange for key renewal) - OldName = 00.client.example.com.server.example.com. - OldAlgorithm = hmac-md5-sig-alg.reg.int. - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 18] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - Answer Section also contains KEY RRs for DH. - - Additional Section also contains a TSIG RR. - This response is signed with key - "00.client.example.com.server.example.com" without error. - - At the same time, Server decides to set the Partial Revocation Time - of this new key "01.client.example.com.server.example.com." as next - day's 15:00. - - (7) Client gets the response and checks TSIG MAC, and calculates - Diffie-Hellman. It will get a new key, and it has been named - "01.client.example.com.server.example.com" by Server. - - (8) At 20:07. Client sends an Adoption request to Server. This - request is signed with the previous key - "00.client.example.com.server.example.com". It includes: - - Question Section: - QNAME = 01.client.example.com.server.example.com. - TYPE = TKEY - - Additional Section: - 01.client.example.com.server.example.com. TKEY - Algorithm = hmac-md5-sig-alg.reg.int. - Inception = (value meaning 20:00) - Expiration = (value meaning next day's 16:00) - Mode = (key adoption) - OldName = 00.client.example.com.server.example.com. - OldAlgorithm = hmac-md5-sig-alg.reg.int. - - Additional Section also contains a TSIG RR. - - (9) Server verifies the query's TSIG. It is signed with the - previous key and authenticated. It returns a response whose TKEY RR - is the same as the request's one. The response is signed with key - "00.client.example.com.server.example.com.". As soon as the - response is sent, Server revokes and removes the previous key. At - the same time, key "01.client.example.com.server.example.com." is - validated. - - (10) Client acknowledges the success of Adoption by receiving the - response. Then, it retries to send an original question about - "www2.example.com". It is signed with the adopted key - "01.client.example.com.server.example.com", so Server authenticates - it and returns an answer. - - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 19] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - - (11) This key is used until next day's 15:00. After that, it will - be partially revoked again. - - -8. Security Considerations - - This document considers about how to refresh shared secret. Secret - changed by this method is used at servers in support of TSIG - [RFC2845]. - - [RFC2104] says that current attacks to HMAC do not indicate a - specific recommended frequency for key changes but periodic key - refreshment is a fundamental security practice that helps against - potential weaknesses of the function and keys, and limits the damage - of an exposed key. TKEY Secret Key Renewal provides the method of - periodical key refreshment. - - In TKEY Secret Key Renewal, clients need to send two requests - (Renewal and Adoption) and spend time to finish their key renewal - processes. Thus the usage period of secrets should be considered - carefully based on both TKEY processing performance and security. - - This document specifies the procedure of periodical key renewal, but - actually there is possibility for servers to have no choice other - than revoking their secret keys immediately especially when the keys - are found to be compromised by attackers. This is called "Emergency - Compulsory Revocation". For example, suppose the original Expiry - Limit was set at 21:00, Partial Revocation Time at 20:00 and - Inception Time at 1:00. if at 11:00 the key is found to be - compromised, the server sets Expiry Limit forcibly to be 11:00 or - before it. - - Consequently, once Compulsory Revocation (See section 4.) is carried - out, normal renewal process described in this document cannot be done - any more as far as the key is concerned. However, after such - accidents happened, the two hosts are able to establish secret keys - and begin renewal procedure only if they have other (non-compromised) - shared TSIG keys or safe SIG(0) keys for the authentication of - initial secret establishment such as Diffie-Hellman Exchanged Keying. - - -9. IANA Considerations - - IANA needs to allocate a value for "DH exchange for key renewal", - "server assignment for key renewal", "resolver assignment for key - renewal" and "key adoption" in the mode filed of TKEY. It also needs - to allocate a value for "PartialRevoke" from the extended RCODE - space. - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 20] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - -10. Acknowledgements - - The authors would like to thank Olafur Gudmundsson, whose helpful - input and comments contributed greatly to this document. - - -11. References - -11.1. Normative References - -[RFC2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. - -[RFC2539] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the Domain Name - System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999. - -[RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. Wellington, - "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, - May 2000. - -[RFC2930] - D. Eastlake 3rd, ``Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)'', - RFC 2930, September 2000. - -[RFC2931] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures (SIG(0)s - )", RFC 2931, September 2000. - -11.2. Informative References - -[RFC2104] - H. Krawczyk, M.Bellare, R. Canetti, "Keyed-Hashing for Message - Authentication", RFC2104, February 1997. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 21] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Yuji Kamite - NTT Communications Corporation - Tokyo Opera City Tower - 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo - 163-1421, Japan - EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com - - - Masaya Nakayama - Information Technology Center, The University of Tokyo - 2-11-16 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo - 113-8658, Japan - EMail: nakayama@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 22] - -INTERNET-DRAFT October 2004 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Kamite, et. al. Expires April 15, 2005 [Page 23] - - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-00.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-00.txt deleted file mode 100644 index a5988264e40..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-00.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1501 +0,0 @@ -Network Working Group J. Ihren -Internet-Draft Autonomica AB -Expires: April 18, 2005 O. Kolkman - RIPE NCC - B. Manning - EP.net - October 18, 2004 - - - - An In-Band Rollover Mechanism and an Out-Of-Band Priming Method for - DNSSEC Trust Anchors. - draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-00 - - -Status of this Memo - - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable - patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, - and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with - RFC 3668. - - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - - 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. - - - This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2005. - - -Copyright Notice - - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. - - -Abstract - - - The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) works by validating so called - chains of authority. The start of these chains of authority are - usually public keys that are anchored in the DNS clients. These keys - are known as the so called trust anchors. - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 1] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - This memo describes a method how these client trust anchors can be - replaced using the DNS validation and querying mechanisms (in-band) - when the key pairs used for signing by zone owner are rolled. - - - This memo also describes a method to establish the validity of trust - anchors for initial configuration, or priming, using out of band - mechanisms. - - -Table of Contents - - - 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.1 Key Signing Keys, Zone Signing Keys and Secure Entry - Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1 Dangers of Stale Trust Anchors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3. Threshold-based Trust Anchor Rollover . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1 The Rollover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.2 Threshold-based Trust Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.3 Possible Trust Update States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.4 Implementation notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.5 Possible transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.5.1 Single DNSKEY replaced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.5.2 Addition of a new DNSKEY (no removal) . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.5.3 Removal of old DNSKEY (no addition) . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.5.4 Multiple DNSKEYs replaced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.6 Removal of trust anchors for a trust point . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.7 No need for resolver-side overlap of old and new keys . . 13 - 4. Bootstrapping automatic rollovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 4.1 Priming Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 4.1.1 Bootstrapping trust anchors using a priming key . . . 14 - 4.1.2 Distribution of priming keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 5. The Threshold Rollover Mechanism vs Priming . . . . . . . . . 16 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 6.1 Threshold-based Trust Update Security Considerations . . . 17 - 6.2 Priming Key Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - B.1 prior to version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - B.2 version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 24 - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 2] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -1. Terminology - - - The key words "MUST", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", - and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in - RFC2119 [1]. - - - The term "zone" refers to the unit of administrative control in the - Domain Name System. In this document "name server" denotes a DNS - name server that is authoritative (i.e. knows all there is to know) - for a DNS zone. A "zone owner" is the entity responsible for signing - and publishing a zone on a name server. The terms "authentication - chain", "bogus", "trust anchors" and "Island of Security" are defined - in [4]. Throughout this document we use the term "resolver" to mean - "Validating Stub Resolvers" as defined in [4]. - - - We use the term "security apex" as the zone for which a trust anchor - has been configured (by validating clients) and which is therefore, - by definition, at the root of an island of security. The - configuration of trust anchors is a client side issue. Therefore a - zone owner may not always know if their zone has become a security - apex. - - - A "stale anchor" is a trust anchor (a public key) that relates to a - key that is not used for signing. Since trust anchors indicate that - a zone is supposed to be secure a validator will mark the all data in - an island of security as bogus when all trust anchors become stale. - - - It is assumed that the reader is familiar with public key - cryptography concepts [REF: Schneier Applied Cryptography] and is - able to distinguish between the private and public parts of a key - based on the context in which we use the term "key". If there is a - possible ambiguity we will explicitly mention if a private or a - public part of a key is used. - - - The term "administrator" is used loosely throughout the text. In - some cases an administrator is meant to be a person, in other cases - the administrator may be a process that has been delegated certain - responsibilities. - - -1.1 Key Signing Keys, Zone Signing Keys and Secure Entry Points - - - Although the DNSSEC protocol does not make a distinction between - different keys the operational practice is that a distinction is made - between zone signing keys and key signing keys. A key signing key is - used to exclusively sign the DNSKEY Resource Record (RR) set at the - apex of a zone and the zone signing keys sign all the data in the - zone (including the DNSKEY RRset at the apex). - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 3] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - Keys that are intended to be used as the start of the authentication - chain for a particular zone, either because they are pointed to by a - parental DS RR or because they are configured as a trust anchor, are - called Secure Entry Point (SEP) keys. In practice these SEP keys - will be key signing keys. - - - In order for the mechanism described herein to work the keys that are - intended to be used as secure entry points MUST have the SEP [2] flag - set. In the examples it is assumed that keys with the SEP flag set - are used as key signing keys and thus exclusively sign the DNSKEY - RRset published at the apex of the zone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 4] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -2. Introduction and Background - - - When DNSSEC signatures are validated the resolver constructs a chain - of authority from a pre-configured trust anchor to the DNSKEY - Resource Record (RR), which contains the public key that validates - the signature stored in an RRSIG RR. DNSSEC is designed so that the - administrator of a resolver can validate data in multiple islands of - security by configuring multiple trust anchors. - - - It is expected that resolvers will have more than one trust anchor - configured. Although there is no deployment experience it is not - unreasonable to expect resolvers to be configured with a number of - trust anchors that varies between order 1 and order 1000. Because - zone owners are expected to roll their keys, trust anchors will have - to be maintained (in the resolver end) in order not to become stale. - - - Since there is no global key maintenance policy for zone owners and - there are no mechanisms in the DNS to signal the key maintenance - policy it may be very hard for resolvers administrators to keep their - set of trust anchors up to date. For instance, if there is only one - trust anchor configured and the key maintenance policy is clearly - published, through some out of band trusted channel, then a resolver - administrator can probably keep track of key rollovers and update the - trust anchor manually. However, with an increasing number of trust - anchors all rolled according to individual policies that are all - published through different channels this soon becomes an - unmanageable problem. - - -2.1 Dangers of Stale Trust Anchors - - - Whenever a SEP key at a security apex is rolled there exists a danger - that "stale anchors" are created. A stale anchor is a trust anchor - (i.e. a public key configured in a validating resolver) that relates - to a private key that is no longer used for signing. - - - The problem with a stale anchors is that they will (from the - validating resolvers point of view) prove data to be false even - though it is actually correct. This is because the data is either - signed by a new key or is no longer signed and the resolver expects - data to be signed by the old (now stale) key. - - - This situation is arguably worse than not having a trusted key - configured for the secure entry point, since with a stale key no - lookup is typically possible (presuming that the default - configuration of a validating recursive nameserver is to not give out - data that is signed but failed to verify. - - - The danger of making configured trust anchors become stale anchors - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 5] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - may be a reason for zone owners not to roll their keys. If a - resolver is configured with many trust anchors that need manual - maintenance it may be easy to not notice a key rollover at a security - apex, resulting in a stale anchor. - - - In Section 3 this memo sets out a lightweight, in-DNS, mechanism to - track key rollovers and modify the configured trust anchors - accordingly. The mechanism is stateless and does not need protocol - extensions. The proposed design is that this mechanism is - implemented as a "trust updating machine" that is run entirely - separate from the validating resolver except that the trust updater - will have influence over the trust anchors used by the latter. - - - In Section 4 we describe a method [Editors note: for now only the - frame work and a set of requirements] to install trust anchors. This - method can be used at first configuration or when the trust anchors - became stale (typically due to a failure to track several rollover - events). - - - The choice for which domains trust anchors are to be configured is a - local policy issue. So is the choice which trust anchors has - prevalence if there are multiple chains of trust to a given piece of - DNS data (e.g. when a parent zone and its child both have trust - anchors configured). Both issues are out of the scope of this - document. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 6] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -3. Threshold-based Trust Anchor Rollover - - -3.1 The Rollover - - - When a key pair is replaced all signatures (in DNSSEC these are the - RRSIG records) created with the old key will be replaced by new - signatures created by the new key. Access to the new public key is - needed to verify these signatures. - - - Since zone signing keys are in "the middle" of a chain of authority - they can be verified using the signature made by a key signing key. - Rollover of zone signing keys is therefore transparent to validators - and requires no action in the validator end. - - - But if a key signing key is rolled a resolver can determine its - authenticity by either following the authorization chain from the - parents DS record, an out-of-DNS authentication mechanism or by - relying on other trust anchors known for the zone in which the key is - rolled. - - - The threshold trust anchor rollover mechanism (or trust update), - described below, is based on using existing trust anchors to verify a - subset of the available signatures. This is then used as the basis - for a decision to accept the new keys as valid trust anchors. - - - Our example pseudo zone below contains a number of key signing keys - numbered 1 through Y and two zone signing keys A and B. During a key - rollover key 2 is replaced by key Y+1. The zone content changes - from: - - - example.com. DNSKEY key1 - example.com. DNSKEY key2 - example.com. DNSKEY key3 - ... - example.com. DNSKEY keyY - - - example.com. DNSKEY keyA - example.com. DNSKEY keyB - - - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (key1) - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (key2) - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (key3) - ... - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (keyY) - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (keyA) - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (keyB) - - - to: - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 7] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - example.com. DNSKEY key1 - example.com. DNSKEY key3 - ... - example.com. DNSKEY keyY - example.com. DNSKEY keyY+1 - - - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (key1) - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (key3) - ... - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (keyY) - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (keyY+1) - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (keyA) - example.com. RRSIG DNSKEY ... (keyB) - - - When the rollover becomes visible to the verifying stub resolver it - will be able to verify the RRSIGs associated with key1, key3 ... - keyY. There will be no RRSIG by key2 and the RRSIG by keyY+1 will - not be used for validation, since that key is previously unknown and - therefore not trusted. - - - Note that this example is simplified. Because of operational - considerations described in [5] having a period during which the two - key signing keys are both available is necessary. - - -3.2 Threshold-based Trust Update - - - The threshold-based trust update algorithm applies as follows. If - for a particular secure entry point - o if the DNSKEY RRset in the zone has been replaced by a more recent - one (as determined by comparing the RRSIG inception dates) - and - o if at least M configured trust anchors directly verify the related - RRSIGs over the new DNSKEY RRset - and - o the number of configured trust anchors that verify the related - RRSIGs over the new DNSKEY RRset exceed a locally defined minimum - number that should be greater than one - then all the trust anchors for the particular secure entry point are - replaced by the set of keys from the zones DNSKEY RRset that have the - SEP flag set. - - - The choices for the rollover acceptance policy parameter M is left to - the administrator of the resolver. To be certain that a rollover is - accepted up by resolvers using this mechanism zone owners should roll - as few SEP keys at a time as possible (preferably just one). That - way they comply to the most strict rollover acceptance policy of - M=N-1. - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 8] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - The value of M has an upper bound, limited by the number of of SEP - keys a zone owner publishes (i.e. N). But there is also a lower - bound, since it will not be safe to base the trust in too few - signatures. The corner case is M=1 when any validating RRSIG will be - sufficient for a complete replacement of the trust anchors for that - secure entry point. This is not a recommended configuration, since - that will allow an attacker to initiate rollover of the trust anchors - himself given access to just one compromised key. Hence M should in - be strictly larger than 1 as shown by the third requirement above. - - - If the rollover acceptance policy is M=1 then the result for the - rollover in our example above should be that the local database of - trust anchors is updated by removing key "key2" from and adding key - "keyY+1" to the key store. - - -3.3 Possible Trust Update States - - - We define five states for trust anchor configuration at the client - side. - PRIMING: There are no trust anchors configured. There may be priming - keys available for initial priming of trust anchors. - IN-SYNC: The set of trust anchors configured exactly matches the set - of SEP keys used by the zone owner to sign the zone. - OUT-OF-SYNC: The set of trust anchors is not exactly the same as the - set of SEP keys used by the zone owner to sign the zone but there - are enough SEP key in use by the zone owner that is also in the - trust anchor configuration. - UNSYNCABLE: There is not enough overlap between the configured trust - anchors and the set of SEP keys used to sign the zone for the new - set to be accepted by the validator (i.e. the number of - signatures that verify is not sufficient). - STALE: There is no overlap between the configured trust anchors and - the set of SEP keys used to sign the zone. Here validation of - data is no longer possible and hence we are in a situation where - the trust anchors are stale. - - - Of these five states only two (IN-SYNC and OUT-OF-SYNC) are part of - the automatic trust update mechanism. The PRIMING state is where a - validator is located before acquiring an up-to-date set of trust - anchors. The transition from PRIMING to IN-SYNC is manual (see - Section 4 below). - - - Example: assume a secure entry point with four SEP keys and a - validator with the policy that it will accept any update to the set - of trust anchors as long as no more than two signatures fail to - validate (i.e. M >= N-2) and at least two signature does validate - (i.e. M >= 2). In this case the rollover of a single key will move - the validator from IN-SYNC to OUT-OF-SYNC. When the trust update - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 9] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - state machine updates the trust anchors it returns to state IN-SYNC. - - - If if for some reason it fails to update the trust anchors then the - next rollover (of a different key) will move the validator from - OUT-OF-SYNC to OUT-OF-SYNC (again), since there are still two keys - that are configured as trust anchors and that is sufficient to accpt - an automatic update of the trust anchors. - - - The UNSYNCABLE state is where a validator is located if it for some - reason fails to incorporate enough updates to the trust anchors to be - able to accept new updates according to its local policy. In this - example (i.e. with the policy specified above) this will either be - because M < N-2 or M < 2, which does not suffice to authenticate a - successful update of trust anchors. - - - Continuing with the previous example where two of the four SEP keys - have already rolled, but the validator has failed to update the set - of trust anchors. When the third key rolls over there will only be - one trust anchor left that can do successful validation. This is not - sufficient to enable automatic update of the trust anchors, hence the - new state is UNSYNCABLE. Note, however, that the remaining - up-to-date trust anchor is still enough to do successful validation - so the validator is still "working" from a DNSSEC point of view. - - - The STALE state, finally, is where a validator ends up when it has - zero remaining current trust anchors. This is a dangerous state, - since the stale trust anchors will cause all validation to fail. The - escape is to remove the stale trust anchors and thereby revert to the - PRIMING state. - - -3.4 Implementation notes - - - The DNSSEC protocol specification ordains that a DNSKEY to which a DS - record points should be self-signed. Since the keys that serve as - trust anchors and the keys that are pointed to by DS records serve - the same purpose, they are both secure entry points, we RECOMMEND - that zone owners who want to facilitate the automated rollover scheme - documented herein self-sign DNSKEYs with the SEP bit set and that - implementation check that DNSKEYs with the SEP bit set are - self-signed. - - - In order to maintain a uniform way of determining that a keyset in - the zone has been replaced by a more recent set the automatic trust - update machine SHOULD only accept new DNSKEY RRsets if the - accompanying RRSIGs show a more recent inception date than the - present set of trust anchors. This is also needed as a safe guard - against possible replay attacks where old updates are replayed - "backwards" (i.e. one change at a time, but going in the wrong - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 10] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - direction, thereby luring the validator into the UNSYNCABLE and - finally STALE states). - - - In order to be resilient against failures the implementation should - collect the DNSKEY RRsets from (other) authoritative servers if - verification of the self signatures fails. - - - The threshold-based trust update mechanism SHOULD only be applied to - algorithms, as represented in the algorithm field in the DNSKEY/RRSIG - [3], that the resolver is aware of. In other words the SEP keys of - unknown algorithms should not be used when counting the number of - available signatures (the N constant) and the SEP keys of unknown - algorithm should not be entered as trust anchors. - - - When in state UNSYNCABLE or STALE manual intervention will be needed - to return to the IN-SYNC state. These states should be flagged. The - most appropriate action is human audit possibly followed by - re-priming (Section 4) the keyset (i.e. manual transfer to the - PRIMING state through removal of the configured trust anchors). - - - An implementation should regularly probe the the authoritative - nameservers for new keys. Since there is no mechanism to publish - rollover frequencies this document RECOMMENDS zone owners not to roll - their key signing keys more often than once per month and resolver - administrators to probe for key rollsovers (and apply the threshold - criterion for acceptance of trust update) not less often than once - per month. If the rollover frequency is higher than the probing - frequency then trust anchors may become stale. The exact relation - between the frequencies depends on the number of SEP keys rolled by - the zone owner and the value M configured by the resolver - administrator. - - - In all the cases below a transaction where the threshold criterion is - not satisfied should be considered bad (i.e. possibly spoofed or - otherwise corrupted data). The most appropriate action is human - audit. - - - There is one case where a "bad" state may be escaped from in an - automated fashion. This is when entering the STALE state where all - DNSSEC validation starts to fail. If this happens it is concievable - that it is better to completely discard the stale trust anchors - (thereby reverting to the PRIMING state where validation is not - possible). A local policy that automates removal of stale trust - anchors is therefore suggested. - - -3.5 Possible transactions - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 11] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -3.5.1 Single DNSKEY replaced - - - This is probably the most typical transaction on the zone owners - part. The result should be that if the threshold criterion is - satisfied then the key store is updated by removal of the old trust - anchor and addition of the new key as a new trust anchor. Note that - if the DNSKEY RRset contains exactly M keys replacement of keys is - not possible, i.e. for automatic rollover to work M must be stricly - less than N. - - -3.5.2 Addition of a new DNSKEY (no removal) - - - If the threshold criterion is satisfied then the new key is added as - a configured trust anchor. Not more than N-M keys can be added at - once, since otherwise the algorithm will fail. - - -3.5.3 Removal of old DNSKEY (no addition) - - - If the threshold criterion is satisfied then the old key is removed - from being a configured trust anchor. Note that it is not possible - to reduce the size of the DNSKEY RRset to a size smaller than the - minimum required value for M. - - -3.5.4 Multiple DNSKEYs replaced - - - Arguably it is not a good idea for the zone administrator to replace - several keys at the same time, but from the resolver point of view - this is exactly what will happen if the validating resolver for some - reason failed to notice a previous rollover event. - - - Not more than N-M keys can be replaced at one time or the threshold - criterion will not be satisfied. Or, expressed another way: as long - as the number of changed keys is less than or equal to N-M the - validator is in state OUT-OF-SYNC. When the number of changed keys - becomes greater than N-M the state changes to UNSYNCABLE and manual - action is needed. - - -3.6 Removal of trust anchors for a trust point - - - If the parent of a secure entry point gets signed and it's trusted - keys get configured in the key store of the validating resolver then - the configured trust anchors for the child should be removed entirely - unless explicitly configured (in the utility configuration) to be an - exception. - - - The reason for such a configuration would be that the resolver has a - local policy that requires maintenance of trusted keys further down - the tree hierarchy than strictly needed from the point of view. - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 12] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - The default action when the parent zone changes from unsigned to - signed should be to remove the configured trust anchors for the - child. This form of "garbage collect" will ensure that the automatic - rollover machinery scales as DNSSEC deployment progresses. - - -3.7 No need for resolver-side overlap of old and new keys - - - It is worth pointing out that there is no need for the resolver to - keep state about old keys versus new keys, beyond the requirement of - tracking signature inception time for the covering RRSIGs as - described in Section 3.4. - - - From the resolver point of view there are only trusted and not - trusted keys. The reason is that the zone owner needs to do proper - maintenance of RRSIGs regardless of the resolver rollover mechanism - and hence must ensure that no key rolled out out the DNSKEY set until - there cannot be any RRSIGs created by this key still legally cached. - - - Hence the rollover mechanism is entirely stateless with regard to the - keys involved: as soon as the resolver (or in this case the rollover - tracking utility) detects a change in the DNSKEY RRset (i.e. it is - now in the state OUT-OF-SYNC) with a sufficient number of matching - RRSIGs the configured trust anchors are immediately updated (and - thereby the machine return to state IN-SYNC). I.e. the rollover - machine changes states (mostly oscillating between IN-SYNC and - OUT-OF-SYNC), but the status of the DNSSEC keys is stateless. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 13] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -4. Bootstrapping automatic rollovers - - - It is expected that with the ability to automatically roll trust - anchors at trust points will follow a diminished unwillingness to - roll these keys, since the risks associated with stale keys are - minimized. - - - The problem of "priming" the trust anchors, or bringing them into - sync (which could happen if a resolver is off line for a long period - in which a set of SEP keys in a zone 'evolve' away from its trust - anchor configuration) remains. - - - For (re)priming we can rely on out of band technology and we propose - the following framework. - - -4.1 Priming Keys - - - If all the trust anchors roll somewhat frequently (on the order of - months or at most about a year) then it will not be possible to - design a device, or a software distribution that includes trust - anchors, that after being manufactured is put on a shelf for several - key rollover periods before being brought into use (since no trust - anchors that were known at the time of manufacture remain active). - - - To alleviate this we propose the concept of "priming keys". Priming - keys are ordinary DNSSEC Key Signing Keys with the characteristic - that - o The private part of a priming key signs the DNSKEY RRset at the - security apex, i.e. at least one RRSIG DNSKEY is created by a - priming key rather than by an "ordinary" trust anchor - o the public parts of priming keys are not included in the DNSKEY - RRset. Instead the public parts of priming keys are only - available out-of-band. - o The public parts of the priming keys have a validity period. - Within this period they can be used to obtain trust anchors. - o The priming key pairs are long lived (relative to the key rollover - period.) - - -4.1.1 Bootstrapping trust anchors using a priming key - - - To install the trust anchors for a particular security apex an - administrator of a validating resolver will need to: - o query for the DNSKEY RRset of the zone at the security apex; - o verify the self signatures of all DNSKEYs in the RRset; - o verify the signature of the RRSIG made with a priming key -- - verification using one of the public priming keys that is valid at - that moment is sufficient; - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 14] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - o create the trust anchors by extracting the DNSKEY RRs with the SEP - flag set. - The SEP keys with algorithms unknown to the validating resolver - SHOULD be ignored during the creation of the trust anchors. - - -4.1.2 Distribution of priming keys - - - The public parts of the priming keys SHOULD be distributed - exclusively through out-of-DNS mechanisms. The requirements for a - distribution mechanism are: - o it can carry the "validity" period for the priming keys; - o it can carry the self-signature of the priming keys; - o and it allows for verification using trust relations outside the - DNS. - A distribution mechanism would benefit from: - o the availability of revocation lists; - o the ability of carrying zone owners policy information such as - recommended values for "M" and "N" and a rollover frequency; - o and the technology on which is based is readily available. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 15] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -5. The Threshold Rollover Mechanism vs Priming - - - There is overlap between the threshold-based trust updater and the - Priming method. One could exclusively use the Priming method for - maintaining the trust anchors. However the priming method probably - relies on "non-DNS' technology and may therefore not be available for - all devices that have a resolver. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 16] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -6. Security Considerations - - -6.1 Threshold-based Trust Update Security Considerations - - - A clear issue for resolvers will be how to ensure that they track all - rollover events for the zones they have configure trust anchors for. - Because of temporary outages validating resolvers may have missed a - rollover of a KSK. The parameters that determine the robustness - against failures are: the length of the period between rollovers - during which the KSK set is stable and validating resolvers can - actually notice the change; the number of available KSKs (i.e. N) - and the number of signatures that may fail to validate (i.e. N-M). - - - With a large N (i.e. many KSKs) and a small value of M this - operation becomes more robust since losing one key, for whatever - reason, will not be crucial. Unfortunately the choice for the number - of KSKs is a local policy issue for the zone owner while the choice - for the parameter M is a local policy issue for the resolver - administrator. - - - Higher values of M increase the resilience against attacks somewhat; - more signatures need to verify for a rollover to be approved. On the - other hand the number of rollover events that may pass unnoticed - before the resolver reaches the UNSYNCABLE state goes down. - - - The threshold-based trust update intentionally does not provide a - revocation mechanism. In the case that a sufficient number of - private keys of a zone owner are simultaneously compromised the the - attacker may use these private keys to roll the trust anchors of (a - subset of) the resolvers. This is obviously a bad situation but it - is not different from most other public keys systems. - - - However, it is important to point out that since any reasonable trust - anchor rollover policy (in validating resolvers) will require more - than one RRSIG to validate this proposal does provide security - concious zone administrators with the option of not storing the - individual private keys in the same location and thereby decreasing - the likelihood of simultaneous compromise. - - -6.2 Priming Key Security Considerations - - - Since priming keys are not included in the DNSKEY RR set they are - less sensitive to packet size constraints and can be chosen - relatively large. The private parts are only needed to sign the - DNSKEY RR set during the validity period of the particular priming - key pair. Note that the private part of the priming key is used each - time when a DNSKEY RRset has to be resigned. In practice there is - therefore little difference between the usage pattern of the private - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 17] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - part of key signing keys and priming keys. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 18] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -7. IANA Considerations - - - NONE. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 19] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -8. References - - -8.1 Normative References - - - [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - - [2] Kolkman, O., Schlyter, J. and E. Lewis, "Domain Name System KEY - (DNSKEY) Resource Record (RR) Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag", - RFC 3757, May 2004. - - - [3] Arends, R., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-10 (work in progress), - September 2004. - - -8.2 Informative References - - - [4] Arends, R., Austein, R., Massey, D., Larson, M. and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-12 (work in progress), September - 2004. - - - [5] Kolkman, O., "DNSSEC Operational Practices", - draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-01 (work in - progress), May 2004. - - - [6] Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, T. and D. Solo, "Internet X.509 - Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile", RFC - 2459, January 1999. - - - -Authors' Addresses - - - Johan Ihren - Autonomica AB - Bellmansgatan 30 - Stockholm SE-118 47 - Sweden - - - EMail: johani@autonomica.se - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 20] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - - Olaf M. Kolkman - RIPE NCC - Singel 256 - Amsterdam 1016 AB - NL - - - Phone: +31 20 535 4444 - EMail: olaf@ripe.net - URI: http://www.ripe.net/ - - - - Bill Manning - EP.net - Marina del Rey, CA 90295 - USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 21] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -Appendix A. Acknowledgments - - - The present design for in-band automatic rollovers of DNSSEC trust - anchors is the result of many conversations and it is no longer - possible to remember exactly who contributed what. - - - In addition we've also had appreciated help from (in no particular - order) Paul Vixie, Sam Weiler, Suzanne Woolf, Steve Crocker, Matt - Larson and Mark Kosters. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 22] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -Appendix B. Document History - - - This appendix will be removed if and when the document is submitted - to the RFC editor. - - - The version you are reading is tagged as $Revision: 1.1.230.1 $. - - - Text between square brackets, other than references, are editorial - comments and will be removed. - - -B.1 prior to version 00 - - - This draft was initially published as a personal submission under the - name draft-kolkman-dnsext-dnssec-in-band-rollover-00.txt. - - - Kolkman documented the ideas provided by Ihren and Manning. In the - process of documenting (and prototyping) Kolkman changed some of the - details of the M-N algorithms working. Ihren did not have a chance - to review the draft before Kolkman posted; - - - Kolkman takes responsibilities for omissions, fuzzy definitions and - mistakes. - - -B.2 version 00 - o The name of the draft was changed as a result of the draft being - adopted as a working group document. - o A small section on the concept of stale trust anchors was added. - o The different possible states are more clearly defined, including - examples of transitions between states. - o The terminology is changed throughout the document. The old term - "M-N" is replaced by "threshold" (more or less). Also the - interpretation of the constants M and N is significantly - simplified to bring the usage more in line with "standard" - threshold terminlogy. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 23] -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Threshold-based Trust Update October 2004 - - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - - -Copyright Statement - - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - - -Acknowledgment - - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Ihren, et al. Expires April 18, 2005 [Page 24] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-02.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-02.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 7cb9063dc27..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-02.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,730 +0,0 @@ - - - - -Network Working Group M. StJohns -Internet-Draft Nominum, Inc. -Expires: July 14, 2006 January 10, 2006 - - - Automated Updates of DNSSEC Trust Anchors - draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-02 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - This document describes a means for automated, authenticated and - authorized updating of DNSSEC "trust anchors". The method provides - protection against single key compromise of a key in the trust point - key set. Based on the trust established by the presence of a current - anchor, other anchors may be added at the same place in the - hierarchy, and, ultimately, supplant the existing anchor. - - This mechanism, if adopted, will require changes to resolver - management behavior (but not resolver resolution behavior), and the - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - - addition of a single flag bit to the DNSKEY record. - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.1. Compliance Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.2. Changes since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1. Revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.2. Add Hold-Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.3. Remove Hold-down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.4. Active Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.5. Resolver Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.5.1. Add Hold-Down Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.5.2. Remove Hold-Down Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.5.3. Minimum Trust Anchors per Trust Point . . . . . . . . 6 - 3. Changes to DNSKEY RDATA Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4. State Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.1. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.2. States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4.3. Trust Point Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5.1. Adding A Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5.2. Deleting a Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5.3. Key Roll-Over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5.4. Active Key Compromised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5.5. Stand-by Key Compromised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7.1. Key Ownership vs Acceptance Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7.2. Multiple Key Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7.3. Dynamic Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Editorial Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - -1. Introduction - - As part of the reality of fielding DNSSEC (Domain Name System - Security Extensions) [RFC2535] [RFC4033][RFC4034][RFC4035], the - community has come to the realization that there will not be one - signed name space, but rather islands of signed name space each - originating from specific points (i.e. 'trust points') in the DNS - tree. Each of those islands will be identified by the trust point - name, and validated by at least one associated public key. For the - purpose of this document we'll call the association of that name and - a particular key a 'trust anchor'. A particular trust point can have - more than one key designated as a trust anchor. - - For a DNSSEC-aware resolver to validate information in a DNSSEC - protected branch of the hierarchy, it must have knowledge of a trust - anchor applicable to that branch. It may also have more than one - trust anchor for any given trust point. Under current rules, a chain - of trust for DNSSEC-protected data that chains its way back to ANY - known trust anchor is considered 'secure'. - - Because of the probable balkanization of the DNSSEC tree due to - signing voids at key locations, a resolver may need to know literally - thousands of trust anchors to perform its duties. (e.g. Consider an - unsigned ".COM".) Requiring the owner of the resolver to manually - manage this many relationships is problematic. It's even more - problematic when considering the eventual requirement for key - replacement/update for a given trust anchor. The mechanism described - herein won't help with the initial configuration of the trust anchors - in the resolvers, but should make trust point key replacement/ - rollover more viable. - - As mentioned above, this document describes a mechanism whereby a - resolver can update the trust anchors for a given trust point, mainly - without human intervention at the resolver. There are some corner - cases discussed (e.g. multiple key compromise) that may require - manual intervention, but they should be few and far between. This - document DOES NOT discuss the general problem of the initial - configuration of trust anchors for the resolver. - -1.1. Compliance Nomenclature - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119]. - -1.2. Changes since -00 - - Added the concept of timer triggered resolver queries to refresh the - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - - resolvers view of the trust anchor key RRSet. - - Re-submitted expired draft as -01. Updated DNSSEC RFC References. - - Draft -02. Added the IANA Considerations section. Added text to - describe what happens if all trust anchors at a trust point are - deleted. - - -2. Theory of Operation - - The general concept of this mechanism is that existing trust anchors - can be used to authenticate new trust anchors at the same point in - the DNS hierarchy. When a new SEP key is added to a trust point - DNSKEY RRSet, and when that RRSet is validated by an existing trust - anchor, then the new key can be added to the set of trust anchors. - - There are some issues with this approach which need to be mitigated. - For example, a compromise of one of the existing keys could allow an - attacker to add their own 'valid' data. This implies a need for a - method to revoke an existing key regardless of whether or not that - key is compromised. As another example assuming a single key - compromise, an attacker could add a new key and revoke all the other - old keys. - -2.1. Revocation - - Assume two trust anchor keys A and B. Assume that B has been - compromised. Without a specific revocation bit, B could invalidate A - simply by sending out a signed trust point key set which didn't - contain A. To fix this, we add a mechanism which requires knowledge - of the private key of a DNSKEY to revoke that DNSKEY. - - A key is considered revoked when the resolver sees the key in a self- - signed RRSet and the key has the REVOKE bit (see Section 6 below) set - to '1'. Once the resolver sees the REVOKE bit, it MUST NOT use this - key as a trust anchor or for any other purposes except validating the - RRSIG over the DNSKEY RRSet specifically for the purpose of - validating the revocation. Unlike the 'Add' operation below, - revocation is immediate and permanent upon receipt of a valid - revocation at the resolver. - - N.B. A DNSKEY with the REVOKE bit set has a different fingerprint - than one without the bit set. This affects the matching of a DNSKEY - to DS records in the parent, or the fingerprint stored at a resolver - used to configure a trust point. [msj3] - - In the given example, the attacker could revoke B because it has - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - - knowledge of B's private key, but could not revoke A. - -2.2. Add Hold-Down - - Assume two trust point keys A and B. Assume that B has been - compromised. An attacker could generate and add a new trust anchor - key - C (by adding C to the DNSKEY RRSet and signing it with B), and - then invalidate the compromised key. This would result in the both - the attacker and owner being able to sign data in the zone and have - it accepted as valid by resolvers. - - To mitigate, but not completely solve, this problem, we add a hold- - down time to the addition of the trust anchor. When the resolver - sees a new SEP key in a validated trust point DNSKEY RRSet, the - resolver starts an acceptance timer, and remembers all the keys that - validated the RRSet. If the resolver ever sees the DNSKEY RRSet - without the new key but validly signed, it stops the acceptance - process and resets the acceptance timer. If all of the keys which - were originally used to validate this key are revoked prior to the - timer expiring, the resolver stops the acceptance process and resets - the timer. - - Once the timer expires, the new key will be added as a trust anchor - the next time the validated RRSet with the new key is seen at the - resolver. The resolver MUST NOT treat the new key as a trust anchor - until the hold down time expires AND it has retrieved and validated a - DNSKEY RRSet after the hold down time which contains the new key. - - N.B.: Once the resolver has accepted a key as a trust anchor, the key - MUST be considered a valid trust anchor by that resolver until - explictly revoked as described above. - - In the given example, the zone owner can recover from a compromise by - revoking B and adding a new key D and signing the DNSKEY RRSet with - both A and B. - - The reason this does not completely solve the problem has to do with - the distributed nature of DNS. The resolver only knows what it sees. - A determined attacker who holds one compromised key could keep a - single resolver from realizing that key had been compromised by - intercepting 'real' data from the originating zone and substituting - their own (e.g. using the example, signed only by B). This is no - worse than the current situation assuming a compromised key. - -2.3. Remove Hold-down - - A new key which has been seen by the resolver, but hasn't reached - it's add hold-down time, MAY be removed from the DNSKEY RRSet by the - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - - zone owner. If the resolver sees a validated DNSKEY RRSet without - this key, it waits for the remove hold-down time and then, if the key - hasn't reappeared, SHOULD discard any information about the key. - -2.4. Active Refresh - - A resolver which has been configured for automatic update of keys - from a particular trust point MUST query that trust point (e.g. do a - lookup for the DNSKEY RRSet and related RRSIG records) no less often - than the lesser of 15 days or half the original TTL for the DNSKEY - RRSet or half the RRSIG expiration interval. The expiration interval - is the amount of time from when the RRSIG was last retrieved until - the expiration time in the RRSIG. - - If the query fails, the resolver MUST repeat the query until - satisfied no more often than once an hour and no less often than the - lesser of 1 day or 10% of the original TTL or 10% of the original - expiration interval. - -2.5. Resolver Parameters - -2.5.1. Add Hold-Down Time - - The add hold-down time is 30 days or the expiration time of the TTL - of the first trust point DNSKEY RRSet which contained the key, - whichever is greater. This ensures that at least two validated - DNSKEY RRSets which contain the new key MUST be seen by the resolver - prior to the key's acceptance. - -2.5.2. Remove Hold-Down Time - - The remove hold-down time is 30 days. - -2.5.3. Minimum Trust Anchors per Trust Point - - A compliant resolver MUST be able to manage at least five SEP keys - per trust point. - - -3. Changes to DNSKEY RDATA Wire Format - - Bit n [msj2] of the DNSKEY Flags field is designated as the 'REVOKE' - flag. If this bit is set to '1', AND the resolver sees an - RRSIG(DNSKEY) signed by the associated key, then the resolver MUST - consider this key permanently invalid for all purposes except for - validing the revocation. - - - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - -4. State Table - - The most important thing to understand is the resolver's view of any - key at a trust point. The following state table describes that view - at various points in the key's lifetime. The table is a normative - part of this specification. The initial state of the key is 'Start'. - The resolver's view of the state of the key changes as various events - occur. - - [msj1] This is the state of a trust point key as seen from the - resolver. The column on the left indicates the current state. The - header at the top shows the next state. The intersection of the two - shows the event that will cause the state to transition from the - current state to the next. - - NEXT STATE - -------------------------------------------------- - FROM |Start |AddPend |Valid |Missing|Revoked|Removed| - ---------------------------------------------------------- - Start | |NewKey | | | | | - ---------------------------------------------------------- - AddPend |KeyRem | |AddTime| | | - ---------------------------------------------------------- - Valid | | | |KeyRem |Revbit | | - ---------------------------------------------------------- - Missing | | |KeyPres| |Revbit | | - ---------------------------------------------------------- - Revoked | | | | | |RemTime| - ---------------------------------------------------------- - Removed | | | | | | | - ---------------------------------------------------------- - -4.1. Events - NewKey The resolver sees a valid DNSKEY RRSet with a new SEP key. - That key will become a new trust anchor for the named trust point - after its been present in the RRSet for at least 'add time'. - KeyPres The key has returned to the valid DNSKEY RRSet. - KeyRem The resolver sees a valid DNSKEY RRSet that does not contain - this key. - AddTime The key has been in every valid DNSKEY RRSet seen for at - least the 'add time'. - RemTime A revoked key has been missing from the trust point DNSKEY - RRSet for sufficient time to be removed from the trust set. - RevBit The key has appeared in the trust anchor DNSKEY RRSet with its - "REVOKED" bit set, and there is an RRSig over the DNSKEY RRSet - signed by this key. - - - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - -4.2. States - Start The key doesn't yet exist as a trust anchor at the resolver. - It may or may not exist at the zone server, but hasn't yet been - seen at the resolver. - AddPend The key has been seen at the resolver, has its 'SEP' bit set, - and has been included in a validated DNSKEY RRSet. There is a - hold-down time for the key before it can be used as a trust - anchor. - Valid The key has been seen at the resolver and has been included in - all validated DNSKEY RRSets from the time it was first seen up - through the hold-down time. It is now valid for verifying RRSets - that arrive after the hold down time. Clarification: The DNSKEY - RRSet does not need to be continuously present at the resolver - (e.g. its TTL might expire). If the RRSet is seen, and is - validated (i.e. verifies against an existing trust anchor), this - key MUST be in the RRSet otherwise a 'KeyRem' event is triggered. - Missing This is an abnormal state. The key remains as a valid trust - point key, but was not seen at the resolver in the last validated - DNSKEY RRSet. This is an abnormal state because the zone operator - should be using the REVOKE bit prior to removal. [Discussion - item: Should a missing key be considered revoked after some period - of time?] - Revoked This is the state a key moves to once the resolver sees an - RRSIG(DNSKEY) signed by this key where that DNSKEY RRSet contains - this key with its REVOKE bit set to '1'. Once in this state, this - key MUST permanently be considered invalid as a trust anchor. - Removed After a fairly long hold-down time, information about this - key may be purged from the resolver. A key in the removed state - MUST NOT be considered a valid trust anchor. - -4.3. Trust Point Deletion - - A trust point which has all of its trust anchors revoked is - considered deleted and is treated as if the trust point was never - configured. If there are no superior trust points, data at and below - the deleted trust point are considered insecure. If there there ARE - superior trust points, data at and below the deleted trust point are - evaluated with respect to the superior trust point. - - -5. Scenarios - - The suggested model for operation is to have one active key and one - stand-by key at each trust point. The active key will be used to - sign the DNSKEY RRSet. The stand-by key will not normally sign this - RRSet, but the resolver will accept it as a trust anchor if/when it - sees the signature on the trust point DNSKEY RRSet. - - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - - Since the stand-by key is not in active signing use, the associated - private key may (and SHOULD) be provided with additional protections - not normally available to a key that must be used frequently. E.g. - locked in a safe, split among many parties, etc. Notionally, the - stand-by key should be less subject to compromise than an active key, - but that will be dependent on operational concerns not addressed - here. - -5.1. Adding A Trust Anchor - - Assume an existing trust anchor key 'A'. - 1. Generate a new key pair. - 2. Create a DNSKEY record from the key pair and set the SEP and Zone - Key bits. - 3. Add the DNSKEY to the RRSet. - 4. Sign the DNSKEY RRSet ONLY with the existing trust anchor key - - 'A'. - 5. Wait a while. - -5.2. Deleting a Trust Anchor - - Assume existing trust anchors 'A' and 'B' and that you want to revoke - and delete 'A'. - 1. Set the revolcation bit on key 'A'. - 2. Sign the DNSKEY RRSet with both 'A' and 'B'. - 'A' is now revoked. The operator SHOULD include the revoked 'A' in - the RRSet for at least the remove hold-down time, but then may remove - it from the DNSKEY RRSet. - -5.3. Key Roll-Over - - Assume existing keys A and B. 'A' is actively in use (i.e. has been - signing the DNSKEY RRSet.) 'B' was the stand-by key. (i.e. has been - in the DNSKEY RRSet and is a valid trust anchor, but wasn't being - used to sign the RRSet.) - 1. Generate a new key pair 'C'. - 2. Add 'C' to the DNSKEY RRSet. - 3. Set the revocation bit on key 'A'. - 4. Sign the RRSet with 'A' and 'B'. - 'A' is now revoked, 'B' is now the active key, and 'C' will be the - stand-by key once the hold-down expires. The operator SHOULD include - the revoked 'A' in the RRSet for at least the remove hold-down time, - but may then remove it from the DNSKEY RRSet. - -5.4. Active Key Compromised - - This is the same as the mechanism for Key Roll-Over (Section 5.3) - above assuming 'A' is the active key. - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - -5.5. Stand-by Key Compromised - - Using the same assumptions and naming conventions as Key Roll-Over - (Section 5.3) above: - 1. Generate a new key pair 'C'. - 2. Add 'C' to the DNSKEY RRSet. - 3. Set the revocation bit on key 'B'. - 4. Sign the RRSet with 'A' and 'B'. - 'B' is now revoked, 'A' remains the active key, and 'C' will be the - stand-by key once the hold-down expires. 'B' SHOULD continue to be - included in the RRSet for the remove hold-down time. - - -6. IANA Considerations - - The IANA will need to assign a bit in the DNSKEY flags field (see - section 4.3 of [RFC3755]) for the REVOKE bit. There are no other - IANA actions required. - - -7. Security Considerations - -7.1. Key Ownership vs Acceptance Policy - - The reader should note that, while the zone owner is responsible - creating and distributing keys, it's wholly the decision of the - resolver owner as to whether to accept such keys for the - authentication of the zone information. This implies the decision - update trust anchor keys based on trust for a current trust anchor - key is also the resolver owner's decision. - - The resolver owner (and resolver implementers) MAY choose to permit - or prevent key status updates based on this mechanism for specific - trust points. If they choose to prevent the automated updates, they - will need to establish a mechanism for manual or other out-of-band - updates outside the scope of this document. - -7.2. Multiple Key Compromise - - This scheme permits recovery as long as at least one valid trust - anchor key remains uncompromised. E.g. if there are three keys, you - can recover if two of them are compromised. The zone owner should - determine their own level of comfort with respect to the number of - active valid trust anchors in a zone and should be prepared to - implement recovery procedures once they detect a compromise. A - manual or other out-of-band update of all resolvers will be required - if all trust anchor keys at a trust point are compromised. - - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - -7.3. Dynamic Updates - - Allowing a resolver to update its trust anchor set based in-band key - information is potentially less secure than a manual process. - However, given the nature of the DNS, the number of resolvers that - would require update if a trust anchor key were compromised, and the - lack of a standard management framework for DNS, this approach is no - worse than the existing situation. - -8. Normative References - - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", - RFC 2535, March 1999. - - [RFC3755] Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation - Signer (DS)", RFC 3755, May 2004. - - [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", - RFC 4033, March 2005. - - [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4034, March 2005. - - [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. - Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security - Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. - -Editorial Comments - - [msj1] msj: N.B. This table is preliminary and will be revised to - match implementation experience. For example, should there - be a state for "Add hold-down expired, but haven't seen the - new RRSet"? - - [msj2] msj: To be assigned. - - [msj3] msj: For discussion: What's the implementation guidance for - resolvers currently with respect to the non-assigned flag - bits? If they consider the flag bit when doing key matching - at the trust anchor, they won't be able to match. - - - - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - -Author's Address - - Michael StJohns - Nominum, Inc. - 2385 Bay Road - Redwood City, CA 94063 - USA - - Phone: +1-301-528-4729 - Email: Mike.StJohns@nominum.com - URI: www.nominum.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft trustanchor-update January 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -StJohns Expires July 14, 2006 [Page 13] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-06.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-06.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 00476ae507e..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-06.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,522 +0,0 @@ - -INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd -UPDATES RFC 2845 Motorola Laboratories -Expires: July 2006 January 2006 - - HMAC SHA TSIG Algorithm Identifiers - ---- --- ---- --------- ----------- - - - -Status of This Document - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - This draft is intended to be become a Proposed Standard RFC. - Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent - to the DNSEXT working group mailing list . - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - - -Abstract - - Use of the Domain Name System TSIG resource record requires - specification of a cryptographic message authentication code. - Currently identifiers have been specified only for the HMAC MD5 - (Message Digest) and GSS (Generic Security Service) TSIG algorithms. - This document standardizes identifiers and implementation - requirements for additional HMAC SHA (Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG - algorithms and standardizes how to specify and handle the truncation - of HMAC values in TSIG. - - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT HMAC-SHA TSIG Identifiers - - -Table of Contents - - Status of This Document....................................1 - Abstract...................................................1 - Copyright Notice...........................................1 - - Table of Contents..........................................2 - - 1. Introduction............................................3 - - 2. Algorithms and Identifiers..............................4 - - 3. Specifying Truncation...................................5 - 3.1 Truncation Specification...............................5 - - 4. TSIG Truncation Policy and Error Provisions.............6 - - 5. IANA Considerations.....................................7 - 6. Security Considerations.................................7 - 7. Copyright and Disclaimer................................7 - - 8. Normative References....................................8 - 9. Informative References..................................8 - - Author's Address...........................................9 - Additional IPR Provisions..................................9 - Expiration and File Name...................................9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT HMAC-SHA TSIG Identifiers - - -1. Introduction - - [RFC 2845] specifies a TSIG Resource Record (RR) that can be used to - authenticate DNS (Domain Name System [STD 13]) queries and responses. - This RR contains a domain name syntax data item which names the - authentication algorithm used. [RFC 2845] defines the HMAC-MD5.SIG- - ALG.REG.INT name for authentication codes using the HMAC [RFC 2104] - algorithm with the MD5 [RFC 1321] hash algorithm. IANA has also - registered "gss-tsig" as an identifier for TSIG authentication where - the cryptographic operations are delegated to the Generic Security - Service (GSS) [RFC 3645]. - - It should be noted that use of TSIG presumes prior agreement, between - the resolver and server involved, as to the algorithm and key to be - used. - - In Section 2, this document specifies additional names for TSIG - authentication algorithms based on US NIST SHA (United States, - National Institute of Science and Technology, Secure Hash Algorithm) - algorithms and HMAC and specifies the implementation requirements for - those algorithms. - - In Section 3, this document specifies the effect of inequality - between the normal output size of the specified hash function and the - length of MAC (message authentication code) data given in the TSIG - RR. In particular, it specifies that a shorter length field value - specifies truncation and a longer length field is an error. - - In Section 4, policy restrictions and implications related to - truncation and a new error code to indicate truncation shorter than - permitted by policy are described and specified. - - The use herein of MUST, SHOULD, MAY, MUST NOT, and SHOULD NOT is as - defined in [RFC 2119]. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 3] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT HMAC-SHA TSIG Identifiers - - -2. Algorithms and Identifiers - - TSIG Resource Records (RRs) [RFC 2845] are used to authenticate DNS - queries and responses. They are intended to be efficient symmetric - authentication codes based on a shared secret. (Asymmetric signatures - can be provided using the SIG RR [RFC 2931]. In particular, SIG(0) - can be used for transaction signatures.) Used with a strong hash - function, HMAC [RFC 2104] provides a way to calculate such symmetric - authentication codes. The only specified HMAC based TSIG algorithm - identifier has been HMAC-MD5.SIG-ALG.REG.INT based on MD5 [RFC 1321]. - - The use of SHA-1 [FIPS 180-2, RFC 3174], which is a 160 bit hash, as - compared with the 128 bits for MD5, and additional hash algorithms in - the SHA family [FIPS 180-2, RFC 3874, SHA2draft] with 224, 256, 384, - and 512 bits, may be preferred in some cases particularly since - increasingly successful cryptanalytic attacks are being made on the - shorter hashes. - - Use of TSIG between a DNS resolver and server is by mutual agreement. - That agreement can include the support of additional algorithms and - criteria as to which algorithms and truncations are acceptable, - subject to the restriction and guidelines in Section 3 and 4 below. - Key agreement can be by the TKEY mechanism [RFC 2930] or other - mutually agreeable method. - - The current HMAC-MD5.SIG-ALG.REG.INT and gss-tsig identifiers are - included in the table below for convenience. Implementations which - support TSIG MUST also implement HMAC SHA1 and HMAC SHA256 and MAY - implement gss-tsig and the other algorithms listed below. - - Mandatory HMAC-MD5.SIG-ALG.REG.INT - Optional gss-tsig - Mandatory hmac-sha1 - Optional hmac-sha224 - Mandatory hmac-sha256 - Optional hamc-sha384 - Optional hmac-sha512 - - SHA-1 truncated to 96 bits (12 octets) SHOULD be implemented. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 4] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT HMAC-SHA TSIG Identifiers - - -3. Specifying Truncation - - When space is at a premium and the strength of the full length of an - HMAC is not needed, it is reasonable to truncate the HMAC output and - use the truncated value for authentication. HMAC SHA-1 truncated to - 96 bits is an option available in several IETF protocols including - IPSEC and TLS. - - The TSIG RR [RFC 2845] includes a "MAC size" field, which gives the - size of the MAC field in octets. But [RFC 2845] does not specify what - to do if this MAC size differs from the length of the output of HMAC - for a particular hash function. Truncation is indicated by a MAC size - less than the HMAC size as specified below. - - - -3.1 Truncation Specification - - The specification for TSIG handling is changed as follows: - - 1. If "MAC size" field is greater than HMAC output length: - This case MUST NOT be generated and if received MUST cause the - packet to be dropped and RCODE 1 (FORMERR) to be returned. - - 2. If "MAC size" field equals HMAC output length: - Operation is as described in [RFC 2845] with the entire output - HMAC output present. - - 3. "MAC size" field is less than HMAC output length but greater than - that specified in case 4 below: - This is sent when the signer has truncated the HMAC output to - an allowable length, as described in RFC 2104, taking initial - octets and discarding trailing octets. TSIG truncation can only be - to an integral number of octets. On receipt of a packet with - truncation thus indicated, the locally calculated MAC is similarly - truncated and only the truncated values compared for - authentication. The request MAC used when calculating the TSIG MAC - for a reply is the truncated request MAC. - - 4. "MAC size" field is less than the larger of 10 (octets) and half - the length of the hash function in use: - With the exception of certain TSIG error messages described in - RFC 2845 section 3.2 where it is permitted that the MAC size be - zero, this case MUST NOT be generated and if received MUST cause - the packet to be dropped and RCODE 1 (FORMERR) to be returned. The - size limit for this case can also, for the hash functions - mentioned in this document, be stated as less than half the hash - function length for hash functions other than MD5 and less than 10 - octets for MD5. - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT HMAC-SHA TSIG Identifiers - - -4. TSIG Truncation Policy and Error Provisions - - Use of TSIG is by mutual agreement between a resolver and server. - Implicit in such "agreement" are criterion as to acceptable keys and - algorithms and, with the extensions in this document, truncations. - Note that it is common for implementations to bind the TSIG secret - key or keys that may be in place at a resolver and server to - particular algorithms. Thus such implementations only permit the use - of an algorithm if there is an associated key in place. Receipt of an - unknown, unimplemented, or disabled algorithm typically results in a - BADKEY error. - - Local policies MAY require the rejection of TSIGs even though they - use an algorithm for which implementation is mandatory. - - When a local policy permits acceptance of a TSIG with a particular - algorithm and a particular non-zero amount of truncation it SHOULD - also permit the use of that algorithm with lesser truncation (a - longer MAC) up to the full HMAC output. - - Regardless of a lower acceptable truncated MAC length specified by - local policy, a reply SHOULD be sent with a MAC at least as long as - that in the corresponding request unless the request specified a MAC - length longer than the HMAC output. - - Implementations permitting multiple acceptable algorithms and/or - truncations SHOULD permit this list to be ordered by presumed - strength and SHOULD allow different truncations for the same - algorithm to be treated as separate entities in this list. When so - implemented, policies SHOULD accept a presumed stronger algorithm and - truncation than the minimum strength required by the policy. - - If a TSIG is received with truncation which is permitted under - Section 3 above but the MAC is too short for the local policy in - force, an RCODE of TBA [22 suggested](BADTRUNC) MUST be returned. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT HMAC-SHA TSIG Identifiers - - -5. IANA Considerations - - This document, on approval for publication as a standards track RFC, - (1) registers the new TSIG algorithm identifiers listed in Section 2 - with IANA and (2) allocates the BADTRUNC RCODE TBA [22 suggested] in - Section 4. [RFC 2845] - - - -6. Security Considerations - - For all of the message authentication code algorithms listed herein, - those producing longer values are believed to be stronger; however, - while there have been some arguments that mild truncation can - strengthen a MAC by reducing the information available to an - attacker, excessive truncation clearly weakens authentication by - reducing the number of bits an attacker has to try to break the - authentication by brute force [RFC 2104]. - - Significant progress has been made recently in cryptanalysis of hash - function of the type used herein, all of which ultimately derive from - the design of MD4. While the results so far should not effect HMAC, - the stronger SHA-1 and SHA-256 algorithms are being made mandatory - due to caution. - - See the Security Considerations section of [RFC 2845]. See also the - Security Considerations section of [RFC 2104] from which the limits - on truncation in this RFC were taken. - - - -7. Copyright and Disclaimer - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - - This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions - contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors - retain all their rights. - - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 7] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT HMAC-SHA TSIG Identifiers - - -8. Normative References - - [FIPS 180-2] - "Secure Hash Standard", (SHA-1/224/256/384/512) US - Federal Information Processing Standard, with Change Notice 1, - February 2004. - - [RFC 1321] - Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm ", RFC - 1321, April 1992. - - [RFC 2104] - Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- - Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997. - - [RFC 2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [RFC 2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B. - Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", - RFC 2845, May 2000. - - [RFC 3174] - Eastlake 3rd, D. and P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm - 1 (SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001. - - [RFC 3874] - R. Housely, "A 224-bit One-way Hash Function: SHA-224", - September 2004, - - [SHA2draft] - Eastlake, D., T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms - (SHA)", draft-eastlake-sha2-*.txt, work in progress. - - [STD 13] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD - 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - - -9. Informative References. - - [RFC 2930] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS - (TKEY RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000. - - [RFC 2931] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction - Signatures ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000. - - [RFC 3645] - Kwan, S., Garg, P., Gilroy, J., Esibov, L., Westhead, - J., and R. Hall, "Generic Security Service Algorithm for Secret Key - Transaction Authentication for DNS (GSS-TSIG)", RFC 3645, October - 2003. - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8] - - -INTERNET-DRAFT HMAC-SHA TSIG Identifiers - - -Author's Address - - Donald E. Eastlake 3rd - Motorola Laboratories - 155 Beaver Street - Milford, MA 01757 USA - - Telephone: +1-508-786-7554 (w) - - EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com - - - -Additional IPR Provisions - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed - to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology - described in this document or the extent to which any license - under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it - represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any - such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to - rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use - of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository - at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention - any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other - proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required - to implement this standard. Please address the information to the - IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - - -Expiration and File Name - - This draft expires in July 2006. - - Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-06.txt - - - - - - - - -D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 9] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 9cf88a5831f..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1063 +0,0 @@ -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -DNSEXT Working Group E. Lewis -INTERNET DRAFT NeuStar -Expiration Date: July 9, 2006 January 9, 2006 -Updates RFC 1034, RFC 2672 - - The Role of Wildcards - in the Domain Name System - draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that - any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is - aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she - becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of - BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six - months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other - documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts - as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in - progress." - - 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 - - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - This is an update to the wildcard definition of RFC 1034. The - interaction with wildcards and CNAME is changed, an error - condition removed, and the words defining some concepts central - to wildcards are changed. The overall goal is not to change - wildcards, but to refine the definition of RFC 1034. - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -Table of Contents - -1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -1 1 Motivation 3 -1 2 The Original Definition 3 -1 3 Roadmap to This Document 4 -1 3 1 New Terms 4 -1.3.2 Changed Text 5 -1.3.3 Considerations with Special Types 5 -1.4 Standards Terminology 5 -2. Wildcard Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 -2.1 Identifying a Wildcard 6 -2.1.1 Wild Card Domain Name and Asterisk Label 6 -2.1.2 Asterisks and Other Characters 6 -2.1.3 Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Names 6 -2.2 Existence Rules 7 -2.2.1 An Example 7 -2.2.2 Empty Non-terminals 9 -2.2.3 Yet Another Definition of Existence 10 -2.3 When is a Wild Card Domain Name Not Special 10 -3. Impact of a Wild Card Domain Name On a Response . . . . . 10 -3.1 Step 2 10 -3.2 Step 3 11 -3.3 Part 'c' 11 -3.3.1 Closest Encloser and the Source of Synthesis 12 -3.3.2 Closest Encloser and Source of Synthesis Examples 12 -3.3.3 Type Matching 13 -4. Considerations with Special Types . . . . . . . . . 13 -4.1 SOA RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 13 -4.2 NS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 14 -4.2.1 Discarded Notions 14 -4.3 CNAME RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 15 -4.4 DNAME RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 15 -4.5 SRV RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 16 -4.6 DS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 16 -4.7 NSEC RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 17 -4.8 RRSIG at a Wild Card Domain Name 17 -4.9 Empty Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Name 17 -5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 -6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 -7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 -8. Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 -9. Others Contributing to the Document . . . . . . . . 18 -10. Trailing Boilerplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - - - - - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -1. Introduction - - In RFC 1034 [RFC1034], sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 describe the - synthesis of answers from special resource records called - wildcards. The definition in RFC 1034 is incomplete and has - proven to be confusing. This document describes the wildcard - synthesis by adding to the discussion and making limited - modifications. Modifications are made to close inconsistencies - that have led to interoperability issues. This description - does not expand the service intended by the original definition. - - Staying within the spirit and style of the original documents, - this document avoids specifying rules for DNS implementations - regarding wildcards. The intention is to only describe what is - needed for interoperability, not restrict implementation choices. - In addition, consideration is given to minimize any backwards - compatibility issues with implementations that comply with RFC - 1034's definition. - - This document is focused on the concept of wildcards as defined - in RFC 1034. Nothing is implied regarding alternative means of - synthesizing resource record sets, nor are alternatives discussed. - -1.1 Motivation - - Many DNS implementations diverge, in different ways, from the - original definition of wildcards. Although there is clearly a - need to clarify the original documents in light of this alone, - the impetus for this document lay in the engineering of the DNS - security extensions [RFC4033]. With an unclear definition of - wildcards the design of authenticated denial became entangled. - - This document is intended to limit its changes, documenting only - those based on implementation experience, and to remain as close - to the original document as possible. To reinforce that this - document is meant to clarify and adjust and not redefine wildcards, - relevant sections of RFC 1034 are repeated verbatim to facilitate - comparison of the old and new text. - -1.2 The Original Definition - - The definition of the wildcard concept is comprised by the - documentation of the algorithm by which a name server prepares - a response (in RFC 1034's section 4.3.2) and the way in which - a resource record (set) is identified as being a source of - synthetic data (section 4.3.3). - - This is the definition of the term "wildcard" as it appears in - RFC 1034, section 4.3.3. - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -# In the previous algorithm, special treatment was given to RRs with -# owner names starting with the label "*". Such RRs are called -# wildcards. Wildcard RRs can be thought of as instructions for -# synthesizing RRs. When the appropriate conditions are met, the name -# server creates RRs with an owner name equal to the query name and -# contents taken from the wildcard RRs. - - This passage follows the algorithm in which the term wildcard - is first used. In this definition, wildcard refers to resource - records. In other usage, wildcard has referred to domain names, - and it has been used to describe the operational practice of - relying on wildcards to generate answers. It is clear from this - that there is a need to define clear and unambiguous terminology - in the process of discussing wildcards. - - The mention of the use of wildcards in the preparation of a - response is contained in step 3c of RFC 1034's section 4.3.2 - entitled "Algorithm." Note that "wildcard" does not appear in - the algorithm, instead references are made to the "*" label. - The portion of the algorithm relating to wildcards is - deconstructed in detail in section 3 of this document, this is - the beginning of the relevant portion of the "Algorithm." - -# c. If at some label, a match is impossible (i.e., the -# corresponding label does not exist), look to see if [...] -# the "*" label exists. - - The scope of this document is the RFC 1034 definition of - wildcards and the implications of updates to those documents, - such as DNSSEC. Alternate schemes for synthesizing answers are - not considered. (Note that there is no reference listed. No - document is known to describe any alternate schemes, although - there has been some mention of them in mailing lists.) - -1.3 Roadmap to This Document - - This document accomplishes these three items. - o Defines new terms - o Makes minor changes to avoid conflicting concepts - o Describes the actions of certain resource records as wildcards - -1.3.1 New Terms - - To help in discussing what resource records are wildcards, two - terms will be defined - "asterisk label" and "wild card domain - name". These are defined in section 2.1.1. - - To assist in clarifying the role of wildcards in the name server - algorithm in RFC 1034, 4.3.2, "source of synthesis" and "closest - encloser" are defined. These definitions are in section 3.3.2. - "Label match" is defined in section 3.2. - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - The new terms are used to make discussions of wildcards clearer. - Terminology doesn't directly have an impact on implementations. - -1.3.2 Changed Text - - The definition of "existence" is changed superficially. This - change will not be apparent to implementations; it is needed to - make descriptions more precise. The change appears in section - 2.2.3. - - RFC 1034, section 4.3.3., seems to prohibit having two asterisk - labels in a wildcard owner name. With this document the - restriction is removed entirely. This change and its implications - are in section 2.1.3. - - The actions when a source of synthesis owns a CNAME RR are - changed to mirror the actions if an exact match name owns a - CNAME RR. This is an addition to the words in RFC 1034, - section 4.3.2, step 3, part c. The discussion of this is in - section 3.3.3. - - Only the latter change represents an impact to implementations. - The definition of existence is not a protocol impact. The change - to the restriction on names is unlikely to have an impact, as - RFC 1034 contained no specification on when and how to enforce the - restriction. - -1.3.3 Considerations with Special Types - - This document describes semantics of wildcard RRSets for - "interesting" types as well as empty non-terminal wildcards. - Understanding these situations in the context of wildcards has - been clouded because these types incur special processing if - they are the result of an exact match. This discussion is in - section 4. - - These discussions do not have an implementation impact, they cover - existing knowledge of the types, but to a greater level of detail. - -1.4 Standards Terminology - - This document does not use terms as defined in "Key words for use - in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels." [RFC2119] - - Quotations of RFC 1034 are denoted by a '#' in the leftmost - column. References to section "4.3.2" are assumed to refer - to RFC 1034's section 4.3.2, simply titled "Algorithm." - - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -2. Wildcard Syntax - - The syntax of a wildcard is the same as any other DNS resource - record, across all classes and types. The only significant - feature is the owner name. - - Because wildcards are encoded as resource records with special - names, they are included in zone transfers and incremental zone - transfers[RFC1995] just as non-wildcard resource records are. - This feature has been under appreciated until discussions on - alternative approaches to wildcards appeared on mailing lists. - -2.1 Identifying a Wildcard - - To provide a more accurate description of wildcards, the - definition has to start with a discussion of the domain names - that appear as owners. Two new terms are needed, "Asterisk - Label" and "Wild Card Domain Name." - -2.1.1 Wild Card Domain Name and Asterisk Label - - A "wild card domain name" is defined by having its initial - (i.e., left-most or least significant) label be, in binary format: - - 0000 0001 0010 1010 (binary) = 0x01 0x2a (hexadecimal) - - The first octet is the normal label type and length for a 1 octet - long label, the second octet is the ASCII representation [RFC20] - for the '*' character. - - A descriptive name of a label equaling that value is an "asterisk - label." - - RFC 1034's definition of wildcard would be "a resource record - owned by a wild card domain name." - -2.1.2 Asterisks and Other Characters - - No label values other than that in section 2.1.1 are asterisk - labels, hence names beginning with other labels are never wild - card domain names. Labels such as 'the*' and '**' are not - asterisk labels so these labels do not start wild card domain - names. - -2.1.3 Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Names - - In section 4.3.3, the following is stated: - -# .......................... The owner name of the wildcard RRs is of -# the form "*.", where is any domain name. -# should not contain other * labels...................... - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - The restriction is now removed. The original documentation of it - is incomplete and the restriction does not serve any purpose - given years of operational experience. - - There are three possible reasons for putting the restriction in - place, but none of the three has held up over time. One is - that the restriction meant that there would never be subdomains - of wild card domain names, but the restriciton as stated still - permits "example.*.example." for instance. Another is that - wild card domain names are not intended to be empty non-terminals, - but this situation does not disrupt the algorithm in 4.3.2. - Finally, "nested" wild card domain names are not ambiguous once - the concept of the closest encloser had been documented. - - A wild card domain name can have subdomains. There is no need - to inspect the subdomains to see if there is another asterisk - label in any subdomain. - - A wild card domain name can be an empty non-terminal. (See the - upcoming sections on empty non-terminals.) In this case, any - lookup encountering it will terminate as would any empty - non-terminal match. - -2.2 Existence Rules - - The notion that a domain name 'exists' is mentioned in the - definition of wildcards. In section 4.3.3 of RFC 1034: - -# Wildcard RRs do not apply: -# -... -# - When the query name or a name between the wildcard domain and -# the query name is know[n] to exist. For example, if a wildcard - - "Existence" is therefore an important concept in the understanding - of wildcards. Unfortunately, the definition of what exists, in RFC - 1034, is unclear. So, in sections 2.2.2. and 2.2.3, another look is - taken at the definition of existence. - -2.2.1 An Example - - To illustrate what is meant by existence consider this complete - zone: - - - - - - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - $ORIGIN example. - example. 3600 IN SOA - example. 3600 NS ns.example.com. - example. 3600 NS ns.example.net. - *.example. 3600 TXT "this is a wild card" - *.example. 3600 MX 10 host1.example. - sub.*.example. 3600 TXT "this is not a wild card" - host1.example. 3600 A 192.0.4.1 - _ssh._tcp.host1.example. 3600 SRV - _ssh._tcp.host2.example. 3600 SRV - subdel.example. 3600 NS ns.example.com. - subdel.example. 3600 NS ns.example.net. - - A look at the domain names in a tree structure is helpful: - - | - -------------example------------ - / / \ \ - / / \ \ - / / \ \ - * host1 host2 subdel - | | | - | | | - sub _tcp _tcp - | | - | | - _ssh _ssh - - The following responses would be synthesized from one of the - wildcards in the zone: - - QNAME=host3.example. QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN - the answer will be a "host3.example. IN MX ..." - - QNAME=host3.example. QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN - the answer will reflect "no error, but no data" - because there is no A RR set at '*.example.' - - QNAME=foo.bar.example. QTYPE=TXT, QCLASS=IN - the answer will be "foo.bar.example. IN TXT ..." - because bar.example. does not exist, but the wildcard - does. - - The following responses would not be synthesized from any of the - wildcards in the zone: - - QNAME=host1.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN - because host1.example. exists - - QNAME=sub.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN - because sub.*.example. exists - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - QNAME=_telnet._tcp.host1.example., QTYPE=SRV, QCLASS=IN - because _tcp.host1.example. exists (without data) - - QNAME=host.subdel.example., QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN - because subdel.example. exists (and is a zone cut) - - QNAME=ghost.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN - because *.example. exists - - The final example highlights one common misconception about - wildcards. A wildcard "blocks itself" in the sense that a - wildcard does not match its own subdomains. I.e. "*.example." - does not match all names in the "example." zone, it fails to - match the names below "*.example." To cover names under - "*.example.", another wild card domain name is needed - - "*.*.example." - which covers all but it's own subdomains. - -2.2.2 Empty Non-terminals - - Empty non-terminals [RFC2136, Section 7.16] are domain names - that own no resource records but have subdomains that do. In - section 2.2.1, "_tcp.host1.example." is an example of a empty - non-terminal name. Empty non-terminals are introduced by this - text in section 3.1 of RFC 1034: - -# The domain name space is a tree structure. Each node and leaf on -# the tree corresponds to a resource set (which may be empty). The -# domain system makes no distinctions between the uses of the -# interior nodes and leaves, and this memo uses the term "node" to -# refer to both. - - The parenthesized "which may be empty" specifies that empty non- - terminals are explicitly recognized, and that empty non-terminals - "exist." - - Pedantically reading the above paragraph can lead to an - interpretation that all possible domains exist - up to the - suggested limit of 255 octets for a domain name [RFC1035]. - For example, www.example. may have an A RR, and as far as is - practically concerned, is a leaf of the domain tree. But the - definition can be taken to mean that sub.www.example. also - exists, albeit with no data. By extension, all possible domains - exist, from the root on down. - - As RFC 1034 also defines "an authoritative name error indicating - that the name does not exist" in section 4.3.1, so this apparently - is not the intent of the original definition, justifying the - need for an updated definition in the next section. - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -2.2.3 Yet Another Definition of Existence - - RFC1034's wording is fixed by the following paragraph: - - The domain name space is a tree structure. Nodes in the tree - either own at least one RRSet and/or have descendants that - collectively own at least one RRSet. A node may exist with no - RRSets only if it has descendents that do, this node is an empty - non-terminal. - - A node with no descendants is a leaf node. Empty leaf nodes do - not exist. - - Note that at a zone boundary, the domain name owns data, - including the NS RR set. In the delegating zone, the NS RR - set is not authoritative, but that is of no consequence here. - The domain name owns data, therefore, it exists. - -2.3 When is a Wild Card Domain Name Not Special - - When a wild card domain name appears in a message's query section, - no special processing occurs. An asterisk label in a query name - only matches a single, corresponding asterisk label in the - existing zone tree when the 4.3.2 algorithm is being followed. - - When a wild card domain name appears in the resource data of a - record, no special processing occurs. An asterisk label in that - context literally means just an asterisk. - -3. Impact of a Wild Card Domain Name On a Response - - RFC 1034's description of how wildcards impact response - generation is in its section 4.3.2. That passage contains the - algorithm followed by a server in constructing a response. - Within that algorithm, step 3, part 'c' defines the behavior of - the wildcard. - - The algorithm in section 4.3.2. is not intended to be pseudo-code, - i.e., its steps are not intended to be followed in strict order. - The "algorithm" is a suggested means of implementing the - requirements. As such, in step 3, parts a, b, and c, do not have - to be implemented in that order, provided that the result of the - implemented code is compliant with the protocol's specification. - -3.1 Step 2 - - Step 2 of section 4.3.2 reads: - -# 2. Search the available zones for the zone which is the nearest -# ancestor to QNAME. If such a zone is found, go to step 3, -# otherwise step 4. - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - In this step, the most appropriate zone for the response is - chosen. The significance of this step is that it means all of - step 3 is being performed within one zone. This has significance - when considering whether or not an SOA RR can be ever be used for - synthesis. - -3.2 Step 3 - - Step 3 is dominated by three parts, labelled 'a', 'b', and 'c'. - But the beginning of the step is important and needs explanation. - -# 3. Start matching down, label by label, in the zone. The -# matching process can terminate several ways: - - The word 'matching' refers to label matching. The concept - is based in the view of the zone as the tree of existing names. - The query name is considered to be an ordered sequence of - labels - as if the name were a path from the root to the owner - of the desired data. (Which it is - 3rd paragraph of RFC 1034, - section 3.1.) - - The process of label matching a query name ends in exactly one of - three choices, the parts 'a', 'b', and 'c'. Either the name is - found, the name is below a cut point, or the name is not found. - - Once one of the parts is chosen, the other parts are not - considered. (E.g., do not execute part 'c' and then change - the execution path to finish in part 'b'.) The process of label - matching is also done independent of the query type (QTYPE). - - Parts 'a' and 'b' are not an issue for this clarification as they - do not relate to record synthesis. Part 'a' is an exact match - that results in an answer, part 'b' is a referral. - -3.3 Part 'c' - - The context of part 'c' is that the process of label matching the - labels of the query name has resulted in a situation in which - there is no corresponding label in the tree. It is as if the - lookup has "fallen off the tree." - -# c. If at some label, a match is impossible (i.e., the -# corresponding label does not exist), look to see if [...] -# the "*" label exists. - - To help describe the process of looking 'to see if [...] the "*" - label exists' a term has been coined to describe the last domain - (node) matched. The term is "closest encloser." - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -3.3.1 Closest Encloser and the Source of Synthesis - - The closest encloser is the node in the zone's tree of existing - domain names that has the most labels matching the query name - (consecutively, counting from the root label downward). Each match - is a "label match" and the order of the labels is the same. - - The closest encloser is, by definition, an existing name in the - zone. The closest encloser might be an empty non-terminal or even - be a wild card domain name itself. In no circumstances is the - closest encloser to be used to synthesize records for the current - query. - - The source of synthesis is defined in the context of a query - process as that wild card domain name immediately descending - from the closest encloser, provided that this wild card domain - name exists. "Immediately descending" means that the source - of synthesis has a name of the form: - .. - A source of synthesis does not guarantee having a RRSet to use - for synthesis. The source of synthesis could be an empty - non-terminal. - - If the source of synthesis does not exist (not on the domain - tree), there will be no wildcard synthesis. There is no search - for an alternate. - - The important concept is that for any given lookup process, there - is at most one place at which wildcard synthetic records can be - obtained. If the source of synthesis does not exist, the lookup - terminates, the lookup does not look for other wildcard records. - -3.3.2 Closest Encloser and Source of Synthesis Examples - - To illustrate, using the example zone in section 2.2.1 of this - document, the following chart shows QNAMEs and the closest - enclosers. - - QNAME Closest Encloser Source of Synthesis - host3.example. example. *.example. - _telnet._tcp.host1.example. _tcp.host1.example. no source - _telnet._tcp.host2.example. host2.example. no source - _telnet._tcp.host3.example. example. *.example. - _chat._udp.host3.example. example. *.example. - foobar.*.example. *.example. no source - - - - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -3.3.3 Type Matching - - RFC 1034 concludes part 'c' with this: - -# If the "*" label does not exist, check whether the name -# we are looking for is the original QNAME in the query -# or a name we have followed due to a CNAME. If the name -# is original, set an authoritative name error in the -# response and exit. Otherwise just exit. -# -# If the "*" label does exist, match RRs at that node -# against QTYPE. If any match, copy them into the answer -# section, but set the owner of the RR to be QNAME, and -# not the node with the "*" label. Go to step 6. - - The final paragraph covers the role of the QTYPE in the lookup - process. - - Based on implementation feedback and similarities between step - 'a' and step 'c' a change to this passage has been made. - - The change is to add the following text to step 'c' prior to the - instructions to "go to step 6": - - If the data at the source of synthesis is a CNAME, and - QTYPE doesn't match CNAME, copy the CNAME RR into the - answer section of the response changing the owner name - to the QNAME, change QNAME to the canonical name in the - CNAME RR, and go back to step 1. - - This is essentially the same text in step a covering the - processing of CNAME RRSets. - -4. Considerations with Special Types - - Sections 2 and 3 of this document discuss wildcard synthesis - with respect to names in the domain tree and ignore the impact - of types. In this section, the implication of wildcards of - specific types are discussed. The types covered are those - that have proven to be the most difficult to understand. The - types are SOA, NS, CNAME, DNAME, SRV, DS, NSEC, RRSIG and - "none," i.e., empty non-terminal wild card domain names. - -4.1 SOA RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name - - A wild card domain name owning an SOA RRSet means that the - domain is at the root of the zone (apex). The domain can not - be a source of synthesis because that is, by definition, a - descendent node (of the closest encloser) and a zone apex is - at the top of the zone. - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - Although a wild card domain name owning an SOA RRSet can never - be a source of synthesis, there is no reason to forbid the - ownership of an SOA RRSet. - - E.g., given this zone: - $ORIGIN *.example. - @ 3600 IN SOA - 3600 NS ns1.example.com. - 3600 NS ns1.example.net. - www 3600 TXT "the www txt record" - - A query for www.*.example.'s TXT record would still find the - "the www txt record" answer. The asterisk label only becomes - significant when section 4.3.2, step 3 part 'c' is in effect. - - Of course, there would need to be a delegation in the parent - zone, "example." for this to work too. This is covered in the - next section. - -4.2 NS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name - - With the definition of DNSSEC [RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC4035] now - in place, the semantics of a wild card domain name owning an - NS RRSet has come to be poorly defined. The dilemma relates to - a conflict between the rules for synthesis in part 'c' and the - fact that the resulting synthesis generates a record for which - the zone is not authoritative. In a DNSSEC signed zone, the - mechanics of signature management (generation and inclusion - in a message) have become unclear. - - Salient points of the working group discussion on this topic is - summarized in section 4.2.1. - - As a result of these discussion, there is no definition given for - wild card domain names owning an NS RRSet. The semantics are - left undefined until there is a clear need to have a set defined, - and until there is a clear direction to proceed. Operationally, - inclusion of wild card NS RRSets in a zone is discouraged, but - not barred. - -4.2.1 Discarded Notions - - Prior to DNSSEC, a wild card domain name owning a NS RRSet - appeared to be workable, and there are some instances in which - it is found in deployments using implementations that support - this. Continuing to allow this in the specification is not - tenable with DNSSEC. The reason is that the synthesis of the - NS RRSet is being done in a zone that has delegated away the - responsibility for the name. This "unauthorized" synthesis is - not a problem for the base DNS protocol, but DNSSEC, in affirming - the authorization model for DNS exposes the problem. - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - Outright banning of wildcards of type NS is also untenable as - the DNS protocol does not define how to handle "illegal" data. - Implementations may choose not to load a zone, but there is no - protocol definition. The lack of the definition is complicated - by having to cover dynamic update [RFC 2136], zone transfers, - as well as loading at the master server. The case of a client - (resolver, caching server) getting a wildcard of type NS in - a reply would also have to be considered. - - Given the daunting challenge of a complete definition of how to - ban such records, dealing with existing implementations that - permit the records today is a further complication. There are - uses of wild card domain name owning NS RRSets. - - One compromise proposed would have redefined wildcards of type - NS to not be used in synthesis, this compromise fell apart - because it would have required significant edits to the DNSSEC - signing and validation work. (Again, DNSSEC catches - unauthorized data.) - - With no clear consensus forming on the solution to this dilemma, - and the realization that wildcards of type NS are a rarity in - operations, the best course of action is to leave this open-ended - until "it matters." - -4.3 CNAME RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name - - The issue of a CNAME RRSet owned by a wild card domain name has - prompted a suggested change to the last paragraph of step 3c of - the algorithm in 4.3.2. The changed text appears in section - 3.3.3 of this document. - -4.4 DNAME RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name - - Ownership of a DNAME [RFC2672] RRSet by a wild card domain name - represents a threat to the coherency of the DNS and is to be - avoided or outright rejected. Such a DNAME RRSet represents - non-deterministic synthesis of rules fed to different caches. - As caches are fed the different rules (in an unpredictable - manner) the caches will cease to be coherent. ("As caches - are fed" refers to the storage in a cache of records obtained - in responses by recursive or iterative servers.) - - For example, assume one cache, responding to a recursive - request, obtains the record: - "a.b.example. DNAME foo.bar.example.net." - and another cache obtains: - "b.example. DNAME foo.bar.example.net." - both generated from the record: - "*.example. DNAME foo.bar.example.net." - by an authoritative server. - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - The DNAME specification is not clear on whether DNAME records - in a cache are used to rewrite queries. In some interpretations, - the rewrite occurs, in some, it is not. Allowing for the - occurrence of rewriting, queries for "sub.a.b.example. A" may - be rewritten as "sub.foo.bar.tld. A" by the former caching - server and may be rewritten as "sub.a.foo.bar.tld. A" by the - latter. Coherency is lost, an operational nightmare ensues. - - Another justification for banning or avoiding wildcard DNAME - records is the observation that such a record could synthesize - a DNAME owned by "sub.foo.bar.example." and "foo.bar.example." - There is a restriction in the DNAME definition that no domain - exist below a DNAME-owning domain, hence, the wildcard DNAME - is not to be permitted. - -4.5 SRV RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name - - The definition of the SRV RRset is RFC 2782 [RFC2782]. In the - definition of the record, there is some confusion over the term - "Name." The definition reads as follows: - -# The format of the SRV RR -... -# _Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target -... -# Name -# The domain this RR refers to. The SRV RR is unique in that the -# name one searches for is not this name; the example near the end -# shows this clearly. - - Do not confuse the definition "Name" with the owner name. I.e., - once removing the _Service and _Proto labels from the owner name - of the SRV RRSet, what remains could be a wild card domain name - but this is immaterial to the SRV RRSet. - - E.g., If an SRV record is: - _foo._udp.*.example. 10800 IN SRV 0 1 9 old-slow-box.example. - - *.example is a wild card domain name and although it is the Name - of the SRV RR, it is not the owner (domain name). The owner - domain name is "_foo._udp.*.example." which is not a wild card - domain name. - - The confusion is likely based on the mixture of the specification - of the SRV RR and the description of a "use case." - -4.6 DS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name - - A DS RRSet owned by a wild card domain name is meaningless and - harmless. This statement is made in the context that an NS RRSet - at a wild card domain name is undefined. At a non-delegation - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - point, a DS RRSet has no value (no corresponding DNSKEY RRSet - will be used in DNSSEC validation). If there is a synthesized - DS RRSet, it alone will not be very useful as it exists in the - context of a delegation point. - -4.7 NSEC RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name - - Wild card domain names in DNSSEC signed zones will have an NSEC - RRSet. Synthesis of these records will only occur when the - query exactly matches the record. Synthesized NSEC RR's will not - be harmful as they will never be used in negative caching or to - generate a negative response. [RFC2308] - -4.8 RRSIG at a Wild Card Domain Name - - RRSIG records will be present at a wild card domain name in a - signed zone, and will be synthesized along with data sought in a - query. The fact that the owner name is synthesized is not a - problem as the label count in the RRSIG will instruct the - verifying code to ignore it. - -4.9 Empty Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Name - - If a source of synthesis is an empty non-terminal, then the - response will be one of no error in the return code and no RRSet - in the answer section. - -5. Security Considerations - - This document is refining the specifications to make it more - likely that security can be added to DNS. No functional - additions are being made, just refining what is considered - proper to allow the DNS, security of the DNS, and extending - the DNS to be more predictable. - -6. IANA Considerations - - None. - -7. References - - Normative References - - [RFC20] ASCII Format for Network Interchange, V.G. Cerf, - Oct-16-1969 - - [RFC1034] Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities, - P.V. Mockapetris, Nov-01-1987 - - [RFC1035] Domain Names - Implementation and Specification, P.V - Mockapetris, Nov-01-1987 - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - - [RFC1995] Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS, M. Ohta, August 1996 - - [RFC2119] Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels, S Bradner, March 1997 - - [RFC2308] Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE), - M. Andrews, March 1998 - - [RFC2672] Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection, M. Crawford, - August 1999. - - [RFC2782] A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS - SRV), A. Gulbrandsen, et.al., February 2000 - - [RFC4033] DNS Security Introduction and Requirements, R. Arends, - et.al., March 2005 - - [RFC4034] Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions, - R. Arends, et.al., March 2005 - - [RFC4035] Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions, - R. Arends, et.al., March 2005 - - Informative References - - [RFC2136] Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE), - P. Vixie, Ed., S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound, - April 1997 - -8. Editor - - Name: Edward Lewis - Affiliation: NeuStar - Address: 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA, 20166, US - Phone: +1-571-434-5468 - Email: ed.lewis@neustar.biz - - Comments on this document can be sent to the editor or the mailing - list for the DNSEXT WG, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org. - -9. Others Contributing to the Document - - This document represents the work of a large working group. The - editor merely recorded the collective wisdom of the working group. - - - - - - - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft dnsext-wcard January 9, 2006 - -10. Trailing Boilerplate - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - - This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions - contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors - retain all their rights. - - This document and the information contained herein are provided - on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION - HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET - SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - -Intellectual Property - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of - any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might - be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the - technology described in this document or the extent to which - any license under such rights might or might not be available; - nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort - to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures - with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 - and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the - use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR - repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any - interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, - patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights - that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - -Acknowledgement - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - -Expiration - - This document expires on or about July 9, 2006. - - - -DNSEXT Working Group Expires July 9, 2006 [Page 19] diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-05.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-05.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0855ba358c9..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-05.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1232 +0,0 @@ - - - -DNS Operations M. Larson -Internet-Draft P. Barber -Expires: August 14, 2006 VeriSign - February 10, 2006 - - - Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior - draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-05 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - This memo describes DNS iterative resolver behavior that results in a - significant query volume sent to the root and top-level domain (TLD) - name servers. We offer implementation advice to iterative resolver - developers to alleviate these unnecessary queries. The - recommendations made in this document are a direct byproduct of - observation and analysis of abnormal query traffic patterns seen at - two of the thirteen root name servers and all thirteen com/net TLD - name servers. - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.1. A note about terminology in this memo . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Observed iterative resolver misbehavior . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1. Aggressive requerying for delegation information . . . . . 5 - 2.1.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.2. Repeated queries to lame servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.2.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.3. Inability to follow multiple levels of indirection . . . . 8 - 2.3.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 2.4. Aggressive retransmission when fetching glue . . . . . . . 9 - 2.4.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 2.5. Aggressive retransmission behind firewalls . . . . . . . . 10 - 2.5.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 2.6. Misconfigured NS records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 2.6.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 2.7. Name server records with zero TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 2.7.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 2.8. Unnecessary dynamic update messages . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 2.8.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 2.9. Queries for domain names resembling IPv4 addresses . . . . 14 - 2.9.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 2.10. Misdirected recursive queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 2.10.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 2.11. Suboptimal name server selection algorithm . . . . . . . . 15 - 2.11.1. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 3. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 6. Internationalization considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -1. Introduction - - Observation of query traffic received by two root name servers and - the thirteen com/net TLD name servers has revealed that a large - proportion of the total traffic often consists of "requeries". A - requery is the same question () asked - repeatedly at an unexpectedly high rate. We have observed requeries - from both a single IP address and multiple IP addresses (i.e., the - same query received simultaneously from multiple IP addresses). - - By analyzing requery events we have found that the cause of the - duplicate traffic is almost always a deficient iterative resolver, - stub resolver or application implementation combined with an - operational anomaly. The implementation deficiencies we have - identified to date include well-intentioned recovery attempts gone - awry, insufficient caching of failures, early abort when multiple - levels of indirection must be followed, and aggressive retry by stub - resolvers or applications. Anomalies that we have seen trigger - requery events include lame delegations, unusual glue records, and - anything that makes all authoritative name servers for a zone - unreachable (DoS attacks, crashes, maintenance, routing failures, - congestion, etc.). - - In the following sections, we provide a detailed explanation of the - observed behavior and recommend changes that will reduce the requery - rate. None of the changes recommended affects the core DNS protocol - specification; instead, this document consists of guidelines to - implementors of iterative resolvers. - -1.1. A note about terminology in this memo - - To recast an old saying about standards, the nice thing about DNS - terms is that there are so many of them to choose from. Writing or - talking about DNS can be difficult and cause confusion resulting from - a lack of agreed-upon terms for its various components. Further - complicating matters are implementations that combine multiple roles - into one piece of software, which makes naming the result - problematic. An example is the entity that accepts recursive - queries, issues iterative queries as necessary to resolve the initial - recursive query, caches responses it receives, and which is also able - to answer questions about certain zones authoritatively. This entity - is an iterative resolver combined with an authoritative name server - and is often called a "recursive name server" or a "caching name - server". - - This memo is concerned principally with the behavior of iterative - resolvers, which are typically found as part of a recursive name - server. This memo uses the more precise term "iterative resolver", - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - because the focus is usually on that component. In instances where - the name server role of this entity requires mentioning, this memo - uses the term "recursive name server". As an example of the - difference, the name server component of a recursive name server - receives DNS queries and the iterative resolver component sends - queries. - - The advent of IPv6 requires mentioning AAAA records as well as A - records when discussing glue. To avoid continuous repetition and - qualification, this memo uses the general term "address record" to - encompass both A and AAAA records when a particular situation is - relevant to both types. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -2. Observed iterative resolver misbehavior - -2.1. Aggressive requerying for delegation information - - There can be times when every name server in a zone's NS RRset is - unreachable (e.g., during a network outage), unavailable (e.g., the - name server process is not running on the server host) or - misconfigured (e.g., the name server is not authoritative for the - given zone, also known as "lame"). Consider an iterative resolver - that attempts to resolve a query for a domain name in such a zone and - discovers that none of the zone's name servers can provide an answer. - We have observed a recursive name server implementation whose - iterative resolver then verifies the zone's NS RRset in its cache by - querying for the zone's delegation information: it sends a query for - the zone's NS RRset to one of the parent zone's name servers. (Note - that queries with QTYPE=NS are not required by the standard - resolution algorithm described in section 4.3.2 of RFC 1034 [2]. - These NS queries represent this implementation's addition to that - algorithm.) - - For example, suppose that "example.com" has the following NS RRset: - - example.com. IN NS ns1.example.com. - example.com. IN NS ns2.example.com. - - Upon receipt of a query for "www.example.com" and assuming that - neither "ns1.example.com" nor "ns2.example.com" can provide an - answer, this iterative resolver implementation immediately queries a - "com" zone name server for the "example.com" NS RRset to verify it - has the proper delegation information. This implementation performs - this query to a zone's parent zone for each recursive query it - receives that fails because of a completely unresponsive set of name - servers for the target zone. Consider the effect when a popular zone - experiences a catastrophic failure of all its name servers: now every - recursive query for domain names in that zone sent to this recursive - name server implementation results in a query to the failed zone's - parent name servers. On one occasion when several dozen popular - zones became unreachable, the query load on the com/net name servers - increased by 50%. - - We believe this verification query is not reasonable. Consider the - circumstances: When an iterative resolver is resolving a query for a - domain name in a zone it has not previously searched, it uses the - list of name servers in the referral from the target zone's parent. - If on its first attempt to search the target zone, none of the name - servers in the referral is reachable, a verification query to the - parent would be pointless: this query to the parent would come so - quickly on the heels of the referral that it would be almost certain - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - to contain the same list of name servers. The chance of discovering - any new information is slim. - - The other possibility is that the iterative resolver successfully - contacts one of the target zone's name servers and then caches the NS - RRset from the authority section of a response, the proper behavior - according to section 5.4.1 of RFC 2181 [3], because the NS RRset from - the target zone is more trustworthy than delegation information from - the parent zone. If, while processing a subsequent recursive query, - the iterative resolver discovers that none of the name servers - specified in the cached NS RRset is available or authoritative, - querying the parent would be wrong. An NS RRset from the parent zone - would now be less trustworthy than data already in the cache. - - For this query of the parent zone to be useful, the target zone's - entire set of name servers would have to change AND the former set of - name servers would have to be deconfigured or decommissioned AND the - delegation information in the parent zone would have to be updated - with the new set of name servers, all within the TTL of the target - zone's NS RRset. We believe this scenario is uncommon: - administrative best practices dictate that changes to a zone's set of - name servers happen gradually when at all possible, with servers - removed from the NS RRset left authoritative for the zone as long as - possible. The scenarios that we can envision that would benefit from - the parent requery behavior do not outweigh its damaging effects. - - This section should not be understood to claim that all queries to a - zone's parent are bad. In some cases, such queries are not only - reasonable but required. Consider the situation when required - information, such as the address of a name server (i.e., the address - record corresponding to the RDATA of an NS record), has timed out of - an iterative resolver's cache before the corresponding NS record. If - the name of the name server is below the apex of the zone, then the - name server's address record is only available as glue in the parent - zone. For example, consider this NS record: - - example.com. IN NS ns.example.com. - - If a cache has this NS record but not the address record for - "ns.example.com", it is unable to contact the "example.com" zone - directly and must query the "com" zone to obtain the address record. - Note, however, that such a query would not have QTYPE=NS according to - the standard resolution algorithm. - -2.1.1. Recommendation - - An iterative resolver MUST NOT send a query for the NS RRset of a - non-responsive zone to any of the name servers for that zone's parent - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - zone. For the purposes of this injunction, a non-responsive zone is - defined as a zone for which every name server listed in the zone's NS - RRset: - - 1. is not authoritative for the zone (i.e., lame), or, - - 2. returns a server failure response (RCODE=2), or, - - 3. is dead or unreachable according to section 7.2 of RFC 2308 [4]. - -2.2. Repeated queries to lame servers - - Section 2.1 describes a catastrophic failure: when every name server - for a zone is unable to provide an answer for one reason or another. - A more common occurrence is when a subset of a zone's name servers - are unavailable or misconfigured. Different failure modes have - different expected durations. Some symptoms indicate problems that - are potentially transient; for example, various types of ICMP - unreachable messages because a name server process is not running or - a host or network is unreachable, or a complete lack of a response to - a query. Such responses could be the result of a host rebooting or - temporary outages; these events don't necessarily require any human - intervention and can be reasonably expected to be temporary. - - Other symptoms clearly indicate a condition requiring human - intervention, such as lame server: if a name server is misconfigured - and not authoritative for a zone delegated to it, it is reasonable to - assume that this condition has potential to last longer than - unreachability or unresponsiveness. Consequently, repeated queries - to known lame servers are not useful. In this case of a condition - with potential to persist for a long time, a better practice would be - to maintain a list of known lame servers and avoid querying them - repeatedly in a short interval. - - It should also be noted, however, that some authoritative name server - implementations appear to be lame only for queries of certain types - as described in RFC 4074 [5]. In this case, it makes sense to retry - the "lame" servers for other types of queries, particularly when all - known authoritative name servers appear to be "lame". - -2.2.1. Recommendation - - Iterative resolvers SHOULD cache name servers that they discover are - not authoritative for zones delegated to them (i.e. lame servers). - If this caching is performed, lame servers MUST be cached against the - specific query tuple . Zone - name can be derived from the owner name of the NS record that was - referenced to query the name server that was discovered to be lame. - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - Implementations that perform lame server caching MUST refrain from - sending queries to known lame servers based on a time interval from - when the server is discovered to be lame. A minimum interval of - thirty minutes is RECOMMENDED. - - An exception to this recommendation occurs if all name servers for a - zone are marked lame. In that case, the iterative resolver SHOULD - temporarily ignore the servers' lameness status and query one or more - servers. This behavior is a workaround for the type-specific - lameness issue described in the previous section. - - Implementors should take care not to make lame server avoidance logic - overly broad: note that a name server could be lame for a parent zone - but not a child zone, e.g., lame for "example.com" but properly - authoritative for "sub.example.com". Therefore a name server should - not be automatically considered lame for subzones. In the case - above, even if a name server is known to be lame for "example.com", - it should be queried for QNAMEs at or below "sub.example.com" if an - NS record indicates it should be authoritative for that zone. - -2.3. Inability to follow multiple levels of indirection - - Some iterative resolver implementations are unable to follow - sufficient levels of indirection. For example, consider the - following delegations: - - foo.example. IN NS ns1.example.com. - foo.example. IN NS ns2.example.com. - - example.com. IN NS ns1.test.example.net. - example.com. IN NS ns2.test.example.net. - - test.example.net. IN NS ns1.test.example.net. - test.example.net. IN NS ns2.test.example.net. - - An iterative resolver resolving the name "www.foo.example" must - follow two levels of indirection, first obtaining address records for - "ns1.test.example.net" or "ns2.test.example.net" in order to obtain - address records for "ns1.example.com" or "ns2.example.com" in order - to query those name servers for the address records of - "www.foo.example". While this situation may appear contrived, we - have seen multiple similar occurrences and expect more as new generic - top-level domains (gTLDs) become active. We anticipate many zones in - new gTLDs will use name servers in existing gTLDs, increasing the - number of delegations using out-of-zone name servers. - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -2.3.1. Recommendation - - Clearly constructing a delegation that relies on multiple levels of - indirection is not a good administrative practice. However, the - practice is widespread enough to require that iterative resolvers be - able to cope with it. Iterative resolvers SHOULD be able to handle - arbitrary levels of indirection resulting from out-of-zone name - servers. Iterative resolvers SHOULD implement a level-of-effort - counter to avoid loops or otherwise performing too much work in - resolving pathological cases. - - A best practice that avoids this entire issue of indirection is to - name one or more of a zone's name servers in the zone itself. For - example, if the zone is named "example.com", consider naming some of - the name servers "ns{1,2,...}.example.com" (or similar). - -2.4. Aggressive retransmission when fetching glue - - When an authoritative name server responds with a referral, it - includes NS records in the authority section of the response. - According to the algorithm in section 4.3.2 of RFC 1034 [2], the name - server should also "put whatever addresses are available into the - additional section, using glue RRs if the addresses are not available - from authoritative data or the cache." Some name server - implementations take this address inclusion a step further with a - feature called "glue fetching". A name server that implements glue - fetching attempts to include address records for every NS record in - the authority section. If necessary, the name server issues multiple - queries of its own to obtain any missing address records. - - Problems with glue fetching can arise in the context of - "authoritative-only" name servers, which only serve authoritative - data and ignore requests for recursion. Such an entity will not - normally generate any queries of its own. Instead it answers non- - recursive queries from iterative resolvers looking for information in - zones it serves. With glue fetching enabled, however, an - authoritative server invokes an iterative resolver to look up an - unknown address record to complete the additional section of a - response. - - We have observed situations where the iterative resolver of a glue- - fetching name server can send queries that reach other name servers, - but is apparently prevented from receiving the responses. For - example, perhaps the name server is authoritative-only and therefore - its administrators expect it to receive only queries and not - responses. Perhaps unaware of glue fetching and presuming that the - name server's iterative resolver will generate no queries, its - administrators place the name server behind a network device that - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - prevents it from receiving responses. If this is the case, all glue- - fetching queries will go answered. - - We have observed name server implementations whose iterative - resolvers retry excessively when glue-fetching queries are - unanswered. A single com/net name server has received hundreds of - queries per second from a single such source. Judging from the - specific queries received and based on additional analysis, we - believe these queries result from overly aggressive glue fetching. - -2.4.1. Recommendation - - Implementers whose name servers support glue fetching SHOULD take - care to avoid sending queries at excessive rates. Implementations - SHOULD support throttling logic to detect when queries are sent but - no responses are received. - -2.5. Aggressive retransmission behind firewalls - - A common occurrence and one of the largest sources of repeated - queries at the com/net and root name servers appears to result from - resolvers behind misconfigured firewalls. In this situation, an - iterative resolver is apparently allowed to send queries through a - firewall to other name servers, but not receive the responses. The - result is more queries than necessary because of retransmission, all - of which are useless because the responses are never received. Just - as with the glue-fetching scenario described in Section 2.4, the - queries are sometimes sent at excessive rates. To make matters - worse, sometimes the responses, sent in reply to legitimate queries, - trigger an alarm on the originator's intrusion detection system. We - are frequently contacted by administrators responding to such alarms - who believe our name servers are attacking their systems. - - Not only do some resolvers in this situation retransmit queries at an - excessive rate, but they continue to do so for days or even weeks. - This scenario could result from an organization with multiple - recursive name servers, only a subset of whose iterative resolvers' - traffic is improperly filtered in this manner. Stub resolvers in the - organization could be configured to query multiple recursive name - servers. Consider the case where a stub resolver queries a filtered - recursive name server first. The iterative resolver of this - recursive name server sends one or more queries whose replies are - filtered, so it can't respond to the stub resolver, which times out. - Then the stub resolver retransmits to a recursive name server that is - able to provide an answer. Since resolution ultimately succeeds the - underlying problem might not be recognized or corrected. A popular - stub resolver implementation has a very aggressive retransmission - schedule, including simultaneous queries to multiple recursive name - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - servers, which could explain how such a situation could persist - without being detected. - -2.5.1. Recommendation - - The most obvious recommendation is that administrators SHOULD take - care not to place iterative resolvers behind a firewall that allows - queries to pass through but not the resulting replies. - - Iterative resolvers SHOULD take care to avoid sending queries at - excessive rates. Implementations SHOULD support throttling logic to - detect when queries are sent but no responses are received. - -2.6. Misconfigured NS records - - Sometimes a zone administrator forgets to add the trailing dot on the - domain names in the RDATA of a zone's NS records. Consider this - fragment of the zone file for "example.com": - - $ORIGIN example.com. - example.com. 3600 IN NS ns1.example.com ; Note missing - example.com. 3600 IN NS ns2.example.com ; trailing dots - - The zone's authoritative servers will parse the NS RDATA as - "ns1.example.com.example.com" and "ns2.example.com.example.com" and - return NS records with this incorrect RDATA in responses, including - typically the authority section of every response containing records - from the "example.com" zone. - - Now consider a typical sequence of queries. An iterative resolver - attempting to resolve address records for "www.example.com" with no - cached information for this zone will query a "com" authoritative - server. The "com" server responds with a referral to the - "example.com" zone, consisting of NS records with valid RDATA and - associated glue records. (This example assumes that the - "example.com" zone delegation information is correct in the "com" - zone.) The iterative resolver caches the NS RRset from the "com" - server and follows the referral by querying one of the "example.com" - authoritative servers. This server responds with the - "www.example.com" address record in the answer section and, - typically, the "example.com" NS records in the authority section and, - if space in the message remains, glue address records in the - additional section. According to Section 5.4 of RFC 2181 [3], NS - records in the authority section of an authoritative answer are more - trustworthy than NS records from the authority section of a non- - authoritative answer. Thus the "example.com" NS RRset just received - from the "example.com" authoritative server overrides the - "example.com" NS RRset received moments ago from the "com" - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - authoritative server. - - But the "example.com" zone contains the erroneous NS RRset as shown - in the example above. Subsequent queries for names in "example.com" - will cause the iterative resolver to attempt to use the incorrect NS - records and so it will try to resolve the nonexistent names - "ns1.example.com.example.com" and "ns2.example.com.example.com". In - this example, since all of the zone's name servers are named in the - zone itself (i.e., "ns1.example.com.example.com" and - "ns2.example.com.example.com" both end in "example.com") and all are - bogus, the iterative resolver cannot reach any "example.com" name - servers. Therefore attempts to resolve these names result in address - record queries to the "com" authoritative servers. Queries for such - obviously bogus glue address records occur frequently at the com/net - name servers. - -2.6.1. Recommendation - - An authoritative server can detect this situation. A trailing dot - missing from an NS record's RDATA always results by definition in a - name server name that exists somewhere under the apex of the zone the - NS record appears in. Note that further levels of delegation are - possible, so a missing trailing dot could inadvertently create a name - server name that actually exists in a subzone. - - An authoritative name server SHOULD issue a warning when one of a - zone's NS records references a name server below the zone's apex when - a corresponding address record does not exist in the zone AND there - are no delegated subzones where the address record could exist. - -2.7. Name server records with zero TTL - - Sometimes a popular com/net subdomain's zone is configured with a TTL - of zero on the zone's NS records, which prohibits these records from - being cached and will result in a higher query volume to the zone's - authoritative servers. The zone's administrator should understand - the consequences of such a configuration and provision resources - accordingly. A zero TTL on the zone's NS RRset, however, carries - additional consequences beyond the zone itself: if an iterative - resolver cannot cache a zone's NS records because of a zero TTL, it - will be forced to query that zone's parent's name servers each time - it resolves a name in the zone. The com/net authoritative servers do - see an increased query load when a popular com/net subdomain's zone - is configured with a TTL of zero on the zone's NS records. - - A zero TTL on an RRset expected to change frequently is extreme but - permissible. A zone's NS RRset is a special case, however, because - changes to it must be coordinated with the zone's parent. In most - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - zone parent/child relationships we are aware of, there is typically - some delay involved in effecting changes. Further, changes to the - set of a zone's authoritative name servers (and therefore to the - zone's NS RRset) are typically relatively rare: providing reliable - authoritative service requires a reasonably stable set of servers. - Therefore an extremely low or zero TTL on a zone's NS RRset rarely - makes sense, except in anticipation of an upcoming change. In this - case, when the zone's administrator has planned a change and does not - want iterative resolvers throughout the Internet to cache the NS - RRset for a long period of time, a low TTL is reasonable. - -2.7.1. Recommendation - - Because of the additional load placed on a zone's parent's - authoritative servers resulting from a zero TTL on a zone's NS RRset, - under such circumstances authoritative name servers SHOULD issue a - warning when loading a zone. - -2.8. Unnecessary dynamic update messages - - The UPDATE message specified in RFC 2136 [6] allows an authorized - agent to update a zone's data on an authoritative name server using a - DNS message sent over the network. Consider the case of an agent - desiring to add a particular resource record. Because of zone cuts, - the agent does not necessarily know the proper zone to which the - record should be added. The dynamic update process requires that the - agent determine the appropriate zone so the UPDATE message can be - sent to one of the zone's authoritative servers (typically the - primary master as specified in the zone's SOA MNAME field). - - The appropriate zone to update is the closest enclosing zone, which - cannot be determined only by inspecting the domain name of the record - to be updated, since zone cuts can occur anywhere. One way to - determine the closest enclosing zone entails walking up the name - space tree by sending repeated UPDATE messages until success. For - example, consider an agent attempting to add an address record with - the name "foo.bar.example.com". The agent could first attempt to - update the "foo.bar.example.com" zone. If the attempt failed, the - update could be directed to the "bar.example.com" zone, then the - "example.com" zone, then the "com" zone, and finally the root zone. - - A popular dynamic agent follows this algorithm. The result is many - UPDATE messages received by the root name servers, the com/net - authoritative servers, and presumably other TLD authoritative - servers. A valid question is why the algorithm proceeds to send - updates all the way to TLD and root name servers. This behavior is - not entirely unreasonable: in enterprise DNS architectures with an - "internal root" design, there could conceivably be private, non- - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - public TLD or root zones that would be the appropriate targets for a - dynamic update. - - A significant deficiency with this algorithm is that knowledge of a - given UPDATE message's failure is not helpful in directing future - UPDATE messages to the appropriate servers. A better algorithm would - be to find the closest enclosing zone by walking up the name space - with queries for SOA or NS rather than "probing" with UPDATE - messages. Once the appropriate zone is found, an UPDATE message can - be sent. In addition, the results of these queries can be cached to - aid in determining closest enclosing zones for future updates. Once - the closest enclosing zone is determined with this method, the update - will either succeed or fail and there is no need to send further - updates to higher-level zones. The important point is that walking - up the tree with queries yields cacheable information, whereas - walking up the tree by sending UPDATE messages does not. - -2.8.1. Recommendation - - Dynamic update agents SHOULD send SOA or NS queries to progressively - higher-level names to find the closest enclosing zone for a given - name to update. Only after the appropriate zone is found should the - client send an UPDATE message to one of the zone's authoritative - servers. Update clients SHOULD NOT "probe" using UPDATE messages by - walking up the tree to progressively higher-level zones. - -2.9. Queries for domain names resembling IPv4 addresses - - The root name servers receive a significant number of A record - queries where the QNAME looks like an IPv4 address. The source of - these queries is unknown. It could be attributed to situations where - a user believes an application will accept either a domain name or an - IP address in a given configuration option. The user enters an IP - address, but the application assumes any input is a domain name and - attempts to resolve it, resulting in an A record lookup. There could - also be applications that produce such queries in a misguided attempt - to reverse map IP addresses. - - These queries result in Name Error (RCODE=3) responses. An iterative - resolver can negatively cache such responses, but each response - requires a separate cache entry, i.e., a negative cache entry for the - domain name "192.0.2.1" does not prevent a subsequent query for the - domain name "192.0.2.2". - -2.9.1. Recommendation - - It would be desirable for the root name servers not to have to answer - these queries: they unnecessarily consume CPU resources and network - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - bandwidth. A possible solution is to delegate these numeric TLDs - from the root zone to a separate set of servers to absorb the - traffic. The "black hole servers" used by the AS 112 Project [8], - which are currently delegated the in-addr.arpa zones corresponding to - RFC 1918 [7] private use address space, would be a possible choice to - receive these delegations. Of course, the proper and usual root zone - change procedures would have to be followed to make such a change to - the root zone. - -2.10. Misdirected recursive queries - - The root name servers receive a significant number of recursive - queries (i.e., queries with the RD bit set in the header). Since - none of the root servers offers recursion, the servers' response in - such a situation ignores the request for recursion and the response - probably does not contain the data the querier anticipated. Some of - these queries result from users configuring stub resolvers to query a - root server. (This situation is not hypothetical: we have received - complaints from users when this configuration does not work as - hoped.) Of course, users should not direct stub resolvers to use - name servers that do not offer recursion, but we are not aware of any - stub resolver implementation that offers any feedback to the user - when so configured, aside from simply "not working". - -2.10.1. Recommendation - - When the IP address of a name server that supposedly offers recursion - is configured in a stub resolver using an interactive user interface, - the resolver could send a test query to verify that the server indeed - supports recursion (i.e., verify that the response has the RA bit set - in the header). The user could be immediately notified if the server - is non-recursive. - - The stub resolver could also report an error, either through a user - interface or in a log file, if the queried server does not support - recursion. Error reporting SHOULD be throttled to avoid a - notification or log message for every response from a non-recursive - server. - -2.11. Suboptimal name server selection algorithm - - An entire document could be devoted to the topic of problems with - different implementations of the recursive resolution algorithm. The - entire process of recursion is woefully under specified, requiring - each implementor to design an algorithm. Sometimes implementors make - poor design choices that could be avoided if a suggested algorithm - and best practices were documented, but that is a topic for another - document. - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - - Some deficiencies cause significant operational impact and are - therefore worth mentioning here. One of these is name server - selection by an iterative resolver. When an iterative resolver wants - to contact one of a zone's authoritative name servers, how does it - choose from the NS records listed in the zone's NS RRset? If the - selection mechanism is suboptimal, queries are not spread evenly - among a zone's authoritative servers. The details of the selection - mechanism are up to the implementor, but we offer some suggestions. - -2.11.1. Recommendation - - This list is not conclusive, but reflects the changes that would - produce the most impact in terms of reducing disproportionate query - load among a zone's authoritative servers. I.e., these changes would - help spread the query load evenly. - - o Do not make assumptions based on NS RRset order: all NS RRs SHOULD - be treated equally. (In the case of the "com" zone, for example, - most of the root servers return the NS record for "a.gtld- - servers.net" first in the authority section of referrals. - Apparently as a result, this server receives disproportionately - more traffic than the other 12 authoritative servers for "com".) - - o Use all NS records in an RRset. (For example, we are aware of - implementations that hard-coded information for a subset of the - root servers.) - - o Maintain state and favor the best-performing of a zone's - authoritative servers. A good definition of performance is - response time. Non-responsive servers can be penalized with an - extremely high response time. - - o Do not lock onto the best-performing of a zone's name servers. An - iterative resolver SHOULD periodically check the performance of - all of a zone's name servers to adjust its determination of the - best-performing one. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -3. Acknowledgments - - The authors would like to thank the following people for their - comments that improved this document: Andras Salamon, Dave Meyer, - Doug Barton, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jinmei Tatuya, John Brady, Kevin Darcy, - Olafur Gudmundsson, Pekka Savola, Peter Koch and Rob Austein. We - apologize if we have omitted anyone; any oversight was unintentional. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -4. IANA considerations - - There are no new IANA considerations introduced by this memo. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -5. Security considerations - - The iterative resolver misbehavior discussed in this document exposes - the root and TLD name servers to increased risk of both intentional - and unintentional denial of service attacks. - - We believe that implementation of the recommendations offered in this - document will reduce the amount of unnecessary traffic seen at root - and TLD name servers, thus reducing the opportunity for an attacker - to use such queries to his or her advantage. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -6. Internationalization considerations - - There are no new internationalization considerations introduced by - this memo. - -7. Informative References - - [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [3] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", - RFC 2181, July 1997. - - [4] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)", - RFC 2308, March 1998. - - [5] Morishita, Y. and T. Jinmei, "Common Misbehavior Against DNS - Queries for IPv6 Addresses", RFC 4074, May 2005. - - [6] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, "Dynamic - Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, - April 1997. - - [7] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E. - Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, - RFC 1918, February 1996. - - [8] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Matt Larson - VeriSign, Inc. - 21345 Ridgetop Circle - Dulles, VA 20166-6503 - USA - - Email: mlarson@verisign.com - - - Piet Barber - VeriSign, Inc. - 21345 Ridgetop Circle - Dulles, VA 20166-6503 - USA - - Email: pbarber@verisign.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior February 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Larson & Barber Expires August 14, 2006 [Page 22] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 8ca68a8b2b7..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2016 +0,0 @@ - - - -DNSOP O. Kolkman -Internet-Draft R. Gieben -Obsoletes: 2541 (if approved) NLnet Labs -Expires: September 7, 2006 March 6, 2006 - - - DNSSEC Operational Practices - draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08.txt - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with - security extensions (DNSSEC). The target audience is zone - administrators deploying DNSSEC. - - The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and - signatures in the DNS. It discusses issues as key generation, key - storage, signature generation, key rollover and related policies. - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - This document obsoletes RFC 2541, as it covers more operational - ground and gives more up to date requirements with respect to key - sizes and the new DNSSEC specification. - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.1. The Use of the Term 'key' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.2. Time Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2. Keeping the Chain of Trust Intact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3. Keys Generation and Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1. Zone and Key Signing Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1.1. Motivations for the KSK and ZSK Separation . . . . . . 7 - 3.1.2. KSKs for High Level Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.2. Key Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.3. Key Effectivity Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.4. Key Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.5. Key Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.6. Private Key Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 4. Signature generation, Key Rollover and Related Policies . . . 12 - 4.1. Time in DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 4.1.1. Time Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 4.2. Key Rollovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 4.2.1. Zone Signing Key Rollovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 4.2.2. Key Signing Key Rollovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 4.2.3. Difference Between ZSK and KSK Rollovers . . . . . . . 20 - 4.2.4. Automated Key Rollovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 4.3. Planning for Emergency Key Rollover . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.3.1. KSK Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.3.2. ZSK Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 4.3.3. Compromises of Keys Anchored in Resolvers . . . . . . 24 - 4.4. Parental Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 4.4.1. Initial Key Exchanges and Parental Policies - Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 4.4.2. Storing Keys or Hashes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 4.4.3. Security Lameness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 4.4.4. DS Signature Validity Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - Appendix A. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - Appendix B. Zone Signing Key Rollover Howto . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - Appendix C. Typographic Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - Appendix D. Document Details and Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - D.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-00 . . . . . 33 - D.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-01 . . . . . 33 - D.3. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-02 . . . . . 33 - D.4. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-03 . . . . . 33 - D.5. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-04 . . . . . 34 - D.6. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-05 . . . . . 34 - D.7. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-06 . . . . . 34 - D.8. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-07 . . . . . 34 - D.9. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08 . . . . . 34 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 36 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - -1. Introduction - - This document describes how to run a DNSSEC (DNS SECure) enabled - environment. It is intended for operators who have knowledge of the - DNS (see RFC 1034 [1] and RFC 1035 [2]) and want deploy DNSSEC. See - RFC 4033 [4] for an introduction into DNSSEC and RFC 4034 [5] for the - newly introduced Resource Records and finally RFC 4035 [6] for the - protocol changes. - - During workshops and early operational deployment tests, operators - and system administrators have gained experience about operating the - DNS with security extensions (DNSSEC). This document translates - these experiences into a set of practices for zone administrators. - At the time of writing, there exists very little experience with - DNSSEC in production environments; this document should therefore - explicitly not be seen as representing 'Best Current Practices'. - - The procedures herein are focused on the maintenance of signed zones - (i.e. signing and publishing zones on authoritative servers). It is - intended that maintenance of zones such as re-signing or key - rollovers be transparent to any verifying clients on the Internet. - - The structure of this document is as follows. In Section 2 we - discuss the importance of keeping the "chain of trust" intact. - Aspects of key generation and storage of private keys are discussed - in Section 3; the focus in this section is mainly on the private part - of the key(s). Section 4 describes considerations concerning the - public part of the keys. Since these public keys appear in the DNS - one has to take into account all kinds of timing issues, which are - discussed in Section 4.1. Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 deal with the - rollover, or supercession, of keys. Finally Section 4.4 discusses - considerations on how parents deal with their children's public keys - in order to maintain chains of trust. - - The typographic conventions used in this document are explained in - Appendix C. - - Since this is a document with operational suggestions and there are - no protocol specifications, the RFC 2119 [9] language does not apply. - - This document obsoletes RFC 2541 [12]. - -1.1. The Use of the Term 'key' - - It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the concept of - asymmetric keys on which DNSSEC is based (Public Key Cryptography - [18]). Therefore, this document will use the term 'key' rather - loosely. Where it is written that 'a key is used to sign data' it is - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - assumed that the reader understands that it is the private part of - the key pair that is used for signing. It is also assumed that the - reader understands that the public part of the key pair is published - in the DNSKEY resource record and that it is the public part that is - used in key exchanges. - -1.2. Time Definitions - - In this document we will be using a number of time related terms. - The following definitions apply: - o "Signature validity period" - The period that a signature is valid. It starts at the time - specified in the signature inception field of the RRSIG RR and - ends at the time specified in the expiration field of the RRSIG - RR. - o "Signature publication period" - Time after which a signature (made with a specific key) is - replaced with a new signature (made with the same key). This - replacement takes place by publishing the relevant RRSIG in the - master zone file. - After one stops publishing an RRSIG in a zone it may take a - while before the RRSIG has expired from caches and has actually - been removed from the DNS. - o "Key effectivity period" - The period during which a key pair is expected to be effective. - This period is defined as the time between the first inception - time stamp and the last expiration date of any signature made - with this key, regardless of any discontinuity in the use of - the key. - The key effectivity period can span multiple signature validity - periods. - o "Maximum/Minimum Zone Time to Live (TTL)" - The maximum or minimum value of the TTLs from the complete set - of RRs in a zone. Note that the minimum TTL is not the same as - the MINIMUM field in the SOA RR. See [11] for more - information. - - -2. Keeping the Chain of Trust Intact - - Maintaining a valid chain of trust is important because broken chains - of trust will result in data being marked as Bogus (as defined in [4] - section 5), which may cause entire (sub)domains to become invisible - to verifying clients. The administrators of secured zones have to - realize that their zone is, to verifying clients, part of a chain of - trust. - - As mentioned in the introduction, the procedures herein are intended - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - to ensure that maintenance of zones, such as re-signing or key - rollovers, will be transparent to the verifying clients on the - Internet. - - Administrators of secured zones will have to keep in mind that data - published on an authoritative primary server will not be immediately - seen by verifying clients; it may take some time for the data to be - transferred to other secondary authoritative nameservers and clients - may be fetching data from caching non-authoritative servers. In this - light it is good to note that the time for a zone transfer from - master to slave is negligible when using NOTIFY [8] and IXFR [7], - increasing by reliance on AXFR, and more if you rely on the SOA - timing parameters for zone refresh. - - For the verifying clients it is important that data from secured - zones can be used to build chains of trust regardless of whether the - data came directly from an authoritative server, a caching nameserver - or some middle box. Only by carefully using the available timing - parameters can a zone administrator assure that the data necessary - for verification can be obtained. - - The responsibility for maintaining the chain of trust is shared by - administrators of secured zones in the chain of trust. This is most - obvious in the case of a 'key compromise' when a trade off between - maintaining a valid chain of trust and replacing the compromised keys - as soon as possible must be made. Then zone administrators will have - to make a trade off, between keeping the chain of trust intact - - thereby allowing for attacks with the compromised key - or to - deliberately break the chain of trust and making secured sub domains - invisible to security aware resolvers. Also see Section 4.3. - - -3. Keys Generation and Storage - - This section describes a number of considerations with respect to the - security of keys. It deals with the generation, effectivity period, - size and storage of private keys. - -3.1. Zone and Key Signing Keys - - The DNSSEC validation protocol does not distinguish between different - types of DNSKEYs. All DNSKEYs can be used during the validation. In - practice operators use Key Signing and Zone Signing Keys and use the - so-called (Secure Entry Point) SEP [3] flag to distinguish between - them during operations. The dynamics and considerations are - discussed below. - - To make zone re-signing and key rollover procedures easier to - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - implement, it is possible to use one or more keys as Key Signing Keys - (KSK). These keys will only sign the apex DNSKEY RRSet in a zone. - Other keys can be used to sign all the RRSets in a zone and are - referred to as Zone Signing Keys (ZSK). In this document we assume - that KSKs are the subset of keys that are used for key exchanges with - the parent and potentially for configuration as trusted anchors - the - SEP keys. In this document we assume a one-to-one mapping between - KSK and SEP keys and we assume the SEP flag to be set on all KSKs. - -3.1.1. Motivations for the KSK and ZSK Separation - - Differentiating between the KSK and ZSK functions has several - advantages: - - o No parent/child interaction is required when ZSKs are updated. - o The KSK can be made stronger (i.e. using more bits in the key - material). This has little operational impact since it is only - used to sign a small fraction of the zone data. Also the KSK is - only used to verify the zone's key set, not for other RRSets in - the zone. - o As the KSK is only used to sign a key set, which is most probably - updated less frequently than other data in the zone, it can be - stored separately from and in a safer location than the ZSK. - o A KSK can have a longer key effectivity period. - - For almost any method of key management and zone signing the KSK is - used less frequently than the ZSK. Once a key set is signed with the - KSK all the keys in the key set can be used as ZSK. If a ZSK is - compromised, it can be simply dropped from the key set. The new key - set is then re-signed with the KSK. - - Given the assumption that for KSKs the SEP flag is set, the KSK can - be distinguished from a ZSK by examining the flag field in the DNSKEY - RR. If the flag field is an odd number it is a KSK. If it is an - even number it is a ZSK. - - The zone signing key can be used to sign all the data in a zone on a - regular basis. When a zone signing key is to be rolled, no - interaction with the parent is needed. This allows for "Signature - Validity Periods" on the order of days. - - The key signing key is only to be used to sign the DNSKEY RRs in a - zone. If a key signing key is to be rolled over, there will be - interactions with parties other than the zone administrator. These - can include the registry of the parent zone or administrators of - verifying resolvers that have the particular key configured as secure - entry points. Hence, the key effectivity period of these keys can - and should be made much longer. Although, given a long enough key, - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - the Key Effectivity Period can be on the order of years we suggest - planning for a key effectivity of the order of a few months so that a - key rollover remains an operational routine. - -3.1.2. KSKs for High Level Zones - - Higher level zones are generally more sensitive than lower level - zones. Anyone controlling or breaking the security of a zone thereby - obtains authority over all of its sub domains (except in the case of - resolvers that have locally configured the public key of a sub - domain, in which case this, and only this, sub domain wouldn't be - affected by the compromise of the parent zone). Therefore, extra - care should be taken with high level zones and strong keys should - used. - - The root zone is the most critical of all zones. Someone controlling - or compromising the security of the root zone would control the - entire DNS name space of all resolvers using that root zone (except - in the case of resolvers that have locally configured the public key - of a sub domain). Therefore, the utmost care must be taken in the - securing of the root zone. The strongest and most carefully handled - keys should be used. The root zone private key should always be kept - off line. - - Many resolvers will start at a root server for their access to and - authentication of DNS data. Securely updating the trust anchors in - an enormous population of resolvers around the world will be - extremely difficult. - -3.2. Key Generation - - Careful generation of all keys is a sometimes overlooked but - absolutely essential element in any cryptographically secure system. - The strongest algorithms used with the longest keys are still of no - use if an adversary can guess enough to lower the size of the likely - key space so that it can be exhaustively searched. Technical - suggestions for the generation of random keys will be found in RFC - 4086 [15]. One should carefully assess if the random number - generator used during key generation adheres to these suggestions. - - Keys with a long effectivity period are particularly sensitive as - they will represent a more valuable target and be subject to attack - for a longer time than short period keys. It is strongly recommended - that long term key generation occur off-line in a manner isolated - from the network via an air gap or, at a minimum, high level secure - hardware. - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - -3.3. Key Effectivity Period - - For various reasons keys in DNSSEC need to be changed once in a - while. The longer a key is in use, the greater the probability that - it will have been compromised through carelessness, accident, - espionage, or cryptanalysis. Furthermore when key rollovers are too - rare an event, they will not become part of the operational habit and - there is risk that nobody on-site will remember the procedure for - rollover when the need is there. - - From a purely operational perspective a reasonable key effectivity - period for Key Signing Keys is 13 months, with the intent to replace - them after 12 months. An intended key effectivity period of a month - is reasonable for Zone Signing Keys. - - For key sizes that matches these effectivity periods see Section 3.5. - - As argued in Section 3.1.2 securely updating trust anchors will be - extremely difficult. On the other hand the "operational habit" - argument does also apply to trust anchor reconfiguration. If a short - key-effectivity period is used and the trust anchor configuration has - to be revisited on a regular basis the odds that the configuration - tends to be forgotten is smaller. The trade-off is against a system - that is so dynamic that administrators of the validating clients will - not be able to follow the modifications. - - Key effectivity periods can be made very short, as in the order of a - few minutes. But when replacing keys one has to take the - considerations from Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 into account. - -3.4. Key Algorithm - - There are currently three different types of algorithms that can be - used in DNSSEC: RSA, DSA and elliptic curve cryptography. The latter - is fairly new and has yet to be standardized for usage in DNSSEC. - - RSA has been developed in an open and transparent manner. As the - patent on RSA expired in 2000, its use is now also free. - - DSA has been developed by NIST. The creation of signatures takes - roughly the same time as with RSA, but is 10 to 40 times as slow for - verification [18]. - - We suggest the use of RSA/SHA-1 as the preferred algorithm for the - key. The current known attacks on RSA can be defeated by making your - key longer. As the MD5 hashing algorithm is showing (theoretical) - cracks, we recommend the usage of SHA-1. - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - At the time of publication it is known that the SHA-1 hash has - cryptanalysis issues. There is work in progress on addressing these - issues. We recommend the use of public key algorithms based on - hashes stronger than SHA-1, e.g. SHA-256, as soon as these - algorithms are available in protocol specifications (See [20] and - [21] ) and implementations. - -3.5. Key Sizes - - When choosing key sizes, zone administrators will need to take into - account how long a key will be used, how much data will be signed - during the key publication period (See Section 8.10 of [18]) and, - optionally, how large the key size of the parent is. As the chain of - trust really is "a chain", there is not much sense in making one of - the keys in the chain several times larger then the others. As - always, it's the weakest link that defines the strength of the entire - chain. Also see Section 3.1.1 for a discussion of how keys serving - different roles (ZSK v. KSK) may need different key sizes. - - Generating a key of the correct size is a difficult problem, RFC 3766 - [14] tries to deal with that problem. The first part of the - selection procedure in Section 1 of the RFC states: - - 1. Determine the attack resistance necessary to satisfy the - security requirements of the application. Do this by - estimating the minimum number of computer operations that - the attacker will be forced to do in order to compromise - the security of the system and then take the logarithm base - two of that number. Call that logarithm value "n". - - A 1996 report recommended 90 bits as a good all-around choice - for system security. The 90 bit number should be increased - by about 2/3 bit/year, or about 96 bits in 2005. - - [14] goes on to explain how this number "n" can be used to calculate - the key sizes in public key cryptography. This culminated in the - table given below (slightly modified for our purpose): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - +-------------+-----------+--------------+ - | System | | | - | requirement | Symmetric | RSA or DSA | - | for attack | key size | modulus size | - | resistance | (bits) | (bits) | - | (bits) | | | - +-------------+-----------+--------------+ - | 70 | 70 | 947 | - | 80 | 80 | 1228 | - | 90 | 90 | 1553 | - | 100 | 100 | 1926 | - | 150 | 150 | 4575 | - | 200 | 200 | 8719 | - | 250 | 250 | 14596 | - +-------------+-----------+--------------+ - - The key sizes given are rather large. This is because these keys are - resilient against a trillionaire attacker. Assuming this rich - attacker will not attack your key and that the key is rolled over - once a year, we come to the following recommendations about KSK - sizes; 1024 bits low value domains, 1300 for medium value and 2048 - for the high value domains. - - Whether a domain is of low, medium, high value depends solely on the - views of the zone owner. One could for instance view leaf nodes in - the DNS as of low value and TLDs or the root zone of high value. The - suggested key sizes should be safe for the next 5 years. - - As ZSKs can be rolled over more easily (and thus more often) the key - sizes can be made smaller. But as said in the introduction of this - paragraph, making the ZSKs' key sizes too small (in relation to the - KSKs' sizes) doesn't make much sense. Try to limit the difference in - size to about 100 bits. - - Note that nobody can see into the future, and that these key sizes - are only provided here as a guide. Further information can be found - in [17] and Section 7.5 of [18]. It should be noted though that [17] - is already considered overly optimistic about what key sizes are - considered safe. - - One final note concerning key sizes. Larger keys will increase the - sizes of the RRSIG and DNSKEY records and will therefore increase the - chance of DNS UDP packet overflow. Also the time it takes to - validate and create RRSIGs increases with larger keys, so don't - needlessly double your key sizes. - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - -3.6. Private Key Storage - - It is recommended that, where possible, zone private keys and the - zone file master copy that is to be signed, be kept and used in off- - line, non-network connected, physically secure machines only. - Periodically an application can be run to add authentication to a - zone by adding RRSIG and NSEC RRs. Then the augmented file can be - transferred. - - When relying on dynamic update to manage a signed zone [10], be aware - that at least one private key of the zone will have to reside on the - master server. This key is only as secure as the amount of exposure - the server receives to unknown clients and the security of the host. - Although not mandatory one could administer the DNS in the following - way. The master that processes the dynamic updates is unavailable - from generic hosts on the Internet, it is not listed in the NS RR - set, although its name appears in the SOA RRs MNAME field. The - nameservers in the NS RR set are able to receive zone updates through - NOTIFY, IXFR, AXFR or an out-of-band distribution mechanism. This - approach is known as the "hidden master" setup. - - The ideal situation is to have a one way information flow to the - network to avoid the possibility of tampering from the network. - Keeping the zone master file on-line on the network and simply - cycling it through an off-line signer does not do this. The on-line - version could still be tampered with if the host it resides on is - compromised. For maximum security, the master copy of the zone file - should be off net and should not be updated based on an unsecured - network mediated communication. - - In general keeping a zone-file off-line will not be practical and the - machines on which zone files are maintained will be connected to a - network. Operators are advised to take security measures to shield - unauthorized access to the master copy. - - For dynamically updated secured zones [10] both the master copy and - the private key that is used to update signatures on updated RRs will - need to be on-line. - - -4. Signature generation, Key Rollover and Related Policies - -4.1. Time in DNSSEC - - Without DNSSEC all times in DNS are relative. The SOA fields - REFRESH, RETRY and EXPIRATION are timers used to determine the time - elapsed after a slave server synchronized with a master server. The - Time to Live (TTL) value and the SOA RR minimum TTL parameter [11] - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - are used to determine how long a forwarder should cache data after it - has been fetched from an authoritative server. By using a signature - validity period, DNSSEC introduces the notion of an absolute time in - the DNS. Signatures in DNSSEC have an expiration date after which - the signature is marked as invalid and the signed data is to be - considered Bogus. - -4.1.1. Time Considerations - - Because of the expiration of signatures, one should consider the - following: - o We suggest the Maximum Zone TTL of your zone data to be a fraction - of your signature validity period. - If the TTL would be of similar order as the signature validity - period, then all RRSets fetched during the validity period - would be cached until the signature expiration time. Section - 7.1 of [4] suggests that "the resolver may use the time - remaining before expiration of the signature validity period of - a signed RRSet as an upper bound for the TTL". As a result - query load on authoritative servers would peak at signature - expiration time, as this is also the time at which records - simultaneously expire from caches. - To avoid query load peaks we suggest the TTL on all the RRs in - your zone to be at least a few times smaller than your - signature validity period. - o We suggest the Signature Publication Period to end at least one - Maximum Zone TTL duration before the end of the Signature Validity - Period. - Re-signing a zone shortly before the end of the signature - validity period may cause simultaneous expiration of data from - caches. This in turn may lead to peaks in the load on - authoritative servers. - o We suggest the minimum zone TTL to be long enough to both fetch - and verify all the RRs in the trust chain. In workshop - environments it has been demonstrated [19] that a low TTL (under 5 - to 10 minutes) caused disruptions because of the following two - problems: - 1. During validation, some data may expire before the - validation is complete. The validator should be able to keep - all data, until is completed. This applies to all RRs needed - to complete the chain of trust: DSs, DNSKEYs, RRSIGs, and the - final answers i.e. the RRSet that is returned for the initial - query. - 2. Frequent verification causes load on recursive nameservers. - Data at delegation points, DSs, DNSKEYs and RRSIGs benefit from - caching. The TTL on those should be relatively long. - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - o Slave servers will need to be able to fetch newly signed zones - well before the RRSIGs in the zone served by the slave server pass - their signature expiration time. - When a slave server is out of sync with its master and data in - a zone is signed by expired signatures it may be better for the - slave server not to give out any answer. - Normally a slave server that is not able to contact a master - server for an extended period will expire a zone. When that - happens the server will respond differently to queries for that - zone. Some servers issue SERVFAIL while others turn off the - 'AA' bit in the answers. The time of expiration is set in the - SOA record and is relative to the last successful refresh - between the master and the slave server. There exists no - coupling between the signature expiration of RRSIGs in the zone - and the expire parameter in the SOA. - If the server serves a DNSSEC zone then it may well happen that - the signatures expire well before the SOA expiration timer - counts down to zero. It is not possible to completely prevent - this from happening by tweaking the SOA parameters. - However, the effects can be minimized where the SOA expiration - time is equal or shorter than the signature validity period. - The consequence of an authoritative server not being able to - update a zone, whilst that zone includes expired signatures, is - that non-secure resolvers will continue to be able to resolve - data served by the particular slave servers while security - aware resolvers will experience problems because of answers - being marked as Bogus. - We suggest the SOA expiration timer being approximately one - third or one fourth of the signature validity period. It will - allow problems with transfers from the master server to be - noticed before the actual signature times out. - We also suggest that operators of nameservers that supply - secondary services develop 'watch dogs' to spot upcoming - signature expirations in zones they slave, and take appropriate - action. - When determining the value for the expiration parameter one has - to take the following into account: What are the chances that - all my secondaries expire the zone; How quickly can I reach an - administrator of secondary servers to load a valid zone? All - these arguments are not DNSSEC specific but may influence the - choice of your signature validity intervals. - -4.2. Key Rollovers - - A DNSSEC key cannot be used forever (see Section 3.3). So key - rollovers -- or supercessions, as they are sometimes called -- are a - fact of life when using DNSSEC. Zone administrators who are in the - process of rolling their keys have to take into account that data - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - published in previous versions of their zone still lives in caches. - When deploying DNSSEC, this becomes an important consideration; - ignoring data that may be in caches may lead to loss of service for - clients. - - The most pressing example of this occurs when zone material signed - with an old key is being validated by a resolver which does not have - the old zone key cached. If the old key is no longer present in the - current zone, this validation fails, marking the data Bogus. - Alternatively, an attempt could be made to validate data which is - signed with a new key against an old key that lives in a local cache, - also resulting in data being marked Bogus. - -4.2.1. Zone Signing Key Rollovers - - For zone signing key rollovers there are two ways to make sure that - during the rollover data still cached can be verified with the new - key sets or newly generated signatures can be verified with the keys - still in caches. One schema, described in Section 4.2.1.2, uses - double signatures; the other uses key pre-publication - (Section 4.2.1.1). The pros, cons and recommendations are described - in Section 4.2.1.3. - -4.2.1.1. Pre-publish Key Rollover - - This section shows how to perform a ZSK rollover without the need to - sign all the data in a zone twice - the so-called "pre-publish - rollover".This method has advantages in the case of a key compromise. - If the old key is compromised, the new key has already been - distributed in the DNS. The zone administrator is then able to - quickly switch to the new key and remove the compromised key from the - zone. Another major advantage is that the zone size does not double, - as is the case with the double signature ZSK rollover. A small - "HOWTO" for this kind of rollover can be found in Appendix B. - - Pre-publish Key Rollover involves four stages as follows: - - initial new DNSKEY new RRSIGs DNSKEY removal - - SOA0 SOA1 SOA2 SOA3 - RRSIG10(SOA0) RRSIG10(SOA1) RRSIG11(SOA2) RRSIG11(SOA3) - - DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 - DNSKEY10 DNSKEY10 DNSKEY10 DNSKEY11 - DNSKEY11 DNSKEY11 - RRSIG1 (DNSKEY) RRSIG1 (DNSKEY) RRSIG1(DNSKEY) RRSIG1 (DNSKEY) - RRSIG10(DNSKEY) RRSIG10(DNSKEY) RRSIG11(DNSKEY) RRSIG11(DNSKEY) - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - initial: Initial version of the zone: DNSKEY 1 is the key signing - key. DNSKEY 10 is used to sign all the data of the zone, the zone - signing key. - new DNSKEY: DNSKEY 11 is introduced into the key set. Note that no - signatures are generated with this key yet, but this does not - secure against brute force attacks on the public key. The minimum - duration of this pre-roll phase is the time it takes for the data - to propagate to the authoritative servers plus TTL value of the - key set. - new RRSIGs: At the "new RRSIGs" stage (SOA serial 2) DNSKEY 11 is - used to sign the data in the zone exclusively (i.e. all the - signatures from DNSKEY 10 are removed from the zone). DNSKEY 10 - remains published in the key set. This way data that was loaded - into caches from version 1 of the zone can still be verified with - key sets fetched from version 2 of the zone. - The minimum time that the key set including DNSKEY 10 is to be - published is the time that it takes for zone data from the - previous version of the zone to expire from old caches i.e. the - time it takes for this zone to propagate to all authoritative - servers plus the Maximum Zone TTL value of any of the data in the - previous version of the zone. - DNSKEY removal: DNSKEY 10 is removed from the zone. The key set, now - only containing DNSKEY 1 and DNSKEY 11 is re-signed with the - DNSKEY 1. - - The above scheme can be simplified by always publishing the "future" - key immediately after the rollover. The scheme would look as follows - (we show two rollovers); the future key is introduced in "new DNSKEY" - as DNSKEY 12 and again a newer one, numbered 13, in "new DNSKEY - (II)": - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - initial new RRSIGs new DNSKEY - - SOA0 SOA1 SOA2 - RRSIG10(SOA0) RRSIG11(SOA1) RRSIG11(SOA2) - - DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 - DNSKEY10 DNSKEY10 DNSKEY11 - DNSKEY11 DNSKEY11 DNSKEY12 - RRSIG1(DNSKEY) RRSIG1 (DNSKEY) RRSIG1(DNSKEY) - RRSIG10(DNSKEY) RRSIG11(DNSKEY) RRSIG11(DNSKEY) - - - new RRSIGs (II) new DNSKEY (II) - - SOA3 SOA4 - RRSIG12(SOA3) RRSIG12(SOA4) - - DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 - DNSKEY11 DNSKEY12 - DNSKEY12 DNSKEY13 - RRSIG1(DNSKEY) RRSIG1(DNSKEY) - RRSIG12(DNSKEY) RRSIG12(DNSKEY) - - - Pre-Publish Key Rollover, showing two rollovers. - - Note that the key introduced in the "new DNSKEY" phase is not used - for production yet; the private key can thus be stored in a - physically secure manner and does not need to be 'fetched' every time - a zone needs to be signed. - -4.2.1.2. Double Signature Zone Signing Key Rollover - - This section shows how to perform a ZSK key rollover using the double - zone data signature scheme, aptly named "double sig rollover". - - During the "new DNSKEY" stage the new version of the zone file will - need to propagate to all authoritative servers and the data that - exists in (distant) caches will need to expire, requiring at least - the maximum Zone TTL. - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - Double Signature Zone Signing Key Rollover involves three stages as - follows: - - initial new DNSKEY DNSKEY removal - - SOA0 SOA1 SOA2 - RRSIG10(SOA0) RRSIG10(SOA1) RRSIG11(SOA2) - RRSIG11(SOA1) - - DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 - DNSKEY10 DNSKEY10 DNSKEY11 - DNSKEY11 - RRSIG1(DNSKEY) RRSIG1(DNSKEY) RRSIG1(DNSKEY) - RRSIG10(DNSKEY) RRSIG10(DNSKEY) RRSIG11(DNSKEY) - RRSIG11(DNSKEY) - - initial: Initial Version of the zone: DNSKEY 1 is the key signing - key. DNSKEY 10 is used to sign all the data of the zone, the zone - signing key. - new DNSKEY: At the "New DNSKEY" stage (SOA serial 1) DNSKEY 11 is - introduced into the key set and all the data in the zone is signed - with DNSKEY 10 and DNSKEY 11. The rollover period will need to - continue until all data from version 0 of the zone has expired - from remote caches. This will take at least the maximum Zone TTL - of version 0 of the zone. - DNSKEY removal: DNSKEY 10 is removed from the zone. All the - signatures from DNSKEY 10 are removed from the zone. The key set, - now only containing DNSKEY 11, is re-signed with DNSKEY 1. - - At every instance, RRSIGs from the previous version of the zone can - be verified with the DNSKEY RRSet from the current version and the - other way around. The data from the current version can be verified - with the data from the previous version of the zone. The duration of - the "new DNSKEY" phase and the period between rollovers should be at - least the Maximum Zone TTL. - - Making sure that the "new DNSKEY" phase lasts until the signature - expiration time of the data in initial version of the zone is - recommended. This way all caches are cleared of the old signatures. - However, this duration could be considerably longer than the Maximum - Zone TTL, making the rollover a lengthy procedure. - - Note that in this example we assumed that the zone was not modified - during the rollover. New data can be introduced in the zone as long - as it is signed with both keys. - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - -4.2.1.3. Pros and Cons of the Schemes - - Pre-publish Key Rollover: This rollover does not involve signing the - zone data twice. Instead, before the actual rollover, the new key - is published in the key set and thus available for cryptanalysis - attacks. A small disadvantage is that this process requires four - steps. Also the pre-publish scheme involves more parental work - when used for KSK rollovers as explained in Section 4.2.3. - Double Signature Zone-signing Key Rollover: The drawback of this - signing scheme is that during the rollover the number of - signatures in your zone doubles, this may be prohibitive if you - have very big zones. An advantage is that it only requires three - steps. - -4.2.2. Key Signing Key Rollovers - - For the rollover of a key signing key the same considerations as for - the rollover of a zone signing key apply. However we can use a - double signature scheme to guarantee that old data (only the apex key - set) in caches can be verified with a new key set and vice versa. - Since only the key set is signed with a KSK, zone size considerations - do not apply. - - - initial new DNSKEY DS change DNSKEY removal - Parent: - SOA0 --------> SOA1 --------> - RRSIGpar(SOA0) --------> RRSIGpar(SOA1) --------> - DS1 --------> DS2 --------> - RRSIGpar(DS) --------> RRSIGpar(DS) --------> - - - Child: - SOA0 SOA1 --------> SOA2 - RRSIG10(SOA0) RRSIG10(SOA1) --------> RRSIG10(SOA2) - --------> - DNSKEY1 DNSKEY1 --------> DNSKEY2 - DNSKEY2 --------> - DNSKEY10 DNSKEY10 --------> DNSKEY10 - RRSIG1 (DNSKEY) RRSIG1 (DNSKEY) --------> RRSIG2 (DNSKEY) - RRSIG2 (DNSKEY) --------> - RRSIG10(DNSKEY) RRSIG10(DNSKEY) --------> RRSIG10(DNSKEY) - - Stages of Deployment for Key Signing Key Rollover. - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - initial: Initial version of the zone. The parental DS points to - DNSKEY1. Before the rollover starts the child will have to verify - what the TTL is of the DS RR that points to DNSKEY1 - it is needed - during the rollover and we refer to the value as TTL_DS. - new DNSKEY: During the "new DNSKEY" phase the zone administrator - generates a second KSK, DNSKEY2. The key is provided to the - parent and the child will have to wait until a new DS RR has been - generated that points to DNSKEY2. After that DS RR has been - published on all servers authoritative for the parent's zone, the - zone administrator has to wait at least TTL_DS to make sure that - the old DS RR has expired from caches. - DS change: The parent replaces DS1 with DS2. - DNSKEY removal: DNSKEY1 has been removed. - - The scenario above puts the responsibility for maintaining a valid - chain of trust with the child. It also is based on the premises that - the parent only has one DS RR (per algorithm) per zone. An - alternative mechanism has been considered. Using an established - trust relation, the interaction can be performed in-band, and the - removal of the keys by the child can possibly be signaled by the - parent. In this mechanism there are periods where there are two DS - RRs at the parent. Since at the moment of writing the protocol for - this interaction has not been developed, further discussion is out of - scope for this document. - -4.2.3. Difference Between ZSK and KSK Rollovers - - Note that KSK rollovers and ZSK rollovers are different in the sense - that a KSK rollover requires interaction with the parent (and - possibly replacing of trust anchors) and the ensuing delay while - waiting for it. - - A zone key rollover can be handled in two different ways: pre-publish - (Section Section 4.2.1.1) and double signature (Section - Section 4.2.1.2). - - As the KSK is used to validate the key set and because the KSK is not - changed during a ZSK rollover, a cache is able to validate the new - key set of the zone. The pre-publish method would also work for a - KSK rollover. The records that are to be pre-published are the - parental DS RRs. The pre-publish method has some drawbacks for KSKs. - We first describe the rollover scheme and then indicate these - drawbacks. - - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - initial new DS new DNSKEY DS/DNSKEY removal - Parent: - SOA0 SOA1 --------> SOA2 - RRSIGpar(SOA0) RRSIGpar(SOA1) --------> RRSIGpar(SOA2) - DS1 DS1 --------> DS2 - DS2 --------> - RRSIGpar(DS) RRSIGpar(DS) --------> RRSIGpar(DS) - - - - Child: - SOA0 --------> SOA1 SOA1 - RRSIG10(SOA0) --------> RRSIG10(SOA1) RRSIG10(SOA1) - --------> - DNSKEY1 --------> DNSKEY2 DNSKEY2 - --------> - DNSKEY10 --------> DNSKEY10 DNSKEY10 - RRSIG1 (DNSKEY) --------> RRSIG2(DNSKEY) RRSIG2 (DNSKEY) - RRSIG10(DNSKEY) --------> RRSIG10(DNSKEY) RRSIG10(DNSKEY) - - Stages of Deployment for a Pre-publish Key Signing Key rollover. - - When the child zone wants to roll it notifies the parent during the - "new DS" phase and submits the new key (or the corresponding DS) to - the parent. The parent publishes DS1 and DS2, pointing to DNSKEY1 - and DNSKEY2 respectively. During the rollover ("new DNSKEY" phase), - which can take place as soon as the new DS set propagated through the - DNS, the child replaces DNSKEY1 with DNSKEY2. Immediately after that - ("DS/DNSKEY removal" phase) it can notify the parent that the old DS - record can be deleted. - - The drawbacks of this scheme are that during the "new DS" phase the - parent cannot verify the match between the DS2 RR and DNSKEY2 using - the DNS -- as DNSKEY2 is not yet published. Besides, we introduce a - "security lame" key (See Section 4.4.3). Finally the child-parent - interaction consists of two steps. The "double signature" method - only needs one interaction. - -4.2.4. Automated Key Rollovers - - As keys must be renewed periodically, there is some motivation to - automate the rollover process. Consider that: - - o ZSK rollovers are easy to automate as only the child zone is - involved. - o A KSK rollover needs interaction between parent and child. Data - exchange is needed to provide the new keys to the parent, - consequently, this data must be authenticated and integrity must - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - be guaranteed in order to avoid attacks on the rollover. - -4.3. Planning for Emergency Key Rollover - - This section deals with preparation for a possible key compromise. - Our advice is to have a documented procedure ready for when a key - compromise is suspected or confirmed. - - When the private material of one of your keys is compromised it can - be used for as long as a valid trust chain exists. A trust chain - remains intact for: - o as long as a signature over the compromised key in the trust chain - is valid, - o as long as a parental DS RR (and signature) points to the - compromised key, - o as long as the key is anchored in a resolver and is used as a - starting point for validation (this is generally the hardest to - update). - - While a trust chain to your compromised key exists, your name-space - is vulnerable to abuse by anyone who has obtained illegitimate - possession of the key. Zone operators have to make a trade off if - the abuse of the compromised key is worse than having data in caches - that cannot be validated. If the zone operator chooses to break the - trust chain to the compromised key, data in caches signed with this - key cannot be validated. However, if the zone administrator chooses - to take the path of a regular roll-over, the malicious key holder can - spoof data so that it appears to be valid. - -4.3.1. KSK Compromise - - A zone containing a DNSKEY RRSet with a compromised KSK is vulnerable - as long as the compromised KSK is configured as trust anchor or a - parental DS points to it. - - A compromised KSK can be used to sign the key set of an attacker's - zone. That zone could be used to poison the DNS. - - Therefore when the KSK has been compromised, the trust anchor or the - parental DS, should be replaced as soon as possible. It is local - policy whether to break the trust chain during the emergency - rollover. The trust chain would be broken when the compromised KSK - is removed from the child's zone while the parent still has a DS - pointing to the compromised KSK (the assumption is that there is only - one DS at the parent. If there are multiple DSs this does not apply - -- however the chain of trust of this particular key is broken). - - Note that an attacker's zone still uses the compromised KSK and the - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 22] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - presence of a parental DS would cause the data in this zone to appear - as valid. Removing the compromised key would cause the attacker's - zone to appear as valid and the child's zone as Bogus. Therefore we - advise not to remove the KSK before the parent has a DS to a new KSK - in place. - -4.3.1.1. Keeping the Chain of Trust Intact - - If we follow this advice the timing of the replacement of the KSK is - somewhat critical. The goal is to remove the compromised KSK as soon - as the new DS RR is available at the parent. And also make sure that - the signature made with a new KSK over the key set with the - compromised KSK in it expires just after the new DS appears at the - parent. Thus removing the old cruft in one swoop. - - The procedure is as follows: - 1. Introduce a new KSK into the key set, keep the compromised KSK in - the key set. - 2. Sign the key set, with a short validity period. The validity - period should expire shortly after the DS is expected to appear - in the parent and the old DSs have expired from caches. - 3. Upload the DS for this new key to the parent. - 4. Follow the procedure of the regular KSK rollover: Wait for the DS - to appear in the authoritative servers and then wait as long as - the TTL of the old DS RRs. If necessary re-sign the DNSKEY RRSet - and modify/extend the expiration time. - 5. Remove the compromised DNSKEY RR from the zone and re-sign the - key set using your "normal" validity interval. - - An additional danger of a key compromise is that the compromised key - could be used to facilitate a legitimate DNSKEY/DS rollover and/or - nameserver changes at the parent. When that happens the domain may - be in dispute. An authenticated out-of-band and secure notify - mechanism to contact a parent is needed in this case. - - Note that this is only a problem when the DNSKEY and or DS records - are used for authentication at the parent. - -4.3.1.2. Breaking the Chain of Trust - - There are two methods to break the chain of trust. The first method - causes the child zone to appear as 'Bogus' to validating resolvers. - The other causes the the child zone to appear as 'insecure'. These - are described below. - - In the method that causes the child zone to appear as 'Bogus' to - validating resolvers, the child zone replaces the current KSK with a - new one and resigns the key set. Next it sends the DS of the new key - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 23] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - to the parent. Only after the parent has placed the new DS in the - zone, the child's chain of trust is repaired. - - An alternative method of breaking the chain of trust is by removing - the DS RRs from the parent zone altogether. As a result the child - zone would become insecure. - -4.3.2. ZSK Compromise - - Primarily because there is no parental interaction required when a - ZSK is compromised, the situation is less severe than with a KSK - compromise. The zone must still be re-signed with a new ZSK as soon - as possible. As this is a local operation and requires no - communication between the parent and child this can be achieved - fairly quickly. However, one has to take into account that just as - with a normal rollover the immediate disappearance of the old - compromised key may lead to verification problems. Also note that as - long as the RRSIG over the compromised ZSK is not expired the zone - may be still at risk. - -4.3.3. Compromises of Keys Anchored in Resolvers - - A key can also be pre-configured in resolvers. For instance, if - DNSSEC is successfully deployed the root key may be pre-configured in - most security aware resolvers. - - If trust-anchor keys are compromised, the resolvers using these keys - should be notified of this fact. Zone administrators may consider - setting up a mailing list to communicate the fact that a SEP key is - about to be rolled over. This communication will of course need to - be authenticated e.g. by using digital signatures. - - End-users faced with the task of updating an anchored key should - always validate the new key. New keys should be authenticated out- - of-band, for example, looking them up on an SSL secured announcement - website. - -4.4. Parental Policies - -4.4.1. Initial Key Exchanges and Parental Policies Considerations - - The initial key exchange is always subject to the policies set by the - parent. When designing a key exchange policy one should take into - account that the authentication and authorization mechanisms used - during a key exchange should be as strong as the authentication and - authorization mechanisms used for the exchange of delegation - information between parent and child. I.e. there is no implicit need - in DNSSEC to make the authentication process stronger than it was in - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 24] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - DNS. - - Using the DNS itself as the source for the actual DNSKEY material, - with an out-of-band check on the validity of the DNSKEY, has the - benefit that it reduces the chances of user error. A DNSKEY query - tool can make use of the SEP bit [3] to select the proper key from a - DNSSEC key set; thereby reducing the chance that the wrong DNSKEY is - sent. It can validate the self-signature over a key; thereby - verifying the ownership of the private key material. Fetching the - DNSKEY from the DNS ensures that the chain of trust remains intact - once the parent publishes the DS RR indicating the child is secure. - - Note: the out-of-band verification is still needed when the key- - material is fetched via the DNS. The parent can never be sure - whether the DNSKEY RRs have been spoofed or not. - -4.4.2. Storing Keys or Hashes? - - When designing a registry system one should consider which of the - DNSKEYs and/or the corresponding DSs to store. Since a child zone - might wish to have a DS published using a message digest algorithm - not yet understood by the registry, the registry can't count on being - able to generate the DS record from a raw DNSKEY. Thus, we recommend - that registry systems at least support storing DS records. - - It may also be useful to store DNSKEYs, since having them may help - during troubleshooting and, as long as the child's chosen message - digest is supported, the overhead of generating DS records from them - is minimal. Having an out-of-band mechanism, such as a registry - directory (e.g. Whois), to find out which keys are used to generate - DS Resource Records for specific owners and/or zones may also help - with troubleshooting. - - The storage considerations also relate to the design of the customer - interface and the method by which data is transferred between - registrant and registry; Will the child zone administrator be able to - upload DS RRs with unknown hash algorithms or does the interface only - allow DNSKEYs? In the registry-registrar model one can use the - DNSSEC EPP protocol extension [16] which allows transfer of DS RRs - and optionally DNSKEY RRs. - -4.4.3. Security Lameness - - Security Lameness is defined as what happens when a parent has a DS - RR pointing to a non-existing DNSKEY RR. When this happens the - child's zone may be marked as "Bogus" by verifying DNS clients. - - As part of a comprehensive delegation check the parent could, at key - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 25] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - exchange time, verify that the child's key is actually configured in - the DNS. However if a parent does not understand the hashing - algorithm used by child the parental checks are limited to only - comparing the key id. - - Child zones should be very careful removing DNSKEY material, - specifically SEP keys, for which a DS RR exists. - - Once a zone is "security lame", a fix (e.g. removing a DS RR) will - take time to propagate through the DNS. - -4.4.4. DS Signature Validity Period - - Since the DS can be replayed as long as it has a valid signature, a - short signature validity period over the DS minimizes the time a - child is vulnerable in the case of a compromise of the child's - KSK(s). A signature validity period that is too short introduces the - possibility that a zone is marked Bogus in case of a configuration - error in the signer. There may not be enough time to fix the - problems before signatures expire. Something as mundane as operator - unavailability during weekends shows the need for DS signature - validity periods longer than 2 days. We recommend an absolute - minimum for a DS signature validity period of a few days. - - The maximum signature validity period of the DS record depends on how - long child zones are willing to be vulnerable after a key compromise. - On the other hand shortening the DS signature validity interval - increases the operational risk for the parent. Therefore the parent - may have policy to use a signature validity interval that is - considerably longer than the child would hope for. - - A compromise between the operational constraints of the parent and - minimizing damage for the child may result in a DS signature validity - period somewhere between the order of a week to order of months. - - In addition to the signature validity period, which sets a lower - bound on the number of times the zone owner will need to sign the - zone data and which sets an upper bound to the time a child is - vulnerable after key compromise, there is the TTL value on the DS - RRs. Shortening the TTL means that the authoritative servers will - see more queries. But on the other hand, a short TTL lowers the - persistence of DS RRSets in caches thereby increases the speed with - which updated DS RRSets propagate through the DNS. - - -5. IANA Considerations - - This overview document introduces no new IANA considerations. - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 26] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - -6. Security Considerations - - DNSSEC adds data integrity to the DNS. This document tries to assess - the operational considerations to maintain a stable and secure DNSSEC - service. Not taking into account the 'data propagation' properties - in the DNS will cause validation failures and may make secured zones - unavailable to security aware resolvers. - - -7. Acknowledgments - - Most of the ideas in this draft were the result of collective efforts - during workshops, discussions and try outs. - - At the risk of forgetting individuals who were the original - contributors of the ideas we would like to acknowledge people who - were actively involved in the compilation of this document. In - random order: Rip Loomis, Olafur Gudmundsson, Wesley Griffin, Michael - Richardson, Scott Rose, Rick van Rein, Tim McGinnis, Gilles Guette - Olivier Courtay, Sam Weiler, Jelte Jansen, Niall O'Reilly, Holger - Zuleger, Ed Lewis, Hilarie Orman, Marcos Sanz and Peter Koch. - - Some material in this document has been copied from RFC 2541 [12]. - - Mike StJohns designed the key exchange between parent and child - mentioned in the last paragraph of Section 4.2.2 - - Section 4.2.4 was supplied by G. Guette and O. Courtay. - - Emma Bretherick, Adrian Bedford and Lindy Foster corrected many of - the spelling and style issues. - - Kolkman and Gieben take the blame for introducing all miscakes(SIC). - - Kolkman was employed by the RIPE NCC while working on this document. - - -8. References - -8.1. Normative References - - [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [3] Kolkman, O., Schlyter, J., and E. Lewis, "Domain Name System KEY - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 27] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - (DNSKEY) Resource Record (RR) Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag", - RFC 3757, May 2004. - - [4] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - [5] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, - March 2005. - - [6] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - RFC 4035, March 2005. - -8.2. Informative References - - [7] Ohta, M., "Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS", RFC 1995, - August 1996. - - [8] Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes - (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996. - - [9] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [10] Eastlake, D., "Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update", - RFC 2137, April 1997. - - [11] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)", - RFC 2308, March 1998. - - [12] Eastlake, D., "DNS Security Operational Considerations", - RFC 2541, March 1999. - - [13] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)", - RFC 3658, December 2003. - - [14] Orman, H. and P. Hoffman, "Determining Strengths For Public - Keys Used For Exchanging Symmetric Keys", BCP 86, RFC 3766, - April 2004. - - [15] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness - Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005. - - [16] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions - Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", - RFC 4310, December 2005. - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 28] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - [17] Lenstra, A. and E. Verheul, "Selecting Cryptographic Key - Sizes", The Journal of Cryptology 14 (255-293), 2001. - - [18] Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and - Source Code in C", ISBN (hardcover) 0-471-12845-7, ISBN - (paperback) 0-471-59756-2, Published by John Wiley & Sons Inc., - 1996. - - [19] Rose, S., "NIST DNSSEC workshop notes", June 2001. - - [20] Jansen, J., "Use of RSA/SHA-256 DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource - Records in DNSSEC", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-00.txt - (work in progress), January 2006. - - [21] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) - Resource Records (RRs)", draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-04.txt - (work in progress), January 2006. - - -Appendix A. Terminology - - In this document there is some jargon used that is defined in other - documents. In most cases we have not copied the text from the - documents defining the terms but given a more elaborate explanation - of the meaning. Note that these explanations should not be seen as - authoritative. - - Anchored Key: A DNSKEY configured in resolvers around the globe. - This key is hard to update, hence the term anchored. - Bogus: Also see Section 5 of [4]. An RRSet in DNSSEC is marked - "Bogus" when a signature of a RRSet does not validate against a - DNSKEY. - Key Signing Key or KSK: A Key Signing Key (KSK) is a key that is used - exclusively for signing the apex key set. The fact that a key is - a KSK is only relevant to the signing tool. - Key size: The term 'key size' can be substituted by 'modulus size' - throughout the document. It is mathematically more correct to use - modulus size, but as this is a document directed at operators we - feel more at ease with the term key size. - Private and Public Keys: DNSSEC secures the DNS through the use of - public key cryptography. Public key cryptography is based on the - existence of two (mathematically related) keys, a public key and a - private key. The public keys are published in the DNS by use of - the DNSKEY Resource Record (DNSKEY RR). Private keys should - remain private. - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 29] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - Key Rollover: A key rollover (also called key supercession in some - environments) is the act of replacing one key pair by another at - the end of a key effectivity period. - Secure Entry Point key or SEP Key: A KSK that has a parental DS - record pointing to it or is configured as a trust anchor. - Although not required by the protocol we recommend that the SEP - flag [3] is set on these keys. - Self-signature: This is only applies to signatures over DNSKEYs; a - signature made with DNSKEY x, over DNSKEY x is called a self- - signature. Note: without further information self-signatures - convey no trust, they are useful to check the authenticity of the - DNSKEY, i.e. they can be used as a hash. - Singing the Zone File: The term used for the event where an - administrator joyfully signs its zone file while producing melodic - sound patterns. - Signer: The system that has access to the private key material and - signs the Resource Record sets in a zone. A signer may be - configured to sign only parts of the zone e.g. only those RRSets - for which existing signatures are about to expire. - Zone Signing Key or ZSK: A Zone Signing Key (ZSK) is a key that is - used for signing all data in a zone. The fact that a key is a ZSK - is only relevant to the signing tool. - Zone Administrator: The 'role' that is responsible for signing a zone - and publishing it on the primary authoritative server. - - -Appendix B. Zone Signing Key Rollover Howto - - Using the pre-published signature scheme and the most conservative - method to assure oneself that data does not live in caches, here - follows the "HOWTO". - Step 0: The preparation: Create two keys and publish both in your key - set. Mark one of the keys as "active" and the other as - "published". Use the "active" key for signing your zone data. - Store the private part of the "published" key, preferably off- - line. - The protocol does not provide for attributes to mark a key as - active or published. This is something you have to do on your - own, through the use of a notebook or key management tool. - Step 1: Determine expiration: At the beginning of the rollover make a - note of the highest expiration time of signatures in your zone - file created with the current key marked as "active". - Wait until the expiration time marked in Step 1 has passed - Step 2: Then start using the key that was marked as "published" to - sign your data i.e. mark it as "active". Stop using the key that - was marked as "active", mark it as "rolled". - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 30] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - Step 3: It is safe to engage in a new rollover (Step 1) after at - least one "signature validity period". - - -Appendix C. Typographic Conventions - - The following typographic conventions are used in this document: - Key notation: A key is denoted by DNSKEYx, where x is a number or an - identifier, x could be thought of as the key id. - RRSet notations: RRs are only denoted by the type. All other - information - owner, class, rdata and TTL - is left out. Thus: - "example.com 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1" is reduced to "A". RRSets are a - list of RRs. A example of this would be: "A1, A2", specifying the - RRSet containing two "A" records. This could again be abbreviated - to just "A". - Signature notation: Signatures are denoted as RRSIGx(RRSet), which - means that RRSet is signed with DNSKEYx. - Zone representation: Using the above notation we have simplified the - representation of a signed zone by leaving out all unnecessary - details such as the names and by representing all data by "SOAx" - SOA representation: SOAs are represented as SOAx, where x is the - serial number. - Using this notation the following signed zone: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 31] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - example.net. 86400 IN SOA ns.example.net. bert.example.net. ( - 2006022100 ; serial - 86400 ; refresh ( 24 hours) - 7200 ; retry ( 2 hours) - 3600000 ; expire (1000 hours) - 28800 ) ; minimum ( 8 hours) - 86400 RRSIG SOA 5 2 86400 20130522213204 ( - 20130422213204 14 example.net. - cmL62SI6iAX46xGNQAdQ... ) - 86400 NS a.iana-servers.net. - 86400 NS b.iana-servers.net. - 86400 RRSIG NS 5 2 86400 20130507213204 ( - 20130407213204 14 example.net. - SO5epiJei19AjXoUpFnQ ... ) - 86400 DNSKEY 256 3 5 ( - EtRB9MP5/AvOuVO0I8XDxy0... ) ; id = 14 - 86400 DNSKEY 257 3 5 ( - gsPW/Yy19GzYIY+Gnr8HABU... ) ; id = 15 - 86400 RRSIG DNSKEY 5 2 86400 20130522213204 ( - 20130422213204 14 example.net. - J4zCe8QX4tXVGjV4e1r9... ) - 86400 RRSIG DNSKEY 5 2 86400 20130522213204 ( - 20130422213204 15 example.net. - keVDCOpsSeDReyV6O... ) - 86400 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 86400 20130507213204 ( - 20130407213204 14 example.net. - obj3HEp1GjnmhRjX... ) - a.example.net. 86400 IN TXT "A label" - 86400 RRSIG TXT 5 3 86400 20130507213204 ( - 20130407213204 14 example.net. - IkDMlRdYLmXH7QJnuF3v... ) - 86400 NSEC b.example.com. TXT RRSIG NSEC - 86400 RRSIG NSEC 5 3 86400 20130507213204 ( - 20130407213204 14 example.net. - bZMjoZ3bHjnEz0nIsPMM... ) - ... - - is reduced to the following representation: - - SOA2006022100 - RRSIG14(SOA2006022100) - DNSKEY14 - DNSKEY15 - - RRSIG14(KEY) - RRSIG15(KEY) - - The rest of the zone data has the same signature as the SOA record, - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 32] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - i.e a RRSIG created with DNSKEY 14. - - -Appendix D. Document Details and Changes - - This section is to be removed by the RFC editor if and when the - document is published. - - $Id: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices.xml,v 1.31.2.14 - 2005/03/21 15:51:41 dnssec Exp $ - -D.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-00 - - Submission as working group document. This document is a modified - and updated version of draft-kolkman-dnssec-operational-practices-00. - -D.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-01 - - changed the definition of "Bogus" to reflect the one in the protocol - draft. - - Bad to Bogus - - Style and spelling corrections - - KSK - SEP mapping made explicit. - - Updates from Sam Weiler added - -D.3. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-02 - - Style and errors corrected. - - Added Automatic rollover requirements from I-D.ietf-dnsop-key- - rollover-requirements. - -D.4. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-03 - - Added the definition of Key effectivity period and used that term - instead of Key validity period. - - Modified the order of the sections, based on a suggestion by Rip - Loomis. - - Included parts from RFC 2541 [12]. Most of its ground was already - covered. This document obsoletes RFC 2541 [12]. Section 3.1.2 - deserves some review as it in contrast to RFC 2541 does _not_ give - recomendations about root-zone keys. - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 33] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - - added a paragraph to Section 4.4.4 - -D.5. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-04 - - Somewhat more details added about the pre-publish KSK rollover. Also - moved that subsection down a bit. - - Editorial and content nits that came in during wg last call were - fixed. - -D.6. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-05 - - Applied some another set of comments that came in _after_ the the - WGLC. - - Applied comments from Hilarie Orman and made a referece to RFC 3766. - Deleted of a lot of key length discussion and took over the - recommendations from RFC 3766. - - Reworked all the heading of the rollover figures - -D.7. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-06 - - One comment from Scott Rose applied. - - Marcos Sanz gave a lots of editorial nits. Almost all are - incorporated. - -D.8. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-07 - - Peter Koch's comments applied. - - SHA-1/SHA-256 remarks added - -D.9. draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08 - - IESG comments applied. Added headers and some captions to the tables - and applied all the nits. - - IESG DISCUSS comments applied - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 34] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Olaf M. Kolkman - NLnet Labs - Kruislaan 419 - Amsterdam 1098 VA - The Netherlands - - Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl - URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl - - - Miek Gieben - NLnet Labs - Kruislaan 419 - Amsterdam 1098 VA - The Netherlands - - Email: miek@nlnetlabs.nl - URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 35] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Operational Practices March 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Kolkman & Gieben Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 36] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-07.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-07.txt deleted file mode 100644 index bcd0d14e4b5..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-07.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,396 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -INTERNET-DRAFT D. Senie -Category: BCP Amaranth Networks Inc. -Expires in six months July 2005 - - Encouraging the use of DNS IN-ADDR Mapping - draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-07.txt - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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 - - Mapping of addresses to names has been a feature of DNS. Many sites, - implement it, many others don't. Some applications attempt to use it - as a part of a security strategy. The goal of this document is to - encourage proper deployment of address to name mappings, and provide - guidance for their use. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society. (2005) - -1. Introduction - - The Domain Name Service has provision for providing mapping of IP - addresses to host names. It is common practice to ensure both name to - address, and address to name mappings are provided for networks. This - practice, while documented, has never been required, though it is - generally encouraged. This document both encourages the presence of - - - -Senie [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft Encouraging the use of DNS IN-ADDR Mapping July 2005 - - - these mappings and discourages reliance on such mappings for security - checks. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. - -2. Discussion - - - From the early days of the Domain Name Service [RFC883] a special - domain has been set aside for resolving mappings of IP addresses to - domain names. This was refined in [RFC1035], describing the .IN- - ADDR.ARPA in use today. For the in the IPv6 address space, .IP6.ARPA - was added [RFC3152]. This document uses IPv4 CIDR block sizes and - allocation strategy where there are differences and uses IPv4 - terminology. Aside from these differences, this document can and - should be applied to both address spaces. - - The assignment of blocks of IP address space was delegated to three - regional registries. Guidelines for the registries are specified in - [RFC2050], which requires regional registries to maintain IN-ADDR - records on the large blocks of space issued to ISPs and others. - - ARIN's policy requires ISPs to maintain IN-ADDR for /16 or larger - allocations. For smaller allocations, ARIN can provide IN-ADDR for - /24 and shorter prefixes. [ARIN]. APNIC provides methods for ISPs to - update IN-ADDR, however the present version of its policy document - for IPv4 [APNIC] dropped the IN-ADDR requirements that were in draft - copies of this document. As of this writing, it appears APNIC has no - actual policy on IN-ADDR. RIPE appears to have the strongest policy - in this area [RIPE302] indicating Local Internet Registries should - provide IN-ADDR services, and delegate those as appropriate when - address blocks are delegated. - - As we can see, the regional registries have their own policies for - recommendations and/or requirements for IN-ADDR maintenance. It - should be noted, however, that many address blocks were allocated - before the creation of the regional registries, and thus it is - unclear whether any of the policies of the registries are binding on - those who hold blocks from that era. - - Registries allocate address blocks on CIDR [RFC1519] boundaries. - Unfortunately the IN-ADDR zones are based on classful allocations. - Guidelines [RFC2317] for delegating on non-octet-aligned boundaries - exist, but are not always implemented. - -3. Examples of impact of missing IN-ADDR - - - -Senie [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft Encouraging the use of DNS IN-ADDR Mapping July 2005 - - - These are some examples of problems that may be introduced by - reliance on IN-ADDR. - - Some applications use DNS lookups for security checks. To ensure - validity of claimed names, some applications will look up IN-ADDR - records to get names, and then look up the resultant name to see if - it maps back to the address originally known. Failure to resolve - matching names is seen as a potential security concern. - - Some FTP sites will flat-out reject users, even for anonymous FTP, if - the IN-ADDR lookup fails or if the result of the IN-ADDR lookup when - itself resolved, does not match. Some Telnet servers also implement - this check. - - Web sites are in some cases using IN-ADDR checks to verify whether - the client is located within a certain geopolitical entity. This - approach has been employed for downloads of crypto software, for - example, where export of that software is prohibited to some locales. - Credit card anti-fraud systems also use these methods for geographic - placement purposes. - - The popular TCP Wrappers program found on most Unix and Linux systems - has options to enforce IN-ADDR checks and to reject any client that - does not resolve. This program also has a way to check to see that - the name given by a PTR record then resolves back to the same IP - address. This method provdes more comfort but no appreciable - additional security. - - Some anti-spam (anti junk email) systems use IN-ADDR to verify the - presence of a PTR record, or validate the PTR value points back to - the same address. - - Many web servers look up the IN-ADDR of visitors to be used in log - analysis. This adds to the server load, but in the case of IN-ADDR - unavailability, it can lead to delayed responses for users. - - Traceroutes with descriptive IN-ADDR naming proves useful when - debugging problems spanning large areas. When this information is - missing, the traceroutes take longer, and it takes additional steps - to determine that network is the cause of problems. - - Wider-scale implementation of IN-ADDR on dialup, wireless access and - other such client-oriented portions of the Internet would result in - lower latency for queries (due to lack of negative caching), and - lower name server load and DNS traffic. - -4. Recommendations - - - - -Senie [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft Encouraging the use of DNS IN-ADDR Mapping July 2005 - - - 4.1 Delegation Recommendations - - - Regional Registries and any Local Registries to whom they delegate - should establish and convey a policy to those to whom they delegate - blocks that IN-ADDR mappings are recommended. Policies should - recommend those receiving delegations to provide IN-ADDR service - and/or delegate to downstream customers. - - Network operators should define and implement policies and procedures - which delegate IN-ADDR to their clients who wish to run their own IN- - ADDR DNS services, and provide IN-ADDR services for those who do not - have the resources to do it themselves. Delegation mechanisms should - permit the downstream customer to implement and comply with IETF - recommendations application of IN-ADDR to CIDR [RFC2317]. - - All IP address space assigned and in use should be resolved by IN- - ADDR records. All PTR records must use canonical names. - - All IP addresses in use within a block should have an IN-ADDR - mapping. Those addresses not in use, and those that are not valid for - use (zeros or ones broadcast addresses within a CIDR block) need not - have mappings. - - It should be noted that due to CIDR, many addresses that appear to be - otherwise valid host addresses may actually be zeroes or ones - broadcast addresses. As such, attempting to audit a site's degree of - compliance may only be done with knowledge of the internal subnet - architecture of the site. It can be assumed, however, any host that - originates an IP packet necessarily will have a valid host address, - and must therefore have an IN-ADDR mapping. - -4.2 Application Recommendations - - - Applications SHOULD NOT rely on IN-ADDR for proper operation. The use - of IN-ADDR, sometimes in conjunction with a lookup of the name - resulting from the PTR record provides no real security, can lead to - erroneous results and generally just increases load on DNS servers. - Further, in cases where address block holders fail to properly - configure IN-ADDR, users of those blocks are penalized. - -5. Security Considerations - - This document has no negative impact on security. While it could be - argued that lack of PTR record capabilities provides a degree of - anonymity, this is really not valid. Trace routes, whois lookups and - other sources will still provide methods for discovering identity. - - - -Senie [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft Encouraging the use of DNS IN-ADDR Mapping July 2005 - - - By recommending applications avoid using IN-ADDR as a security - mechanism this document points out that this practice, despite its - use by many applications, is an ineffective form of security. - Applications should use better mechanisms of authentication. - -6. IANA Considerations - - There are no IANA considerations for this document. - -7. References - -7.1 Normative References - - [RFC883] P.V. Mockapetris, "Domain names: Implementation - specification," RFC883, November 1983. - - [RFC1035] P.V. Mockapetris, "Domain Names: Implementation - Specification," RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [RFC1519] V. Fuller, et. al., "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): - an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy," RFC 1519, September - 1993. - - [RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", - RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996. - - [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. - - [RFC2050] K. Hubbard, et. al., "Internet Registry IP Allocation - Guidelines", RFC2050, BCP 12, Novebmer 1996. - - [RFC2317] H. Eidnes, et. al., "Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation," - RFC 2317, March 1998. - - [RFC3152] R. Bush, "Delegation of IP6.ARPA," RFC 3152, BCP 49, August - 2001. - -7.2 Informative References - - [ARIN] "ISP Guidelines for Requesting Initial IP Address Space," date - unknown, http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html - - [APNIC] "Policies For IPv4 Address Space Management in the Asia - Pacific Region," APNIC-086, 13 January 2003. - - [RIPE302] "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 - Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region", RIPE-302, April 26, - - - -Senie [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft Encouraging the use of DNS IN-ADDR Mapping July 2005 - - - 2004. http://www.ripe.net//ripe/docs/rev-del.html - - - -8. Acknowledgements - - Thanks to Peter Koch and Gary Miller for their input, and to many - people who encouraged me to write this document. - -9. Author's Address - - Daniel Senie - Amaranth Networks Inc. - 324 Still River Road - Bolton, MA 01740 - - Phone: (978) 779-5100 - - EMail: dts@senie.com - -10. Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - - This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions - contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors - retain all their rights. - - This document and the information contained herein are provided - on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE - REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND - THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - -Intellectual Property - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed - to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology - described in this document or the extent to which any license - under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it - represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any - such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to - rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - - - -Senie [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft Encouraging the use of DNS IN-ADDR Mapping July 2005 - - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use - of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository - at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention - any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other - proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required - to implement this standard. Please address the information to the - IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its - working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute - working documents as Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of - six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by - other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use - Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other - than as "work in progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be - accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - -Acknowledgement - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Senie [Page 7] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-06.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-06.txt deleted file mode 100644 index bf2afcdfb3a..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-06.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1848 +0,0 @@ - - - -DNS Operations WG J. Jeong, Ed. -Internet-Draft ETRI/University of Minnesota -Expires: November 6, 2005 May 5, 2005 - - - IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server Information Approaches - draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-06.txt - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions - of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each - author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of - which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of - which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with - RFC 3668. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2005. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - This document describes three approaches for IPv6 recursive DNS - server address configuration. It details the operational attributes - of three solutions: RA option, DHCPv6 option, and Well-known anycast - addresses for recursive DNS servers. Additionally, it suggests the - deployment scenarios in four kinds of networks, such as ISP, - Enterprise, 3GPP, and Unmanaged networks, considering multi-solution - resolution. Therefore, this document will give the audience a - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - guideline for IPv6 host DNS configuration. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3. IPv6 DNS Configuration Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1 RA Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1.1 Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.1.2 Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.1.3 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.2 DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.2.1 Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.2.2 Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.2.3 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.3.1 Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 3.3.2 Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 3.3.3 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 4. Interworking among IPv6 DNS Configuration Approaches . . . . . 15 - 5. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 5.1 ISP Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 5.1.1 RA Option Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 5.1.2 DHCPv6 Option Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.1.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses Approach . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.2 Enterprise Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.3 3GPP Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 5.3.1 Currently Available Mechanisms and Recommendations . . 19 - 5.3.2 RA Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 5.3.3 Stateless DHCPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 5.3.4 Well-known Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 5.3.5 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 5.4 Unmanaged Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 5.4.1 Case A: Gateway does not provide IPv6 at all . . . . . 22 - 5.4.2 Case B: A dual-stack gateway connected to a - dual-stack ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 5.4.3 Case C: A dual-stack gateway connected to an - IPv4-only ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 5.4.4 Case D: A gateway connected to an IPv6-only ISP . . . 23 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 6.1 RA Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 6.2 DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 6.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - A. Link-layer Multicast Acknowledgements for RA Option . . . . . 32 - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 33 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -1. Introduction - - Neighbor Discovery (ND) for IP Version 6 and IPv6 Stateless Address - Autoconfiguration provide the ways to configure either fixed or - mobile nodes with one or more IPv6 addresses, default routes and some - other parameters [3][4]. To support the access to additional - services in the Internet that are identified by a DNS name, such as a - web server, the configuration of at least one recursive DNS server is - also needed for DNS name resolution. - - This document describes three approaches of recursive DNS server - address configuration for IPv6 host: (a) RA option [8], (b) DHCPv6 - option [5]-[7], and (c) Well-known anycast addresses for recursive - DNS servers [9]. Also, it suggests the applicable scenarios for four - kinds of networks: (a) ISP network, (b) Enterprise network, (c) 3GPP - network, and (d) Unmanaged network. - - This document is just an analysis of each possible approach, and does - not make any recommendation on a particular one or on a combination - of particular ones. Some approaches may even not be adopted at all - as a result of further discussion. - - Therefore, the objective of this document is to help the audience - select the approaches suitable for IPv6 host configuration of - recursive DNS servers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -2. Terminology - - This document uses the terminology described in [3]-[9]. In - addition, a new term is defined below: - - o Recursive DNS Server (RDNSS): A Recursive DNS Server is a name - server that offers the recursive service of DNS name resolution. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -3. IPv6 DNS Configuration Approaches - - In this section, the operational attributes of the three solutions - are described in detail. - -3.1 RA Option - - The RA approach is to define a new ND option called the RDNSS option - that contains a recursive DNS server address. Existing ND transport - mechanisms (i.e., advertisements and solicitations) are used. This - works in the same way that nodes learn about routers and prefixes. - An IPv6 host can configure the IPv6 addresses of one or more RDNSSes - via RA message periodically sent by a router or solicited by a Router - Solicitation (RS) [8]. - - This approach needs RDNSS information to be configured in the routers - doing the advertisements. The configuration of RDNSS addresses can - be performed manually by an operator or other ways, such as automatic - configuration through a DHCPv6 client running on the router. When - advertising more than one RDNSS option, an RA message includes as - many RDNSS options as RDNSSes. - - Through the ND protocol and RDNSS option along with a prefix - information option, an IPv6 host can perform its network - configuration of its IPv6 address and RDNSS simultaneously [3][4]. - The RA option for RDNSS can be used on any network that supports the - use of ND. - - However, it is worth noting that some link layers, such as Wireless - LANs (e.g., IEEE 802.11 a/b/g), do not support reliable multicast, - which means that they cannot guarantee the timely delivery of RA - messages [25]-[28]. This is discussed in Appendix A. - - The RA approach is useful in some mobile environments where the - addresses of the RDNSSes are changing because the RA option includes - a lifetime field that allows client to use RDNSSes nearer to the - client. This can be configured to a value that will require the - client to time out the entry and switch over to another RDNSS address - [8]. However, from the viewpoint of implementation, the lifetime - field would seem to make matters a bit more complex. Instead of just - writing to a DNS configuration file, such as resolv.conf for the list - of RDNSS addresses, we have to have a daemon around (or a program - that is called at the defined intervals) that keeps monitoring the - lifetime of RDNSSes all the time. - - The preference value of RDNSS, included in the RDNSS option, allows - IPv6 hosts to select primary RDNSS among several RDNSSes; this can be - used for the load balancing of RDNSSes [8]. - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -3.1.1 Advantages - - The RA option for RDNSS has a number of advantages. These include: - - 1. The RA option is an extension of existing ND/Autoconfig - mechanisms [3][4], and does not require a change in the base ND - protocol. - - 2. This approach, like ND, works well on a variety of link types - including point-to-point links, point-to-multipoint, and - multipoint-to-multipoint (i.e., Ethernet LANs), etc. RFC 2461 - [3] states, however, that there may be some link types on which - ND is not feasible; on such links, some other mechanisms will be - needed for DNS configuration. - - 3. All of the information a host needs to run the basic Internet - applications such as the email, web, ftp, etc., can be obtained - with the addition of this option to ND and address - autoconfiguration. The use of a single mechanism is more - reliable and easier to provide than when the RDNSS information is - learned via another protocol mechanism. Debugging problems when - multiple protocol mechanisms are being used is harder and much - more complex. - - 4. This mechanism works over a broad range of scenarios and - leverages IPv6 ND. This works well on links that support - broadcast reliably (e.g., Ethernet LANs) but not necessarily on - other links (e.g., Wireless LANs): Refer to Appendix A. Also, - this works well on links that are high performance (e.g., - Ethernet LANs) and low performance (e.g., Cellular networks). In - the latter case, by combining the RDNSS information with the - other information in the RA, the host can learn all of the - information needed to use most Internet applications, such as the - web in a single packet. This not only saves bandwidth where this - is an issue, but also minimizes the delay needed to learn the - RDNSS information. - - 5. The RA approach could be used as a model for other similar types - of configuration information. New RA options for other server - addresses, such as NTP server address, that are common to all - clients on a subnet would be easy to define. - - -3.1.2 Disadvantages - - 1. ND is mostly implemented in the kernel of operating system. - Therefore, if ND supports the configuration of some additional - services, such as DNS servers, ND should be extended in the - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - kernel, and complemented by a user-land process. DHCPv6, - however, has more flexibility for the extension of service - discovery because it is an application layer protocol. - - 2. The current ND framework should be modified to facilitate the - synchronization between another ND cache for RDNSSes in the - kernel space and the DNS configuration file in the user space. - Because it is unacceptable to write and rewrite to the DNS - configuration file (e.g., resolv.conf) from the kernel, another - approach is needed. One simple approach to solve this is to have - a daemon listening to what the kernel conveys, and to have the - daemon do these steps, but such a daemon is not needed with the - current ND framework. - - 3. It is necessary to configure RDNSS addresses at least at one - router on every link where this information needs to be - configured via the RA option. - - -3.1.3 Observations - - The proposed RDNSS RA option along with the IPv6 ND and - Autoconfiguration allows a host to obtain all of the information it - needs to access the basic Internet services like the web, email, ftp, - etc. This is preferable in the environments where hosts use RAs to - autoconfigure their addresses and all the hosts on the subnet share - the same router and server addresses. If the configuration - information can be obtained from a single mechanism, it is preferable - because it does not add additional delay, and it uses a minimum of - bandwidth. The environments like this include the homes, public - cellular networks, and enterprise environments where no per host - configuration is needed, but exclude public WLAN hot spots. - - DHCPv6 is preferable where it is being used for address configuration - and if there is a need for host specific configuration [5]-[7]. The - environments like this are most likely to be the enterprise - environments where the local administration chooses to have per host - configuration control. - -Note - - The observation section is based on what the proponents of each - approach think makes a good overall solution. - -3.2 DHCPv6 Option - - DHCPv6 [5] includes the "DNS Recursive Name Server" option, through - which a host can obtain a list of IP addresses of recursive DNS - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - servers [7]. The DNS Recursive Name Server option carries a list of - IPv6 addresses of RDNSSes to which the host may send DNS queries. - The DNS servers are listed in the order of preference for use by the - DNS resolver on the host. - - The DNS Recursive Name Server option can be carried in any DHCPv6 - Reply message, in response to either a Request or an Information - request message. Thus, the DNS Recursive Name Server option can be - used either when DHCPv6 is used for address assignment, or when - DHCPv6 is used only for other configuration information as stateless - DHCPv6 [6]. - - Stateless DHCPv6 can be deployed either using DHCPv6 servers running - on general-purpose computers, or on router hardware. Several router - vendors currently implement stateless DHCPv6 servers. Deploying - stateless DHCPv6 in routers has the advantage that no special - hardware is required, and should work well for networks where DHCPv6 - is needed for very straightforward configuration of network devices. - - However, routers can also act as DHCPv6 relay agents. In this case, - the DHCPv6 server need not be on the router - it can be on a general - purpose computer. This has the potential to give the operator of the - DHCPv6 server more flexibility in how the DHCPv6 server responds to - individual clients - clients can easily be given different - configuration information based on their identity, or for any other - reason. Nothing precludes adding this flexibility to a router, but - generally in current practice, DHCP servers running on general- - purpose hosts tend to have more configuration options than those that - are embedded in routers. - - DHCPv6 currently provides a mechanism for reconfiguring DHCPv6 - clients that use a stateful configuration assignment. To do this, - the DHCPv6 server sends a Reconfigure message to the client. The - client validates the Reconfigure message, and then contacts the - DHCPv6 server to obtain updated configuration information. Using - this mechanism, it is currently possible to propagate new - configuration information to DHCPv6 clients as this information - changes. - - The DHC Working Group is currently studying an additional mechanism - through which configuration information, including the list of - RDNSSes, can be updated. The lifetime option for DHCPv6 [10] assigns - a lifetime to configuration information obtained through DHCPv6. At - the expiration of the lifetime, the host contacts the DHCPv6 server - to obtain updated configuration information, including the list of - RDNSSes. This lifetime gives the network administrator another - mechanism to configure hosts with new RDNSSes by controlling the time - at which the host refreshes the list. - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - The DHC Working Group has also discussed the possibility of defining - an extension to DHCPv6 that would allow the use of multicast to - provide configuration information to multiple hosts with a single - DHCPv6 message. Because of the lack of deployment experience, the WG - has deferred consideration of multicast DHCPv6 configuration at this - time. Experience with DHCPv4 has not identified a requirement for - multicast message delivery, even in large service provider networks - with tens of thousands of hosts that may initiate a DHCPv4 message - exchange simultaneously. - -3.2.1 Advantages - - The DHCPv6 option for RDNSS has a number of advantages. These - include: - - 1. DHCPv6 currently provides a general mechanism for conveying - network configuration information to clients. So configuring - DHCPv6 servers allows the network administrator to configure - RDNSSes along with the addresses of other network services, as - well as location-specific information like time zones. - - 2. As a consequence, when the network administrator goes to - configure DHCPv6, all the configuration information can be - managed through a single service, typically with a single user - interface and a single configuration database. - - 3. DHCPv6 allows for the configuration of a host with information - specific to that host, so that hosts on the same link can be - configured with different RDNSSes as well as with other - configuration information. This capability is important in some - network deployments such as service provider networks or WiFi hot - spots. - - 4. A mechanism exists for extending DHCPv6 to support the - transmission of additional configuration that has not yet been - anticipated. - - 5. Hosts that require other configuration information such as the - addresses of SIP servers and NTP servers are likely to need - DHCPv6 for other configuration information. - - 6. The specification for configuration of RDNSSes through DHCPv6 is - available as an RFC. No new protocol extensions such as new - options are necessary. - - 7. Interoperability among independent implementations has been - demonstrated. - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -3.2.2 Disadvantages - - The DHCPv6 option for RDNSS has a few disadvantages. These include: - - 1. Update currently requires message from server (however, see - [10]). - - 2. Because DNS information is not contained in RA messages, the host - must receive two messages from the router, and must transmit at - least one message to the router. On networks where bandwidth is - at a premium, this is a disadvantage, although on most networks - it is not a practical concern. - - 3. Increased latency for initial configuration - in addition to - waiting for an RA message, the client must now exchange packets - with a DHCPv6 server; even if it is locally installed on a - router, this will slightly extend the time required to configure - the client. For clients that are moving rapidly from one network - to another, this will be a disadvantage. - - -3.2.3 Observations - - In the general case, on general-purpose networks, stateless DHCPv6 - provides significant advantages and no significant disadvantages. - Even in the case where bandwidth is at a premium and low latency is - desired, if hosts require other configuration information in addition - to a list of RDNSSes or if hosts must be configured selectively, - those hosts will use DHCPv6 and the use of the DHCPv6 DNS recursive - name server option will be advantageous. - - However, we are aware of some applications where it would be - preferable to put the RDNSS information into an RA packet; for - example, on a cell phone network, where bandwidth is at a premium and - extremely low latency is desired. The final DNS configuration draft - should be written so as to allow these special applications to be - handled using DNS information in the RA packet. - -3.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses - - Anycast uses the same routing system as unicast [11]. However, - administrative entities are local ones. The local entities may - accept unicast routes (including default routes) to anycast servers - from adjacent entities. The administrative entities should not - advertise their peers routes to their internal anycast servers, if - they want to prohibit external access from some peers to the servers. - If some advertisement is inevitable (such as the case with default - routes), the packets to the servers should be blocked at the boundary - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - of the entities. Thus, for this anycast, not only unicast routing - but also unicast ND protocols can be used as is. - - First of all, the well-known anycast addresses approach is much - different from that discussed at IPv6 Working Group in the past [9]. - It should be noted that "anycast" in this memo is simpler than that - of RFC 1546 [11] and RFC 3513 [12] where it is assumed to be - prohibited to have multiple servers on a single link sharing an - anycast address. That is, on a link, an anycast address is assumed - to be unique. DNS clients today already have redundancy by having - multiple well-known anycast addresses configured as RDNSS addresses. - There is no point in having multiple RDNSSes sharing an anycast - address on a single link. - - The approach with well-known anycast addresses is to set multiple - well-known anycast addresses in clients' resolver configuration files - from the beginning, say, as factory default. Thus, there is no - transport mechanism and no packet format [9]. - - An anycast address is an address shared by multiple servers (in this - case, the servers are RDNSSes). A request from a client to the - anycast address is routed to a server selected by the routing system. - However, it is a bad idea to mandate "site" boundary on anycast - addresses, because most users just do not have their own servers and - want to access their ISPs' across their site boundaries. Larger - sites may also depend on their ISPs or may have their own RDNSSes - within "site" boundaries. - -3.3.1 Advantages - - The basic advantage of the well-known addresses approach is that it - uses no transport mechanism. Thus, - - 1. There is no delay to get the response and no further delay by - packet losses. - - 2. The approach can be combined with any other configuration - mechanisms, such as the RA-based approach and DHCP based - approach, as well as the factory default configuration. - - 3. The approach works over any environment where DNS works. - - Another advantage is that the approach needs to configure DNS servers - as a router, but nothing else. Considering that DNS servers do need - configuration, the amount of overall configuration effort is - proportional to the number of the DNS servers and scales linearly. - It should be noted that, in the simplest case where a subscriber to - an ISP does not have any DNS server, the subscriber naturally - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - accesses DNS servers of the ISP even though the subscriber and the - ISP do nothing and there is no protocol to exchange DNS server - information between the subscriber and the ISP. - -3.3.2 Disadvantages - - Well-known anycast addresses approach requires that DNS servers (or - routers near it as a proxy) act as routers to advertise their anycast - addresses to the routing system, which requires some configuration - (see the last paragraph of the previous section on the scalability of - the effort). - -3.3.3 Observations - - If other approaches are used in addition, the well-known anycast - addresses should also be set in RA or DHCP configuration files to - reduce the configuration effort of users. - - The redundancy by multiple RDNSSes is better provided by multiple - servers having different anycast addresses than multiple servers - sharing the same anycast address because the former approach allows - stale servers to still generate routes to their anycast addresses. - Thus, in a routing domain (or domains sharing DNS servers), there - will be only one server having an anycast address unless the domain - is so large that load distribution is necessary. - - Small ISPs will operate one RDNSS at each anycast address which is - shared by all the subscribers. Large ISPs may operate multiple - RDNSSes at each anycast address to distribute and reduce load, where - the boundary between RDNSSes may be fixed (redundancy is still - provided by multiple addresses) or change dynamically. DNS packets - with the well-known anycast addresses are not expected (though not - prohibited) to cross ISP boundaries, as ISPs are expected to be able - to take care of themselves. - - Because "anycast" in this memo is simpler than that of RFC 1546 [11] - and RFC 3513 [12] where it is assumed to be administratively - prohibited to have multiple servers on a single link sharing an - anycast address, anycast in this memo should be implemented as - UNICAST of RFC 2461 [3] and RFC 3513 [12]. As a result, ND-related - instability disappears. Thus, anycast in well-known anycast - addresses approach can and should use the anycast address as a source - unicast (according to RFC 3513 [12]) address of packets of UDP and - TCP responses. With TCP, if a route flips and packets to an anycast - address are routed to a new server, it is expected that the flip is - detected by ICMP or sequence number inconsistency and the TCP - connection is reset and retried. - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -4. Interworking among IPv6 DNS Configuration Approaches - - Three approaches can work together for IPv6 host configuration of - RDNSS. This section shows a consideration on how these approaches - can interwork each other. - - For ordering between RA and DHCP approaches, the O (Other stateful - configuration) flag in RA message can be used [8][32]. If no RDNSS - option is included, an IPv6 host may perform DNS configuration - through DHCPv6 [5]-[7] regardless of whether the O flag is set or - not. - - The well-known anycast addresses approach fully interworks with the - other approaches. That is, the other approaches can remove the - configuration effort on servers by using the well-known addresses as - the default configuration. Moreover, the clients preconfigured with - the well-known anycast addresses can be further configured to use - other approaches to override the well-known addresses, if the - configuration information from other approaches is available. - Otherwise, all the clients need to have the well-known anycast - addresses preconfigured. In order to use the anycast approach along - with two other approaches, there are three choices as follows: - - 1. The first choice is that well-known addresses are used as last - resort, when an IPv6 host cannot get RDNSS information through RA - and DHCP. The well-known anycast addresses have to be - preconfigured in all of IPv6 hosts' resolver configuration files. - - 2. The second is that an IPv6 host can configure well-known - addresses as the most preferable in its configuration file even - though either an RA option or DHCP option is available. - - 3. The last is that the well-known anycast addresses can be set in - RA or DHCP configuration to reduce the configuration effort of - users. According to either the RA or DHCP mechanism, the well- - known addresses can be obtained by an IPv6 host. Because this - approach is the most convenient for users, the last option is - recommended. - - -Note - - This section does not necessarily mean this document suggests - adopting all these three approaches and making them interwork in the - way described here. In fact, some approaches may even not be adopted - at all as a result of further discussion. - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -5. Deployment Scenarios - - Regarding the DNS configuration on the IPv6 host, several mechanisms - are being considered at the DNSOP Working Group such as RA option, - DHCPv6 option and well-known preconfigured anycast addresses as of - today, and this document is a final result from the long thread. In - this section, we suggest four applicable scenarios of three - approaches for IPv6 DNS configuration. - -Note - - In the applicable scenarios, authors do not implicitly push any - specific approaches into the restricted environments. No enforcement - is in each scenario and all mentioned scenarios are probable. The - main objective of this work is to provide a useful guideline for IPv6 - DNS configuration. - -5.1 ISP Network - - A characteristic of ISP network is that multiple Customer Premises - Equipment (CPE) devices are connected to IPv6 PE (Provider Edge) - routers and each PE connects multiple CPE devices to the backbone - network infrastructure [13]. The CPEs may be hosts or routers. - - In the case where the CPE is a router, there is a customer network - that is connected to the ISP backbone through the CPE. Typically, - each customer network gets a different IPv6 prefix from an IPv6 PE - router, but the same RDNSS configuration will be distributed. - - This section discusses how the different approaches to distributing - DNS information are compared in an ISP network. - -5.1.1 RA Option Approach - - When the CPE is a host, the RA option for RDNSS can be used to allow - the CPE to get RDNSS information as well as /64 prefix information - for stateless address autoconfiguration at the same time when the - host is attached to a new subnet [8]. Because an IPv6 host must - receive at least one RA message for stateless address - autoconfiguration and router configuration, the host could receive - RDNSS configuration information in that RA without the overhead of an - additional message exchange. - - When the CPE is a router, the CPE may accept the RDNSS information - from the RA on the interface connected to the ISP, and copy that - information into the RAs advertised in the customer network. - - This approach is more valuable in the mobile host scenario, in which - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - the host must receive at least an RA message for detecting a new - network, than in other scenarios generally although administrator - should configure RDNSS information on the routers. Secure ND [14] - can provide extended security when using RA messages. - -5.1.2 DHCPv6 Option Approach - - DHCPv6 can be used for RDNSS configuration through the use of the DNS - option, and can provide other configuration information in the same - message with RDNSS configuration [5]-[7]. The DHCPv6 DNS option is - already in place for DHCPv6 as RFC 3646 [7] and DHCPv6-lite or - stateless DHCP [6] is nowhere as complex as a full DHCPv6 - implementation. DHCP is a client-server model protocol, so ISPs can - handle user identification on its network intentionally, and also - authenticated DHCP [15] can be used for secure message exchange. - - The expected model for deployment of IPv6 service by ISPs is to - assign a prefix to each customer, which will be used by the customer - gateway to assign a /64 prefix to each network in the customer's - network. Prefix delegation with DHCP (DHCPv6 PD) has already been - adopted by ISPs for automating the assignment of the customer prefix - to the customer gateway [17]. DNS configuration can be carried in - the same DHCPv6 message exchange used for DHCPv6 to efficiently - provide that information, along with any other configuration - information needed by the customer gateway or customer network. This - service model can be useful to Home or SOHO subscribers. The Home or - SOHO gateway, which is a customer gateway for ISP, can then pass that - RDNSS configuration information to the hosts in the customer network - through DHCP. - -5.1.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses Approach - - The well-known anycast addresses approach is also a feasible and - simple mechanism for ISP [9]. The use of well-known anycast - addresses avoids some of the security risks in rogue messages sent - through an external protocol like RA or DHCPv6. The configuration of - hosts for the use of well-known anycast addresses requires no - protocol or manual configuration, but the configuration of routing - for the anycast addresses requires intervention on the part of the - network administrator. Also, the number of special addresses would - be equal to the number of RDNSSes that could be made available to - subscribers. - -5.2 Enterprise Network - - Enterprise network is defined as a network that has multiple internal - links, one or more router connections, to one or more Providers and - is actively managed by a network operations entity [16]. An - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - enterprise network can get network prefixes from an ISP by either - manual configuration or prefix delegation [17]. In most cases, - because an enterprise network manages its own DNS domains, it - operates its own DNS servers for the domains. These DNS servers - within enterprise network process recursive DNS name resolution - requests from IPv6 hosts as RDNSSes. The RDNSS configuration in the - enterprise network can be performed like in Section 4, in which three - approaches can be used together as follows: - - 1. An IPv6 host can decide which approach is or may be used in its - subnet with the O flag in RA message [8][32]. As the first - choice in Section 4, well-known anycast addresses can be used as - a last resort when RDNSS information cannot be obtained through - either an RA option or DHCP option. This case needs IPv6 hosts - to preconfigure the well-known anycast addresses in their DNS - configuration files. - - 2. When the enterprise prefers the well-known anycast approach to - others, IPv6 hosts should preconfigure the well-known anycast - addresses like in the first choice. - - 3. The last choice, a more convenient and transparent way, does not - need IPv6 hosts to preconfigure the well-known anycast addresses - because the addresses are delivered to IPv6 hosts via either the - RA option or DHCPv6 option as if they were unicast addresses. - This way is most recommended for the sake of user's convenience. - - -5.3 3GPP Network - - The IPv6 DNS configuration is a missing part of IPv6 - autoconfiguration and an important part of the basic IPv6 - functionality in the 3GPP User Equipment (UE). The higher level - description of the 3GPP architecture can be found in [18], and - transition to IPv6 in 3GPP networks is analyzed in [19] and [20]. - - In the 3GPP architecture, there is a dedicated link between the UE - and the GGSN called the Packet Data Protocol (PDP) Context. This - link is created through the PDP Context activation procedure [21]. - There is a separate PDP context type for IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. If a - 3GPP UE user is communicating using IPv6 (having an active IPv6 PDP - context), it cannot be assumed that (s)he has simultaneously an - active IPv4 PDP context, and DNS queries could be done using IPv4. A - 3GPP UE can thus be an IPv6 node, and it needs to somehow discover - the address of the RDNSS. Before IP-based services (e.g., web - browsing or e-mail) can be used, the IPv6 (and IPv4) RDNSS addresses - need to be discovered in the 3GPP UE. - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - Section 5.3.1 briefly summarizes currently available mechanisms in - 3GPP networks and recommendations. 5.3.2 analyzes the Router - Advertisement based solution, 5.3.3 analyzes the Stateless DHCPv6 - mechanism, and 5.3.4 analyzes the Well-known addresses approach. - Section 5.3.5 finally summarizes the recommendations. - -5.3.1 Currently Available Mechanisms and Recommendations - - 3GPP has defined a mechanism, in which RDNSS addresses can be - received in the PDP context activation (a control plane mechanism). - That is called the Protocol Configuration Options Information Element - (PCO-IE) mechanism [22]. The RDNSS addresses can also be received - over the air (using text messages), or typed in manually in the UE. - Note that the two last mechanisms are not very well scalable. The UE - user most probably does not want to type IPv6 RDNSS addresses - manually in his/her UE. The use of well-known addresses is briefly - discussed in section 5.3.4. - - It is seen that the mechanisms above most probably are not sufficient - for the 3GPP environment. IPv6 is intended to operate in a zero- - configuration manner, no matter what the underlying network - infrastructure is. Typically, the RDNSS address is needed to make an - IPv6 node operational - and the DNS configuration should be as simple - as the address autoconfiguration mechanism. It must also be noted - that there will be additional IP interfaces in some near future 3GPP - UEs, e.g., WLAN, and 3GPP-specific DNS configuration mechanisms (such - as PCO-IE [22]) do not work for those IP interfaces. In other words, - a good IPv6 DNS configuration mechanism should also work in a multi- - access network environment. - - From a 3GPP point of view, the best IPv6 DNS configuration solution - is feasible for a very large number of IPv6-capable UEs (can be even - hundreds of millions in one operator's network), is automatic and - thus requires no user action. It is suggested to standardize a - lightweight, stateless mechanism that works in all network - environments. The solution could then be used for 3GPP, 3GPP2, WLAN - and other access network technologies. A light, stateless IPv6 DNS - configuration mechanism is thus not only needed in 3GPP networks, but - also 3GPP networks and UEs would certainly benefit from the new - mechanism. - -5.3.2 RA Extension - - Router Advertisement extension [8] is a lightweight IPv6 DNS - configuration mechanism that requires minor changes in the 3GPP UE - IPv6 stack and Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN, the default router in - the 3GPP architecture) IPv6 stack. This solution can be specified in - the IETF (no action needed in the 3GPP) and taken in use in 3GPP UEs - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - and GGSNs - - In this solution, an IPv6-capable UE configures DNS information via - RA message sent by its default router (GGSN), i.e., RDNSS option for - recursive DNS server is included in the RA message. This solution is - easily scalable for a very large number of UEs. The operator can - configure the RDNSS addresses in the GGSN as a part of normal GGSN - configuration. The IPv6 RDNSS address is received in the Router - Advertisement, and an extra Round Trip Time (RTT) for asking RDNSS - addresses can be avoided. - - If thinking about the cons, this mechanism still requires - standardization effort in the IETF, and the end nodes and routers - need to support this mechanism. The equipment software update - should, however, be pretty straightforward, and new IPv6 equipment - could support RA extension already from the beginning. - -5.3.3 Stateless DHCPv6 - - DHCPv6-based solution needs the implementation of Stateless DHCP [6] - and DHCPv6 DNS options [7] in the UE, and a DHCPv6 server in the - operator's network. A possible configuration is such that the GGSN - works as a DHCP relay. - - Pros for Stateless DHCPv6-based solution are - - 1. Stateless DHCPv6 is a standardized mechanism. - - 2. DHCPv6 can be used for receiving other configuration information - than RDNSS addresses, e.g., SIP server addresses. - - 3. DHCPv6 works in different network environments. - - 4. When DHCPv6 service is deployed through a single, centralized - server, the RDNSS configuration information can be updated by the - network administrator at a single source. - - Some issues with DHCPv6 in 3GPP networks are listed below: - - 1. DHCPv6 requires an additional server in the network unless the - (Stateless) DHCPv6 functionality is integrated into a router - already existing, and that means one box more to be maintained. - - 2. DHCPv6 is not necessarily needed for 3GPP UE IPv6 addressing - (3GPP Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is typically used), and - not automatically implemented in 3GPP IPv6 UEs. - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - 3. Scalability and reliability of DHCPv6 in very large 3GPP networks - (with tens or hundreds of millions of UEs) may be an issue, at - least the redundancy needs to be taken care of. However, if the - DHCPv6 service is integrated into the network elements, such as a - router operating system, scalability and reliability is - comparable with other DNS configuration approaches. - - 4. It is sub-optimal to utilize the radio resources in 3GPP networks - for DHCPv6 messages if there is a simpler alternative available. - - * The use of Stateless DHCPv6 adds one round trip delay to the - case in which the UE can start transmitting data right after - the Router Advertisement. - - 5. If the DNS information (suddenly) changes, Stateless DHCPv6 can - not automatically update the UE, see [23]. - - -5.3.4 Well-known Addresses - - Using well-known addresses is also a feasible and a light mechanism - for 3GPP UEs. Those well-known addresses can be preconfigured in the - UE software and the operator makes the corresponding configuration on - the network side. So this is a very easy mechanism for the UE, but - requires some configuration work in the network. When using well- - known addresses, UE forwards queries to any of the preconfigured - addresses. In the current proposal [9], IPv6 anycast addresses are - suggested. - -Note - - The IPv6 DNS configuration proposal based on the use of well-known - site-local addresses developed at the IPv6 Working Group was seen as - a feasible mechanism for 3GPP UEs, but opposition by some people in - the IETF and finally deprecating IPv6 site-local addresses made it - impossible to standardize it. Note that this mechanism is - implemented in some existing operating systems today (also in some - 3GPP UEs) as a last resort of IPv6 DNS configuration. - -5.3.5 Recommendations - - It is suggested that a lightweight, stateless DNS configuration - mechanism is specified as soon as possible. From a 3GPP UE and - network point of view, the Router Advertisement based mechanism looks - most promising. The sooner a light, stateless mechanism is - specified, the sooner we can get rid of using well-known site-local - addresses for IPv6 DNS configuration. - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -5.4 Unmanaged Network - - There are 4 deployment scenarios of interest in unmanaged networks - [24]: - - 1. A gateway which does not provide IPv6 at all; - - 2. A dual-stack gateway connected to a dual-stack ISP; - - 3. A dual-stack gateway connected to an IPv4-only ISP; and - - 4. A gateway connected to an IPv6-only ISP. - - -5.4.1 Case A: Gateway does not provide IPv6 at all - - In this case, the gateway does not provide IPv6; the ISP may or may - not provide IPv6. Automatic or Configured tunnels are the - recommended transition mechanisms for this scenario. - - The case where dual-stack hosts behind an NAT, that need access to an - IPv6 RDNSS, cannot be entirely ruled out. The DNS configuration - mechanism has to work over the tunnel, and the underlying tunneling - mechanism could be implementing NAT traversal. The tunnel server - assumes the role of a relay (both for DHCP and Well-known anycast - addresses approaches). - - RA-based mechanism is relatively straightforward in its operation, - assuming the tunnel server is also the IPv6 router emitting RAs. - Well-known anycast addresses approach seems also simple in operation - across the tunnel, but the deployment model using Well-known anycast - addresses in a tunneled environment is unclear or not well - understood. - -5.4.2 Case B: A dual-stack gateway connected to a dual-stack ISP - - This is similar to a typical IPv4 home user scenario, where DNS - configuration parameters are obtained using DHCP. Except that - Stateless DHCPv6 is used, as opposed to the IPv4 scenario where the - DHCP server is stateful (maintains the state for clients). - -5.4.3 Case C: A dual-stack gateway connected to an IPv4-only ISP - - This is similar to Case B. If a gateway provides IPv6 connectivity by - managing tunnels, then it is also supposed to provide access to an - RDNSS. Like this, the tunnel for IPv6 connectivity originates from - the dual-stack gateway instead of the host. - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 22] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -5.4.4 Case D: A gateway connected to an IPv6-only ISP - - This is similar to Case B. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 23] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -6. Security Considerations - - As security requirements depend solely on applications and are - different application by application, there can be no generic - requirement defined at IP or application layer for DNS. - - However, it should be noted that cryptographic security requires - configured secret information that full autoconfiguration and - cryptographic security are mutually exclusive. People insisting on - secure full autoconfiguration will get false security, false - autoconfiguration or both. - - In some deployment scenarios [19], where cryptographic security is - required for applications, the secret information for the - cryptographic security is preconfigured through which application - specific configuration data, including those for DNS, can be securely - configured. It should be noted that if applications requiring - cryptographic security depend on DNS, the applications also require - cryptographic security to DNS. Therefore, the full autoconfiguration - of DNS is not acceptable. - - However, with full autoconfiguration, weaker but still reasonable - security is being widely accepted and will continue to be acceptable. - That is, with full autoconfiguration, which means there is no - cryptographic security for the autoconfiguration, it is already - assumed that the local environment is secure enough that the - information from the local autoconfiguration server has acceptable - security even without cryptographic security. Thus, the - communication between the local DNS client and local DNS server has - acceptable security. - - In autoconfiguring recursive servers, DNSSEC may be overkill, because - DNSSEC [29] needs the configuration and reconfiguration of clients at - root key roll-over [30][31]. Even if additional keys for secure key - roll-over are added at the initial configuration, they are as - vulnerable as the original keys to some forms of attacks, such as - social hacking. Another problem of using DNSSEC and - autoconfiguration together is that DNSSEC requires secure time, which - means secure communication with autoconfigured time servers, which - requires configured secret information. Therefore, in order that the - autoconfiguration may be secure, it requires configured secret - information. - - If DNSSEC [29] is used and the signatures are verified on the client - host, the misconfiguration of a DNS server may be simply denial of - service. Also, if local routing environment is not reliable, clients - may be directed to a false resolver with the same IP address as the - true one. - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 24] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -6.1 RA Option - - The security of RA option for RDNSS is the same as the ND protocol - security [3][8]. The RA option does not add any new vulnerability. - - It should be noted that the vulnerability of ND is not worse and is a - subset of the attacks that any node attached to a LAN can do - independently of ND. A malicious node on a LAN can promiscuously - receive packets for any router's MAC address and send packets with - the router's MAC address as the source MAC address in the L2 header. - As a result, the L2 switches send packets addressed to the router to - the malicious node. Also, this attack can send redirects that tell - the hosts to send their traffic somewhere else. The malicious node - can send unsolicited RA or NA replies, answer RS or NS requests, etc. - All of this can be done independently of implementing ND. Therefore, - the RA option for RDNSS does not add to the vulnerability. - - Security issues regarding the ND protocol were discussed at IETF SEND - (Securing Neighbor Discovery) Working Group and RFC 3971 for the ND - security has been published [14]. - -6.2 DHCPv6 Option - - The DNS Recursive Name Server option may be used by an intruder DHCP - server to cause DHCP clients to send DNS queries to an intruder DNS - recursive name server [7]. The results of these misdirected DNS - queries may be used to spoof DNS names. - - To avoid attacks through the DNS Recursive Name Server option, the - DHCP client SHOULD require DHCP authentication (see section - "Authentication of DHCP messages" in RFC 3315 [5]) before installing - a list of DNS recursive name servers obtained through authenticated - DHCP. - -6.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses - - Well-known anycast addresses does not require configuration security - since there is no protocol [9]. - - The DNS server with the preconfigured addresses are still reasonably - reliable, if local environment is reasonably secure, that is, there - is no active attackers receiving queries to the anycast addresses of - the servers and reply to them. - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 25] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -7. Contributors - - Ralph Droms - Cisco Systems, Inc. - 1414 Massachusetts Ave. - Boxboro, MA 01719 - US - - Phone: +1 978 936 1674 - Email: rdroms@cisco.com - - - Robert M. Hinden - Nokia - 313 Fairchild Drive - Mountain View, CA 94043 - US - - Phone: +1 650 625 2004 - Email: bob.hinden@nokia.com - - - Ted Lemon - Nominum, Inc. - 950 Charter Street - Redwood City, CA 94043 - US - - Email: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com - - - Masataka Ohta - Tokyo Institute of Technology - 2-12-1, O-okayama, Meguro-ku - Tokyo 152-8552 - Japan - - Phone: +81 3 5734 3299 - Fax: +81 3 5734 3299 - Email: mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp - - - Soohong Daniel Park - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics - 416 Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-Gu - Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 443-742 - Korea - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 26] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - Phone: +82 31 200 4508 - Email: soohong.park@samsung.com - - - Suresh Satapati - Cisco Systems, Inc. - San Jose, CA 95134 - US - - Email: satapati@cisco.com - - - Juha Wiljakka - Nokia - Visiokatu 3 - FIN-33720, TAMPERE - Finland - - Phone: +358 7180 48372 - Email: juha.wiljakka@nokia.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 27] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -8. Acknowledgements - - This draft has greatly benefited from inputs by David Meyer, Rob - Austein, Tatuya Jinmei, Pekka Savola, Tim Chown, Luc Beloeil, - Christian Huitema, Thomas Narten, Pascal Thubert, and Greg Daley. - Also, Tony Bonanno proofread this draft. The authors appreciate - their contribution. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 28] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -9. References - -9.1 Normative References - - [1] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", RFC 3667, - February 2004. - - [2] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", - RFC 3668, February 2004. - - [3] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery - for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. - - [4] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address - Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. - - [5] Droms, R., Ed., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 - (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. - - [6] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) - Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. - - [7] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host - Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646, - December 2003. - -9.2 Informative References - - [8] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, "IPv6 DNS - Discovery based on Router Advertisement", - draft-jeong-dnsop-ipv6-dns-discovery-04.txt (Work in Progress), - February 2005. - - [9] Ohta, M., "Preconfigured DNS Server Addresses", - draft-ohta-preconfigured-dns-01.txt (Work in Progress), - February 2004. - - [10] Venaas, S., Chown, T., and B. Volz, "Information Refresh Time - Option for DHCPv6", draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-03.txt (Work in - Progress), January 2005. - - [11] Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host Anycasting - Service", RFC 1546, November 1993. - - [12] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. - - [13] Lind, M., Ed., "Scenarios and Analysis for Introduction IPv6 - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 29] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - into ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005. - - [14] Arkko, J., Ed., "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, - March 2005. - - [15] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages", - RFC 3118, June 2001. - - [16] Bound, J., Ed., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios", - draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05.txt (Work in Progress), - July 2004. - - [17] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host - Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, - December 2003. - - [18] Wasserman, M., Ed., "Recommendations for IPv6 in 3GPP - Standards", RFC 3314, September 2002. - - [19] Soininen, J., Ed., "Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks", - RFC 3574, August 2003. - - [20] Wiljakka, J., Ed., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in 3GPP - Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-11.txt (Work in - Progress), October 2004. - - [21] 3GPP TS 23.060 V5.4.0, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); - Service description; Stage 2 (Release 5)", December 2002. - - [22] 3GPP TS 24.008 V5.8.0, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 - specification; Core network protocols; Stage 3 (Release 5)", - June 2003. - - [23] Chown, T., Venaas, S., and A. Vijayabhaskar, "Renumbering - Requirements for Stateless DHCPv6", - draft-ietf-dhc-stateless-dhcpv6-renumbering-02.txt (Work in - Progress), October 2004. - - [24] Huitema, C., Ed., "Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition - Scenarios", RFC 3750, April 2004. - - [25] ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11, "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access - Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", - March 1999. - - [26] IEEE Std 802.11a, "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control - (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: High-speed - Physical Layer in the 5 GHZ Band", September 1999. - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 30] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - - [27] IEEE Std 802.11b, "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control - (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Higher-Speed - Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band", September 1999. - - [28] IEEE P802.11g/D8.2, "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access - Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Further - Higher Data Rate Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band", April 2003. - - [29] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", - RFC 2535, March 1999. - - [30] Kolkman, O. and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC Operational Practices", - draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-03.txt (Work in - Progress), December 2004. - - [31] Guette, G. and O. Courtay, "Requirements for Automated Key - Rollover in DNSSEC", - draft-ietf-dnsop-key-rollover-requirements-02.txt (Work in - Progress), January 2005. - - [32] Park, S., Madanapalli, S., and T. Jinmei, "Considerations on M - and O Flags of IPv6 Router Advertisement", - draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt (Work in Progress), - March 2005. - - -Author's Address - - Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor) - ETRI/Department of Computer Science and Engineering - University of Minnesota - 117 Pleasant Street SE - Minneapolis, MN 55455 - US - - Phone: +1 651 587 7774 - Fax: +1 612 625 2002 - Email: jjeong@cs.umn.edu - URI: http://www.cs.umn.edu/~jjeong/ - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 31] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -Appendix A. Link-layer Multicast Acknowledgements for RA Option - - One benefit of an RA option [8] is to be able to multicast the - advertisements, reducing the need for duplicated unicast - communications. - - However, some link-layers may not support this as well as others. - Consider, for example, WLAN networks where multicast is unreliable. - The unreliability problem is caused by lack of ACK for multicast, - especially on the path from the Access Point (AP) to the Station - (STA), which is specific to CSMA/CA of WLAN, such as IEEE 802.11 - a/b/g [25]-[28]. That is, a multicast packet is unacknowledged on - the path from the AP to the STA, but acknowledged in the reverse - direction from the STA to the AP [25]. For example, when a router is - placed at wired network connected to an AP, a host may sometimes not - receive RA message advertised through the AP. Therefore, the RA - option solution might not work well on a congested medium that uses - unreliable multicast for RA. - - The fact that this problem has not been addressed in Neighbor - Discovery [3] indicates that the extra link-layer acknowledgements - have not been considered a serious problem till now. - - A possible mitigation technique could be to map all-nodes link- local - multicast address to the link-layer broadcast address, and to rely on - the ND retransmissions for message delivery in order to achieve more - reliability. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 32] - -Internet-Draft IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server May 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Jeong Expires November 6, 2005 [Page 33] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-11.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-11.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1276f9f91d6..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-11.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1682 +0,0 @@ - - - - -DNS Operations WG A. Durand -Internet-Draft SUN Microsystems, Inc. -Expires: January 17, 2006 J. Ihren - Autonomica - P. Savola - CSC/FUNET - July 16, 2005 - - - Operational Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS - draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-11.txt - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). - -Abstract - - This memo presents operational considerations and issues with IPv6 - Domain Name System (DNS), including a summary of special IPv6 - addresses, documentation of known DNS implementation misbehaviour, - recommendations and considerations on how to perform DNS naming for - service provisioning and for DNS resolver IPv6 support, - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - considerations for DNS updates for both the forward and reverse - trees, and miscellaneous issues. This memo is aimed to include a - summary of information about IPv6 DNS considerations for those who - have experience with IPv4 DNS. - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.1 Representing IPv6 Addresses in DNS Records . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.2 Independence of DNS Transport and DNS Records . . . . . . 4 - 1.3 Avoiding IPv4/IPv6 Name Space Fragmentation . . . . . . . 5 - 1.4 Query Type '*' and A/AAAA Records . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2. DNS Considerations about Special IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1 Limited-scope Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.2 Temporary Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.3 6to4 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.4 Other Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3. Observed DNS Implementation Misbehaviour . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.1 Misbehaviour of DNS Servers and Load-balancers . . . . . . 7 - 3.2 Misbehaviour of DNS Resolvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4. Recommendations for Service Provisioning using DNS . . . . . . 7 - 4.1 Use of Service Names instead of Node Names . . . . . . . . 8 - 4.2 Separate vs the Same Service Names for IPv4 and IPv6 . . . 8 - 4.3 Adding the Records Only when Fully IPv6-enabled . . . . . 9 - 4.4 The Use of TTL for IPv4 and IPv6 RRs . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4.4.1 TTL With Courtesy Additional Data . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4.4.2 TTL With Critical Additional Data . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4.5 IPv6 Transport Guidelines for DNS Servers . . . . . . . . 11 - 5. Recommendations for DNS Resolver IPv6 Support . . . . . . . . 11 - 5.1 DNS Lookups May Query IPv6 Records Prematurely . . . . . . 11 - 5.2 Obtaining a List of DNS Recursive Resolvers . . . . . . . 13 - 5.3 IPv6 Transport Guidelines for Resolvers . . . . . . . . . 13 - 6. Considerations about Forward DNS Updating . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 6.1 Manual or Custom DNS Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 6.2 Dynamic DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 7. Considerations about Reverse DNS Updating . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.1 Applicability of Reverse DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.2 Manual or Custom DNS Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 7.3 DDNS with Stateless Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . 16 - 7.4 DDNS with DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 7.5 DDNS with Dynamic Prefix Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 8. Miscellaneous DNS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 8.1 NAT-PT with DNS-ALG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 8.2 Renumbering Procedures and Applications' Use of DNS . . . 19 - 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - 11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - A. Unique Local Addressing Considerations for DNS . . . . . . . . 25 - B. Behaviour of Additional Data in IPv4/IPv6 Environments . . . . 25 - B.1 Description of Additional Data Scenarios . . . . . . . . . 26 - B.2 Which Additional Data to Keep, If Any? . . . . . . . . . . 27 - B.3 Discussion of the Potential Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - -1. Introduction - - This memo presents operational considerations and issues with IPv6 - DNS; it is meant to be an extensive summary and a list of pointers - for more information about IPv6 DNS considerations for those with - experience with IPv4 DNS. - - The purpose of this document is to give information about various - issues and considerations related to DNS operations with IPv6; it is - not meant to be a normative specification or standard for IPv6 DNS. - - The first section gives a brief overview of how IPv6 addresses and - names are represented in the DNS, how transport protocols and - resource records (don't) relate, and what IPv4/IPv6 name space - fragmentation means and how to avoid it; all of these are described - at more length in other documents. - - The second section summarizes the special IPv6 address types and how - they relate to DNS. The third section describes observed DNS - implementation misbehaviours which have a varying effect on the use - of IPv6 records with DNS. The fourth section lists recommendations - and considerations for provisioning services with DNS. The fifth - section in turn looks at recommendations and considerations about - providing IPv6 support in the resolvers. The sixth and seventh - sections describe considerations with forward and reverse DNS - updates, respectively. The eighth section introduces several - miscellaneous IPv6 issues relating to DNS for which no better place - has been found in this memo. Appendix A looks briefly at the - requirements for unique local addressing. - -1.1 Representing IPv6 Addresses in DNS Records - - In the forward zones, IPv6 addresses are represented using AAAA - records. In the reverse zones, IPv6 address are represented using - PTR records in the nibble format under the ip6.arpa. tree. See - [RFC3596] for more about IPv6 DNS usage, and [RFC3363] or [RFC3152] - for background information. - - In particular one should note that the use of A6 records in the - forward tree or Bitlabels in the reverse tree is not recommended - [RFC3363]. Using DNAME records is not recommended in the reverse - tree in conjunction with A6 records; the document did not mean to - take a stance on any other use of DNAME records [RFC3364]. - -1.2 Independence of DNS Transport and DNS Records - - DNS has been designed to present a single, globally unique name space - [RFC2826]. This property should be maintained, as described here and - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - in Section 1.3. - - The IP version used to transport the DNS queries and responses is - independent of the records being queried: AAAA records can be queried - over IPv4, and A records over IPv6. The DNS servers must not make - any assumptions about what data to return for Answer and Authority - sections based on the underlying transport used in a query. - - However, there is some debate whether the addresses in Additional - section could be selected or filtered using hints obtained from which - transport was being used; this has some obvious problems because in - many cases the transport protocol does not correlate with the - requests, and because a "bad" answer is in a way worse than no answer - at all (consider the case where the client is led to believe that a - name received in the additional record does not have any AAAA records - at all). - - As stated in [RFC3596]: - - The IP protocol version used for querying resource records is - independent of the protocol version of the resource records; e.g., - IPv4 transport can be used to query IPv6 records and vice versa. - - -1.3 Avoiding IPv4/IPv6 Name Space Fragmentation - - To avoid the DNS name space from fragmenting into parts where some - parts of DNS are only visible using IPv4 (or IPv6) transport, the - recommendation is to always keep at least one authoritative server - IPv4-enabled, and to ensure that recursive DNS servers support IPv4. - See DNS IPv6 transport guidelines [RFC3901] for more information. - -1.4 Query Type '*' and A/AAAA Records - - QTYPE=* is typically only used for debugging or management purposes; - it is worth keeping in mind that QTYPE=* ("ANY" queries) only return - any available RRsets, not *all* the RRsets, because the caches do not - necessarily have all the RRsets and have no way of guaranteeing that - they have all the RRsets. Therefore, to get both A and AAAA records - reliably, two separate queries must be made. - -2. DNS Considerations about Special IPv6 Addresses - - There are a couple of IPv6 address types which are somewhat special; - these are considered here. - - - - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - -2.1 Limited-scope Addresses - - The IPv6 addressing architecture [RFC3513] includes two kinds of - local-use addresses: link-local (fe80::/10) and site-local - (fec0::/10). The site-local addresses have been deprecated [RFC3879] - but are discussed with unique local addresses in Appendix A. - - Link-local addresses should never be published in DNS (whether in - forward or reverse tree), because they have only local (to the - connected link) significance [I-D.durand-dnsop-dont-publish]. - -2.2 Temporary Addresses - - Temporary addresses defined in RFC3041 [RFC3041] (sometimes called - "privacy addresses") use a random number as the interface identifier. - Having DNS AAAA records that are updated to always contain the - current value of a node's temporary address would defeat the purpose - of the mechanism and is not recommended. However, it would still be - possible to return a non-identifiable name (e.g., the IPv6 address in - hexadecimal format), as described in [RFC3041]. - -2.3 6to4 Addresses - - 6to4 [RFC3056] specifies an automatic tunneling mechanism which maps - a public IPv4 address V4ADDR to an IPv6 prefix 2002:V4ADDR::/48. - - If the reverse DNS population would be desirable (see Section 7.1 for - applicability), there are a number of possible ways to do so. - - The main proposal [I-D.huston-6to4-reverse-dns] aims to design an - autonomous reverse-delegation system that anyone being capable of - communicating using a specific 6to4 address would be able to set up a - reverse delegation to the corresponding 6to4 prefix. This could be - deployed by e.g., Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). This is a - practical solution, but may have some scalability concerns. - -2.4 Other Transition Mechanisms - - 6to4 is mentioned as a case of an IPv6 transition mechanism requiring - special considerations. In general, mechanisms which include a - special prefix may need a custom solution; otherwise, for example - when IPv4 address is embedded as the suffix or not embedded at all, - special solutions are likely not needed. - - Note that it does not seem feasible to provide reverse DNS with - another automatic tunneling mechanism, Teredo [I-D.huitema-v6ops- - teredo]; this is because the IPv6 address is based on the IPv4 - address and UDP port of the current NAT mapping which is likely to be - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - relatively short-lived. - -3. Observed DNS Implementation Misbehaviour - - Several classes of misbehaviour in DNS servers, load-balancers and - resolvers have been observed. Most of these are rather generic, not - only applicable to IPv6 -- but in some cases, the consequences of - this misbehaviour are extremely severe in IPv6 environments and - deserve to be mentioned. - -3.1 Misbehaviour of DNS Servers and Load-balancers - - There are several classes of misbehaviour in certain DNS servers and - load-balancers which have been noticed and documented [RFC4074]: some - implementations silently drop queries for unimplemented DNS records - types, or provide wrong answers to such queries (instead of a proper - negative reply). While typically these issues are not limited to - AAAA records, the problems are aggravated by the fact that AAAA - records are being queried instead of (mainly) A records. - - The problems are serious because when looking up a DNS name, typical - getaddrinfo() implementations, with AF_UNSPEC hint given, first try - to query the AAAA records of the name, and after receiving a - response, query the A records. This is done in a serial fashion -- - if the first query is never responded to (instead of properly - returning a negative answer), significant timeouts will occur. - - In consequence, this is an enormous problem for IPv6 deployments, and - in some cases, IPv6 support in the software has even been disabled - due to these problems. - - The solution is to fix or retire those misbehaving implementations, - but that is likely not going to be effective. There are some - possible ways to mitigate the problem, e.g., by performing the - lookups somewhat in parallel and reducing the timeout as long as at - least one answer has been received; but such methods remain to be - investigated; slightly more on this is included in Section 5. - -3.2 Misbehaviour of DNS Resolvers - - Several classes of misbehaviour have also been noticed in DNS - resolvers [I-D.ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res]. However, these do not seem - to directly impair IPv6 use, and are only referred to for - completeness. - -4. Recommendations for Service Provisioning using DNS - - When names are added in the DNS to facilitate a service, there are - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - several general guidelines to consider to be able to do it as - smoothly as possible. - -4.1 Use of Service Names instead of Node Names - - It makes sense to keep information about separate services logically - separate in the DNS by using a different DNS hostname for each - service. There are several reasons for doing this, for example: - - o It allows more flexibility and ease for migration of (only a part - of) services from one node to another, - - o It allows configuring different properties (e.g., TTL) for each - service, and - - o It allows deciding separately for each service whether to publish - the IPv6 addresses or not (in cases where some services are more - IPv6-ready than others). - - Using SRV records [RFC2782] would avoid these problems. - Unfortunately, those are not sufficiently widely used to be - applicable in most cases. Hence an operation technique is to use - service names instead of node names (or, "hostnames"). This - operational technique is not specific to IPv6, but required to - understand the considerations described in Section 4.2 and - Section 4.3. - - For example, assume a node named "pobox.example.com" provides both - SMTP and IMAP service. Instead of configuring the MX records to - point at "pobox.example.com", and configuring the mail clients to - look up the mail via IMAP from "pobox.example.com", one could use - e.g., "smtp.example.com" for SMTP (for both message submission and - mail relaying between SMTP servers) and "imap.example.com" for IMAP. - Note that in the specific case of SMTP relaying, the server itself - must typically also be configured to know all its names to ensure - loops do not occur. DNS can provide a layer of indirection between - service names and where the service actually is, and using which - addresses. (Obviously, when wanting to reach a specific node, one - should use the hostname rather than a service name.) - -4.2 Separate vs the Same Service Names for IPv4 and IPv6 - - The service naming can be achieved in basically two ways: when a - service is named "service.example.com" for IPv4, the IPv6-enabled - service could either be added to "service.example.com", or added - separately under a different name, e.g., in a sub-domain, like, - "service.ipv6.example.com". - - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - These two methods have different characteristics. Using a different - name allows for easier service piloting, minimizing the disturbance - to the "regular" users of IPv4 service; however, the service would - not be used transparently, without the user/application explicitly - finding it and asking for it -- which would be a disadvantage in most - cases. When the different name is under a sub-domain, if the - services are deployed within a restricted network (e.g., inside an - enterprise), it's possible to prefer them transparently, at least to - a degree, by modifying the DNS search path; however, this is a - suboptimal solution. Using the same service name is the "long-term" - solution, but may degrade performance for those clients whose IPv6 - performance is lower than IPv4, or does not work as well (see - Section 4.3 for more). - - In most cases, it makes sense to pilot or test a service using - separate service names, and move to the use of the same name when - confident enough that the service level will not degrade for the - users unaware of IPv6. - -4.3 Adding the Records Only when Fully IPv6-enabled - - The recommendation is that AAAA records for a service should not be - added to the DNS until all of following are true: - - 1. The address is assigned to the interface on the node. - - 2. The address is configured on the interface. - - 3. The interface is on a link which is connected to the IPv6 - infrastructure. - - In addition, if the AAAA record is added for the node, instead of - service as recommended, all the services of the node should be IPv6- - enabled prior to adding the resource record. - - For example, if an IPv6 node is isolated from an IPv6 perspective - (e.g., it is not connected to IPv6 Internet) constraint #3 would mean - that it should not have an address in the DNS. - - Consider the case of two dual-stack nodes, which both have IPv6 - enabled, but the server does not have (global) IPv6 connectivity. As - the client looks up the server's name, only A records are returned - (if the recommendations above are followed), and no IPv6 - communication, which would have been unsuccessful, is even attempted. - - The issues are not always so black-and-white. Usually it's important - that the service offered using both protocols is of roughly equal - quality, using the appropriate metrics for the service (e.g., - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - latency, throughput, low packet loss, general reliability, etc.) -- - this is typically very important especially for interactive or real- - time services. In many cases, the quality of IPv6 connectivity may - not yet be equal to that of IPv4, at least globally -- this has to be - taken into consideration when enabling services. - -4.4 The Use of TTL for IPv4 and IPv6 RRs - - The behaviour of DNS caching when different TTL values are used for - different RRsets of the same name calls for explicit discussion. For - example, let's consider two unrelated zone fragments: - - example.com. 300 IN MX foo.example.com. - foo.example.com. 300 IN A 192.0.2.1 - foo.example.com. 100 IN AAAA 2001:db8::1 - - ... - - child.example.com. 300 IN NS ns.child.example.com. - ns.child.example.com. 300 IN A 192.0.2.1 - ns.child.example.com. 100 IN AAAA 2001:db8::1 - - In the former case, we have "courtesy" additional data; in the - latter, we have "critical" additional data. See more extensive - background discussion of additional data handling in Appendix B. - -4.4.1 TTL With Courtesy Additional Data - - When a caching resolver asks for the MX record of example.com, it - gets back "foo.example.com". It may also get back either one or both - of the A and AAAA records in the additional section. The resolver - must explicitly query for both A and AAAA records [RFC2821]. - - After 100 seconds, the AAAA record is removed from the cache(s) - because its TTL expired. It could be argued to be useful for the - caching resolvers to discard the A record when the shorter TTL (in - this case, for the AAAA record) expires; this would avoid the - situation where there would be a window of 200 seconds when - incomplete information is returned from the cache. Further argument - for discarding is that in the normal operation, the TTL values are so - high that very likely the incurred additional queries would not be - noticeable, compared to the obtained performance optimization. The - behaviour in this scenario is unspecified. - -4.4.2 TTL With Critical Additional Data - - The difference to courtesy additional data is that the A/AAAA records - served by the parent zone cannot be queried explicitly. Therefore - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - after 100 seconds the AAAA record is removed from the cache(s), but - the A record remains. Queries for the remaining 200 seconds - (provided that there are no further queries from the parent which - could refresh the caches) only return the A record, leading to a - potential opererational situation with unreachable servers. - - Similar cache flushing strategies apply in this scenario; the record. - -4.5 IPv6 Transport Guidelines for DNS Servers - - As described in Section 1.3 and [RFC3901], there should continue to - be at least one authoritative IPv4 DNS server for every zone, even if - the zone has only IPv6 records. (Note that obviously, having more - servers with robust connectivity would be preferable, but this is the - minimum recommendation; also see [RFC2182].) - -5. Recommendations for DNS Resolver IPv6 Support - - When IPv6 is enabled on a node, there are several things to consider - to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible. - -5.1 DNS Lookups May Query IPv6 Records Prematurely - - The system library that implements the getaddrinfo() function for - looking up names is a critical piece when considering the robustness - of enabling IPv6; it may come in basically three flavours: - - 1. The system library does not know whether IPv6 has been enabled in - the kernel of the operating system: it may start looking up AAAA - records with getaddrinfo() and AF_UNSPEC hint when the system is - upgraded to a system library version which supports IPv6. - - 2. The system library might start to perform IPv6 queries with - getaddrinfo() only when IPv6 has been enabled in the kernel. - However, this does not guarantee that there exists any useful - IPv6 connectivity (e.g., the node could be isolated from the - other IPv6 networks, only having link-local addresses). - - 3. The system library might implement a toggle which would apply - some heuristics to the "IPv6-readiness" of the node before - starting to perform queries; for example, it could check whether - only link-local IPv6 address(es) exists, or if at least one - global IPv6 address exists. - - First, let us consider generic implications of unnecessary queries - for AAAA records: when looking up all the records in the DNS, AAAA - records are typically tried first, and then A records. These are - done in serial, and the A query is not performed until a response is - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - received to the AAAA query. Considering the misbehaviour of DNS - servers and load-balancers, as described in Section 3.1, the look-up - delay for AAAA may incur additional unnecessary latency, and - introduce a component of unreliability. - - One option here could be to do the queries partially in parallel; for - example, if the final response to the AAAA query is not received in - 0.5 seconds, start performing the A query while waiting for the - result (immediate parallelism might be unoptimal, at least without - information sharing between the look-up threads, as that would - probably lead to duplicate non-cached delegation chain lookups). - - An additional concern is the address selection, which may, in some - circumstances, prefer AAAA records over A records even when the node - does not have any IPv6 connectivity [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault]. - In some cases, the implementation may attempt to connect or send a - datagram on a physical link [I-D.ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption], - incurring very long protocol timeouts, instead of quickly failing - back to IPv4. - - Now, we can consider the issues specific to each of the three - possibilities: - - In the first case, the node performs a number of completely useless - DNS lookups as it will not be able to use the returned AAAA records - anyway. (The only exception is where the application desires to know - what's in the DNS, but not use the result for communication.) One - should be able to disable these unnecessary queries, for both latency - and reliability reasons. However, as IPv6 has not been enabled, the - connections to IPv6 addresses fail immediately, and if the - application is programmed properly, the application can fall - gracefully back to IPv4 [RFC4038]. - - The second case is similar to the first, except it happens to a - smaller set of nodes when IPv6 has been enabled but connectivity has - not been provided yet; similar considerations apply, with the - exception that IPv6 records, when returned, will be actually tried - first which may typically lead to long timeouts. - - The third case is a bit more complex: optimizing away the DNS lookups - with only link-locals is probably safe (but may be desirable with - different lookup services which getaddrinfo() may support), as the - link-locals are typically automatically generated when IPv6 is - enabled, and do not indicate any form of IPv6 connectivity. That is, - performing DNS lookups only when a non-link-local address has been - configured on any interface could be beneficial -- this would be an - indication that either the address has been configured either from a - router advertisement, DHCPv6 [RFC3315], or manually. Each would - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - indicate at least some form of IPv6 connectivity, even though there - would not be guarantees of it. - - These issues should be analyzed at more depth, and the fixes found - consensus on, perhaps in a separate document. - -5.2 Obtaining a List of DNS Recursive Resolvers - - In scenarios where DHCPv6 is available, a host can discover a list of - DNS recursive resolvers through DHCPv6 "DNS Recursive Name Server" - option [RFC3646]. This option can be passed to a host through a - subset of DHCPv6 [RFC3736]. - - The IETF is considering the development of alternative mechanisms for - obtaining the list of DNS recursive name servers when DHCPv6 is - unavailable or inappropriate. No decision about taking on this - development work has been reached as of this writing (Aug 2004) - [I-D.ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration]. - - In scenarios where DHCPv6 is unavailable or inappropriate, mechanisms - under consideration for development include the use of well-known - addresses [I-D.ohta-preconfigured-dns] and the use of Router - Advertisements to convey the information [I-D.jeong-dnsop-ipv6-dns- - discovery]. - - Note that even though IPv6 DNS resolver discovery is a recommended - procedure, it is not required for dual-stack nodes in dual-stack - networks as IPv6 DNS records can be queried over IPv4 as well as - IPv6. Obviously, nodes which are meant to function without manual - configuration in IPv6-only networks must implement the DNS resolver - discovery function. - -5.3 IPv6 Transport Guidelines for Resolvers - - As described in Section 1.3 and [RFC3901], the recursive resolvers - should be IPv4-only or dual-stack to be able to reach any IPv4-only - DNS server. Note that this requirement is also fulfilled by an IPv6- - only stub resolver pointing to a dual-stack recursive DNS resolver. - -6. Considerations about Forward DNS Updating - - While the topic of how to enable updating the forward DNS, i.e., the - mapping from names to the correct new addresses, is not specific to - IPv6, it should be considered especially due to the advent of - Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC2462]. - - Typically forward DNS updates are more manageable than doing them in - the reverse DNS, because the updater can often be assumed to "own" a - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - certain DNS name -- and we can create a form of security relationship - with the DNS name and the node which is allowed to update it to point - to a new address. - - A more complex form of DNS updates -- adding a whole new name into a - DNS zone, instead of updating an existing name -- is considered out - of scope for this memo as it could require zone-wide authentication. - Adding a new name in the forward zone is a problem which is still - being explored with IPv4, and IPv6 does not seem to add much new in - that area. - -6.1 Manual or Custom DNS Updates - - The DNS mappings can also be maintained by hand, in a semi-automatic - fashion or by running non-standardized protocols. These are not - considered at more length in this memo. - -6.2 Dynamic DNS - - Dynamic DNS updates (DDNS) [RFC2136] [RFC3007] is a standardized - mechanism for dynamically updating the DNS. It works equally well - with stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC), DHCPv6 or manual - address configuration. It is important to consider how each of these - behave if IP address-based authentication, instead of stronger - mechanisms [RFC3007], was used in the updates. - - 1. manual addresses are static and can be configured - - 2. DHCPv6 addresses could be reasonably static or dynamic, depending - on the deployment, and could or could not be configured on the - DNS server for the long term - - 3. SLAAC addresses are typically stable for a long time, but could - require work to be configured and maintained. - - As relying on IP addresses for Dynamic DNS is rather insecure at - best, stronger authentication should always be used; however, this - requires that the authorization keying will be explicitly configured - using unspecified operational methods. - - Note that with DHCP it is also possible that the DHCP server updates - the DNS, not the host. The host might only indicate in the DHCP - exchange which hostname it would prefer, and the DHCP server would - make the appropriate updates. Nonetheless, while this makes setting - up a secure channel between the updater and the DNS server easier, it - does not help much with "content" security, i.e., whether the - hostname was acceptable -- if the DNS server does not include - policies, they must be included in the DHCP server (e.g., a regular - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - host should not be able to state that its name is "www.example.com"). - DHCP-initiated DDNS updates have been extensively described in - [I-D.ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution], [I-D.ietf-dhc-fqdn-option] and - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr]. - - The nodes must somehow be configured with the information about the - servers where they will attempt to update their addresses, sufficient - security material for authenticating themselves to the server, and - the hostname they will be updating. Unless otherwise configured, the - first could be obtained by looking up the authoritative name servers - for the hostname; the second must be configured explicitly unless one - chooses to trust the IP address-based authentication (not a good - idea); and lastly, the nodename is typically pre-configured somehow - on the node, e.g., at install time. - - Care should be observed when updating the addresses not to use longer - TTLs for addresses than are preferred lifetimes for the addresses, so - that if the node is renumbered in a managed fashion, the amount of - stale DNS information is kept to the minimum. That is, if the - preferred lifetime of an address expires, the TTL of the record needs - be modified unless it was already done before the expiration. For - better flexibility, the DNS TTL should be much shorter (e.g., a half - or a third) than the lifetime of an address; that way, the node can - start lowering the DNS TTL if it seems like the address has not been - renewed/refreshed in a while. Some discussion on how an - administrator could manage the DNS TTL is included in [I-D.ietf- - v6ops-renumbering-procedure]; this could be applied to (smart) hosts - as well. - -7. Considerations about Reverse DNS Updating - - Updating the reverse DNS zone may be difficult because of the split - authority over an address. However, first we have to consider the - applicability of reverse DNS in the first place. - -7.1 Applicability of Reverse DNS - - Today, some applications use reverse DNS to either look up some hints - about the topological information associated with an address (e.g. - resolving web server access logs), or as a weak form of a security - check, to get a feel whether the user's network administrator has - "authorized" the use of the address (on the premises that adding a - reverse record for an address would signal some form of - authorization). - - One additional, maybe slightly more useful usage is ensuring that the - reverse and forward DNS contents match (by looking up the pointer to - the name by the IP address from the reverse tree, and ensuring that a - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - record under the name in the forward tree points to the IP address) - and correspond to a configured name or domain. As a security check, - it is typically accompanied by other mechanisms, such as a user/ - password login; the main purpose of the reverse+forward DNS check is - to weed out the majority of unauthorized users, and if someone - managed to bypass the checks, he would still need to authenticate - "properly". - - It may also be desirable to store IPsec keying material corresponding - to an IP address in the reverse DNS, as justified and described in - [RFC4025]. - - It is not clear whether it makes sense to require or recommend that - reverse DNS records be updated. In many cases, it would just make - more sense to use proper mechanisms for security (or topological - information lookup) in the first place. At minimum, the applications - which use it as a generic authorization (in the sense that a record - exists at all) should be modified as soon as possible to avoid such - lookups completely. - - The applicability is discussed at more length in [I-D.ietf-dnsop- - inaddr-required]. - -7.2 Manual or Custom DNS Updates - - Reverse DNS can of course be updated using manual or custom methods. - These are not further described here, except for one special case. - - One way to deploy reverse DNS would be to use wildcard records, for - example, by configuring one name for a subnet (/64) or a site (/48). - As a concrete example, a site (or the site's ISP) could configure the - reverses of the prefix 2001:db8:f00::/48 to point to one name using a - wildcard record like "*.0.0.f.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. IN PTR - site.example.com." Naturally, such a name could not be verified from - the forward DNS, but would at least provide some form of "topological - information" or "weak authorization" if that is really considered to - be useful. Note that this is not actually updating the DNS as such, - as the whole point is to avoid DNS updates completely by manually - configuring a generic name. - -7.3 DDNS with Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - - Dynamic reverse DNS with SLAAC is simpler than forward DNS updates in - some regard, while being more difficult in another, as described - below. - - The address space administrator decides whether the hosts are trusted - to update their reverse DNS records or not. If they are trusted and - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - deployed at the same site (e.g., not across the Internet), a simple - address-based authorization is typically sufficient (i.e., check that - the DNS update is done from the same IP address as the record being - updated); stronger security can also be used [RFC3007]. If they - aren't allowed to update the reverses, no update can occur. However, - such address-based update authorization operationally requires that - ingress filtering [RFC3704] has been set up at the border of the site - where the updates occur, and as close to the updater as possible. - - Address-based authorization is simpler with reverse DNS (as there is - a connection between the record and the address) than with forward - DNS. However, when a stronger form of security is used, forward DNS - updates are simpler to manage because the host can be assumed to have - an association with the domain. Note that the user may roam to - different networks, and does not necessarily have any association - with the owner of that address space -- so, assuming stronger form of - authorization for reverse DNS updates than an address association is - generally infeasible. - - Moreover, the reverse zones must be cleaned up by an unspecified - janitorial process: the node does not typically know a priori that it - will be disconnected, and cannot send a DNS update using the correct - source address to remove a record. - - A problem with defining the clean-up process is that it is difficult - to ensure that a specific IP address and the corresponding record are - no longer being used. Considering the huge address space, and the - unlikelihood of collision within 64 bits of the interface - identifiers, a process which would remove the record after no traffic - has been seen from a node in a long period of time (e.g., a month or - year) might be one possible approach. - - To insert or update the record, the node must discover the DNS server - to send the update to somehow, similar to as discussed in - Section 6.2. One way to automate this is looking up the DNS server - authoritative (e.g., through SOA record) for the IP address being - updated, but the security material (unless the IP address-based - authorization is trusted) must also be established by some other - means. - - One should note that Cryptographically Generated Addresses [RFC3972] - (CGAs) may require a slightly different kind of treatment. CGAs are - addresses where the interface identifier is calculated from a public - key, a modifier (used as a nonce), the subnet prefix, and other data. - Depending on the usage profile, CGAs might or might not be changed - periodically due to e.g., privacy reasons. As the CGA address is not - predicatable, a reverse record can only reasonably be inserted in the - DNS by the node which generates the address. - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - -7.4 DDNS with DHCP - - With DHCPv4, the reverse DNS name is typically already inserted to - the DNS that reflects to the name (e.g., "dhcp-67.example.com"). One - can assume similar practice may become commonplace with DHCPv6 as - well; all such mappings would be pre-configured, and would require no - updating. - - If a more explicit control is required, similar considerations as - with SLAAC apply, except for the fact that typically one must update - a reverse DNS record instead of inserting one (if an address - assignment policy that reassigns disused addresses is adopted) and - updating a record seems like a slightly more difficult thing to - secure. However, it is yet uncertain how DHCPv6 is going to be used - for address assignment. - - Note that when using DHCP, either the host or the DHCP server could - perform the DNS updates; see the implications in Section 6.2. - - If disused addresses were to be reassigned, host-based DDNS reverse - updates would need policy considerations for DNS record modification, - as noted above. On the other hand, if disused address were not to be - assigned, host-based DNS reverse updates would have similar - considerations as SLAAC in Section 7.3. Server-based updates have - similar properties except that the janitorial process could be - integrated with DHCP address assignment. - -7.5 DDNS with Dynamic Prefix Delegation - - In cases where a prefix, instead of an address, is being used and - updated, one should consider what is the location of the server where - DDNS updates are made. That is, where the DNS server is located: - - 1. At the same organization as the prefix delegator. - - 2. At the site where the prefixes are delegated to. In this case, - the authority of the DNS reverse zone corresponding to the - delegated prefix is also delegated to the site. - - 3. Elsewhere; this implies a relationship between the site and where - DNS server is located, and such a relationship should be rather - straightforward to secure as well. Like in the previous case, - the authority of the DNS reverse zone is also delegated. - - In the first case, managing the reverse DNS (delegation) is simpler - as the DNS server and the prefix delegator are in the same - administrative domain (as there is no need to delegate anything at - all); alternatively, the prefix delegator might forgo DDNS reverse - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - capability altogether, and use e.g., wildcard records (as described - in Section 7.2). In the other cases, it can be slighly more - difficult, particularly as the site will have to configure the DNS - server to be authoritative for the delegated reverse zone, implying - automatic configuration of the DNS server -- as the prefix may be - dynamic. - - Managing the DDNS reverse updates is typically simple in the second - case, as the updated server is located at the local site, and - arguably IP address-based authentication could be sufficient (or if - not, setting up security relationships would be simpler). As there - is an explicit (security) relationship between the parties in the - third case, setting up the security relationships to allow reverse - DDNS updates should be rather straightforward as well (but IP - address-based authentication might not be acceptable). In the first - case, however, setting up and managing such relationships might be a - lot more difficult. - -8. Miscellaneous DNS Considerations - - This section describes miscellaneous considerations about DNS which - seem related to IPv6, for which no better place has been found in - this document. - -8.1 NAT-PT with DNS-ALG - - The DNS-ALG component of NAT-PT mangles A records to look like AAAA - records to the IPv6-only nodes. Numerous problems have been - identified with DNS-ALG [I-D.ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl]. This is - a strong reason not to use NAT-PT in the first place. - -8.2 Renumbering Procedures and Applications' Use of DNS - - One of the most difficult problems of systematic IP address - renumbering procedures [I-D.ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure] is that - an application which looks up a DNS name disregards information such - as TTL, and uses the result obtained from DNS as long as it happens - to be stored in the memory of the application. For applications - which run for a long time, this could be days, weeks or even months; - some applications may be clever enough to organize the data - structures and functions in such a manner that look-ups get refreshed - now and then. - - While the issue appears to have a clear solution, "fix the - applications", practically this is not reasonable immediate advice; - the TTL information is not typically available in the APIs and - libraries (so, the advice becomes "fix the applications, APIs and - libraries"), and a lot more analysis is needed on how to practically - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - go about to achieve the ultimate goal of avoiding using the names - longer than expected. - -9. Acknowledgements - - Some recommendations (Section 4.3, Section 5.1) about IPv6 service - provisioning were moved here from [I-D.ietf-v6ops-mech-v2] by Erik - Nordmark and Bob Gilligan. Havard Eidnes and Michael Patton provided - useful feedback and improvements. Scott Rose, Rob Austein, Masataka - Ohta, and Mark Andrews helped in clarifying the issues regarding - additional data and the use of TTL. Jefsey Morfin, Ralph Droms, - Peter Koch, Jinmei Tatuya, Iljitsch van Beijnum, Edward Lewis, and - Rob Austein provided useful feedback during the WG last call. Thomas - Narten provided extensive feedback during the IESG evaluation. - -10. Security Considerations - - This document reviews the operational procedures for IPv6 DNS - operations and does not have security considerations in itself. - - However, it is worth noting that in particular with Dynamic DNS - Updates, security models based on the source address validation are - very weak and cannot be recommended -- they could only be considered - in the environments where ingress filtering [RFC3704] has been - deployed. On the other hand, it should be noted that setting up an - authorization mechanism (e.g., a shared secret, or public-private - keys) between a node and the DNS server has to be done manually, and - may require quite a bit of time and expertise. - - To re-emphasize what was already stated, the reverse+forward DNS - check provides very weak security at best, and the only - (questionable) security-related use for them may be in conjunction - with other mechanisms when authenticating a user. - -11. References - -11.1 Normative References - - [I-D.ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration] - Jeong, J., "IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server - Information Approaches", - draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-06 (work in - progress), May 2005. - - [I-D.ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr] - Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast - Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-09 (work in - progress), January 2005. - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - [I-D.ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure] - Baker, F., "Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network - without a Flag Day", - draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-05 (work in - progress), March 2005. - - [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, - "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", - RFC 2136, April 1997. - - [RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS - Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. - - [RFC2182] Elz, R., Bush, R., Bradner, S., and M. Patton, "Selection - and Operation of Secondary DNS Servers", BCP 16, RFC 2182, - July 1997. - - [RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address - Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. - - [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", - RFC 2671, August 1999. - - [RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, - April 2001. - - [RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic - Update", RFC 3007, November 2000. - - [RFC3041] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for - Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, - January 2001. - - [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains - via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. - - [RFC3152] Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", BCP 49, RFC 3152, - August 2001. - - [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., - and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for - IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. - - [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. - Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, - August 2002. - - [RFC3364] Austein, R., "Tradeoffs in Domain Name System (DNS) - Support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3364, - August 2002. - - [RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 - (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. - - [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, - "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, - October 2003. - - [RFC3646] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host - Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646, - December 2003. - - [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol - (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. - - [RFC3879] Huitema, C. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local - Addresses", RFC 3879, September 2004. - - [RFC3901] Durand, A. and J. Ihren, "DNS IPv6 Transport Operational - Guidelines", BCP 91, RFC 3901, September 2004. - - [RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E. - Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition", - RFC 4038, March 2005. - - [RFC4074] Morishita, Y. and T. Jinmei, "Common Misbehavior Against - DNS Queries for IPv6 Addresses", RFC 4074, May 2005. - -11.2 Informative References - - [I-D.durand-dnsop-dont-publish] - Durand, A. and T. Chown, "To publish, or not to publish, - that is the question.", draft-durand-dnsop-dont-publish-00 - (work in progress), February 2005. - - [I-D.huitema-v6ops-teredo] - Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through - NATs", draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-05 (work in progress), - April 2005. - - [I-D.huston-6to4-reverse-dns] - Huston, G., "6to4 Reverse DNS Delegation", - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 22] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-03 (work in progress), - October 2004. - - [I-D.ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution] - Stapp, M. and B. Volz, "Resolution of FQDN Conflicts among - DHCP Clients", draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-09 (work in - progress), June 2005. - - [I-D.ietf-dhc-fqdn-option] - Stapp, M. and Y. Rekhter, "The DHCP Client FQDN Option", - draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-10 (work in progress), - February 2005. - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr] - Stapp, M., Lemon, T., and A. Gustafsson, "A DNS RR for - encoding DHCP information (DHCID RR)", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-09 (work in progress), - February 2005. - - [I-D.ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res] - Larson, M. and P. Barber, "Observed DNS Resolution - Misbehavior", draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-03 (work in - progress), October 2004. - - [I-D.ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required] - Senie, D., "Encouraging the use of DNS IN-ADDR Mapping", - draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-06 (work in progress), - February 2005. - - [I-D.ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis] - Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in 3GPP - Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-11 (work in - progress), October 2004. - - [I-D.ietf-v6ops-mech-v2] - Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms - for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-07 - (work in progress), March 2005. - - [I-D.ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl] - Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move NAT-PT to - Experimental", draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-01 (work - in progress), July 2005. - - [I-D.ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption] - Roy, S., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption - Considered Harmful", draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-03 - (work in progress), May 2005. - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 23] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault] - Roy, S., Durand, A., and J. Paugh, "Issues with Dual Stack - IPv6 on by Default", draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03 - (work in progress), July 2004. - - [I-D.jeong-dnsop-ipv6-dns-discovery] - Jeong, J., "IPv6 DNS Configuration based on Router - Advertisement", draft-jeong-dnsop-ipv6-dns-discovery-04 - (work in progress), February 2005. - - [I-D.ohta-preconfigured-dns] - Ohta, M., "Preconfigured DNS Server Addresses", - draft-ohta-preconfigured-dns-01 (work in progress), - February 2004. - - [RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address - Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, - February 2000. - - [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for - specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, - February 2000. - - [RFC2826] Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the - Unique DNS Root", RFC 2826, May 2000. - - [RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed - Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004. - - [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", - RFC 3972, March 2005. - - [RFC4025] Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying - Material in DNS", RFC 4025, March 2005. - - -Authors' Addresses - - Alain Durand - SUN Microsystems, Inc. - 17 Network circle UMPL17-202 - Menlo Park, CA 94025 - USA - - Email: Alain.Durand@sun.com - - - - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 24] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - Johan Ihren - Autonomica - Bellmansgatan 30 - SE-118 47 Stockholm - Sweden - - Email: johani@autonomica.se - - - Pekka Savola - CSC/FUNET - Espoo - Finland - - Email: psavola@funet.fi - -Appendix A. Unique Local Addressing Considerations for DNS - - Unique local addresses [I-D.ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr] have - replaced the now-deprecated site-local addresses [RFC3879]. From the - perspective of the DNS, the locally generated unique local addresses - (LUL) and site-local addresses have similar properties. - - The interactions with DNS come in two flavors: forward and reverse - DNS. - - To actually use local addresses within a site, this implies the - deployment of a "split-faced" or a fragmented DNS name space, for the - zones internal to the site, and the outsiders' view to it. The - procedures to achieve this are not elaborated here. The implication - is that local addresses must not be published in the public DNS. - - To faciliate reverse DNS (if desired) with local addresses, the stub - resolvers must look for DNS information from the local DNS servers, - not e.g. starting from the root servers, so that the local - information may be provided locally. Note that the experience of - private addresses in IPv4 has shown that the root servers get loaded - for requests for private address lookups in any case. This - requirement is discussed in [I-D.ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr]. - -Appendix B. Behaviour of Additional Data in IPv4/IPv6 Environments - - DNS responses do not always fit in a single UDP packet. We'll - examine the cases which happen when this is due to too much data in - the Additional Section. - - - - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 25] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - -B.1 Description of Additional Data Scenarios - - There are two kinds of additional data: - - 1. "critical" additional data; this must be included in all - scenarios, with all the RRsets, and - - 2. "courtesy" additional data; this could be sent in full, with only - a few RRsets, or with no RRsets, and can be fetched separately as - well, but at the cost of additional queries. - - The responding server can algorithmically determine which type the - additional data is by checking whether it's at or below a zone cut. - - Only those additional data records (even if sometimes carelessly - termed "glue") are considered "critical" or real "glue" if and only - if they meet the abovementioned condition, as specified in Section - 4.2.1 of [RFC1034]. - - Remember that resource record sets (RRsets) are never "broken up", so - if a name has 4 A records and 5 AAAA records, you can either return - all 9, all 4 A records, all 5 AAAA records or nothing. In - particular, notice that for the "critical" additional data getting - all the RRsets can be critical. - - In particular, [RFC2181] specifies (in Section 9) that: - - a. if all the "critical" RRsets do not fit, the sender should set - the TC bit, and the recipient should discard the whole response - and retry using mechanism allowing larger responses such as TCP. - - b. "courtesy" additional data should not cause the setting of TC - bit, but instead all the non-fitting additional data RRsets - should be removed. - - An example of the "courtesy" additional data is A/AAAA records in - conjunction with MX records as shown in Section 4.4; an example of - the "critical" additional data is shown below (where getting both the - A and AAAA RRsets is critical w.r.t. to the NS RR): - - child.example.com. IN NS ns.child.example.com. - ns.child.example.com. IN A 192.0.2.1 - ns.child.example.com. IN AAAA 2001:db8::1 - - When there is too much "courtesy" additional data, at least the non- - fitting RRsets should be removed [RFC2181]; however, as the - additional data is not critical, even all of it could be safely - removed. - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 26] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - When there is too much "critical" additional data, TC bit will have - to be set, and the recipient should ignore the response and retry - using TCP; if some data were to be left in the UDP response, the - issue is which data could be retained. - - Failing to discard the response with TC bit or omitting critical - information but not setting TC bit lead to an unrecoverable problem. - Omitting only some of the RRsets if all would not fit (but not - setting TC bit) leads to a performance problem. These are discussed - in the next two subsections. - -B.2 Which Additional Data to Keep, If Any? - - If the implementation decides to keep as much data (whether - "critical" or "courtesy") as possible in the UDP responses, it might - be tempting to use the transport of the DNS query as a hint in either - of these cases: return the AAAA records if the query was done over - IPv6, or return the A records if the query was done over IPv4. - However, this breaks the model of independence of DNS transport and - resource records, as noted in Section 1.2. - - With courtesy additional data, as long as enough RRsets will be - removed so that TC will not be set, it is allowed to send as many - complete RRsets as the implementations prefers. However, the - implementations are also free to omit all such RRsets, even if - complete. Omitting all the RRsets (when removing only some would - suffice) may create a performance penalty, whereby the client may - need to issue one or more additional queries to obtain necessary - and/or consistent information. - - With critical additional data, the alternatives are either returning - nothing (and absolutely requiring a retry with TCP) or returning - something (working also in the case if the recipient does not discard - the response and retry using TCP) in addition to setting the TC bit. - If the process for selecting "something" from the critical data would - otherwise be practically "flipping the coin" between A and AAAA - records, it could be argued that if one looked at the transport of - the query, it would have a larger possibility of being right than - just 50/50. In other words, if the returned critical additional data - would have to be selected somehow, using something more sophisticated - than a random process would seem justifiable. - - That is, leaving in some intelligently selected critical additional - data is a tradeoff between creating an optimization for those - resolvers which ignore the "should discard" recommendation, and - causing a protocol problem by propagating inconsistent information - about "critical" records in the caches. - - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 27] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - Similarly, leaving in the complete courtesy additional data RRsets - instead of removing all the RRsets is a performance tradeoff as - described in the next section. - -B.3 Discussion of the Potential Problems - - As noted above, the temptation for omitting only some of the - additional data could be problematic. This is discussed more below. - - For courtesy additional data, this causes a potential performance - problem as this requires that the clients issue re-queries for the - potentially omitted RRsets. For critical additional data, this - causes a potential unrecoverable problem if the response is not - discarded and the query not re-tried with TCP, as the nameservers - might be reachable only through the omitted RRsets. - - If an implementation would look at the transport used for the query, - it is worth remembering that often the host using the records is - different from the node requesting them from the authoritative DNS - server (or even a caching resolver). So, whichever version the - requestor (e.g., a recursive server in the middle) uses makes no - difference to the ultimate user of the records, whose transport - capabilities might differ from those of the requestor. This might - result in e.g., inappropriately returning A records to an IPv6-only - node, going through a translation, or opening up another IP-level - session (e.g., a PDP context [I-D.ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis]). - Therefore, at least in many scenarios, it would be very useful if the - information returned would be consistent and complete -- or if that - is not feasible, return no misleading information but rather leave it - to the client to query again. - - The problem of too much additional data seems to be an operational - one: the zone administrator entering too many records which will be - returned either truncated (or missing some RRsets, depending on - implementations) to the users. A protocol fix for this is using - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to signal the capacity for larger UDP packet sizes, - pushing up the relevant threshold. Further, DNS server - implementations should rather omit courtesy additional data - completely rather than including only some RRsets [RFC2181]. An - operational fix for this is having the DNS server implementations - return a warning when the administrators create zones which would - result in too much additional data being returned. Further, DNS - server implementations should warn of or disallow such zone - configurations which are recursive or otherwise difficult to manage - by the protocol. - - Additionally, to avoid the case where an application would not get an - address at all due to some of courtesy additional data being omitted, - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 28] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - - the resolvers should be able to query the specific records of the - desired protocol, not just rely on getting all the required RRsets in - the additional section. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 29] - -Internet-Draft Considerations with IPv6 DNS July 2005 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Durand, et al. Expires January 17, 2006 [Page 30] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-01.txt deleted file mode 100644 index b2e2341be9f..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-01.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,300 +0,0 @@ -Internet Engineering Task Force A.Durand -INTERNET-DRAFT SUN Microsystems,inc. -November, 24, 2003 J. Ihren -Expires May 25, 2004 Autonomica - - - DNS IPv6 transport operational guidelines - - - - -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 - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. - - -Abstract - - This memo provides guidelines and Best Current Practice to operate - DNS in a world where queries and responses are carried in a mixed - environment of IPv4 and IPv6 networks. - - -Acknowledgment - - This document is the result of many conversations that happened in - the DNS community at IETF and elsewhere since 2001. During that - period of time, a number of Internet drafts have been published to - clarify various aspects of the issues at stake. This document focuses - on the conclusion of those discussions. - - The authors would like to acknowledge the role of Pekka Savola in his - thorough review of the document. - - -1. Terminology - - The phrase "IPv4 name server" indicates a name server available over - IPv4 transport. It does not imply anything about what DNS data is - served. Likewise, "IPv6 name server" indicates a name server - available over IPv6 transport. The phrase "dual-stack DNS server" - indicates a DNS server that is actually configured to run both - protocols, IPv4 and IPv6, and not merely a server running on a system - capable of running both but actually configured to run only one. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in [2119]. - - -2. Introduction to the Problem of Name Space Fragmentation: - following the referral chain - - The caching resolver that tries to look up a name starts out at the - root, and follows referrals until it is referred to a nameserver that - is authoritative for the name. If somewhere down the chain of - referrals it is referred to a nameserver that is only accessible over - an unavailable type of transport, a traditional nameserver is unable - to finish the task. - - When the Internet moves from IPv4 to a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 it is - only a matter of time until this starts to happen. The complete DNS - hierarchy then starts to fragment into a graph where authoritative - nameservers for certain nodes are only accessible over a certain - transport. What is feared is that a node using only a particular - version of IP, querying information about another node using the same - version of IP can not do it because, somewhere in the chain of - servers accessed during the resolution process, one or more of them - will only be accessible with the other version of IP. - - With all DNS data only available over IPv4 transport everything is - simple. IPv4 resolvers can use the intended mechanism of following - referrals from the root and down while IPv6 resolvers have to work - through a "translator", i.e. they have to use a second name server on - a so-called "dual stack" host as a "forwarder" since they cannot - access the DNS data directly. - - With all DNS data only available over IPv6 transport everything would - be equally simple, with the exception of old legacy IPv4 name servers - having to switch to a forwarding configuration. - - However, the second situation will not arise in a foreseeable time. - Instead, it is expected that the transition will be from IPv4 only to - a mixture of IPv4 and IPv6, with DNS data of theoretically three - categories depending on whether it is available only over IPv4 - transport, only over IPv6 or both. - - Having DNS data available on both transports is the best situation. - The major question is how to ensure that it as quickly as possible - becomes the norm. However, while it is obvious that some DNS data - will only be available over v4 transport for a long time it is also - obvious that it is important to avoid fragmenting the name space - available to IPv4 only hosts. I.e. during transition it is not - acceptable to break the name space that we presently have available - for IPv4-only hosts. - - -3. Policy Based Avoidance of Name Space Fragmentation - - Today there are only a few DNS "zones" on the public Internet that - are available over IPv6 transport, and most of them can be regarded - as "experimental". However, as soon as the root and top level domains - are available over IPv6 transport, it is reasonable to expect that it - will become more common to have zones served by IPv6 servers. - - Having those zones served only by IPv6-only name server would not be - a good development, since this will fragment the previously - unfragmented IPv4 name space and there are strong reasons to find a - mechanism to avoid it. - - The RECOMMENDED approach to maintain name space continuity is to use - administrative policies, as described in the next section. - - -4. DNS IPv6 Transport RECOMMENDED Guidelines - - In order to preserve name space continuity, the following administrative - policies are RECOMMENDED: - - every recursive DNS server SHOULD be either IPv4-only or dual - stack, - - every single DNS zone SHOULD be served by at least one IPv4 - reachable DNS server. - - This rules out IPv6-only DNS servers performing full recursion and - DNS zones served only by IPv6-only DNS servers. However, one could - very well design a configuration where a chain of IPv6 only DNS - servers forward queries to a set of dual stack DNS servers actually - performing those recursive queries. This approach could be revisited - if/when translation techniques between IPv4 and IPv6 were to be - widely deployed. - - In order to help enforcing the second point, the optional operational - zone validation processes SHOULD ensure that there is at least one - IPv4 address record available for the name servers of any child - delegations within the zone. - - -5. Security Considerations - - Being a critical piece of the Internet infrastructure, the DNS is a - potential value target and thus should be protected. Great care - should be taken not to weaken the security of DNS while introducing - IPv6 operation. - - Keeping the DNS name space from fragmenting is a critical thing for - the availability and the operation of the Internet; this memo - addresses this issue by clear and simple operational guidelines. - - The RECOMMENDED guidelines are compatible with the operation of - DNSSEC and do not introduce any new security issues. - - -6. Author Addresses - - Alain Durand - SUN Microsystems, Inc - 17 Network circle UMPK17-202 - Menlo Park, CA, 94025 - USA - Mail: Alain.Durand@sun.com - - Johan Ihren - Autonomica - Bellmansgatan 30 - SE-118 47 Stockholm, Sweden - Mail: johani@autonomica.se - - -7. Normative References - - [2119] Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - -8. Full Copyright Statement - - "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-key-rollover-requirements-02.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-key-rollover-requirements-02.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 6bece56182c..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-key-rollover-requirements-02.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,389 +0,0 @@ - -DNSOP G. Guette -Internet-Draft IRISA / INRIA -Expires: July 19, 2005 O. Courtay - Thomson R&D - January 18, 2005 - - Requirements for Automated Key Rollover in DNSSEC - draft-ietf-dnsop-key-rollover-requirements-02.txt - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable - patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, - and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with - RFC 3668. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2005. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved. - -Abstract - - This document describes problems that appear during an automated - rollover and gives the requirements for the design of communication - between parent zone and child zone during an automated rollover - process. This document is essentially about in-band key rollover. - - - - -Guette & Courtay Expires July 19, 2005 [Page 1] -Internet-Draft Automated Rollover Requirements January 2005 - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. The Key Rollover Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. Messages authentication and information exchanged . . . . . . 5 - 5. Emergency Rollover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6. Security consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A. Documents details and changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Guette & Courtay Expires July 19, 2005 [Page 2] -Internet-Draft Automated Rollover Requirements January 2005 - -1. Introduction - - The DNS security extensions (DNSSEC) [4][6][5][7] uses public-key - cryptography and digital signatures. It stores the public part of - keys in DNSKEY Resource Records (RRs). Because old keys and - frequently used keys are vulnerable, they must be renewed - periodically. In DNSSEC, this is the case for Zone Signing Keys - (ZSKs) and Key Signing Keys (KSKs) [1][2]. Automation of key - exchanges between parents and children is necessary for large zones - because there are too many changes to handle. - - Let us consider for example a zone with 100000 secure delegations. - If the child zones change their keys once a year on average, that - implies 300 changes per day for the parent zone. This amount of - changes is hard to manage manually. - - Automated rollover is optional and resulting from an agreement - between the administrator of the parent zone and the administrator of - the child zone. Of course, key rollover can also be done manually by - administrators. - - This document describes the requirements for a protocol to perform - the automated key rollover process and focusses on interaction - between parent and child zone. - -2. The Key Rollover Process - - Key rollover consists of renewing the DNSSEC keys used to sign - resource records in a given DNS zone file. There are two types of - rollover, ZSK rollovers and KSK rollovers. - - During a ZSK rollover, all changes are local to the zone that renews - its key: there is no need to contact other zones administrators to - propagate the performed changes because a ZSK has no associated DS - record in the parent zone. - - During a KSK rollover, new DS RR(s) must be created and stored in the - parent zone. In consequence, data must be exchanged between child - and parent zones. - - The key rollover is built from two parts of different nature: - o An algorithm that generates new keys and signs the zone file. It - can be local to the zone, - o the interaction between parent and child zones. - - One example of manual key rollover [3] is: - o The child zone creates a new KSK, - - -Guette & Courtay Expires July 19, 2005 [Page 3] -Internet-Draft Automated Rollover Requirements January 2005 - - o the child zone waits for the creation of the DS RR in its parent - zone, - o the child zone deletes the old key, - o the parent zone deletes the old DS RR. - - This document concentrates on defining interactions between entities - present in key rollover process. - -3. Basic Requirements - - This section provides the requirements for automated key rollover in - case of normal use. Exceptional case like emergency rollover is - specifically described later in this document. - - The main condition during a key rollover is that the chain of trust - must be preserved to every validating DNS client. No matter if this - client retrieves some of the RRs from recursive caching name server - or from the authoritative servers for the zone involved in the - rollover. - - Automated key rollover solution may be interrupted by a manual - intervention. This manual intervention should not compromise the - security state of the chain of trust. If the chain is safe before - the manual intervention, the chain of trust must remain safe during - and after the manual intervention - - Two entities act during a KSK rollover: the child zone and its parent - zone. These zones are generally managed by different administrators. - These administrators should agree on some parameters like - availability of automated rollover, the maximum delay between - notification of changes in the child zone and the resigning of the - parent zone. The child zone needs to know this delay to schedule its - changes and/or to verify that the changes had been taken into account - in the parent zone. Hence, the child zone can also avoid some - critical cases where all child key are changed prior to the DS RR - creation. - - By keeping some resource records during a given time, the recursive - cache servers can act on the automated rollover. The existence of - recursive cache servers must be taken into account by automated - rollover solution. - - Indeed, during an automated key rollover a name server could have to - retrieve some DNSSEC data. An automated key rollover solution must - ensure that these data are not old DNSSEC material retrieved from a - recursive name server. - - - -Guette & Courtay Expires July 19, 2005 [Page 4] -Internet-Draft Automated Rollover Requirements January 2005 - -4. Messages authentication and information exchanged - - This section addresses in-band rollover, security of out-of-band - mechanisms is out of scope of this document. - - The security provided by DNSSEC must not be compromised by the key - rollover, thus every exchanged message must be authenticated to avoid - fake rollover messages from malicious parties. - - Once the changes related to a KSK are made in a child zone, there are - two ways for the parent zone to take this changes into account: - o the child zone notify directly or not directly its parent zone in - order to create the new DS RR and store this DS RR in parent zone - file, - o or the parent zone poll the child zone. - - In both cases, the parent zone must receive all the child keys that - need the creation of associated DS RRs in the parent zone. - - Because errors could occur during the transmission of keys between - child and parent, the key exchange protocol must be fault tolerant. - Should an error occured during the automated key rollover, an - automated key rollover solution must be able to keep the zone files - in a consistent state. - -5. Emergency Rollover - - Emergency key rollover is a special case of rollover decided by the - zone administrator generally for security reasons. In consequence, - emergency key rollover can break some of the requirement described - above. - - A zone key might be compromised and an attacker can use the - compromised key to create and sign fake records. To avoid this, the - zone administrator may change the compromised key or all its keys as - soon as possible, without waiting for the creation of new DS RRs in - its parent zone. - - Fast changes may break the chain of trust. The part of DNS tree - having this zone as apex can become unverifiable, but the break of - the chain of trust is necessary if the administrator wants to prevent - the compromised key from being used (to spoof DNS data). - - Parent and child zones sharing an automated rollover mechanism, - should have an out-of-band way to re-establish a consistent state at - the delegation point (DS and DNSKEY RRs). This allows to avoid that - a malicious party uses the compromised key to roll the zone keys. - - -Guette & Courtay Expires July 19, 2005 [Page 5] -Internet-Draft Automated Rollover Requirements January 2005 - -6. Security consideration - - The automated key rollover process in DNSSEC allows automated renewal - of any kind of DNS key (ZSK or KSK). It is essential that parent - side and child side can do mutual authentication. Moreover, - integrity of the material exchanged between the parent and child zone - must be provided to ensure the right DS are created. - - As in any application using public key cryptography, in DNSSEC a key - may be compromised. What to do in such a case can be describe in the - zone local policy and can violate some requirements described in this - draft. The emergency rollover can break the chain of trust in order - to protect the zone against the use of the compromised key. - -7. Acknowledgments - - The authors want to thank members of IDsA project for their - contribution to this document. - -8 Normative References - - [1] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)", - RFC 3658, December 2003. - - [2] Kolkman, O., Schlyter, J. and E. Lewis, "Domain Name System KEY - (DNSKEY) Resource Record (RR) Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag", - RFC 3757, May 2004. - - [3] Kolkman, O., "DNSSEC Operational Practices", - draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practice-01 (work in - progress), May 2004. - - [4] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC - 2535, March 1999. - - [5] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and S. Rose, - "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-11 (work in progress), October - 2004. - - [6] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-13 (work in progress), October - 2004. - - [7] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and S. Rose, - "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-09 (work in progress), October - - -Guette & Courtay Expires July 19, 2005 [Page 6] -Internet-Draft Automated Rollover Requirements January 2005 - - 2004. - -Authors' Addresses - - Gilles Guette - IRISA / INRIA - Campus de Beaulieu - 35042 Rennes CEDEX - FR - - EMail: gilles.guette@irisa.fr - URI: http://www.irisa.fr - - Olivier Courtay - Thomson R&D - 1, avenue Belle Fontaine - 35510 Cesson S?vign? CEDEX - FR - - EMail: olivier.courtay@thomson.net - -Appendix A. Documents details and changes - - This section is to be removed by the RFC editor if and when the - document is published. - - Section about NS RR rollover has been removed - - Remarks from Samuel Weiler and Rip Loomis added - - Clarification about in-band rollover and in emergency section - - Section 3, details about recursive cache servers added - - - - - - - - -Guette & Courtay Expires July 19, 2005 [Page 7] -Internet-Draft Automated Rollover Requirements January 2005 - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described - in this document or the extent to which any license under such - rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent - that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. - Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in - IETF Documents can be found in BCP 78 and 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use - of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository - at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention - any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other - proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required - to implement this standard. Please address the information to the - IETF at ietf-ipr.org. - - - Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - - -Guette & Courtay Expires July 19, 2005 [Page 8] diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-02.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-02.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 63fe2de521a..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-02.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,480 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - - DNSOP Working Group Paul Vixie, ISC - INTERNET-DRAFT Akira Kato, WIDE - July 2005 - - DNS Response Size Issues - - Status of this Memo - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved. - - - - - Abstract - - With a mandated default minimum maximum message size of 512 octets, - the DNS protocol presents some special problems for zones wishing to - expose a moderate or high number of authority servers (NS RRs). This - document explains the operational issues caused by, or related to - this response size limit. - - - - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 1] - - INTERNET-DRAFT July 2005 RESPSIZE - - - 1 - Introduction and Overview - - 1.1. The DNS standard (see [RFC1035 4.2.1]) limits message size to 512 - octets. Even though this limitation was due to the required minimum UDP - reassembly limit for IPv4, it is a hard DNS protocol limit and is not - implicitly relaxed by changes in transport, for example to IPv6. - - 1.2. The EDNS0 standard (see [RFC2671 2.3, 4.5]) permits larger - responses by mutual agreement of the requestor and responder. However, - deployment of EDNS0 cannot be expected to reach every Internet resolver - in the short or medium term. The 512 octet message size limit remains - in practical effect at this time. - - 1.3. Since DNS responses include a copy of the request, the space - available for response data is somewhat less than the full 512 octets. - For negative responses, there is rarely a space constraint. For - positive and delegation responses, though, every octet must be carefully - and sparingly allocated. This document specifically addresses - delegation response sizes. - - 2 - Delegation Details - - 2.1. A delegation response will include the following elements: - - Header Section: fixed length (12 octets) - Question Section: original query (name, class, type) - Answer Section: (empty) - Authority Section: NS RRset (nameserver names) - Additional Section: A and AAAA RRsets (nameserver addresses) - - 2.2. If the total response size would exceed 512 octets, and if the data - that would not fit belonged in the question, answer, or authority - section, then the TC bit will be set (indicating truncation) which may - cause the requestor to retry using TCP, depending on what information - was desired and what information was omitted. If a retry using TCP is - needed, the total cost of the transaction is much higher. (See [RFC1123 - 6.1.3.2] for details on the protocol requirement that UDP be attempted - before falling back to TCP.) - - 2.3. RRsets are never sent partially unless truncation occurs, in which - case the final apparent RRset in the final nonempty section must be - considered "possibly damaged". With or without truncation, the glue - present in the additional data section should be considered "possibly - incomplete", and requestors should be prepared to re-query for any - damaged or missing RRsets. For multi-transport name or mail services, - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 2] - - INTERNET-DRAFT July 2005 RESPSIZE - - - this can mean querying for an IPv6 (AAAA) RRset even when an IPv4 (A) - RRset is present. - - 2.4. DNS label compression allows a domain name to be instantiated only - once per DNS message, and then referenced with a two-octet "pointer" - from other locations in that same DNS message. If all nameserver names - in a message are similar (for example, all ending in ".ROOT- - SERVERS.NET"), then more space will be available for uncompressable data - (such as nameserver addresses). - - 2.5. The query name can be as long as 255 characters of presentation - data, which can be up to 256 octets of network data. In this worst case - scenario, the question section will be 260 octets in size, which would - leave only 240 octets for the authority and additional sections (after - deducting 12 octets for the fixed length header.) - - 2.6. Average and maximum question section sizes can be predicted by the - zone owner, since they will know what names actually exist, and can - measure which ones are queried for most often. For cost and performance - reasons, the majority of requests should be satisfied without truncation - or TCP retry. - - 2.7. Requestors who deliberately send large queries to force truncation - are only increasing their own costs, and cannot effectively attack the - resources of an authority server since the requestor would have to retry - using TCP to complete the attack. An attack that always used TCP would - have a lower cost. - - 2.8. The minimum useful number of address records is two, since with - only one address, the probability that it would refer to an unreachable - server is too high. Truncation which occurs after two address records - have been added to the additional data section is therefore less - operationally significant than truncation which occurs earlier. - - 2.9. The best case is no truncation. This is because many requestors - will retry using TCP by reflex, or will automatically re-query for - RRsets that are "possibly truncated", without considering whether the - omitted data was actually necessary. - - 2.10. Each added NS RR for a zone will add a minimum of between 16 and - 44 octets to every untruncated referral or negative response from the - zone's authority servers (16 octets for an NS RR, 16 octets for an A RR, - and 28 octets for an AAAA RR), in addition to whatever space is taken by - the nameserver name (NS NSDNAME and A/AAAA owner name). - - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 3] - - INTERNET-DRAFT July 2005 RESPSIZE - - - 3 - Analysis - - 3.1. An instrumented protocol trace of a best case delegation response - follows. Note that 13 servers are named, and 13 addresses are given. - This query was artificially designed to exactly reach the 512 octet - limit. - - ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANS: 0, AUTH: 13, ADDIT: 13 - ;; QUERY SECTION: - ;; [23456789.123456789.123456789.\ - 123456789.123456789.123456789.com A IN] ;; @80 - - ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: - com. 86400 NS E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @112 - com. 86400 NS F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @128 - com. 86400 NS G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @144 - com. 86400 NS H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @160 - com. 86400 NS I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @176 - com. 86400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @192 - com. 86400 NS K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @208 - com. 86400 NS L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @224 - com. 86400 NS M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @240 - com. 86400 NS A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @256 - com. 86400 NS B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @272 - com. 86400 NS C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @288 - com. 86400 NS D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @304 - - ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: - A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.5.6.30 ;; @320 - B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.33.14.30 ;; @336 - C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.26.92.30 ;; @352 - D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.31.80.30 ;; @368 - E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.12.94.30 ;; @384 - F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.35.51.30 ;; @400 - G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.42.93.30 ;; @416 - H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.54.112.30 ;; @432 - I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.43.172.30 ;; @448 - J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.48.79.30 ;; @464 - K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.52.178.30 ;; @480 - L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.41.162.30 ;; @496 - M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.55.83.30 ;; @512 - - ;; MSG SIZE sent: 80 rcvd: 512 - - - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 4] - - INTERNET-DRAFT July 2005 RESPSIZE - - - 3.2. For longer query names, the number of address records supplied will - be lower. Furthermore, it is only by using a common parent name (which - is GTLD-SERVERS.NET in this example) that all 13 addresses are able to - fit. The following output from a response simulator demonstrates these - properties: - - % perl respsize.pl a.dns.br b.dns.br c.dns.br d.dns.br - a.dns.br requires 10 bytes - b.dns.br requires 4 bytes - c.dns.br requires 4 bytes - d.dns.br requires 4 bytes - # of NS: 4 - For maximum size query (255 byte): - if only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green) - if A and AAAA are condered: # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow) - if prefer_glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 3 (yellow) - For average size query (64 byte): - if only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green) - if A and AAAA are condered: # of A+AAAA is 4 (green) - if prefer_glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green) - - % perl respsize.pl ns-ext.isc.org ns.psg.com ns.ripe.net ns.eu.int - ns-ext.isc.org requires 16 bytes - ns.psg.com requires 12 bytes - ns.ripe.net requires 13 bytes - ns.eu.int requires 11 bytes - # of NS: 4 - For maximum size query (255 byte): - if only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green) - if A and AAAA are condered: # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow) - if prefer_glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 2 (yellow) - For average size query (64 byte): - if only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green) - if A and AAAA are condered: # of A+AAAA is 4 (green) - if prefer_glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green) - - (Note: The response simulator program is shown in Section 5.) - - Here we use the term "green" if all address records could fit, or - "orange" if two or more could fit, or "red" if fewer than two could fit. - It's clear that without a common parent for nameserver names, much space - would be lost. For these examples we use an average/common name size of - 15 octets, befitting our assumption of GTLD-SERVERS.NET as our common - parent name. - - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 5] - - INTERNET-DRAFT July 2005 RESPSIZE - - - We're assuming an average query name size of 64 since that is the - typical average maximum size seen in trace data at the time of this - writing. If Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) or any other technology - which results in larger query names be deployed significantly in advance - of EDNS, then new measurements and new estimates will have to be made. - - 4 - Conclusions - - 4.1. The current practice of giving all nameserver names a common parent - (such as GTLD-SERVERS.NET or ROOT-SERVERS.NET) saves space in DNS - responses and allows for more nameservers to be enumerated than would - otherwise be possible. (Note that in this case it is wise to serve the - common parent domain's zone from the same servers that are named within - it, in order to limit external dependencies when all your eggs are in a - single basket.) - - 4.2. Thirteen (13) seems to be the effective maximum number of - nameserver names usable traditional (non-extended) DNS, assuming a - common parent domain name, and given that response truncation is - undesirable as an average case, and assuming mostly IPv4-only - reachability (only A RRs exist, not AAAA RRs). - - 4.3. Adding two to five IPv6 nameserver address records (AAAA RRs) to a - prototypical delegation that currently contains thirteen (13) IPv4 - nameserver addresses (A RRs) for thirteen (13) nameserver names under a - common parent, would not have a significant negative operational impact - on the domain name system. - - 5 - Source Code - - #!/usr/bin/perl - # - # SYNOPSIS - # repsize.pl [ -z zone ] fqdn_ns1 fqdn_ns2 ... - # if all queries are assumed to have zone suffux, such as "jp" in - # JP TLD servers, specify it in -z option - # - use strict; - use Getopt::Std; - my ($sz_msg) = (512); - my ($sz_header, $sz_ptr, $sz_rr_a, $sz_rr_aaaa) = (12, 2, 16, 28); - my ($sz_type, $sz_class, $sz_ttl, $sz_rdlen) = (2, 2, 4, 2); - my (%namedb, $name, $nssect, %opts, $optz); - my $n_ns = 0; - - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 6] - - INTERNET-DRAFT July 2005 RESPSIZE - - - getopt('z', opts); - if (defined($opts{'z'})) { - server_name_len($opts{'z'}); # just register it - } - - foreach $name (@ARGV) { - my $len; - $n_ns++; - $len = server_name_len($name); - print "$name requires $len bytes\n"; - $nssect += $sz_ptr + $sz_type + $sz_class + $sz_ttl + $sz_rdlen + $len; - } - print "# of NS: $n_ns\n"; - arsect(255, $nssect, $n_ns, "maximum"); - arsect(64, $nssect, $n_ns, "average"); - - sub server_name_len { - my ($name) = @_; - my (@labels, $len, $n, $suffix); - - $name =~ tr/A-Z/a-z/; - @labels = split(/./, $name); - $len = length(join('.', @labels)) + 2; - for ($n = 0; $#labels >= 0; $n++, shift @labels) { - $suffix = join('.', @labels); - return length($name) - length($suffix) + $sz_ptr - if (defined($namedb{$suffix})); - $namedb{$suffix} = 1; - } - return $len; - } - - sub arsect { - my ($sz_query, $nssect, $n_ns, $cond) = @_; - my ($space, $n_a, $n_a_aaaa, $n_p_aaaa, $ansect); - $ansect = $sz_query + 1 + $sz_type + $sz_class; - $space = $sz_msg - $sz_header - $ansect - $nssect; - $n_a = atmost(int($space / $sz_rr_a), $n_ns); - $n_a_aaaa = atmost(int($space / ($sz_rr_a + $sz_rr_aaaa)), $n_ns); - $n_p_aaaa = atmost(int(($space - $sz_rr_a * $n_ns) / $sz_rr_aaaa), $n_ns); - printf "For %s size query (%d byte):\n", $cond, $sz_query; - printf "if only A is considered: "; - printf "# of A is %d (%s)\n", $n_a, &judge($n_a, $n_ns); - printf "if A and AAAA are condered: "; - printf "# of A+AAAA is %d (%s)\n", $n_a_aaaa, &judge($n_a_aaaa, $n_ns); - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 7] - - INTERNET-DRAFT July 2005 RESPSIZE - - - printf "if prefer_glue A is assumed: "; - printf "# of A is %d, # of AAAA is %d (%s)\n", - $n_a, $n_p_aaaa, &judge($n_p_aaaa, $n_ns); - } - - sub judge { - my ($n, $n_ns) = @_; - return "green" if ($n >= $n_ns); - return "yellow" if ($n >= 2); - return "orange" if ($n == 1); - return "red"; - } - - sub atmost { - my ($a, $b) = @_; - return 0 if ($a < 0); - return $b if ($a > $b); - return $a; - } - - Security Considerations - - The recommendations contained in this document have no known security - implications. - - IANA Considerations - - This document does not call for changes or additions to any IANA - registry. - - IPR Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to - the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as - set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR - IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 8] - - INTERNET-DRAFT July 2005 RESPSIZE - - - Authors' Addresses - - Paul Vixie - 950 Charter Street - Redwood City, CA 94063 - +1 650 423 1301 - vixie@isc.org - - Akira Kato - University of Tokyo, Information Technology Center - 2-11-16 Yayoi Bunkyo - Tokyo 113-8658, JAPAN - +81 3 5841 2750 - kato@wide.ad.jp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Expires December 2005 [Page 9] - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-06.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-06.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c6ec7e42a55..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-06.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,618 +0,0 @@ - - - - -Network Working Group S. Woolf -Internet-Draft Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -Expires: September 6, 2006 D. Conrad - Nominum, Inc. - March 5, 2006 - - - Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance - draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-06 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2006. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). - -Abstract - - With the increased use of DNS anycast, load balancing, and other - mechanisms allowing more than one DNS name server to share a single - IP address, it is sometimes difficult to tell which of a pool of name - servers has answered a particular query. A standardized mechanism to - determine the identity of a name server responding to a particular - query would be useful, particularly as a diagnostic aid for - administrators. Existing ad hoc mechanisms for addressing this need - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - - have some shortcomings, not the least of which is the lack of prior - analysis of exactly how such a mechanism should be designed and - deployed. This document describes the existing convention used in - some widely deployed implementations of the DNS protocol, including - advantages and disadvantages, and discusses some attributes of an - improved mechanism. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - -1. Introduction and Rationale - - Identifying which name server is responding to queries is often - useful, particularly in attempting to diagnose name server - difficulties. This is most obviously useful for authoritative - nameservers in the attempt to diagnose the source or prevalence of - inaccurate data, but can also conceivably be useful for caching - resolvers in similar and other situations. Furthermore, the ability - to identify which server is responding to a query has become more - useful as DNS has become more critical to more Internet users, and as - network and server deployment topologies have become more complex. - - The traditional means for determining which of several possible - servers is answering a query has traditionally been based on the use - of the server's IP address as a unique identifier. However, the - modern Internet has seen the deployment of various load balancing, - fault-tolerance, or attack-resistance schemes such as shared use of - unicast IP addresses as documented in [RFC3258]. An unfortunate side - effect of these schemes has been to make the use of IP addresses as - identifiers somewhat problematic. Specifically, a dedicated DNS - query may not go to the same server as answered a previous query, - even though sent to the same IP address. Non-DNS methods such as - ICMP ping, TCP connections, or non-DNS UDP packets (such as those - generated by tools like "traceroute"), etc., may well be even less - certain to reach the same server as the one which receives the DNS - queries. - - There is a well-known and frequently-used technique for determining - an identity for a nameserver more specific than the possibly-non- - unique "server that answered the query I sent to IP address XXX". - The widespread use of the existing convention suggests a need for a - documented, interoperable means of querying the identity of a - nameserver that may be part of an anycast or load-balancing cluster. - At the same time, however, it also has some drawbacks that argue - against standardizing it as it's been practiced so far. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - -2. Existing Conventions - - For some time, the commonly deployed Berkeley Internet Name Domain - implementation of the DNS protocol suite from the Internet Systems - Consortium [BIND] has supported a way of identifying a particular - server via the use of a standards-compliant, if somewhat unusual, DNS - query. Specifically, a query to a recent BIND server for a TXT - resource record in class 3 (CHAOS) for the domain name - "HOSTNAME.BIND." will return a string that can be configured by the - name server administrator to provide a unique identifier for the - responding server. (The value defaults to the result of a - gethostname() call). This mechanism, which is an extension of the - BIND convention of using CHAOS class TXT RR queries to sub-domains of - the "BIND." domain for version information, has been copied by - several name server vendors. - - A refinement to the BIND-based mechanism, which dropped the - implementation-specific string, replaces ".BIND" with ".SERVER". - Thus the query string to learn the unique name of a server may be - queried as "ID.SERVER". - - (For reference, the other well-known name used by recent versions of - BIND within the CHAOS class "BIND." domain is "VERSION.BIND." A - query for a CHAOS TXT RR for this name will return an - administratively defined string which defaults to the version of the - server responding. This is, however, not generally implemented by - other vendors.) - -2.1. Advantages - - There are several valuable attributes to this mechanism, which - account for its usefulness. - - 1. The "HOSTNAME.BIND" or "ID.SERVER" query response mechanism is - within the DNS protocol itself. An identification mechanism that - relies on the DNS protocol is more likely to be successful - (although not guaranteed) in going to the same system as a - "normal" DNS query. - - 2. Since the identity information is requested and returned within - the DNS protocol, it doesn't require allowing any other query - mechanism to the server, such as holes in firewalls for - otherwise-unallowed ICMP Echo requests. Thus it is likely to - reach the same server over a path subject to the same routing, - resource, and security policy as the query, without any special - exceptions to site security policy. - - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - - 3. It is simple to configure. An administrator can easily turn on - this feature and control the results of the relevant query. - - 4. It allows the administrator complete control of what information - is given out in the response, minimizing passive leakage of - implementation or configuration details. Such details are often - considered sensitive by infrastructure operators. - - 5. Hypothetically, since it's an ordinary DNS record and the - relevant DNSSEC RRs are class independent, the id.server response - RR could be signed, which has the advantages described in - [RFC4033]. - -2.2. Disadvantages - - At the same time, there are some serious drawbacks to the CHAOS/TXT - query mechanism that argue against standardizing it as it currently - operates. - - 1. It requires an additional query to correlate between the answer - to a DNS query under normal conditions and the supposed identity - of the server receiving the query. There are a number of - situations in which this simply isn't reliable. - - 2. It reserves an entire class in the DNS (CHAOS) for what amounts - to one zone. While CHAOS class is defined in [RFC1034] and - [RFC1035], it's not clear that supporting it solely for this - purpose is a good use of the namespace or of implementation - effort. - - 3. The initial and still common form, using .BIND, is implementation - specific. BIND is one DNS implementation. At the time of this - writing, it is probably the most prevalent for authoritative - servers. This does not justify standardizing on its ad hoc - solution to a problem shared across many operators and - implementors. Meanwhile, the proposed refinement changes the - string but preserves the ad hoc CHAOS/TXT mechanism. - - 4. There is no convention or shared understanding of what - information an answer to such a query for a server identity could - or should include, including a possible encoding or - authentication mechanism. - - The first of the listed disadvantages may be technically the most - serious. It argues for an attempt to design a good answer to the - problem that "I need to know what nameserver is answering my - queries", not simply a convenient one. - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - -2.3. Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention - - The discussion above of advantages and disadvantages to the - HOSTNAME.BIND mechanism suggest some requirements for a better - solution to the server identification problem. These are summarized - here as guidelines for any effort to provide appropriate protocol - extensions: - - 1. The mechanism adopted must be in-band for the DNS protocol. That - is, it needs to allow the query for the server's identifying - information to be part of a normal, operational query. It should - also permit a separate, dedicated query for the server's - identifying information. But it should preserve the ability of - the CHAOS/TXT query-based mechanism to work through firewalls and - in other situations where only DNS can be relied upon to reach - the server of interest. - - 2. The new mechanism should not require dedicated namespaces or - other reserved values outside of the existing protocol mechanisms - for these, i.e. the OPT pseudo-RR. In particular, it should not - propagate the existing drawback of requiring support for a CLASS - and top level domain in the authoritative server (or the querying - tool) to be useful. - - 3. Support for the identification functionality should be easy to - implement and easy to enable. It must be easy to disable and - should lend itself to access controls on who can query for it. - - 4. It should be possible to return a unique identifier for a server - without requiring the exposure of information that may be non- - public and considered sensitive by the operator, such as a - hostname or unicast IP address maintained for administrative - purposes. - - 5. It should be possible to authenticate the received data by some - mechanism analogous to those provided by DNSSEC. In this - context, the need could be met by including encryption options in - the specification of a new mechanism. - - 6. The identification mechanism should not be implementation- - specific. - - - - - - - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - -3. IANA Considerations - - This document proposes no specific IANA action. Protocol extensions, - if any, to meet the requirements described are out of scope for this - document. A proposed extension, specified and adopted by normal IETF - process, is described in [NSID], including relevant IANA action. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - -4. Security Considerations - - Providing identifying information as to which server is responding to - a particular query from a particular location in the Internet can be - seen as information leakage and thus a security risk. This motivates - the suggestion above that a new mechanism for server identification - allow the administrator to disable the functionality altogether or - partially restrict availability of the data. It also suggests that - the serverid data should not be readily correlated with a hostname or - unicast IP address that may be considered private to the nameserver - operator's management infrastructure. - - Propagation of protocol or service meta-data can sometimes expose the - application to denial of service or other attack. As DNS is a - critically important infrastructure service for the production - Internet, extra care needs to be taken against this risk for - designers, implementors, and operators of a new mechanism for server - identification. - - Both authentication and confidentiality of serverid data are - potentially of interest to administrators-- that is, operators may - wish to make serverid data available and reliable to themselves and - their chosen associates only. This would imply both an ability to - authenticate it to themselves and keep it private from arbitrary - other parties. This led to Characteristics 4 and 5 of an improved - solution. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - -5. Acknowledgements - - The technique for host identification documented here was initially - implemented by Paul Vixie of the Internet Software Consortium in the - Berkeley Internet Name Daemon package. Comments and questions on - earlier drafts were provided by Bob Halley, Brian Wellington, Andreas - Gustafsson, Ted Hardie, Chris Yarnell, Randy Bush, and members of the - ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee. The newest version - takes a significantly different direction from previous versions, - owing to discussion among contributors to the DNSOP working group and - others, particularly Olafur Gudmundsson, Ed Lewis, Bill Manning, Sam - Weiler, and Rob Austein. - -6. References - - [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", - RFC 1034, STD 0013, November 1987. - - [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and - Specification", RFC 1035, STD 0013, November 1987. - - [3] Hardie, T., "Distributing Authoritative Name Servers via Shared - Unicast Addresses", RFC 3258, April 2002. - - [4] ISC, "BIND 9 Configuration Reference". - - [5] Austein, S., "DNS Name Server Identifier Option (NSID)", - Internet Drafts http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ - draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-01.txt, January 2006. - - [6] Arends, R., Austein, S., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, - "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, - March 2005. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Suzanne Woolf - Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. - 950 Charter Street - Redwood City, CA 94063 - US - - Phone: +1 650 423-1333 - Email: woolf@isc.org - URI: http://www.isc.org/ - - - David Conrad - Nominum, Inc. - 2385 Bay Road - Redwood City, CA 94063 - US - - Phone: +1 1 650 381 6003 - Email: david.conrad@nominum.com - URI: http://www.nominum.com/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft Serverid March 2006 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Woolf & Conrad Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 11] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-05.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-05.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 3353b3bb423..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-05.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1588 +0,0 @@ - - Mark Foster -Internet Draft Tom McGarry -Document: James Yu - NeuStar, Inc. -Category: Informational June 24, 2002 - - - Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview - - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC]. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of - six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other - documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts - as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in - progress." - - 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. - - - Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All rights reserved. - - - Abstract - - This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number - portability (NP) in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN). - NP is a regulatory imperative seeking to liberalize local telephony - service competition, by enabling end-users to retain telephone - numbers while changing service providers. NP changes the - fundamental nature of a dialed E.164 number from a hierarchical - physical routing address to a virtual address, thereby requiring the - transparent translation of the later to the former. In addition, - there are various regulatory constraints that establish relevant - parameters for NP implementation, most of which are not network - technology specific. Consequently, the implementation of NP - behavior consistent with applicable regulatory constraints, as well - as the need for interoperation with the existing GSTN NP - implementations, are relevant topics for numerous areas of IP - telephony work-in-progress at IETF. - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 1] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - - Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction ............................................... 2 - 2. Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................. 4 - 3. Types of Number Portability ................................ 5 - 4. Service Provider Number Portability Schemes ................ 7 - 4.1 All Call Query (ACQ) .................................. 7 - 4.2 Query on Release (QoR) ................................ 8 - 4.3 Call Dropback ......................................... 9 - 4.4 Onward Routing (OR) ................................... 9 - 4.5 Comparisons of the Four Schemes ....................... 10 - 5. Database Queries in the NP Environment ..................... 11 - 5.1 U.S. and Canada ....................................... 12 - 5.2 Europe ................................................ 13 - 6. Call Routing in the NP Environment ......................... 14 - 6.1 U.S. and Canada ....................................... 14 - 6.2 Europe ................................................ 15 - 7. NP Implementations for Geographic E.164 Numbers ............ 17 - 8. Number Conservation Method Enabled By NP ................... 20 - 8.1 Block Pooling ......................................... 20 - 8.2 ITN Pooling ........................................... 21 - 9. Potential Implications ..................................... 21 - 10. Security Considerations .................................... 24 - 11. IANA Considerations ........................................ 24 - 12. Normative References ....................................... 24 - 13. Informative References ..................................... 25 - 14. Acknowledgement ............................................ 25 - 15. AuthorsË Addresses ......................................... 25 - - - -1. Introduction - - This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number - portability in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN). There - are considered to be three types of number portability (NP): service - provider portability (SPNP), location portability (not to be - confused with terminal mobility), and service portability. - - Service provider portability (SPNP), the focus of the present draft, - is a regulatory imperative in many countries seeking to liberalize - telephony service competition, especially local service. - Historically, local telephony service (as compared to long distance - or international service) has been regulated as a utility-like form - of service. While a number of countries had begun liberalization - (e.g. privatization, de-regulation, or re-regulation) some years - ago, the advent of NP is relatively recent (since ~1995). - - E.164 numbers can be non-geographic and geographic numbers. Non- - geographic numbers do not reveal the locations information of those - numbers. Geographic E.164 numbers were intentionally designed as - hierarchical routing addresses which could systematically be digit- - analyzed to ascertain the country, serving network provider, serving - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 2] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - end-office switch, and specific line of the called party. As such, - without NP a subscriber wishing to change service providers would - incur a number change as a consequence of being served off of a - different end-office switch operated by the new service provider. - The cost and convenience impact to the subscriber of changing - numbers is seen as barrier to competition. Hence NP has become - associated with GSTN infrastructure enhancements associated with a - competitive environment driven by regulatory directives. - - Forms of SPNP have been deployed or are being deployed widely in the - GSTN in various parts of the world, including the U.S., Canada, - Western Europe, Australia, and the Pacific Rim (e.g. Hong Kong). - Other regions, such as South America (e.g. Brazil) are actively - considering it. - - Implementation of NP within a national telephony infrastructure - entails potentially significant changes to numbering administration, - network element signaling, call routing and processing, billing, - service management, and other functions. - - NP changes the fundamental nature of a dialed E.164 number from a - hierarchical physical routing address to a virtual address. NP - implementations attempt to encapsulate the impacts to the GSTN and - make NP transparent to subscribers by incorporating a translation - function to map a dialed, potentially ported E.164 address, into a - network routing address (either a number prefix or another E.164 - address) which can be hierarchically routed. - - This is roughly analogous to the use of network address translation - on IP addresses to enable IP address portability by containing the - impact of the address change to the edge of the network and retain - the use of CIDR blocks in the core which can be route aggregated by - the network service provider to the rest of the internet. - - NP bifurcates the historical role of a subscriberËs E.164 address - into two or more data elements (a dialed or virtual address, and a - network routing address) that must be made available to network - elements through an NP translations database, carried by forward - call signaling, and recorded on call detail records. Not only is - call processing and routing affected, but also so is SS7/C7 - messaging. A number of TCAP-based SS7 messaging sets utilize an - E.164 address as an application-level network element address in the - global title address (GTA) field of the SCCP message header. - Consequently, SS7/C7 signaling transfer points (STPs) and gateways - need to be able to perform n-digit global title translation (GTT) to - translate a dialed E.164 address into its network address - counterpart via the NP database. - - In addition, there are various national regulatory constraints that - establish relevant parameters for NP implementation, most of which - are not network technology specific. Consequently, implementations - of NP behavior in IP telephony consistent with applicable regulatory - constraints, as well as the need for interoperation with the - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 3] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - existing GSTN NP implementations, are relevant topics for numerous - areas of IP telephony work-in-progress at IETF. - - This document describes three types of number portability and the - four schemes that have been standardized to support SPNP for - geographic E.164 numbersspecifically. Following that, specific - information regarding the call routing and database query - implementations are described for several regions (North American - and Europe) and industries (wireless vs. wireline). The Number - Portability Database (NPDB) interfaces and the call routing schemes - that are used in the North America and Europe are described to show - the variety of standards that may be implemented worldwide. A - glance of the NP implementations worldwide is provided. Number - pooling is briefly discussed to show how NP is being enhanced in the - U.S. to conserve North American area codes. The conclusion briefly - touches the potential impacts of NP on IP & Telecommunications - Interoperability. Appendix A provides some specific technical and - regulatory information on NP in North America. Appendix B describes - the number portability administration process that manages the - number portability database in North America. - - -2. Abbreviations and Acronyms - - ACQ All Call Query - AIN Advanced Intelligent Network - AMPS Advanced Mobile Phone System - ANSI American National Standards Institute - CDMA Code Division Multiple Access - CdPA Called Party Address - CdPN Called Party Number - CH Code Holder - CMIP Common Management Information Protocol - CS1 Capability Set 1 - CS2 Capability Set 2 - DN Directory Number - DNS Domain Name System - ETSI European Technical Standards Institute - FCI Forward Call Indicator - GAP Generic Address Parameter - GMSC Gateway Mobile Services Switching Center or Gateway Mobile - Switching Center - GSM Global System for Mobile Communications - GSTN Global Switched Telephone Network - GW Gateways - HLR Home Location Register - IAM Initial Address Message - IETF Internet Engineering Task Force - ILNP Interim LNP - IN Intelligent Network - INAP Intelligent Network Application Part - INP Interim NP - IP Internet Protocol - IS-41 Interim Standards Number 41 - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 4] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network - ISUP ISDN User Part - ITN Individual Telephony Number - ITU International Telecommunication Union - ITU-TS ITU-Telecommunication Sector - LDAP Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - LEC Local Exchange Carrier - LERG Local Exchange Routing Guide - LNP Local Number Portability - LRN Location Routing Number - MAP Mobile Application Part - MNP Mobile Number Portability - MSRN Mobile Station Roaming Number - MTP Message Transfer Part - NANP North American Numbering Plan - NP Number Portability - NPDB Number Portability Database - NRN Network Routing Number - OR Onward Routing - OSS Operation Support System - PCS Personal Communication Services - PNTI Ported Number Translation Indicator - PODP Public Office Dialing Plan - PUC Public Utility Commission - QoR Query on Release - RN Routing Number - RTP Return to Pivot - SCCP Signaling Connection Control Part - SCP Service Control Point - SIP Session Initiation Protocol - SMR Special Mobile Radio - SMS Service Management System - SPNP Service Provider Number Portability - SRF Signaling Relaying Function - SRI Send Routing Information - SS7 Signaling System Number 7 - STP Signaling Transfer Point - TCAP Transaction Capabilities Application Part - TDMA Time Division Multiple Access - TN Telephone Number - TRIP Telephony Routing Information Protocol - URL Universal Resource Locator - U.S. United States - - -3. Types of Number Portability - - As there are several types of E.164 numbers (telephone numbers, or - just TN) in the GSTN, there are correspondingly several types of - E.164 NP in the GSTN. First there are so-call non-geographic E.164 - numbers, commonly used for service-specific applications such as - freephone (800 or 0800). Portability of these numbers is called - non-geographic number portability (NGNP). NGNP, for example, was - deployed in the U.S. in 1986-92. - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 5] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - - Geographic number portability, which includes traditional fixed or - wireline numbers as well as mobile numbers which are allocated out - of geographic number range prefixes, is called NP or GNP or in the - U.S. local number portability (LNP). - - Number portability allows the telephony subscribers in the Global - Switched Telephone Network (GSTN) to keep their phone numbers when - they change their service providers or subscribed services, or when - they move to a new location. - - The ability to change the service provider while keeping the same - phone number is called service provider portability (SPNP) also - known as "operator portability." - - The ability to change the subscriberËs fixed service location while - keeping the same phone number is called location portability. - - The ability to change the subscribed services (e.g., from the plain - old telephone service to Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) - services) while keeping the same phone number is called service - portability. Another aspect of service portability is to allow the - subscribers to enjoy the subscribed services in the same way when - they roam outside their home networks as is supported by the - cellular/wireless networks. - - In addition, mobile number portability (MNP) refers to specific NP - implementation in mobile networks either as part of a broader NP - implementation in the GSTN or on a stand-alone basis. Where - interoperation of LNP and MNP is supported, service portability - between fixed and mobile service types is possible. - - At present, SPNP has been the primary form of NP deployed due to its - relevance in enabling local service competition. - - Also in use in the GSTN are the terms interim NP (INP) or Interim - LNP (ILNP) and true NP. Interim NP usually refers to the use of - remote call forwarding-like measures to forward calls to ported - numbers through the donor network to the new service network. These - are considered interim relative to true NP, which seeks to remove - the donor network or old service provider from the call or signaling - path altogether. Often the distinction between interim and true NP - is a national regulatory matter relative to the - technical/operational requirements imposed on NP in that country. - - Implementations of true NP in certain countries (e.g. U.S., Canada, - Spain, Belgium, Denmark) may pose specific requirements for IP - telephony implementations as a result of regulatory and industry - requirements for providing call routing and signaling independent of - the donor network or last previous serving network. - - - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 6] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - -4. Service Provider Number Portability Schemes - - Four schemes can be used to support service provider portability and - are briefly described below. But first, some further terms are - introduced. - - The donor network is the network that first assigned a telephone - number (e.g., TN +1-202-533-1234) to a subscriber, out of a number - range administratively (e.g., +1 202-533) assigned to it. The - current service provider (new SP) or new serving network is the - network that currently serves the ported number. The old serving - network (or old SP) is the network that previously served the ported - number before the number was ported to the new serving network. - Since a TN can port a number of times, the old SP is not necessarily - the same as the donor network, except for the first time the TN - ports away, or if the TN ports back into the donor network and away - again. While the new SP and old SP roles are transitory as a TN - ports around, the donor network is always the same for any - particular TN based on the service provider to whom the subtending - number range was administratively assigned. See the discussion - below on number pooling, as this enhancement to NP further - bifurcates the role of donor network into two (the number range or - code holder network, and the block holder network). - - To simplify the illustration, all the transit networks are ignored, - the originating or donor network is the one that performs the - database queries or call redirection, and the dialed directory - number (TN) has been ported out of the donor network before. - - It is assumed that the old serving network, the new serving network - and the donor network are different networks so as to show which - networks are involved in call handling and routing and database - queries in each of four schemes. Please note that the port of the - number (process of moving it from one network to another) happened - prior to the call setup and is not included in the call steps. - Information carried in the signaling messages to support each of the - four schemes is not discussed to simplify the explanation. - - -4.1 All Call Query (ACQ) - - Figure 1 shows the call steps for the ACQ scheme. Those call steps - are as follows: - - (1) The Originating Network receives a call from the caller and - sends a query to a centrally administered Number Portability - Database (NPDB), a copy of which is usually resident on a - network element within its network or through a third party - provider. - (2) The NPDB returns the routing number associated with the dialed - directory number. The routing number is discussed later in - Section 6. - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 7] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - (3) The Originating Network uses the routing number to route the - call to the new serving network. - - - +-------------+ +-----------+ Number +-----------+ - | Centralized | | New Serv. | ported | Old Serv. | - | NPDB | +-------->| Network |<------------| Network | - +-------------+ | +-----------+ +-----------+ - ^ | | - | | | - 1| | 3.| - | | 2. | - | | | - | v | - +----------+ | +----------+ +----------+ - | Orig. |------+ | Donor | | Internal | - | Network | | Network | | NPDB | - +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ - - - Figure 1 - All Call Query (ACQ) Scheme. - - -4.2 Query on Release (QoR) - - Figure 2 shows the call steps for the QoR scheme. Those call steps - are as follows: - - - +-------------+ +-----------+ Number +-----------+ - | Centralized | | New Serv. | ported | Old Serv. | - | NPDB | | Network |<------------| Network | - +-------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ - ^ | ^ - | | 4. | - 3.| | 5. | - | | +----------------------+ - | | | - | v | - +----------+ 2. +----------+ +----------+ - | Orig. |<---------------| Donor | | Internal | - | Network |--------------->| Network | | NPDB | - +----------+ 1. +----------+ +----------+ - - - Figure 2 - Query on Release (QoR) Scheme. - - (1) The Originating Network receives a call from the caller and - routes the call to the donor network. - (2) The donor network releases the call and indicates that the - dialed directory number has been ported out of that switch. - (3) The Originating Network sends a query to its copy of the - centrally administered NPDB. - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 8] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - (4) The NPDB returns the routing number associated with the dialed - directory number. - (5) The Originating Network uses the routing number to route the - call to the new serving network. - - -4.3 Call Dropback - - Figure 3 shows the call steps for the Dropback scheme. This scheme - is also known as "Return to Pivot (RTP)." Those call steps are as - follows: - - (1) The Originating Network receives a call from the caller and - routes the call to the donor network. - (2) The donor network detects that the dialed directory number has - been ported out of the donor switch and checks with an internal - network-specific NPDB. - (3) The internal NPDB returns the routing number associated with the - dialed directory number. - (4) The donor network releases the call by providing the routing - number. - (5) The Originating Network uses the routing number to route the - call to the new serving network. - - +-------------+ +-----------+ Number +-----------+ - | Centralized | | New Serv. | porting | Old Serv. | - | NPDB | | Network |<------------| Network | - +-------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ - /\ - | - 5. | - +------------------------+ - | - | - +----------+ 4. +----------+ 3. +----------+ - | Orig. |<---------------| Donor |<----------| Internal | - | Network |--------------->| Network |---------->| NPDB | - +----------+ 1. +----------+ 2. +----------+ - - - Figure 3 - Dropback Scheme. - - -4.4 Onward Routing (OR) - - Figure 4 shows the call steps for the OR scheme. Those call steps - are as follows: - - (1) The Originating Network receives a call from the caller and - routes the call to the donor network. - (2) The donor network detects that the dialed directory number has - been ported out of the donor switch and checks with an internal - network-specific NPDB. - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 9] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - (3) The internal NPDB returns the routing number associated with the - dialed directory number. - (4) The donor network uses the routing number to route the call to - the new serving network. - - - +-------------+ +-----------+ Number +-----------+ - | Centralized | | New Serv. | porting | Old Serv. | - | NPDB | | Network |<------------| Network | - +-------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ - /\ - | - 4.| - | - +----------+ +----------+ 3. +----------+ - | Orig. | | Donor |<----------| Internal | - | Network |--------------->| Network |---------->| NPDB | - +----------+ 1. +----------+ 2. +----------+ - - - Figure 4 - Onward Routing (OR) Scheme. - -4.5 Comparisons of the Four Schemes - - Only the ACQ scheme does not involve the donor network when routing - the call to the new serving network of the dialed ported number. - The other three schemes involve call setup to or signaling with the - donor network. - - Only the OR scheme requires the setup of two physical call segments, - one from the Originating Network to the donor network and the other - from the donor network to the new serving network. The OR scheme is - the least efficient in terms of using the network transmission - facilities. The QoR and Dropback schemes set up calls to the donor - network first but release the call back to the Originating Network - that then initiates a new call to the Current Serving Network. For - the QoR and Dropback schemes, circuits are still reserved one by one - between the Originating Network and the donor network when the - Originating Network sets up the call towards the donor network. - Those circuits are released one by one when the call is released - from the donor network back to the Originating Network. The ACQ - scheme is the most efficient in terms of using the switching and - transmission facilities for the call. - - Both the ACQ and QoR schemes involve Centralized NPDBs for the - Originating Network to retrieve the routing information. - Centralized NPDB means that the NPDB contains ported number - information from multiple networks. This is in contrast to the - internal network-specific NPDB that is used for the Dropback and OR - schemes. The internal NPDB only contains information about the - numbers that were ported out of the donor network. The internal - NPDB can be a stand-alone database that contains information about - all or some ported-out numbers from the donor network. It can also - reside on the donor switch and only contains information about those - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 10] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - numbers ported out of the donor switch. In that case, no query to a - stand-alone internal NPDB is required. The donor switch for a - particular phone number is the switch to which the number range is - assigned from which that phone number was originally assigned. - - For example, number ranges in the North American Numbering Plan - (NANP) are usually assigned in the form of central office codes (CO - codes) comprising a six-digit prefix formatted as a NPA+NXX. Thus a - switch serving +1-202-533 would typically serve +1-202-533-0000 - through +1-202-533-9999. In major cities, switches usually host - several CO codes. NPA stands for Numbering Plan Area that is also - known as the area code. It is three-digit long and has the format - of NXX where N is any digit from 2 to 9 and X is any digit from 0 to - 9. NXX in the NPA+NXX format is known as the office code that has - the same format as the NPA. When a NPA+NXX code is set as - Ÿportable÷ in the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG), it becomes a - "portable NPA+NXX" code. - - Similarly, in other national E.164 numbering plans, number ranges - cover a contiguous range of numbers within that range. Once a - number within that range has ported away from the donor network, all - numbers in that range are considered potentially ported and should - be queried in the NPDB. - - The ACQ scheme has two versions. One version is for the Originating - Network to always query the NPDB when a call is received from the - caller regardless whether the dialed directory number belongs to any - number range that is portable or has at least one number ported out. - The other version is to check whether the dialed directory number - belongs to any number range that is portable or has at least one - number ported out. If yes, an NPDB query is sent. If not, no NPDB - query is sent. The former performs better when there are many - portable number ranges. The latter performs better when there are - not too many portable number ranges at the expense of checking every - call to see whether NPDB query is needed. The latter ACQ scheme is - similar to the QoR scheme except that the QoR scheme uses call setup - and relies on the donor network to indicate "number ported out" - before launching the NPDB query. - - -5. Database Queries in the NP Environment - - As indicated earlier, the ACQ and QoR schemes require that a switch - query the NPDB for routing information. Various standards have been - defined for the switch-to-NPDB interface. Those interfaces with - their protocol stacks are briefly described below. The term "NPDB" - is used for a stand-alone database that may support just one or some - or all of the interfaces mentioned below. The NPDB query contains - the dialed directory number and the NPDB response contains the - routing number. There are certainly other information that is sent - in the query and response. The primary interest is to get the - routing number from the NPDB to the switch for call routing. - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 11] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - -5.1 U.S. and Canada - - One of the following five NPDB interfaces can be used to query an - NPDB: - - (a) Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) using the American National - Standards Institute (ANSI) version of the Intelligent Network - Application Part (INAP) [ANSI SS] [ANSI DB]. The INAP is - carried on top of the protocol stack that includes the (ANSI) - Message Transfer Part (MTP) Levels 1 through 3, ANSI Signaling - Connection Control Part (SCCP), and ANSI Transaction - Capabilities Application Part (TCAP). This interface can be - used by the wireline or wireless switches, is specific to the NP - implementation in North America, and is modeled on the Public - Office Dialing Plan (PODP) trigger defined in the Advanced - Intelligent Network (AIN) 0.1 call model. - - (b) Intelligent Network (IN), which is similar to the one used for - querying the 800 databases. The IN protocol is carried on top - of the protocol stack that includes the ANSI MTP Levels 1 - through 3, ANSI SCCP, and ANSI TCAP. This interface can be used - by the wireline or wireless switches. - - (c) ANSI IS-41 [IS41] [ISNP], which is carried on top of the - protocol stack that includes the ANSI MTP Levels 1 through 3, - ANSI SCCP, and ANSI TCAP. This interface can be used by the IS- - 41 based cellular/Personal Communication Services (PCS) wireless - switches (e.g., AMPS, TDMA and CDMA). Cellular systems use - spectrum at 800 MHz range and PCS systems use spectrum at 1900 - MHz range. - - (d) Global System for Mobile Communication Mobile Application Part - (GSM MAP) [GSM], which is carried on top of the protocol stack - that includes the ANSI MTP Levels 1 through 3, ANSI SCCP, and - International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Sector - (ITU-TS) TCAP. It can be used by the PCS1900 wireless switches - that are based on the GSM technologies. GSM is a series of - wireless standards defined by the European Telecommunications - Standards Institute (ETSI). - - (e) ISUP triggerless translation. NP translations are performed - transparently to the switching network by the signaling network - (e.g. Signaling Transfer Points (STPs) or signaling gateways). - ISUP IAM messages are examined to determine if the CdPN field - has already been translated, and if not, an NPDB query is - performed, and the appropriate parameters in the IAM message - modified to reflect the results of the translation. The - modified IAM message is forwarded by the signaling node on to - the designated DPC in a transparent manner to continue call - setup. The NPDB can be integrated with the signaling node or be - accessed via an API locally or by a query to a remote NPDB using - a proprietary protocol or the schemes described above. - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 12] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - Wireline switches have the choice of using either (a), (b), or (e). - IS-41 based wireless switches have the choice of using (a), (b), - (c), or (e). PCS1900 wireless switches have the choice of using - (a), (b), (d), or (e). In the United States, service provider - portability will be supported by both the wireline and wireless - systems, not only within the wireline or wireless domain but also - across the wireline/wireless boundary. However, this is not true in - Europe where service provider portability is usually supported only - within the wireline or wireless domain, not across the - wireline/wireless boundary due to explicit use of service-specific - number range prefixes. The reason is to avoid caller confusion - about the call charge. GSM systems in Europe are assigned - distinctive destination network codes, and the caller pays a higher - charge when calling a GSM directory number. - - -5.2 Europe - - One of the following two interfaces can be used to query an NPDB: - - (a) Capability Set 1 (CS1) of the ITU-TS INAP [CS1], which is - carried on top of the protocol stack that includes the ITU-TS - MTP Levels 1 through 3, ITU-TS SCCP, and ITU-TS TCAP. - - (b) Capability Set 2 (CS2) of the ITU-TS INAP [CS2], which is - carried on top of the protocol stack that includes the ITU-TS - MTP Levels 1 through ITU-TS MTP Levels 1 through 3, ITU-TS SCCP, - and ITU-TS TCAP. - - Wireline switches have the choice of using either (a) or (b); - however, all the implementations in Europe so far are based on CS1. - As indicated earlier that number portability in Europe does not go - across the wireline/wireless boundary. The wireless switches can - also use (a) or (b) to query the NPDBs if those NPDBs contains - ported wireless directory numbers. The term "Mobile Number - Portability (MNP)" is used for the support of service provider - portability by the GSM networks in Europe. - - In most, if not all, cases in Europe, the calls to the wireless - directory numbers are routed to the wireless donor network first. - Over there, an internal NPDB is queried to determine whether the - dialed wireless directory number has been ported out or not. In - this case, the interface to the internal NPDB is not subject to - standardization. - - MNP in Europe can also be supported via MNP Signaling Relay Function - (MNP-SRF). Again, an internal NPDB or a database integrated at the - MNP-SRF is used to modify the SCCP Called Party Address parameter in - the GSM MAP messages so that they can be re-directed to the wireless - serving network. Call routing involving MNP will be explained in - Section 6.2. - - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 13] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - -6. Call Routing in the NP Environment - - This section discusses the call routing after the routing - information has been retrieved either through an NPDB query or an - internal database lookup at the donor switch, or from the Integrated - Services Digital Network User Part (ISUP) signaling message (e.g., - for the Dropback scheme). For the ACQ, QoR and Dropback schemes, it - is the Originating Network that has the routing information and is - ready to route the call. For the OR scheme, it is the donor network - that has the routing information and is ready to route the call. - - A number of triggering schemes may be employed that determine where - in the call path the NPDB query is performed. In the U.S. an ŸN-1÷ - policy is used, which essentially says that for domestic calls, the - originating local carriers performs the query, otherwise, the long - distance carrier is expected to. To ensure independence of the - actual trigger policy employed in any one carrier, forward call - signaling is used to flag that an NPDB query has already been - performed and to therefore suppress any subsequent NP triggers that - may be encountered in downstream switches, in downstream networks. - This allows the earliest able network in the call path to perform - the query without introducing additional costs and call setup delays - were redundant queries performed downstream. - - -6.1 U.S. and Canada - - In the U.S. and Canada, a ten-digit North American Numbering Plan - (NANP) number called Location Routing Number (LRN) is assigned to - every switch involved in NP. In the NANP, a switch is not reachable - unless it has a unique number range (CO code) assigned to it. - Consequently, the LRN for a switch is always assigned out of a CO - code that is assigned to that switch. - - The LRN assigned to a switch currently serving a particular ported - telephone number is returned as the network routing address in the - NPDB response. The service portability scheme that was adopted in - the North America is very often referred to as the LRN scheme or - method. - - LRN serves as a network address for terminating calls served off - that switch using ported numbers. The LRN is assigned by the switch - operator using any of the unique CO codes (NPA+NXX) assigned to that - switch. The LRN is considered a non-dialable address, as the same - 10-digit number value may be assigned to a line on that switch. A - switch may have more than one LRN. - - During call routing/processing, a switch performs an NPDB query to - obtain the LRN associated with the dialed directory number. NPDB - queries are performed for all the dialed directory numbers whose - NPA+NXX codes are marked as portable NPA+NXX at that switch. When - formulating the ISUP Initial Address Message (IAM) to be sent to the - next switch, the switch puts the ten-digit LRN in the ISUP Called - Party Number (CdPN) parameter and the originally dialed directory - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 14] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - number in the ISUP Generic Address parameter (GAP). A new code in - the GAP was defined to indicate that the address information in the - GAP is the dialed directory number. A new bit in the ISUP Forward - Call Indicator (FCI) parameter, the Ported Number Translation - Indicator (PNTI) bit, is set to imply that NPDB query has already - been performed. All the switches in the downstream will not perform - the NPDB query if the PNTI bit is set. - - When the terminating switch receives the IAM and sees the PNTI bit - in the FCI parameter set and its own LRN in the CdPN parameter, it - retrieves the originally dialed directory number from the GAP and - uses the dialed directory number to terminate the call. - - A dialed directory number with a portable NPA+NXX does not imply - that directory number has been ported. The NPDBs currently do not - store records for non-ported directory numbers. In that case, the - NPDB will return the same dialed directory number instead of the - LRN. The switch will then set the PNTI bit but keep the dialed - directory number in the CdPN parameter. - - In the real world environment, the Originating Network is not always - the one that performs the NPDB query. For example, it is usually - the long distance carriers that query the NPDBs for long distance - calls. In that case, the Originating Network operated by the local - exchange carrier (LEC) simply routes the call to the long distance - carrier that is to handle that call. A wireless network acting as - the Originating Network can also route the call to the - interconnected local exchange carrier network if it does not want to - support the NPDB interface at its mobile switches. - - -6.2 Europe - - In some European countries, a routing number is prefixed to the - dialed directory number. The ISUP CdPN parameter in the IAM will - contain the routing prefix and the dialed directory number. For - example, United Kingdom uses routing prefixes with the format of - 5XXXXX and Italy uses C600XXXXX as the routing prefix. The networks - use the information in the ISUP CdPN parameter to route the call to - the New/Current Serving Network. - - The routing prefix can identify the Current Serving Network or the - Current Serving Switch of a ported number. For the former case, - another query to the "internal" NPDB at the Current Serving Network - is required to identify the Current Serving Switch before routing - the call to that switch. This shields the Current Serving Switch - information for a ported number from the other networks at the - expense of an additional NPDB query. Another routing number, may be - meaningful within the Current Serving Network, will replace the - previously prefixed routing number in the ISUP CdPN parameter. For - the latter case, the call is routed to the Current Serving Switch - without an additional NPDB query. - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 15] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - When the terminating switch receives the IAM and sees its own - routing prefix in the CdPN parameter, it retrieves the originally - dialed directory number after the routing prefix, and uses the - dialed directory number to terminate the call. - - The call routing example described above shows one of the three - methods that can be used to transport the Directory Number (DN) and - the Routing Number (RN) in the ISUP IAM message. In addition, some - other information may be added/modified as is listed in the ETSI 302 - 097 document [ETSIISUP], which is based on the ITU-T Recommendation - Q.769.1 [ITUISUP]. The three methods and the enhancements in the - ISUP to support number portability are briefly described below - - (a) Two separate parameters with the CdPN parameter containing the - RN and a new Called Directory Number (CdDN) parameter containing - the DN. A new value for the Nature of Address (NOA) indicator in - the CdPN parameter is defined to indicate that the RN is in the - CdPN parameter. The switches use the CdPN parameter to route the - call as is done today. - - (b) Two separate parameters with the CdPN parameter containing the - DN and a new Network Routing Number (NRN) parameter containing - the RN. This method requires that the switches use the NRN - parameter to route the call. - - (c) Concatenated parameter with the CdPN parameter containing the RN - plus the DN. A new Nature of Address (NOA) indicator in the CdPN - parameter is defined to indicate that the RN is concatenated with - the DN in the CdPN parameter. Some countries may not use new NOA - value because the routing prefix does not overlap with the dialed - directory numbers. But if the routing prefix overlaps with the - dialed directory numbers, a new NOA value must be assigned. For - example, Spain uses "XXXXXX" as the routing prefix to identify - the new serving network and uses a new NOA value of 126. - - There is also a network option to add a new ISUP parameter called - Number Portability Forwarding Information parameter. This parameter - has a four-bit Number Portability Status Indicator field that can - provide an indication whether number portability query is done for - the called directory number and whether the called directory number - is ported or not if the number portability query is done. - - Please note that all those NP enhancements for a ported number can - only be used in the country that defined them. This is because - number portability is supported within a nation. Within each - nation, the telecommunications industry or the regulatory bodies can - decide which method or methods to use. Number portability related - parameters and coding are usually not passed across the national - boundaries unless the interconnection agreements allow that. For - example, a UK routing prefix can only be used in UK, and would cause - routing problem if it appears outside UK. - - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 16] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - As indicated earlier, an originating wireless network can query the - NPDB and concatenate the RN with DN in the CdPN parameter and route - the call directly to the Current Serving Network. - - If NPDBs do not contain information about the wireless directory - numbers, the call, originated from either a wireline or a wireless - network, will be routed to the Wireless donor network. Over there, - an internal NPDB is queried to retrieve the RN that then is - concatenated with the DN in the CdPN parameter. - - There are several ways of realizing MNP. When MNP-SRF is supported, - the Gateway Mobile Services Switching Center (GMSC) at the wireless - donor network, when receiving a call from the wireline network, can - send the GSM MAP Send Routing Information (SRI) message to the MNP- - SRF. The MNP-SRF interrogates an internal or integrated NPDB for - the RN of the MNP-SRF of the wireless Current Serving Network and - prefixes the RN to the dialed wireless directory number in the - global title address information in the SCCP Called Party Address - (CdPA) parameter. This SRI message will be routed to the MNP-SRF of - the wireless Current Serving Network, which then responds with an - acknowledgement by providing the RN plus the dialed wireless - directory number as the Mobile Station Roaming Number (MSRN). The - GMSC of the wireless donor network formulates the ISUP IAM with the - RN plus the dialed wireless directory number in the CdPN parameter - and routes the call to the wireless Current Serving Network. A GMSC - of the wireless Current Serving Network receives the call and sends - an SRI message to the associated MNP-SRF where the global title - address information of the SCCP CdPA parameter contains only the - dialed wireless directory number. The MNP-SRF then replaces the - global title address information in the SCCP CdPA parameter with the - address information associated with a Home Location Register (HLR) - that hosts the dialed wireless directory number and forwards the - message to that HLR after verifying that the dialed wireless - directory number is a ported-in number. The HLR then returns an - acknowledgement by providing an MSRN for the GMSC to route the call - to the MSC that currently serves the mobile station that is - associated with the dialed wireless directory number. Please see - [MNP] for details and additional scenarios. - - -7. NP Implementations for Geographic E.164 Numbers - - This section shows the known SPNP implementations worldwide. - - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Country + SPNP Implementation + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Argentina + Analyzing operative viability now. Will determine + - + + whether portability should be made obligatory + - + + after a technical solution has been determined. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Australia + NP supported by wireline operators since 11/30/99. + - + + NP among wireless operators in March/April 2000, + - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 17] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - + + but may be delayed to 1Q01. The access provider + - + + or long distance provider has the obligation to + - + + route the call to the correct destination. The + - + + donor network is obligated to maintain and make + - + + available a register of numbers ported away from + - + + its network. Telstra uses onward routing via an + - + + on-switch solution. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Austria + Uses onward routing at the donor network. Routing + - + + prefix is "86xx" where "xx" identifies the + - + + recipient network. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Belgium + ACQ selected by the industry. Routing prefix is + - + + "Cxxxx" where "xxxx" identifies the recipient + - + + switch. Another routing prefix is "C00xx" with "xx"+ - + + identifying the recipient network. Plan to use NOA+ - + + to identify concatenated numbers and abandon the + - + + hexadecimal routing prefix. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Brazil + Considering NP for wireless users. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Chile + There has been discussions lately on NP. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Colombia + There was an Article 3.1 on NP to support NP prior + - + + to December 31, 1999 when NP became technically + - + + possible. Regulator has not yet issued regulations + - + + concerning this matter. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Denmark + Uses ACQ. Routing number not passed between + - + + operators; however, NOA is set to "112" to + - + + indicate "ported number." QoR can be used based + - + + on bilateral agreements. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Finland + Uses ACQ. Routing prefix is "1Dxxy" where "xxy" + - + + identifies the recipient network and service type. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + France + Uses onward routing. Routing prefix is "Z0xxx" + - + + where "xxx" identifies the recipient switch. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Germany + The originating network needs to do necessary + - + + rerouting. Operators decide their own solution(s).+ - + + Deutsche Telekom uses ACQ. Routing prefix is + - + + "Dxxx" where "xxx" identifies the recipient + - + + network. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Hong Kong + Recipient network informs other networks about + - + + ported-in numbers. Routing prefix is "14x" where + - + + "14x" identifies the recipient network, or a + - + + routing number of "4x" plus 7 or 8 digits is used + - + + where "4x" identifies the recipient network and + - + + the rest of digits identify the called party. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Ireland + Operators choose their own solution but use onward + - + + routing now. Routing prefix is "1750" as the intra-+ - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 18] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - + + network routing code (network-specific) and + - + + "1752xxx" to "1759xxx" for GNP where "xxx" + - + + identifies the recipient switch. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Italy + Uses onward routing. Routing prefix is "C600xxxxx" + - + + where "xxxxx" identifies the recipient switch. + - + + Telecom Italia uses IN solution and other operators+ - + + use on-switch solution. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Japan + Uses onward routing. Donor switch uses IN to get + - + + routing number. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Mexico + NP is considered in the Telecom law; however, the + - + + regulator (Cofetel) or the new local entrants have + - + + started no initiatives on this process. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Netherlands + Operators decide NP scheme to use. Operators have + - + + chosen ACQ or QoR. KPN implemented IN solution + - + + similar to U.S. solution. Routing prefix is not + - + + passed between operators. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Norway + OR for short-term and ACQ for long-term. QoR is + - + + optional. Routing prefix can be "xxx" with NOA=8, + - + + or "142xx" with NOA=3 where "xxx" or "xx" + - + + identifies the recipient network. + - +------------ +----------------------------------------------------+ - + Peru + Wireline NP may be supported in 2001. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Portugal + No NP today. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Spain + Uses ACQ. Telefonica uses QoR within its network. + - + + Routing prefix is "xxyyzz" where "xxyyzz" + - + + identifies the recipient network. NOA is set to + - + + 126. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Sweden + Standardized the ACQ but OR for operators without + - + + IN. Routing prefix is "xxx" with NOA=8 or "394xxx" + - + + with NOA=3 where "xxx" identifies the recipient + - + + network. But operators decide NP scheme to use. + - + + Telia uses onward routing between operators. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + Switzerland + Uses OR now and QoR in 2001. Routing prefix is + - + + "980xxx" where "xxx" identifies the recipient + - + + network. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + UK + Uses onward routing. Routing prefix is "5xxxxx" + - + + where "xxxxx" identifies the recipient switch. NOA + - + + is 126. BT uses the dropback scheme in some parts + - + + of its network. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - + US + Uses ACQ. "Location Routing Number (LRN)" is used + - + + in the Called Party Number parameter. Called party+ - + + number is carried in the Generic Address Parameter + - + + Use a PNTI indicator in the Forward Call Indicator + - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 19] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - + + parameter to indicate that NPDB dip has been + - + + performed. + - +-------------+----------------------------------------------------+ - - -8. Number Conservation Methods Enabled by NP - - In addition to porting numbers NP provides the ability for number - administrators to assign numbering resources to operators in smaller - increments. Today it is common for numbering resources to be - assigned to telephone operators in a large block of consecutive - telephone numbers (TNs). For example, in North America each of - these blocks contains 10,000 TNs and is of the format NXX+0000 to - NXX+9999. Operators are assigned a specific NXX, or block. That - operator is referred to as the block holder. In that block there - are 10,000 TNs with line numbers ranging from 0000 to 9999. - - Instead of assigning an entire block to the operator NP allows the - administrator to assign a sub-block or even an individual telephone - number. This is referred to as block pooling and individual - telephone number (ITN) pooling, respectively. - - -8.1 Block Pooling - - Block Pooling refers to the process whereby the number administrator - assigns a range of numbers defined by a logical sub-block of the - existing block. Using North America as an example, block pooling - would allow the administrator to assign sub-blocks of 1,000 TNs to - multiple operators. That is, NXX+0000 to NXX+0999 can be assigned - to operator A, NXX+1000 to NXX+1999 can be assigned to operator B, - NXX-2000 to 2999 can be assigned to operator C, etc. In this - example block pooling divides one block of 10,000 TNs into ten - blocks of 1,000 TNs. - - Porting the sub-blocks from the block holder enables block pooling. - Using the example above operator A is the block holder, as well as, - the holder of the first sub-block, NXX+0000 to NXX+0999. The second - sub-block, NXX+1000 to NXX+1999, is ported from operator A to - operator B. The third sub-block, NXX+2000 to NXX+2999, is ported - from operator A to operator C, and so on. NP administrative - processes and call processing will enable proper and efficient - routing. - - From a number administration and NP administration perspective block - pooling introduces a new concept, that of the sub-block holder. - Block pooling requires coordination between the number - administrator, the NP administrator, the block holder, and the sub- - block holder. Block pooling must be implemented in a manner that - allows for NP within the sub-blocks. Each TN can have a different - serving operator, sub-block holder, and block holder. - - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 20] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - -8.2 ITN Pooling - - ITN pooling refers to the process whereby the number administrator - assigns individual telephone numbers to operators. Using the North - American example, one block of 10,000 TNs can be divided into 10,000 - ITNs. ITN is more commonly deployed in freephone services. - - In ITN the block is not assigned to an operator but to a central - administrator. The administrator then assigns ITNs to operators. - NP administrative processes and call processing will enable proper - and efficient routing. - - -9. Potential Implications - - There are three general areas of impact to IP telephony work-in- - progress at IETF: - - - Interoperation between NP in GSTN and IP telephony - - NP implementation or emulation in IP telephony - - Interconnection to NP administrative environment - - A good understanding of how number portability is supported in the - GSTN is important when addressing the interworking issues between - IP-based networks and the GSTN. This is especially important when - the IP-based network needs to route the calls to the GSTN. As shown - in Section 5, there are a variety of standards with various protocol - stacks for the switch-to-NPDB interface. Not only that, the - national variations of the protocol standards make it very - complicated to deal with in a global environment. If an entity in - the IP-based network needs to query those existing NPDBs for routing - number information to terminate the calls to the destination GSTN, - it would be impractical, if not an impossible, job for that entity - to support all those interface standards to access the NPDBs in many - countries. - - Several alternatives may address this particular problem. One - alternative is to use certain entities in the IP-based networks for - dealing with NP query, similar to the International Switches that - are used in the GSTN to interwork different national ISUP - variations. This will force signaling information associated with - the calls to certain NP-capable networks in the terminating GSTN to - be routed to those IP entities that support the NP functions. Those - IP entities then query the NPDBs in the terminating country. This - will limit the number of NPDB interfaces that certain IP entities - need to support. Another alternative can be to define a "common" - interface to be supported by all the NPDBs so that all the IP - entities use that standardized protocol to query them. The - existing NPDBs can support this additional interface, or new NPDBs - can be deployed that contain the same information but support the - common IP interface. The candidates for such a common interface - include Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and SIP - [SIP](e.g., using the SIP redirection capability). Certainly - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 21] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - another possibility is to use interworking function to convert from - one protocol to another. - - IP-based networks can handle the domestic calls between two GSTNs. - If the originating GSTN has performed NPDB query, SIP will need to - transport and make use of some of the ISUP signaling information - even if ISUP signaling may be encapsulated in SIP. Also, IP-based - networks may perform the NPDB queries, as the N-1 carrier. In that - case, SIP also needs to transport the NP related information while - the call is being routed to the destination GSTN. There are three - pieces of NP related information that SIP needs to transport. They - are 1) the called directory number, 2) a routing number, and 3) a - NPDB dip indicator. The NPDB dip indicator is needed so that the - terminating GSTN will not perform another NPDB dip. The routing - number is needed so that it is used to route the call to the - destination network or switch in the destination GSTN. The called - directory number is needed so that the terminating GSTN switch can - terminate the call. When the routing number is present, the NPDB - dip indicator may not be present because there are cases where - routing number is added for routing the call even if NP is not - involved. One issue is how to transport the NP related information - via SIP. The SIP Universal Resource Locator (URL) is one mechanism. - Another better choice may be to add an extension to the "tel" URL - [TEL] that is also supported by SIP. Please see [TELNP] for the - proposed extensions to the "tel" URL to support NP and freephone - service. Those extensions to the "tel" URL will be automatically - supported by SIP because they can be carried as the optional - parameters in the user portion of the "sip" URL. - - For a called directory number that belongs to a country that - supports NP, and if the IP-based network is to perform the NPDB - query, the logical step is to perform the NPDB dip first to retrieve - the routing number and use that routing number to select the correct - IP telephony gateways that can reach the serving switch that serves - the called directory number. Therefore, if the "rn" parameter is - present in the "tel" URL or sip URL in the SIP INVITE message, it - instead of the called directory number should be used for making - routing decisions assuming that no other higher priority routing- - related parameters such as the Ÿcic÷ are present. If "rn" is not - present, then the dialed directory number can be used as the routing - number for making routing decisions. - - Telephony Routing Information Protocol (TRIP) [TRIP] is a policy - driven inter-administrative domain protocol for advertising the - reachability of telephony destinations between location servers, and - for advertising attributes of the routes to those destinations. - With the NP in mind, it is very important to know that it is the - routing number, if present, not the called directory number that - should be used to check against the TRIP tables for making the - routing decisions. - - Overlap signaling exists in the GSTN today. For a call routing from - the originating GSTN to the IP-based network that involves overlap - signaling, NP will impact the call processing within the IP-based - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 22] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - networks if they must deal with the overlap signaling. The entities - in the IP-based networks that are to retrieve the NP information - (e.g., the routing number) must collect a complete called directory - number information before retrieving the NP information for a ported - number. Otherwise, the information retrieval won't be successful. - This is an issue for the IP-based networks if the originating GSTN - does not handle the overlap signaling by collecting the complete - called directory number. - - The IETF enum working group is defining the use of Domain Name - System (DNS) for identifying available services associated with a - particular E.164 number [ENUM]. [ENUMPO] outlines the principles - for the operation of a telephone number service that resolves - telephone numbers into Internet domain name addresses and service- - specific directory discovery. [ENUMPO] implements a three-level - approach where the first level is the mapping of the telephone - number delegation tree to the authority to which the number has been - delegated, the second level is the provision of the requested DNS - resource records from a service registrar, and the third level is - the provision of service specific data from the service provider - itself. NP certainly must be considered at the first level because - the telephony service providers do not "own" or control the - telephone numbers under the NP environment; therefore, they may not - be the proper entities to have the authority for a given E.164 - number. Not only that, there is a regulatory requirement on NP in - some countries that the donor network should not be relied on to - reach the delegated authority during the DNS process . The - delegated authority for a given E.164 number is likely to be an - entity designated by the end user that owns/controls a specific - telephone number or one that is designated by the service registrar. - - Since the telephony service providers may have the need to use ENUM - for their network-related services (e.g., map an E.164 number to a - HLR Identifier in the wireless networks), their ENUM records must be - collocated with those of the telephony subscribers. If that is the - case, NP will impact ENUM when a telephony subscriber who has ENUM - service changes the telephony service provider. This is because - that the ENUM records from the new telephony service provider must - replace those from the old telephony service provider. To avoid the - NP impact on ENUM, it is recommended that the telephony service - providers use a different domain tree for their network-related - service. For example, if e164.arpa is chosen for Ÿend user÷ ENUM, a - domain tree different from e164.arpa should be used for Ÿcarrier÷ - ENUM. - - The IP-based networks also may need to support some forms of number - portability in the future if E.164 numbers [E164] are assigned to - the IP-based end users. One method is to assign a GSTN routing - number for each IP-based network domain or entity in a NP-capable - country. This may increase the number of digits in the routing - number to incorporate the IP entities and impact the existing - routing in the GSTN. Another method is to associate each IP entity - with a particular GSTN gateway. At that particular GSTN gateway, - the called directory number then is used to locate the IP-entity - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 23] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview June 24, 2002 - - that serves that dialed directory number. Yet, another method can - be to assign a special routing number so that the call to an end - user currently served by an IP entity is routed to the nearest GSTN - gateway. The called directory number then is used to locate the IP- - entity that serves that dialed directory number. A mechanism can be - developed or used for the IP-based network to locate the IP entity - that serves a particular dialed directory number. Many other types - of networks use E.164 numbers to identify the end users or terminals - in those networks. Number portability among GSTN, IP-based network - and those various types of networks may also need to be supported in - the future. - - -10. Security Considerations - - This document does not raise any security issues. - - -11. IANA Considerations - - This document introduces no new values for IANA registration. - - -12. Normative References - - [ANSI OSS] ANSI Technical Requirements No. 1, "Number Portability - - Operator Services Switching Systems," April 1999. - - [ANSI SS] ANSI Technical Requirements No. 2, "Number Portability - - Switching Systems," April 1999. - - [ANSI DB] ANSI Technical Requirements No. 3, "Number Portability - Database and Global Title Translation," April 1999. - - [CS1] ITU-T Q-series Recommendations - Supplement 4, "Number - portability Capability set 1 requirements for service provider - portability (All call query and onward routing)," May 1998. - - [CS2] ITU-T Q-series Recommendations - Supplement 5, "Number - portability -Capability set 2 requirements for service provider - portability (Query on release and Dropback)," March 1999. - - [E164] ITU-T Recommendation E.164, "The International Public - Telecommunications Numbering Plan," 1997. - - [ENUM] P. Falstrom, "E.164 number and DNS," RFC 2916. - - [ETSIISUP] ETSI EN 302 097 V.1.2.2, ŸIntegrated Services Digital - Network (ISDN); Signalling System No.7 (SS7); ISDN User Part - (ISUP); Enhancement for support of Number Portability (NP) - [ITU-T Recommendation Q.769.1 (2000), modified] - - [GSM] GSM 09.02: "Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase - 2+); Mobile Application Part (MAP) specification". - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on December 23, 2002 [Page 24] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview March 1, 2002 - - - - [IS41] TIA/EIA IS-756 Rev. A, "TIA/EIA-41-D Enhancements for - Wireless Number Portability Phase II (December 1998)"Number - Portability Network Support," April 1998. - - [ITUISUP] ITU-T Recommendation Q.769.1, "Signaling System No. 7 - - ISDN User Part Enhancements for the Support of Number - Portability," December 1999. - - [MNP] ETSI EN 301 716 (2000-10) European Standard - (Telecommunications series) Digital cellular telecommunications - system (Phase 2+); Support of Mobile Number Portability (MNP); - Technical Realisation; Stage 2; (GSM 03.66 Version 7.2.0 - Release 1998). - - [RFC] Scott Bradner, RFC2026, "The Internet Standards Process -- - Revision 3," October 1996. - - -13. Informative References - - [ENUMPO] A. Brown and G. Vaudreuil, "ENUM Service Specific - Provisioning: Principles of Operations," draft-ietf-enum- - operation-02.txt, February 23, 2001. - - [SIP] J. Rosenberg, et al., draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-09.txt, "SIP: - Session Initiation Protocol," February 27, 2002. - - [TEL] H. Schulzrinne and A. Vaha-Sipila, draft-antti-rfc2806bis- - 04.txt, "URIs for Telephone Calls," May 24, 2002. - - [TELNP] J. Yu, draft-yu-tel-url-05.txt, "Extensions to the "tel" URL - to support Number Portability and Freephone Service," June 14, - 2002. - - [TRIP] J. Rosenberg, H. Salama and M. Squire, RFC 3219, "Telephony - Routing Information Protocol (TRIP)," January 2002. - - -14. Acknowledgment - - The authors would like to thank Monika Muench for providing - information on ISUP and MNP. - - -15. Authors' Addresses - - Mark D. Foster - NeuStar, Inc. - 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, - Suite 400 - Washington, D.C. 20005 - United States - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on August 31, 2002 [Page 25] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview March 1, 2002 - - - - Phone: +1-202-533-2800 - Fax: +1-202-533-2987 - Email: mark.foster@neustar.biz - - Tom McGarry - NeuStar, Inc. - 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, - Suite 400 - Washington, D.C. 20005 - United States - - Phone: +1-202-533-2810 - Fax: +1-202-533-2987 - Email: tom.mcgarry@neustar.biz - - James Yu - NeuStar, Inc. - 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, - Suite 400 - Washington, D.C. 20005 - United States - - Phone: +1-202-533-2814 - Fax: +1-202-533-2987 - Email: james.yu@neustar.biz - - - -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. - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on August 31, 2002 [Page 26] - -Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview March 1, 2002 - - - 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Foster,McGarry,Yu Expired on August 31, 2002 [Page 27] - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2d5c87eb3ca..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1200 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) -Internet-Draft Nokia - January 14, 2004 - -Expires: July 14, 2004 - - - - IPv6 Node Requirements - draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt - - - - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. - -Abstract - - This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected - that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. - Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function - well and interoperate in a large number of situations and - deployments. - - - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 1] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction - 1.1 Requirement Language - 1.2 Scope of this Document - 1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes - 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document - 3. Sub-IP Layer - 3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464 - 3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472 - 3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492 - 4. IP Layer - 4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460 - 4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 - 4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size - 4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463 - 4.5 Addressing - 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 - 5. Transport and DNS - 5.1 Transport Layer - 5.2 DNS - 5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - 6. IPv4 Support and Transition - 6.1 Transition Mechanisms - 7. Mobility - 8. Security - 8.1 Basic Architecture - 8.2 Security Protocols - 8.3 Transforms and Algorithms - 8.4 Key Management Methods - 9. Router Functionality - 9.1 General - 10. Network Management - 10.1 MIBs - 11. Security Considerations - 12. References - 12.1 Normative - 12.2 Non-Normative - 13. Authors and Acknowledgements - 14. Editor's Address - Notices - - - - - - - - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 2] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - -1. Introduction - - The goal of this document is to define the common functionality - required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will - implement optional or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be - expected to implement the mandatory requirements listed in this - document. - - This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and - references RFCs for this purpose. In case of any conflicting text, - this document takes less precedence than the normative RFCs, unless - additional clarifying text is included in this document. - - Although the document points to different specifications, it should - be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are - smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define - multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory. - - As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact - usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is - that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: - - Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from - others [RFC-793]. - -1.1 Requirement Language - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119]. - -1.2 Scope of this Document - - IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be - deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, - it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes, in order - to ensure interoperability. - - This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum - requirements specified here. - -1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes - - From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we - have the following definitions: - - Description of an IPv6 Node - - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 3] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - - a device that implements IPv6 - - Description of an IPv6 router - - - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to - itself. - - Description of an IPv6 Host - - - any node that is not a router. - -2. Abbreviations Used in This Document - - ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode - - AH Authentication Header - - DAD Duplicate Address Detection - - ESP Encapsulating Security Payload - - ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol - - IKE Internet Key Exchange - - MIB Management Information Base - - MLD Multicast Listener Discovery - - MTU Maximum Transfer Unit - - NA Neighbor Advertisement - - NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access - - ND Neighbor Discovery - - NS Neighbor Solicitation - - NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection - - PPP Point-to-Point Protocol - - PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit - - SVC Switched Virtual Circuit - -3. Sub-IP Layer - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 4] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer - specifications. Which link-layer specifications are included will - depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available - on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support - IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others. - - As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new - specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major - layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete. - -3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464 - - Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464]. - -3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472 - - Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP [RFC- - 2472]. - -3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492 - - Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM - Networks [RFC-2492]. Additionally, RFC 2492 states: - - A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode - of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode - SHALL also support PVC mode of operation. - -4. IP Layer - -4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460 - - The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This - specification MUST be supported. - - Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options - extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460. - - The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. - - Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive and process fragment - headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of - sending and receving IPv6 packets; forwarding functionality MAY be - supported - - RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these - headers. - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 5] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the - following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0), - Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating - Security Payload. [RFC-2460] - - An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be - noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers - and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused by them. - -4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 - - Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC 2461 states: - - "Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating - IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link - types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of - its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA - links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those - services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering - the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services - described in this document that are not directly dependent on - multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor - Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as - specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on - NBMA links is an area for further study." - - Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows: - - Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an - attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for - implementations. - - Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes - that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link. - Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. Neighbor - Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths - between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths - between routers. However, when a node receives a unicast Neighbor - Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST - respond to it (i.e. send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement). - - Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting - link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take - place on all unicast addresses). - - A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations. - - Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 6] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - host implementations. The ability to understand specific Router - Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the specification - where the RA is specified. - - Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor - Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required - for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). - - Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router, - Redirect functionality MUST be supported. - -4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size - -4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 - - Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal - implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets. - The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and - reassembly. - -4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675 - - IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] MAY be supported. - -4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463 - - ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported. - -4.5 Addressing - -4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513 - - The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported. - -4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462 - - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462]. - This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts. - - Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses - as described in RFC 2462 [RFC-2462]. - - From 2462: - - The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies - only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses - information advertised by routers, routers will need to be - configured by some other means. However, it is expected that - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 7] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism - described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to - successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure - described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning - them to an interface. - - Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported. - -4.5.3 Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC3041 - - Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041] - SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be - configurable on a connection basis within each application when - available. It is noted that a number of applications do not work - with addresses generated with this method, while other applications - work quite well with them. - -4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484 - - The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC- - 3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes - will need to deal with multiple addresses. - -4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration - - Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 [RFC- - 3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see - section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support. - - Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be - unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses - when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed - address configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised - for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). - Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration - information such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected - to a link over which the node receives a router advertisement in - which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") is set. - -4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 - - Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 - [MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications, which only need - support for Any- Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement - MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications, which need - support for Source- Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node - MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2]. - - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 8] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the - Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be - followed. - -5. Transport Layer and DNS - -5.1 Transport Layer - -5.1.1 TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2147 - - This specification MUST be supported if jumbograms are implemented - [RFC- 2675]. - -5.2 DNS - - DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363] - and [RFC-3596] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve - names. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub- - resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with - support for: - - - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596]; - - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152]; - - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 - octets. - - Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extentions - [DNSSEC- INTRO], [DNSSEC-REC] and [DNSSEC-PROT]. - - Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and - DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363]. - -5.2.2 Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's - RFC2732 - - RFC 2732 MUST be supported if applications on the node use URL's. - -5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315 - -5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration - - Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP - to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon - receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as described - in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. In addition, in the absence of a - router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment MUST - initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration - information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 - nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M' - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 9] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - flag in Router Advertisements. - -5.3.2 Other Configuration Information - - Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration - information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon - receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described - in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP - for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router - Advertisements. - - An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] to - obtain other configuration information. - -6. IPv4 Support and Transition - - IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. - -6.1 Transition Mechanisms - -6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893 - - If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then RFC2893 - MUST be supported. - - RFC 2893 is currently being updated. - -7. Mobile IP - - The Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] specification defines requirements for the - following types of nodes: - - - mobile nodes - - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization - - home agents - - all IPv6 routers - - Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5 - of [MIPv6], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-2473] - and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC]. - - Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for - correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [MIPv6]. - - Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for - all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [MIPv6]. Routers MAY - support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of - [MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC]. - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 10] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - -8. Security - - This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node. - -8.1 Basic Architecture - - Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] MUST be - supported. RFC-2401 is being updated by the IPsec Working Group. - -8.2 Security Protocols - - ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported. - RFC- 2406 and RFC 2402 are being updated by the IPsec Working Group. - - -8.3 Transforms and Algorithms - - Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of certain transforms and - algorithms, NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96. - The requirements for these are discussed first, and then additional - algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed. - - NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing - integrity service and also for debugging use. - - The "ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV" [RFC-2405] SHOULD - NOT be supported. Security issues related to the use of DES are - discussed in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. It is still listed as - required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but as it is currently viewed as - an inherently weak algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended - role. - - The NULL authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be supported within - ESP. The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within AH and ESP, described in [RFC- - 2404] MUST be supported. The use of HMAC-MD5-96 within AH and ESP, - described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. An implementer MUST refer - to Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104]. - - 3DES-CBC does not suffer from the issues related to DES-CBC. 3DES-CBC - and ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] MAY be supported. AES- - CBC Cipher Algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST be supported, as it is expected - to be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for - interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, but - is expected to become required in the future. - - In addition to the above requirements, "Cryptographic Algorithm - Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the - current set of mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH as - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 11] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - well as specifying algorithms that should be implemented because they - may be promoted to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED - that IPv6 nodes conform to the requirements in this document. - -8.4 Key Management Methods - - Manual keying MUST be supported. - - IKE [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast - traffic. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or - on- demand creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, - automated keying MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working - on the successor to IKE [IKE2]. Key management methods for multicast - traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG. - - "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the Internet Key Exchange - Version 2" [IKEv2ALGO] defines the current set of mandatory to - implement algorithms for use of IKEv2 as well as specifying - algorithms that should be implemented because they made be promoted - to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 nodes - implementing IKEv2 conform to the requirements in this - document. - -9. Router-Specific Functionality - - This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that - act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- - specific requirements. - -9.1 General - -9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711 - - - The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by- - Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., - RSVP [RFC- 2205], or MLD [RFC-2710]). The Router Alert option will - need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are - implemented. See Section 4.6. - -9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 - - Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST - be supported. - -10. Network Management - - Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 12] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only - possibility to control these nodes. - -10.1 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) - - The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an - SNMP agent. - -10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB - - IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-2096BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes - that support an SNMP agent. - -10.1.2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) - - IP MIB [RFC-2011BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an - SNMP agent. - -11. Security Considerations - - This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but - implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of - security features to ensure security on the Internet. "IP Security - Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read. - - The security considerations in RFC2460 describe the following: - - The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security - Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401]. - -12. References - -12.1 Normative - - [CRYPTREQ] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementa- - tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec- - esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 2004. - - [IKEv2ALGO] J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the - Internet Key Exchange Version 2", draft-ietf-ipsec- - ikev2-algorithms-04.txt, Work in Progress. - - [DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 - Service", draft- ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt, - Work in Progress. - - [MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support - in IPv6", draft- ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work in - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 13] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - progress. - - [MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec - to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes - and Home Agents", draft-ietf- mobileip-mipv6-ha- - ipsec-06.txt, Work in Progress. - - [MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version - 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-07.txt, Work in - Progress. - - [RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU - Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. - - [RFC-2096BIS] Haberman, B. and Wasserman, M., "IP Forwarding Table - MIB", draft-ietf- ipv6-rfc2096-update-07.txt, Work in - Progress. - - [RFC-2011BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the - Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011- - update-07.txt, Work in progress. - - [RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC: - Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, - February 1997. - - [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for - the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. - - [RFC-2402] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication - Header", RFC 2402, November 1998. - - [RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within - ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998. - - [RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1 - within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. - - [RFC-2405] Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher - Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998. - - [RFC-2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 14] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. - - [RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of - Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998. - - [RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner, - J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management - Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998. - - [RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key - Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998. - - [RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm - and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998. - - [RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher - Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998. - - [RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver- - sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. - - [RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor - Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December - 1998. - - [RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address - Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462. - - [RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Pro- - tocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998. - - [RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC - 2472, December 1998. - - [RFC-2473] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling - in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. Xxx - add - - [RFC-2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC - 2671, August 1999. - - [RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast - Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October - 1999. - - [RFC-2711] Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert - Option", RFC 2711, October 1999. - - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 15] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - [RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for - Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC - 3041, January 2001. - - [RFC-3152] Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", RFC 3152, August - 2001. - - [RFC-3315] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol - for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. - - [RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver- - sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System - (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. - - [RFC-3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC - 3484, February 2003. - - [RFC-3513] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing - Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. - - [RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multi- - cast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, - September 2003. - - [RFC-3596] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP - version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003. - - [RFC-3602] S. Frankel, "The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use - with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003. - -12.2 Non-Normative - - [ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast", - draft-ietf- ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt, Work in - Progress. - - [DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of - DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4, Jan - 1991. - - [DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA 2000. - - [DESINT] Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without - Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF, Danvers, - MA, April 1995. - - [DHCPv6-SL] Droms, R., "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Ser- - vice", draft- ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt, Work in - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 16] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - Progress. - - [DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, - S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements" draft- - ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro- 06.txt, Work in Progress. - - [DNSSEC-REC] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, - S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec- records-04.txt, Work in Pro- - gress. - - [DNSSEC-PROT] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, - S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Exten- - sions", draft-ietf-dnsext- dnssec-protocol-02.txt, Work - in Progress. - - [IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto- - col", draft-ietf- ipsec-ikev2-10.txt, Work in Progress. - - [IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home - Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security- - 03.txt, Work in Progress, March 2002. - - [MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu- - rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sympo- - sium on Network and Distributed System Security", Febru- - ary 1995, pp.2-16. - - [RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, - August 1980. - - [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili- - ties", RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [RFC-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147, - May 1997. - - [RFC-2205] Braden, B. (ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and - S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", RFC - 2205, September 1997. - - [RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet - Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998. - - [RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over - ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. - - [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 17] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999. - - [RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal - IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999. - - [RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder, - "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC - 2851, June 2000. - - [RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for - IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000. - - [RFC-3569] S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific - Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. - - [SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", - draft-ietf- ssm-arch-03.txt, Work in Progress. - -13. Authors and Acknowledgements - - This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team: - - Jari Arkko - [jari.arkko@ericsson.com] - - Marc Blanchet - [marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] - - Samita Chakrabarti - [samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com] - - Alain Durand - [alain.durand@sun.com] - - Gerard Gastaud - [gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr] - - Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino - [itojun@iijlab.net] - - Atsushi Inoue - [inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] - - Masahiro Ishiyama - [masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] - - John Loughney - [john.loughney@nokia.com] - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 18] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - Rajiv Raghunarayan - [raraghun@cisco.com] - - Shoichi Sakane - [shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com] - - Dave Thaler - [dthaler@windows.microsoft.com] - - Juha Wiljakka - [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com] - - The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car- - penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, - Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments. - -14. Editor's Contact Information - - Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the - IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipv6@ietf.org) or to: - - John Loughney - Nokia Research Center - Itamerenkatu 11-13 - 00180 Helsinki - Finland - - Phone: +358 50 483 6242 - Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com - -Notices - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to per- - tain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this - document or the extent to which any license under such rights might - or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made - any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's - procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards- - related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of - rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses - to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a - general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights - by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from - the IETF Secretariat. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 19] - - - - - -Internet-Draft - - - rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive - Director. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Loughney (editor) February 16, 2004 [Page 20] - - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt deleted file mode 100644 index a272d81b0a6..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,614 +0,0 @@ -Secure Shell Working Group J. Schlyter -Internet-Draft OpenSSH -Expires: March 5, 2004 W. Griffin - SPARTA - September 5, 2003 - - - Using DNS to Securely Publish SSH Key Fingerprints - draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other - groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - 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. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2004. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. - -Abstract - - This document describes a method to verify SSH host keys using - DNSSEC. The document defines a new DNS resource record that contains - a standard SSH key fingerprint. - - - - - - - - - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. SSH Host Key Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2.1 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2.2 Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2.3 Fingerprint Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.4 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. The SSHFP Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.1 The SSHFP RDATA Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1.1 Algorithm Number Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1.2 Fingerprint Type Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1.3 Fingerprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.2 Presentation Format of the SSHFP RR . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - -1. Introduction - - The SSH [6] protocol provides secure remote login and other secure - network services over an insecure network. The security of the - connection relies on the server authenticating itself to the client - as well as the user authenticating itself to the server. - - If a connection is established to a server whose public key is not - already known to the client, a fingerprint of the key is presented to - the user for verification. If the user decides that the fingerprint - is correct and accepts the key, the key is saved locally and used for - verification for all following connections. While some - security-conscious users verify the fingerprint out-of-band before - accepting the key, many users blindly accept the presented key. - - The method described here can provide out-of-band verification by - looking up a fingerprint of the server public key in the DNS [1][2] - and using DNSSEC [5] to verify the lookup. - - In order to distribute the fingerprint using DNS, this document - defines a new DNS resource record, "SSHFP", to carry the fingerprint. - - Basic understanding of the DNS system [1][2] and the DNS security - extensions [5] is assumed by this document. - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3]. - -2. SSH Host Key Verification - -2.1 Method - - Upon connection to a SSH server, the SSH client MAY look up the SSHFP - resource record(s) for the host it is connecting to. If the - algorithm and fingerprint of the key received from the SSH server - match the algorithm and fingerprint of one of the SSHFP resource - record(s) returned from DNS, the client MAY accept the identity of - the server. - -2.2 Implementation Notes - - Client implementors SHOULD provide a configurable policy used to - select the order of methods used to verify a host key. This document - defines one method: Fingerprint storage in DNS. Another method - defined in the SSH Architecture [6] uses local files to store keys - for comparison. Other methods that could be defined in the future - might include storing fingerprints in LDAP or other databases. A - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - - configurable policy will allow administrators to determine which - methods they want to use and in what order the methods should be - prioritized. This will allow administrators to determine how much - trust they want to place in the different methods. - - One specific scenario for having a configurable policy is where - clients do not use fully qualified host names to connect to servers. - In this scenario, the implementation SHOULD verify the host key - against a local database before verifying the key via the fingerprint - returned from DNS. This would help prevent an attacker from injecting - a DNS search path into the local resolver and forcing the client to - connect to a different host. - -2.3 Fingerprint Matching - - The public key and the SSHFP resource record are matched together by - comparing algorithm number and fingerprint. - - The public key algorithm and the SSHFP algorithm number MUST - match. - - A message digest of the public key, using the message digest - algorithm specified in the SSHFP fingerprint type, MUST match the - SSHFP fingerprint. - - -2.4 Authentication - - A public key verified using this method MUST NOT be trusted if the - SSHFP resource record (RR) used for verification was not - authenticated by a trusted SIG RR. - - Clients that do validate the DNSSEC signatures themselves SHOULD use - standard DNSSEC validation procedures. - - Clients that do not validate the DNSSEC signatures themselves MUST - use a secure transport, e.g. TSIG [9], SIG(0) [10] or IPsec [8], - between themselves and the entity performing the signature - validation. - -3. The SSHFP Resource Record - - The SSHFP resource record (RR) is used to store a fingerprint of a - SSH public host key that is associated with a Domain Name System - (DNS) name. - - The RR type code for the SSHFP RR is TBA. - - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - -3.1 The SSHFP RDATA Format - - The RDATA for a SSHFP RR consists of an algorithm number, fingerprint - type and the fingerprint of the public host key. - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | algorithm | fp type | / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / - / / - / fingerprint / - / / - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - -3.1.1 Algorithm Number Specification - - This algorithm number octet describes the algorithm of the public - key. The following values are assigned: - - Value Algorithm name - ----- -------------- - 0 reserved - 1 RSA - 2 DSS - - Reserving other types requires IETF consensus [4]. - -3.1.2 Fingerprint Type Specification - - The fingerprint type octet describes the message-digest algorithm - used to calculate the fingerprint of the public key. The following - values are assigned: - - Value Fingerprint type - ----- ---------------- - 0 reserved - 1 SHA-1 - - Reserving other types requires IETF consensus [4]. - - For interoperability reasons, as few fingerprint types as possible - should be reserved. The only reason to reserve additional types is - to increase security. - -3.1.3 Fingerprint - - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - - The fingerprint is calculated over the public key blob as described - in [7]. - - The message-digest algorithm is presumed to produce an opaque octet - string output which is placed as-is in the RDATA fingerprint field. - -3.2 Presentation Format of the SSHFP RR - - The RDATA of the presentation format of the SSHFP resource record - consists of two numbers (algorithm and fingerprint type) followed by - the fingerprint itself presented in hex, e.g: - - host.example. SSHFP 2 1 123456789abcdef67890123456789abcdef67890 - - The use of mnemonics instead of numbers is not allowed. - -4. Security Considerations - - Currently, the amount of trust a user can realistically place in a - server key is proportional to the amount of attention paid to - verifying that the public key presented actually corresponds to the - private key of the server. If a user accepts a key without verifying - the fingerprint with something learned through a secured channel, the - connection is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. - - The overall security of using SSHFP for SSH host key verification is - dependent on the security policies of the SSH host administrator and - DNS zone administrator (in transferring the fingerprint), detailed - aspects of how verification is done in the SSH implementation, and in - the client's diligence in accessing the DNS in a secure manner. - - One such aspect is in which order fingerprints are looked up (e.g. - first checking local file and then SSHFP). We note that in addition - to protecting the first-time transfer of host keys, SSHFP can - optionally be used for stronger host key protection. - - If SSHFP is checked first, new SSH host keys may be distributed by - replacing the corresponding SSHFP in DNS. - - If SSH host key verification can be configured to require SSHFP, - SSH host key revocation can be implemented by removing the - corresponding SSHFP from DNS. - - As stated in Section 2.2, we recommend that SSH implementors provide - a policy mechanism to control the order of methods used for host key - verification. One specific scenario for having a configurable policy - is where clients use unqualified host names to connect to servers. In - this case, we recommend that SSH implementations check the host key - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - - against a local database before verifying the key via the fingerprint - returned from DNS. This would help prevent an attacker from injecting - a DNS search path into the local resolver and forcing the client to - connect to a different host. - - A different approach to solve the DNS search path issue would be for - clients to use a trusted DNS search path, i.e., one not acquired - through DHCP or other autoconfiguration mechanisms. Since there is no - way with current DNS lookup APIs to tell whether a search path is - from a trusted source, the entire client system would need to be - configured with this trusted DNS search path. - - Another dependency is on the implementation of DNSSEC itself. As - stated in Section 2.4, we mandate the use of secure methods for - lookup and that SSHFP RRs are authenticated by trusted SIG RRs. This - is especially important if SSHFP is to be used as a basis for host - key rollover and/or revocation, as described above. - - Since DNSSEC only protects the integrity of the host key fingerprint - after it is signed by the DNS zone administrator, the fingerprint - must be transferred securely from the SSH host administrator to the - DNS zone administrator. This could be done manually between the - administrators or automatically using secure DNS dynamic update [11] - between the SSH server and the nameserver. We note that this is no - different from other key enrollment situations, e.g. a client sending - a certificate request to a certificate authority for signing. - -5. IANA Considerations - - IANA needs to allocate a RR type code for SSHFP from the standard RR - type space (type 44 requested). - - IANA needs to open a new registry for the SSHFP RR type for public - key algorithms. Defined types are: - - 0 is reserved - 1 is RSA - 2 is DSA - - Adding new reservations requires IETF consensus [4]. - - IANA needs to open a new registry for the SSHFP RR type for - fingerprint types. Defined types are: - - 0 is reserved - 1 is SHA-1 - - Adding new reservations requires IETF consensus [4]. - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - -Normative References - - [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD - 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement - Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [4] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA - Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. - - [5] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC - 2535, March 1999. - - [6] Ylonen, T., Kivinen, T., Saarinen, M., Rinne, T. and S. - Lehtinen, "SSH Protocol Architecture", - draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-14 (work in progress), July 2003. - - [7] Ylonen, T., Kivinen, T., Saarinen, M., Rinne, T. and S. - Lehtinen, "SSH Transport Layer Protocol", - draft-ietf-secsh-transport-16 (work in progress), July 2003. - -Informational References - - [8] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N. and R. Glenn, "IP Security Document - Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998. - - [9] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. Wellington, - "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC - 2845, May 2000. - - [10] Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( - SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000. - - [11] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic - Update", RFC 3007, November 2000. - - - - - - - - - - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - -Authors' Addresses - - Jakob Schlyter - OpenSSH - 812 23rd Avenue SE - Calgary, Alberta T2G 1N8 - Canada - - EMail: jakob@openssh.com - URI: http://www.openssh.com/ - - - Wesley Griffin - SPARTA - 7075 Samuel Morse Drive - Columbia, MD 21046 - USA - - EMail: wgriffin@sparta.com - URI: http://www.sparta.com/ - -Appendix A. Acknowledgements - - The authors gratefully acknowledge, in no particular order, the - contributions of the following persons: - - Martin Fredriksson - - Olafur Gudmundsson - - Edward Lewis - - Bill Sommerfeld - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it - has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the - IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and - standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of - claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of - licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to - obtain a general license or permission for the use of such - proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can - be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive - Director. - - -Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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 assignees. - - 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 - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft DNS and SSH Fingerprints September 2003 - - - 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Schlyter & Griffin Expires March 5, 2004 [Page 11] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ihren-dnsext-threshold-validation-00.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ihren-dnsext-threshold-validation-00.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 3578d2a15eb..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ihren-dnsext-threshold-validation-00.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,519 +0,0 @@ - -Internet Draft Johan Ihren -draft-ihren-dnsext-threshold-validation-00.txt Autonomica -February 2003 -Expires in six months - - - Threshold Validation: - - A Mechanism for Improved Trust and Redundancy for DNSSEC Keys - - -Status of this Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six - months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other - documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts - as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in - progress." - - 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 memo documents a proposal for a different method of validation - for DNSSEC aware resolvers. The key change is that by changing from - a model of one Key Signing Key, KSK, at a time to multiple KSKs it - will be possible to increase the aggregated trust in the signed - keys by leveraging from the trust associated with the different - signees. - - By having multiple keys to chose from validating resolvers get the - opportunity to use local policy to reflect actual trust in - different keys. For instance, it is possible to trust a single, - particular key ultimately, while requiring multiple valid - signatures by less trusted keys for validation to succeed. - Furthermore, with multiple KSKs there are additional redundancy - benefits available since it is possible to roll over different KSKs - at different times which may make rollover scenarios easier to - manage. - -Contents - - 1. Terminology - 2. Introduction and Background - - 3. Trust in DNSSEC Keys - 3.1. Key Management, Split Keys and Trust Models - 3.2. Trust Expansion: Authentication versus Authorization - - 4. Proposed Semantics for Signing the KEY Resource Record - Set - 4.1. Packet Size Considerations - - 5. Proposed Use of Multiple "Trusted Keys" in a Validating - Resolver - 5.1. Not All Possible KSKs Need to Be Trusted - 5.2. Possible to do Threshold Validation - 5.3. Not All Trusted Keys Will Be Available - - 6. Additional Benefits from Having Multiple KSKs - 6.1. More Robust Key Rollovers - 6.2. Evaluation of Multiple Key Distribution Mechanisms - - 7. Security Considerations - 8. IANA Considerations. - 9. References - 9.1. Normative. - 9.2. Informative. - 10. Acknowledgments. - 11. Authors' Address - - -1. Terminology - - The key words "MUST", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", - and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in - RFC 2119. - - The term "zone" refers to the unit of administrative control in the - Domain Name System. "Name server" denotes a DNS name server that is - authoritative (i.e. knows all there is to know) for a DNS zone, - typically the root zone. A "resolver", is a DNS "client", i.e. an - entity that sends DNS queries to authoritative nameservers and - interpret the results. A "validating resolver" is a resolver that - attempts to perform DNSSEC validation on data it retrieves by doing - DNS lookups. - - -2. Introduction and Background - - From a protocol perspective there is no real difference between - different keys in DNSSEC. They are all just keys. However, in - actual use there is lots of difference. First and foremost, most - DNSSEC keys have in-band verification. I.e. the keys are signed by - some other key, and this other key is in its turn also signed by - yet another key. This way a "chain of trust" is created. Such - chains have to end in what is referred to as a "trusted key" for - validation of DNS lookups to be possible. - - A "trusted key" is a the public part of a key that the resolver - acquired by some other means than by looking it up in DNS. The - trusted key has to be explicitly configured. - - A node in the DNS hierarchy that issues such out-of-band "trusted - keys" is called a "security apex" and the trusted key for that apex - is the ultimate source of trust for all DNS lookups within that - entire subtree. - - DNSSEC is designed to be able to work with more than on security - apex. These apexes will all share the problem of how to distribute - their "trusted keys" in a way that provides validating resolvers - confidence in the distributed keys. - - Maximizing that confidence is crucial to the usefulness of DNSSEC - and this document tries to address this issue. - - -3. Trust in DNSSEC Keys - - In the end the trust that a validating resolver will be able to put - in a key that it cannot validate within DNSSEC will have to be a - function of - - * trust in the key issuer, aka the KSK holder - - * trust in the distribution method - - * trust in extra, out-of-band verification - - The KSK holder needs to be trusted not to accidentally lose private - keys in public places. Furthermore it needs to be trusted to - perform correct identification of the ZSK holders in case they are - separate from the KSK holder itself. - - The distribution mechanism can be more or less tamper-proof. If the - key holder publishes the public key, or perhaps just a secure - fingerprint of the key in a major newspaper it may be rather - difficult to tamper with. A key acquired that way may be easier to - trust than if it had just been downloaded from a web page. - - Out-of-band verification can for instance be the key being signed - by a certificate issued by a known Certificate Authority that the - resolver has reason to trust. - -3.1. Simplicity vs Trust - - The fewer keys that are in use the simpler the key management - becomes. Therefore increasing the number of keys should only be - considered when the complexity is not the major concern. A perfect - example of this is the distinction between so called Key Signing - Keys, KSK, and Zone Signing Keys, ZSK. This distinction adds - overall complexity but simplifies real life operations and was an - overall gain since operational simplification was considered to be - a more crucial issue than the added complexity. - - In the case of a security apex there are additional issues to - consider, among them - - * maximizing trust in the KSK received out-of-band - - * authenticating the legitimacy of the ZSKs used - - In some cases this will be easy, since the same entity will manage - both ZSKs and KSKs (i.e. it will authenticate itself, somewhat - similar to a self-signed certificate). In some environments it will - be possible to get the trusted key installed in the resolver end by - decree (this would seem to be a likely method within corporate and - government environments). - - In other cases, however, this will possibly not be sufficient. In - the case of the root zone this is obvious, but there may well be - other cases. - -3.2. Expanding the "Trust Base" - - For a security apex where the ZSKs and KSK are not held by the same - entity the KSK will effectively authenticate the identity of - whoever does real operational zone signing. The amount of trust - that the data signed by a ZSK will get is directly dependent on - whether the end resolver trusts the KSK or not, since the resolver - has no OOB access to the public part of the ZSKs (for practical - reasons). - - Since the KSK holder is distinct from the ZSK holder the obvious - question is whether it would then be possible to further improve - the situation by using multiple KSK holders and thereby expanding - the trust base to the union of that available to each individual - KSK holder. "Trust base" is an invented term intended to signify - the aggregate of Internet resolvers that will eventually choose to - trust a key issued by a particular KSK holder. - - A crucial issue when considering trust expansion through addition - of multiple KSK holders is that the KSK holders are only used to - authenticate the ZSKs used for signing the zone. I.e. the function - performed by the KSK is basically: - - "This is indeed the official ZSK holder for this zone, - I've verified this fact to the best of my abilitites." - - Which can be thought of as similar to the service of a public - notary. I.e. the point with adding more KSK holders is to improve - the public trust in data signed by the ZSK holders by improving the - strength of available authentication. - - Therefore adding more KSK holders, each with their own trust base, - is by definition a good thing. More authentication is not - controversial. On the contrary, when it comes to authentication, - the more the merrier. - - -4. Proposed Semantics for Signing the KEY Resource Record Set - - In DNSSEC according to RFC2535 all KEY Resource Records are used to - sign all authoritative data in the zone, including the KEY RRset - itself, since RFC2535 makes no distinction between Key Signing - Keys, KSK, and Zone Signing Keys, ZSK. With Delegation Signer [DS] - it is possible to change this to the KEY RRset being signed with - all KSKs and ZSKs but the rest of the zone only being signed by the - ZSKs. - - This proposal changes this one step further, by recommending that - the KEY RRset is only signed by the Key Signing Keys, KSK, and - explicitly not by the Zone Signing Keys, ZSK. The reason for this - is to maximize the amount of space in the DNS response packet that - is available for additional KSKs and signatures thereof. The rest - of the authoritative zone contents are as previously signed by only - the ZSKs. - -4.1. Packet Size Considerations - - The reason for the change is to keep down the size of the aggregate - of KEY RRset plus SIG(KEY) that resolvers will need to acquire to - perform validation of data below a security apex. For DNSSEC data - to be returned the DNSSEC OK bit in the EDNS0 OPT Record has to be - set, and therefore the allowed packet size can be assumed to be at - least the EDNS0 minimum of 4000 bytes. - - When querying for KEY + SIG(KEY) for "." (the case that is assumed - to be most crucial) the size of the response packet after the - change to only sign the KEY RR with the KSKs break down into a - rather large space of possibilities. Here are a few examples for - the possible alternatives for different numbers of KSKs and ZSKs - for some different key lengths (all RSA keys, with a public - exponent that is < 254). This is all based upon the size of the - response for the particular example of querying for - - ". KEY IN" - - with a response of entire KEY + SIG(KEY) with the authority and - additional sections empty: - - ZSK/768 and KSK/1024 (real small) - Max 12 KSK + 3 ZSK at 3975 - 10 KSK + 8 ZSK at 3934 - 8 KSK + 13 ZSK at 3893 - - ZSK/768 + KSK/1280 - MAX 10 KSK + 2 ZSK at 3913 - 8 KSK + 9 ZSK at 3970 - 6 KSK + 15 ZSK at 3914 - - ZSK/768 + KSK/1536 - MAX 8 KSK + 4 ZSK at 3917 - 7 KSK + 8 ZSK at 3938 - 6 KSK + 12 ZSK at 3959 - - ZSK/768 + KSK/2048 - MAX 6 KSK + 5 ZSK at 3936 - 5 KSK + 10 ZSK at 3942 - - ZSK/1024 + KSK/1024 - MAX 12 KSK + 2 ZSK at 3943 - 11 KSK + 4 ZSK at 3930 - 10 KSK + 6 ZSK at 3917 - 8 KSK + 10 ZSK at 3891 - - ZSK/1024 + KSK/1536 - MAX 8 KSK + 3 ZSK at 3900 - 7 KSK + 6 ZSK at 3904 - 6 KSK + 9 ZSK at 3908 - - ZSK/1024 + KSK/2048 - MAX 6 KSK + 4 ZSK at 3951 - 5 KSK + 8 ZSK at 3972 - 4 KSK + 12 ZSK at 3993 - - Note that these are just examples and this document is not making - any recommendations on suitable choices of either key lengths nor - number of different keys employed at a security apex. - - This document does however, based upon the above figures, make the - recommendation that at a security apex that expects to distribute - "trusted keys" the KEY RRset should only be signed with the KSKs - and not with the ZSKs to keep the size of the response packets - down. - - -5. Proposed Use of Multiple "Trusted Keys" in a Validating Resolver - - In DNSSEC according to RFC2535[RFC2535] validation is the process - of tracing a chain of signatures (and keys) upwards through the DNS - hierarchy until a "trusted key" is reached. If there is a known - trusted key present at a security apex above the starting point - validation becomes an exercise with a binary outcome: either the - validation succeeds or it fails. No intermediate states are - possible. - - With multiple "trusted keys" (i.e. the KEY RRset for the security - apex signed by multiple KSKs) this changes into a more complicated - space of alternatives. From the perspective of complexity that may - be regarded as a change for the worse. However, from a perspective - of maximizing available trust the multiple KSKs add value to the - system. - -5.1. Possible to do Threshold Validation - - With multiple KSKs a new option that opens for the security - concious resolver is to not trust a key individually. Instead the - resolver may decide to require the validated signatures to exceed a - threshold. For instance, given M trusted keys it is possible for - the resolver to require N-of-M signatures to treat the data as - validated. - - I.e. with the following pseudo-configuration in a validating - resolver - - security-apex "." IN { - keys { ksk-1 .... ; - ksk-2 .... ; - ksk-3 .... ; - ksk-4 .... ; - ksk-5 .... ; - }; - validation { - # Note that ksk-4 is not present below - keys { ksk-1; ksk-2; ksk-3; ksk-5; }; - # 3 signatures needed with 4 possible keys, aka 75% - needed-signatures 3; - }; - }; - - we configure five trusted keys for the root zone, but require two - valid signatures for the top-most KEY for validation to - succeed. I.e. threshold validation does not force multiple - signatures on the entire signature chain, only on the top-most - signature, closest to the security apex for which the resolver has - trusted keys. - -5.2. Not All Trusted Keys Will Be Available - - With multiple KSKs held and managed by separate entities the end - resolvers will not always manage to get access to all possible - trusted keys. In the case of just a single KSK this would be fatal - to validation and necessary to avoid at whatever cost. But with - several fully trusted keys available the resolver can decide to - trust several of them individually. An example based upon more - pseudo-configuration: - - security-apex "." IN { - keys { ksk-1 .... ; - ksk-2 .... ; - ksk-3 .... ; - ksk-4 .... ; - ksk-5 .... ; - }; - validation { - # Only these two keys are trusted independently - keys { ksk-1; ksk-4; }; - # With these keys a single signature is sufficient - needed-signatures 1; - }; - }; - - Here we have the same five keys and instruct the validating - resolver to fully trust data that ends up with just one signature - from by a fully trusted key. - - The typical case where this will be useful is for the case where - there is a risk of the resolver not catching a rollover event by - one of the KSKs. By doing rollovers of different KSKs with - different schedules it is possible for a resolver to "survive" - missing a rollover without validation breaking. This improves - overall robustness from a management point of view. - -5.3. Not All Possible KSKs Need to Be Trusted - - With just one key available it simply has to be trusted, since that - is the only option available. With multiple KSKs the validating - resolver immediately get the option of implementing a local policy - of only trusting some of the possible keys. - - This local policy can be implemented either by simply not - configuring keys that are not trusted or, possibly, configure them - but specify to the resolver that certain keys are not to be - ultimately trusted alone. - - -6. Additional Benefits from Having Multiple KSKs - -6.1. More Robust Key Rollovers - - With only one KSK the rollover operation will be a delicate - operation since the new trusted key needs to reach every validating - resolver before the old key is retired. For this reason it is - expected that long periods of overlap will be needed. - - With multiple KSKs this changes into a system where different - "series" of KSKs can have different rollover schedules, thereby - changing from one "big" rollover to several "smaller" rollovers. - - If the resolver trusts several of the available keys individually - then even a failure to track a certain rollover operation within - the overlap period will not be fatal to validation since the other - available trusted keys will be sufficient. - -6.2. Evaluation of Multiple Key Distribution Mechanisms - - Distribution of the trusted keys for the DNS root zone is - recognized to be a difficult problem that ... - - With only one trusted key, from one single "source" to distribute - it will be difficult to evaluate what distribution mechanism works - best. With multiple KSKs, held by separate entitites it will be - possible to measure how large fraction of the resolver population - that is trusting what subsets of KSKs. - - -7. Security Considerations - - From a systems perspective the simplest design is arguably the - best, i.e. one single holder of both KSK and ZSKs. However, if that - is not possible in all cases a more complex scheme is needed where - additional trust is injected by using multiple KSK holders, each - contributing trust, then there are only two alternatives - available. The first is so called "split keys", where a single key - is split up among KSK holders, each contributing trust. The second - is the multiple KSK design outlined in this proposal. - - Both these alternatives provide for threshold mechanisms. However - split keys makes the threshold integral to the key generating - mechanism (i.e. it will be a property of the keys how many - signatures are needed). In the case of multiple KSKs the threshold - validation is not a property of the keys but rather local policy in - the validating resolver. A benefit from this is that it is possible - for different resolvers to use different trust policies. Some may - configure threshold validation requiring multiple signatures and - specific keys (optimizing for security) while others may choose to - accept a single signature from a larger set of keys (optimizing for - redundancy). Since the security requirements are different it would - seem to be a good idea to make this choice local policy rather than - global policy. - - Furthermore, a clear issue for validating resolvers will be how to - ensure that they track all rollover events for keys they - trust. Even with operlap during the rollover (which is clearly - needed) there is still a need to be exceedingly careful not to miss - any rollovers (or fail to acquire a new key) since without this - single key validation will fail. With multiple KSKs this operation - becomes more robust, since different KSKs may roll at different - times according to different rollover schedules and losing one key, - for whatever reason, will not be crucial unless the resolver - intentionally chooses to be completely dependent on that exact key. - -8. IANA Considerations. - - NONE. - - -9. References - -9.1. Normative. - - [RFC2535] Domain Name System Security Extensions. D. Eastlake. - March 1999. - - [RFC3090] DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone Status. - E. Lewis. March 2001. - - -9.2. Informative. - - [RFC3110] RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System - (DNS). D. Eastlake 3rd. May 2001. - - [RFC3225] Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC. D. Conrad. - December 2001. - - [DS] Delegation Signer Resource Record. - O. Gudmundsson. October 2002. Work In Progress. - -10. Acknowledgments. - - Bill Manning came up with the original idea of moving complexity - from the signing side down to the resolver in the form of threshold - validation. I've also had much appreciated help from (in no - particular order) Jakob Schlyter, Paul Vixie, Olafur Gudmundson and - Olaf Kolkman. - - -11. Authors' Address -Johan Ihren -Autonomica AB -Bellmansgatan 30 -SE-118 47 Stockholm, Sweden -johani@autonomica.se diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt b/doc/draft/draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt deleted file mode 100644 index d857cd95806..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,295 +0,0 @@ - - - -Internet Engineering Task Force Akira Kato, WIDE -INTERNET-DRAFT Paul Vixie, ISC -Expires: August 24, 2003 February 24, 2003 - - - Operational Guidelines for "local" zones in the DNS - draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt - -Status of this Memo - - -This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all -provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. - -Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task -Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups -may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. - -Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months -and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any -time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material -or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' - -To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see -http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. - -Distribution of this memo is unlimited. - -The internet-draft will expire in 6 months. The date of expiration will -be August 24, 2003. - - -Abstract - -A large number of DNS queries regarding to the "local" zones are sent -over the Internet in every second. This memo describes operational -guidelines to reduce the unnecessary DNS traffic as well as the load of -the Root DNS Servers. - -1. Introduction - -While it has yet been described in a RFC, .local is used to provide a -local subspace of the DNS tree. Formal delegation process has not been -completed for this TLD. In spite of this informal status, .local has -been used in many installations regardless of the awareness of the -users. Usually, the local DNS servers are not authoritative to the -.local domain, they end up to send queries to the Root DNS Servers. - -There are several other DNS zones which describe the "local" -information. .localhost has been used to describe the localhost for -more than a couple of decades and virtually all of the DNS servers are -configured authoritative for .localhost and its reverse zone .127.in- - - -KATO Expires: August 24, 2003 [Page 1] - - -DRAFT DNS local zones February 2003 - -addr.arpa. However, there are other "local" zones currently used in the -Internet or Intranets connected to the Internet through NATs or similar -devices. - -At a DNS server of an university in Japan, half of the DNS queries sent -to one of the 13 Root DNS Servers were regarding to the .local. At -another DNS Server running in one of the Major ISPs in Japan, the 1/4 -were .local. If those "local" queries are able to direct other DNS -servers than Root, or they can be resolved locally, it contributes the -reduction of the Root DNS Servers. - -2. Rationale - -Any DNS queries regarding to "local" names should not be sent to the DNS -servers on the Internet. - -3. Operational Guidelines - -Those queries should be processed at the DNS servers internal to each -site so that the severs respond with NXDOMAIN rather than sending -queries to the DNS servers outside. - -The "local" names have common DNS suffixes which are listed below: - -3.1. Local host related zones: - -Following two zones are described in [Barr, 1996] and .localhost is also -defined in [Eastlake, 1999] . - - o .localhost - o .127.in-addr.arpa - - -Following two zones are for the loopback address in IPv6 [Hinden, 1998] -. While the TLD for IPv6 reverse lookup is .arpa as defined in [Bush, -2001] , the old TLD .int has been used for this purpose for years -[Thomson, 1995] and many implementations still use .int. So it is -suggested that both zones should be provided for each IPv6 reverse -lookup zone for a while. - - o 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.ip6.int - o 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.ip6.arpa - - -3.2. Locally created name space - -While the use of .local has been proposed in several Internet-Drafts, it -has not been described in any Internet documents with formal status. -However, the amount of the queries for .local is much larger than -others, it is suggested to resolve the following zone locally: - - - - -KATO Expires: August 24, 2003 [Page 2] - - -DRAFT DNS local zones February 2003 - - o .local - - - -3.3. Private or site-local addresses - -The following IPv4 "private" addresses [Rekhter, 1996] and IPv6 site- -local addresses [Hinden, 1998] should be resolved locally: - - o 10.in-addr.arpa - o 16.172.in-addr.arpa - o 17.172.in-addr.arpa - o 18.172.in-addr.arpa - o 19.172.in-addr.arpa - o 20.172.in-addr.arpa - o 21.172.in-addr.arpa - o 22.172.in-addr.arpa - o 23.172.in-addr.arpa - o 24.172.in-addr.arpa - o 25.172.in-addr.arpa - o 26.172.in-addr.arpa - o 27.172.in-addr.arpa - o 28.172.in-addr.arpa - o 29.172.in-addr.arpa - o 30.172.in-addr.arpa - o 31.172.in-addr.arpa - o 168.192.in-addr.arpa - o c.e.f.ip6.int - o d.e.f.ip6.int - o e.e.f.ip6.int - o f.e.f.ip6.int - o c.e.f.ip6.arpa - o d.e.f.ip6.arpa - o e.e.f.ip6.arpa - o f.e.f.ip6.arpa - - -3.4. Link-local addresses - -The link-local address blocks for IPv4 [IANA, 2002] and IPv6 [Hinden, -1998] should be resolved locally: - - o 254.169.in-addr.arpa - o 8.e.f.ip6.int - o 9.e.f.ip6.int - o a.e.f.ip6.int - o b.e.f.ip6.int - o 8.e.f.ip6.arpa - o 9.e.f.ip6.arpa - o a.e.f.ip6.arpa - o b.e.f.ip6.arpa - - - -KATO Expires: August 24, 2003 [Page 3] - - -DRAFT DNS local zones February 2003 - -4. Suggestions to developers - -4.1. Suggestions to DNS software implementors - -In order to avoid unnecessary traffic, it is suggested that DNS software -implementors provide configuration templates or default configurations -so that the names described in the previous section are resolved locally -rather than sent to other DNS servers in the Internet. - -4.2. Suggestions to developers of NATs or similar devices - -There are many NAT or similar devices available in the market. -Regardless of the availability of DNS Servers in those devices, it is -suggested that those devices are able to filter the DNS traffic or -respond to the DNS traffic related to "local" zones by configuration -regardless of its ability of DNS service. It is suggested that this -functionality is activated by default. - -5. IANA Consideration - -While .local TLD has yet defined officially, there are substantial -queries to the Root DNS Servers as of writing. About 1/4 to 1/2% of the -traffic sent to the Root DNS Servers are related to the .local zone. -Therefore, while it is not formally defined, it is suggested that IANA -delegates .local TLD to an organization. - -The AS112 Project [Vixie, ] serves authoritative DNS service for RFC1918 -address and the link-local address. It has several DNS server instances -around the world by using BGP Anycast [Hardie, 2002] . So the AS112 -Project is one of the candidates to host the .local TLD. - -Authors' addresses - - Akira Kato - The University of Tokyo, Information Technology Center - 2-11-16 Yayoi Bunkyo - Tokyo 113-8658, JAPAN - Tel: +81 3-5841-2750 - Email: kato@wide.ad.jp - - - Paul Vixie - Internet Software Consortium - 950 Charter Street - Redwood City, CA 94063, USA - Tel: +1 650-779-7001 - Email: vixie@isc.org - - - - - - - -KATO Expires: August 24, 2003 [Page 4] - - -DRAFT DNS local zones February 2003 - -References - -To be filled - -References - -Barr, 1996. -D. Barr, "Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors" in RFC1912 -(February 1996). - -Eastlake, 1999. -D. Eastlake, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names" in RFC2606 (June 1999). - -Hinden, 1998. -R. Hinden and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture" in -RFC2373 (July 1998). - -Bush, 2001. -R. Bush, "Delegation of IP6.ARPA" in RFC3152 (August 2001). - -Thomson, 1995. -S. Thomson and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to support IP version 6" in -RFC1886 (December 1995). - -Rekhter, 1996. -Y. Rekhter, B. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot, and E. Lear, -"Address Allocation for Private Internets" in RFC1918 (February 1996). - -IANA, 2002. -IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses" in RFC3330 (September 2002). - -Vixie, . -P. Vixie, "AS112 Project" in AS112. http://www.as112.net/. - -Hardie, 2002. -T. Hardie, "Distributing Authoritative Name Servers via Shared Unicast -Addresses" in RFC3258 (April 2002). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -KATO Expires: August 24, 2003 [Page 5] - diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-park-ipv6-extensions-dns-pnp-00.txt b/doc/draft/draft-park-ipv6-extensions-dns-pnp-00.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f9eaf268194..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-park-ipv6-extensions-dns-pnp-00.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1830 +0,0 @@ - - - - INTERNET-DRAFT S. Daniel Park - Expires: October 2003 Syam Madanapalli - File: SAMSUNG Electronics - draft-park-ipv6-extensions-dns-pnp-00.txt April 2003 - - - - - IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play - - - - Status of This Memo - - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six - months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other - documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts - as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in - progress." - - 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 proposes automatic configuration of domain name (FQDN) - for IPv6 nodes using Domain Name Auto-Configuration (called 6DNAC) as - a part of IPv6 plug and play feature. 6DNAC allows the automatic - registration of domain name and corresponding IPv6 Addresses with - the DNS server. In order to provide 6DNAC function, Neighbor Discovery - Protocol [2461] will be used. Moreover, 6DNAC does not require any - changes to the existing DNS system. - - - Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction ............................................. 3 - 2. Terminology .............................................. 3 - 3. 6DNAC Design Principles .................................. 4 - 4. 6DNAC Overview ........................................... 4 - 5. 6DNAC Requirements ....................................... 5 - 5.1. 6DANR Client Requirements ................................ 5 - 5.2. 6DNAC Server Requirements ................................ 6 - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 1] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - 6. 6DNAC Messages and Option Formats ........................ 6 - 6.1. Router Advertisement (RA) Message Format ................. 6 - 6.2. Neighbor Solicitation (NS) Message Format ................ 7 - 6.3. Neighbor Advertisement (NA) Message Format ............... 8 - 6.4. Option Formats ........................................... 8 - 6.4.1. DNS Zone Suffix Information Option Format ................ 8 - 6.4.2. Domain Name (FQDN) Option Format ......................... 9 - 6.4.3. Router Alert Option for 6DNAC ............................ 10 - 7. 6DNAC Operation .......................................... 10 - 7.1. 6DNAC Network Topology ................................... 11 - 7.2. 6DNAC Operational Scenarios .............................. 12 - 7.2.1. Domain Name Registration-Success Case .................... 12 - 7.2.2. Domain Name Registration-with DupAddrDetectTransmits=2.... 14 - 7.2.3. Domain Name Registration-Defend Case ..................... 16 - 7.2.4. Domain Name Registration in Retry Mode ................... 19 - 7.2.5. Domain Name Registration when DAD Fails .................. 20 - 7.3. DNS Zone Suffix Discovery and FQDN Construction .......... 22 - 7.3.1. Sending Router Advertisement Messages .................... 22 - 7.3.2. Processing Router Advertisement Messages ................. 22 - 7.3.3. FQDN Lifetime expiry ..................................... 23 - 7.3.4. Host Naming Algorithm .................................... 23 - 7.4. Duplicate Domain Name Detection .......................... 23 - 7.4.1. DAD with All Nodes Multicast Address ..................... 24 - 7.4.1.1. Sending Neighbor Solicitation Messages ................... 24 - 7.4.1.2. Processing Neighbor Solicitation Messages ................ 24 - 7.4.1.3. Sending Neighbor Advertisement Messages .................. 25 - 7.4.1.4. Processing Neighbor Advertisement Messages ............... 25 - 7.4.1.5. Pros and Cons ............................................ 25 - 7.4.2. DAD with Router Alert Option for 6DNAC ................... 25 - 7.4.2.1. Sending Neighbor Solicitation Messages ................... 25 - 7.4.2.2. Processing Neighbor Solicitation Messages ................ 26 - 7.4.2.3. Sending Neighbor Advertisement Messages .................. 26 - 7.4.2.4. Processing Neighbor Advertisement Messages ............... 26 - 7.4.2.5. Pros and Cons ............................................ 26 - 7.4.3. Explicit Detection of Duplicate Domain Name .............. 26 - 7.4.3.1. Sending Neighbor Solicitation Messages ................... 26 - 7.4.3.2. Processing Neighbor Solicitation Messages ................ 26 - 7.4.3.3. Sending Neighbor Advertisement Messages .................. 27 - 7.4.3.4. Processing Neighbor Advertisement Messages ............... 27 - 7.4.3.5. Pros and Cons ............................................ 27 - 7.4.4. Retry Mode for Re-registering Domain Name ................ 27 - 7.5. Domain Name Registration ................................. 27 - 8. Security Consideration ................................... 27 - 9. IANA Consideration ....................................... 28 - 10. Acknowledgement .......................................... 28 - 11. Intellectual Property .................................... 28 - 12. Copyright ................................................ 28 - 13. References ............................................... 29 - 14. Author's Addresses ....................................... 30 - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 2] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - 1. Introduction - - Today, most networks use DNS[1034][1035] for convenience. In case of - IPv6, DNS is more important element because of IPv6 long addresses - which are difficult to remember. In addition, small networks like home - networks using IPv6, should be able to make network easily without - manual configuration. Also, these small networks may not have DHCP - Server, DNS Server etc. that are used to configure the network. This - document discusses IPv6 Domain Name Auto-Configuration(6DNAC) procedure - for generating and registering the Domain Name and IPv6 addresses with - the DNS Server automatically. In order to use 6DNAC, IPv6 nodes are - required to implement lightweight functions specified in this document. - 6DNAC can be applied to all defined IPv6 unicast addresses except Link - local IPv6 addresses, viz: Site-local and Global addresses. - - 6DNAC uses Neighbor Discovery Protocol [2461] with new additions - (defined in section 6) and DAD procedures for generating and - registering the Domain Name with the DNS server automatically. - - - 2. Terminology - - 6DNAC - IPv6 Domain Name Auto Configuration. It can provide - IPv6 hosts with Domain Name Generation and - Registration automatically. - - 6DNAC Client - An IPv6 node that can generate its own unique Domain - Name. Section 3 identifies the new requirements that - 6DNAC places on an IPv6 node to be a 6DNAC node. - - 6DNAC Server - An IPv6 node that can collect and registrate Domain - Name and IPv6 addresses automatically. 6DNAC server - uses the information from the DAD operation messages - with newly defined options for the registration of the - Domain Name and IPv6 Addresses. Section 3 identifies - the new requirements that 6DNAC places on an IPv6 - node to be a 6DNAC server. Also 6DNAC server can have - various other functions depending on network - environment and the network operator. For instance - 6DNAC Server can acts as a Gateway as well Home Server - in Home Networks. - - DAD - Duplicate Address Detection (is defined [2461]) - - DFQDND - Duplicate Domain Name Detection - - FQDN - Fully Qualified Domain Name - FQDN and Domain Name are - used interchangeably in this document. - - NA - Neighbor Advertisement message (is defined [2461]) - - NS - Neighbor Solicitation message (is defined [2461]) - - RA - Router Advertisement message (is defined [2461]) - - SLAAC - Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [2462]. - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 3] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - 3. 6DNAC Design Principles - - This section discusses the design principles of 6DNAC mechanism. - - 1. The new procedures for plug and play DNS should not cause changes - to existing DNS system. 6DNAC requires lightweight functions to be - implemented only at the client side of the DNS system, and uses the - existing DDNS UPDATE [2136] to communicate with DNS Servers. - - 2. Introducing a new protocol will always introduce new problems. - 6DNAC uses the existing protocols NDP [2461] with minor extensions - for generating and registering the domain name automatically - without defining a new protocol - - 3. Reusing proven and well understood design principles/patterns - will always yield a robust system. 6DNAC is based on IPv6 Address - Auotoconfiguration principle, where routers advertise the prefix - and host adds the interface ID to the prefix and forms the IPv6 - address. Domain Name (FQDN) also contains two parts: host name - and DNS zone suffix. Routers can advertise the DNS zone suffix - on a particular link in Router Advertisements (RA Messages) and - hosts can prefix their preferred host name to the DNS zone suffix - and form the fully qualified domain name. Also the detection of - duplicate domain name is similar to Duplicate Address Detection - (DAD) and can be part of DAD operation itself. - - - 4. 6DNAC Overview - - 6DNAC proposes minor extensions to NDP [2461] for automatic generation - and registration of domain name with the DNS server. It introduces two - new options: DNS Zone Suffix and Fully Qualified Domain Name. DNS Zone - Suffix option is carried in Router Advertisement (RA) messages for - notifying IPv6 nodes about the valid DNS Zone Suffix on the link and - FQDN option in Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement - (NA) messages to detect duplicate domain name. 6DNAC consists of two - components: 6DNAC Client and 6DNAC Server. 6DNAC Clients generate the - domain name based on DNS Zone Suffix using Host Naming Algorithm (see - section 7.3.1) and 6DNAC Server collects and registers the DNS - information with the DNS Server on behalf of 6DNAC Clients. - - The automatic configuration of domain name using 6DNAC consists of - three parts. - - - DNS Zone Suffix Discovery and FQDN Construction: - - IPv6 Nodes collect DNS Zone Suffix information from Router - Advertisements and constructs FQDN by prefixing host name to the - DNS Zone Suffix. The IPv6 Nodes are required to implement Host - Naming Algorithm for generating host part of the FQDN in the - absence of administrator. - - Generation of node's FQDN within the node itself has advantages. Nodes - can provide forward and reverse name lookups independent of the DNS - System by sending queries directly to IPv6 nodes [NIQ]. Moreover Domain - Name is some thing that is owned by the node. - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 4] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - Duplicate Domain Name Detection - - All nodes are expected to go for DAD for all new IPv6 unicast - addresses, regardless of whether they are obtained through - stateful, stateless or manual configuration. 6DNAC uses the DAD - messages with new option for carrying the Domain Name along with - the new IPv6 Address. 6DNAC Server captures this information and - updates DNS Server provided that the IPv6 Address and its domain - name are not duplicate. If the domain name is already in use, - the 6DNAC server replies to the sender with FQDN Option in NA - message indicating that the domain name is duplicate. Then the - node is expected to generate another domain name using host - naming algorithm and go for DAD. This time the DAD is only for - duplicate domain name detection (DFQDND). In order to avoid - confusion with the normal NDP processing, the target address - field of the NS message must carry the unspecified address - in retry mode. This can be repeated depending on number of - retries defined by the administrator in the host naming algorithm. - - - - Domain Name Registration - - 6DNAC Server detects the DNS information (IPv6 Address and - corresponding FQDN) from DAD/DFQDND messages and updates DNS - Server using existing protocol DDNS UPDATE [2136] provided that - the IPv6 Address and its domain name are not duplicate. - - If an IPv6 Address is duplicate, the IPv6 node cannot perform - stateless address autoconfiguration repeatedly. Unlike IPv6 stateless - address autoconfiguration, 6DNAC allows the automatic configuration of - domain name repeatedly if the domain name is duplicate depending on - number of retries defined by the administrator in the host naming - algorithm. - - - 5. 6DNAC Requirements - - Depending on the 6DNAC functionality, the IPv6 nodes implement, they - are called either 6DNAC Clients or 6DNAC Servers. The following - sections lists the requirements that the 6DNAC Client and 6DNAC server - must support. - - - 5.1. 6DANC Client Requirements - - - 6DNAC Client must recognize and process the following NDP - extensions - - - DNS Zone Suffix option in RA messages for generating its - domain name (FQDN). - - - Domain Name option in NS and NA messages for detecting - the duplicate domain name - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 5] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - It must generate its domain name (FQDN) based on the DNS - suffix that it got from the router advertisement. And it must - have a host naming algorithm for generating the host part of - the FQDN. - - - If NA message is received with unspecified target address and - FQDN option, then the node must treat that the domain is - duplicate. - - - 5.2. 6DNAC Server Requirements - - - 6DNAC Server must recognize and process the following NDP - extensions - - - If the 6DNAC Server is a router on the link, then it - must advertise DNS Zone Suffix option in RA messages - for hosts to generate their domain name (FQDN). - - - FQDN option in NS messages for detecting new DNS - information for of nodes on the link for which it - must update the AAAA RR and PTR RR in DNS Server. - - - FQDN option in NA messages for notifying duplicate - domain name with unspecified target address. - - - 6DNAC server must update the DNS Server (both AAAA RR and - PTR RR) dynamically using DDNS UPDATE [2136]. - - - 6DNAC server must cache this (newly detected) FQDN, Link - Layer Address, and IPv6 Address information, so that it can - decide whether it really needs to update DNS Server or not, - to avoid redundant updates. This information will also be - used for notifying the duplicate domain name. - - - 6. 6DNAC Messages and Option Formats - - In order to achieve the plug and play DNS, 6DNAC proposes new - extensions to the NDP [2461]. This section specifies the new - additions to NDP messages and formats of new options. - - - 6.1. Router Advertisement (RA) Message Format - - Routers send out Router Advertisement (RA) message periodically, or - in response to a Router Solicitation. 6DNAC does not modify the format - of the RA message, but proposes new option (DNS Zone Suffix Information) - to be carried in RA messages. - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 6] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - 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 | Code | Checksum | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Cur Hop Limit |M|O| Reserved | Router Lifetime | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Reachable Time | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Retrans Timer | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Options ... | - / / - | DNS Zone Suffix Information | - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - - - - - - 6.2. Neighbor Solicitation (NS) Message Format - - 6DNAC does not modify the format of the Neighbor Solicitation (NS) - message, but proposes new option (FQDN Option) to be carried in NS - messages. When a node is going for DAD, the node must include FQDN - option in NS message to participate in plug and play DNS. If the - node is going for Explicit Detection of Duplicate Domain Name, the - node must use FQDN option in NS message and unspecified address in - the target address field. - - - 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 | Code | Checksum | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Reserved | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | | - + + - | | - + Target Address + - | | - + + - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Options ... | - / / - | Domain Name | - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 7] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - 6.3. Neighbor Advertisement (NA) Message Format - - 6DNAC does not modify the format of the Neighbor Advertisement (NA) - message, but proposes new option (FQDN Option) to be carried in NA - messages. 6DNAC Server sends NA message with FQDN option to 6DNAC - Client that is performing duplicate domain name detection in case - the domain name found to be duplicate. - - 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 | Code | Checksum | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - |R|S|O| Reserved | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | | - + + - | | - + Target Address + - | | - + + - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Options ... | - / / - | FQDN Option | - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - - - - - 6.4 Option Formats - - 6.4.1. DNS Zone Suffix Information Option Format - - IPv6 nodes require DNS Zone Suffix for constructing their FQDN. - 6DNAC introduces new option for routers to advertise the DNS Zone - Suffix Information for IPv6 nodes on the link. The suffix information - should be configured into routers manually. - - 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 | Reserved | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Valid Lifetime | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | | - / DNS Zone Suffix / - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 8] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - Type [TBD] - - Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option - (including the type and length fields) in units of - 8 octets. - - Reserved This field is unused. It must be initialized to zero - by the sender and must be ignored by the receiver. - - Valid Life Time 32-bit signed integer. The maximum time, in - seconds, over which this suffix is valid. Nodes - should treat this as the life time for their domain - name. Nodes should contact the source of this - information before expiry of this time interval. - A value of all one bits (0xFFFFFFFF) represents - infinity. - - DNS Zone Suffix The suffix part of the FQDN. The data in the DNS - Zone Suffix field should be encoded according to - DNS encoding rules specified in [1035]. - - - - 6.4.2. Domain Name (FQDN) 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 | Reserved | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Valid Lifetime | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | | - + + - | | - + FQDN Target Address + - | | - + + - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | | - / Domain Name / - | | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - - - - Type [TBD] - - Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option - (including the type and length fields) in units - of 8 octets. It must be greater than 3. - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 9] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - Reserved This field is unused. It must be initialized to - zero by the sender and must be ignored by the - receiver. - - Valid Life Time 32-bit signed integer. The maximum time, in - seconds, over which this domain name is valid - 6DNAC should deregister this domain name at - the expiry of this interval. 6DNAC clients - should send updates by the expiry of this - interval. A value of all one bits (0xFFFFFFFF) - represents infinity. - - FQDN Target Address The Address for which the FQDN maps to. It - should be same as Target Address field of the - NS message in case of DAD & duplicate FQDN are - running in parallel. - - Domain Name The domain name (FQDN) of the node. The data in - the domain name should be encoded according to - DNS encoding rules specified in [1035]. - - - 6.4.3. Router Alert Option for 6DNAC - - Router Alert Option for 6DNAC is new option within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop - Header for using in NDP messages. The presence of this option in NS - message informs the router that this NS message is carrying Domain - Name information and must be processed by the 6DNAC Server on the router. - 6DNAC Clients can use this option for sending DAD packets instead - of addressing the DAD packets to the all-nodes multicast address - when 6DNAC Server is implemented on router. - - The Router Alert option has the following format: - - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - |0 0 0|0 0 1 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| Value (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Length = 2 - - Values are registered and maintained by the IANA. For 6DNAC, the - value has to be assigned by IANA. - - Further information about this option can be obtained from - IPv6 Router Alert Option [2711]. - - - 7. 6DNAC Operation - - 6DNAC provides mechanisms for automatic generation of domain name - and registering it with the DNS Server for IPv6 nodes. 6DNAC consists - of two components: 6DNAC Client and 6DNAC Server. All nodes that want - to participate in plug and play DNS are required to implement 6DNAC - Client functionality, and one of the IPv6 nodes is required to - implement 6DNAC Server functionality. The IPv6 node that implements - the 6DNAC Server functionality must know the location of the DNS - Server and must be a trusted node to send DDNS UPDATE [2136] messages. - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 10] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - 7.1. 6DNAC Network Topology - - This section identifies the possible locations for the 6DNAC Server. - Note that, all nodes are required to implement 6DNAC Client - functionality for constructing the domain name from the DNS Zone - Suffix Information advertised by the router. Figure 6 illustrates - IPv6 host (H4) implementing 6DNAC Server functionality. In this case - H4 can serve only one link (that it belongs to) for automatic - registration of domain name. H4 must observe the DAD packets on the - link to detect the DNS information, this requires all nodes on the - link must belong to same solicited node multicast address. In general, - this may not be the case. So the node that is going for DAD must use - all nodes multicast address for DAD packets, so that the 6DNAC Server - (H4) can observe the DAD packets, detects IPv6 address and - corresponding domain name, checks if this domain name is duplicate - and finally registers the domain name with the DNS Server. - - - 6DNAC Server - +---+ +---+ +----------+ - | H1| | H4|<--- DDNS UPDATE --->|DNS Server| - +-+-+ +-+-+ +----+-----+ - | | +----+ +---/ - | | | | / - ---+-----+-----------+-----+-----------+ R1 +-----+ - | | | | - | | +----+ - +-+-+ +-+-+ - | H2| | H3| - +---+ +---+ - - - H1, H2, H3 - 6DNAC Clients - H4 - 6DNAC Server - R1 - Router - - - - - - Figure 7 shows the 6DNAC Server implemented on a router R1. In this - case a single 6DNAC server can serve multiple links for automatic - configuration of the domain name. This topology also has flexibility - of using DAD packets with Router Alert option instead of sending DAD - packets to all nodes multicast address. The routers are required to - process all the packets with Router Alert option as per [2711]. - - In case of Home Networks, R1 is will acts as a Home Gateway (CPE) - connected to ISP. R1 delegates the prefix from the ISP edge router. - After delegating the prefix the CPE can advertise the DNS Zone suffix - along with the prefix information to the nodes on the links to which - the router is connected to. Note that the R1 must be configured with - the DNS Zone suffix Information manually. - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 11] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - +---+ +---+ - | H3+ | H4| - +-+-+ +-+-+ - | | - | LINK2 | - +---+ ---+--------+--+-- +----------+ - | H1| | |DNS Server| - +-+-+ | +----+-----+ - | +--+-+ -------/ - | LINK 1 | | / - ---+-----+------------------+ R1 +---------+ - | | | DDNS UPDATE - | +----+ - +-+-+ 6DNAC Server - | H2| - +---+ - - - H1, H2 - 6DNAC Clients on Link1 - H3, H4 - 6DNAC Clients on Link2 - R1 - Router with 6DNAC Server, serving both Link1 and Link2 - - - - - - 7.2. 6DNAC Operational Scenarios - - This section provides message sequence charts for various 6DNAC - operational scenarios assuming that the 6DNAC Server is implemented - on a router. All the scenarios assume that the normal boot up time - stateless address autoconfiguration of Link Local address derived - from the Interface Identifier has been completed successfully. And - it is also assumed that the router is already configured with the - DNS Zone Suffix Information. - - - Legend: - - 6DNAC-A, B, C : 6DNAC Clients - 6DNAC-S : 6DNAC Server/Router - DAD : Duplicate Address Detection - DFQDND : Duplicate Domain Name Detection - DNS-S : DNS Server - - - 7.2.1. Domain Name Registration-Successful Case - - This scenario starts when a 6DNAC Client receives RA message with - DNS Zone Suffix and other parameters including address prefix as - specified in NDP [2461] and wants configure its IPv6 address (Global - or Site Local) and domain name. It is Assumed that the - DupAddrDetectTransmits is set to 1. - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 12] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ - | 6DNAC-C | | 6DNAC-S | | DNS-S | - +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ - | | | - | RA with | | - | DNS Suffix Opt | | - |<---------------| | - | #1 | | - |---+ | | - Construct |#2 | | - FQDN | | | - |<--+ | | -DAD/DFQDND Starts | | - | | | - | | | - | NS With | | - | FQDN Opt | | - |--------------->| | - | #3 | | - | | | - | |------+ | - | Create FQDN | #4 | - | | | - | |<-----+ | - | | | - | | Register FQDN | - | |--------------->| - | | #5 | - | #6 | | - |--------+ | | - No Response | | | - DFQDND-Success | | | - |<-------+ | | - | | | - | | | - v V v - - - - - - #1. 6DNAC Server (Router) sends out router advertisement with DNS - Suffix information along with other parameters as specified in - NDP [2461]. - - #2. 6DNAC Client processes the router advertisement and constructs - the FQDN by prefixing hostname to the DNS Zone Suffix. It also - constructs IPv6 address from the autoconfiguration prefix - information option. - - #3. 6DNAC Client starts duplicate address & FQDN detection for the - IPv6 address & FQDN constructed and sends out a Neighbor - Solicitation message with FQDN option. - - Note that the DAD packets must be addressed to all nodes multicast - address if Router Alert option is not used. - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 13] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - #4. 6DNAC Server processes the Neighbor Solicitation message sent by - 6DNAC Client as part of duplicate FQDN detection procedure and - creates a FQDN entry in its FQDN Cache (assuming that there is no - entry ), where C is Link Layer Address of the 6DNAC Client. - - #5. 6DNAC Server then registers FQDN and corresponding IPv6 address - through the existing protocol DDNS UPDATE. - - #6. 6DNAC Client times out and observes that there is no response to - defend its duplicate FQDN detection procedure and the node is - successful in configuring its domain name. - - Note that, Stateless Address Autoconfiguration DAD procedure is not - depicted in the following message sequence chart, which simultaneously - happens along with duplicate FQDN detection. - - - 7.2.2. Domain Name Registration-with DupAddrDetectTransmits=2 - - This scenario starts when a 6DNAC Client receives RA message with - DNS Zone Suffix and other parameters including address prefix as - specified in NDP [2461] and wants configure its IPv6 address (Global - or Site Local) and domain name. The node is configured with - DupAddrDetectTransmits = 2 for reliability in delivering DAD messages. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 14] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ - | 6DNAC-C | | 6DNAC-S | | DNS-S | - +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ - | | | - | RA with | | - | DNS Suffix Opt | | - |<---------------| | - | #1 | | - |---+ | | - Construct |#2 | | - FQDN | | | - |<--+ | | -DAD/DFQDND Starts | | - | | | - | | | - | NS With | | - | FQDN Opt | | - |--------------->| | - | #3 | | - | | | - | |------+ | - | Create FQDN | #4 | - | | | - | |<-----+ | - | | | - | | Register FQDN | - | |--------------->| - | | #5 | - | NS With | | - | FQDN Opt | | - |--------------->| | - | #6 | | - | | | - | Lookup FQDN | - | Entry exists | - | |------+ | - | Ignore | #7 | - | |<-----+ | - | #8 | | - |--------+ | | - No Response | | | - DFQDND-Success | | | - |<-------+ | | - | | | - | | | - v V v - - - - - - - Steps from #1 to #5 are same as that of scenario.7.2.1. - - #6. 6DNAC Client sends out second Neighbor Solicitation message with - FQDN option as part of duplicate FQDN detection. - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 15] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - #7. 6DNAC Server receives and observes that the FQDN Cache exactly - matches with that of the NS information and ignores the NS message. - - #8. 6DNAC Client times out and observes that there is no response to - defend its duplicate FQDN detection procedure and the node is - successful in configuring its domain name.. - - - 7.2.3. Domain Name Registration-Defend Case - - This scenario starts when two 6DNAC Client receive RA message with - DNS Zone Suffix and other parameters including address prefix as - specified in NDP [2461] and both the nodes want configure their IPv6 - address (Global or Site Local) and domain name. In this scenario both - the nodes want to have same domain name. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 16] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - - +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ - | 6DNAC-A | | 6DNAC-S | | 6DNAC-B | | DNS-S | - +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ - | | | | - | RA with | RA with | | - | DNS Suffix Opt | DNS Suffix Opt | | - |<---------------|--------------->| | - | #1 | #1 | | - |---+ | |---+ | - Construct | #2 | Construct | #2 | - FQDN | | FQDN | | - |<--+ | |<--+ | - DAD/DFQDND Starts | DAD/DFQDND Starts | - | | | - | | | | - | NS with | | | - | FQDN Opt | | | - |--------------->| | | - | #3 | | | - | No Entry | | - | |------+ | | - | Create FQDN | #4 | | - | | | | - | |<-----+ | | - | | | | - | | Register FQDN #5 | - | |-------------------------------->| - | | | | - | | NS with | | - | | FQDN Opt | | - | |<---------------| | - | | #6 | | - | |------+ | | - | FQDN is in use| | | - | Defend DFQDND| #7 | | - | |<-----+ | | - | | | | - | | NA with | | - | | D-flag Set | | - | |--------------->| | - | | #8 | | - |------+ | |---+ | - No Response | #9 | Enter | #10 | - DFQDND Success| | Retry Mode| | - |<-----+ | |<--+ | - | | | | - v v v v - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 17] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - #1. 6DNAC Server (Router) sends out router advertisement with DNS - Suffix information. - - #2. 6DNAC Clients A&B process the router advertisement and construct - their FQDN by prefixing hostname to the DNS Zone Suffix. They - also construct IPv6 address from the autoconfiguration prefix - information option. - - When each host is trying to go for DAD, all hosts must have - random delay to avoid the traffic congestion according to [2461]. - So here it is assumed that 6DNAC Client-A starts DAD first and - 6DNAC Client-B starts DAD later. - - #3. 6DNAC Client-A starts duplicate address & FQDN detection for the - IPv6 address & FQDN constructed and sends out a Neighbor - Solicitation message with FQDN option. - - #4. 6DNAC Server processes the Neighbor Solicitation message sent by - 6DNAC Client-A as part of duplicate FQDN detection procedure and - creates a FQDN entry in its FQDN Cache (assuming that there is no - entry ), where A is Link Layer Address of the 6DNAC Client-A. - - #5. 6DNAC Server then registers FQDN and corresponding IPv6 address - through the existing protocol DDNS UPDATE. - - #6. 6DNAC Client-B starts duplicate address & FQDN detection for the - IPv6 address & FQDN constructed and sends out a Neighbor Solicitation - message with FQDN option. - - #7. 6DNAC Server processes the Neighbor Solicitation message sent by - 6DNAC Client-B as part of duplicate FQDN detection procedure and - finds that the domain name is already in use by the 6DNAC Client-A. - Hence, concludes to defend the duplicate FQDN detection of 6DNAC - Client-B. - - #8. 6DNAC Server sends out Neighbor Advertisement message with FQDN - option to 6DNAC Client-B to defend its duplicate FQDN detection. - - #9. 6DNAC Client-A times out and observes that there is no response to - defend its duplicate FQDN detection procedure and the node is - successful in configuring its domain name. - - #10. 6DNAC Client-B observes that there is a NA with FQDN option - indicating that the domain name is duplicate and enters Retry - Mode. In retry mode, 6DNAC Client constructs another FQDN based - on Host Naming Algorithm. The number of retries is defined by the - administrator and must be a configurable value. - - - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 18] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - 7.2.4. Domain Name Registration in Retry Mode - - Pre-Conditions: - - 1. Duplicate Address Detection has succeeded - 2. Duplicate FQDN Detection FAILED - 3. FQDN is the first FQDN one constructed and FAILED - 4. FQDN2 is the second FQDN to be constructed - 5. The Neighbor Solicitation in the 'Retry Mode' - carries unspecified address in its target field (NS*). - - +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ - | 6DNAC-C | | 6DNAC-S | | DNS-S | - +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ - | | | - |--------+ | | - Construct | #1 | | - new FQDN2 | | | - |<-------+ | | - | | | - DFQDND Restarts | | - | | | - | | | - | NS* With | | - | FQDN Opt | | - |--------------->| | - | #2 | | - | | | - | No Entry | - | |------+ | - | Create FQDN | #3 | - | | | - | |<-----+ | - | | | - | | Register FQDN2 | - | |--------------->| - | | #4 | - | | | - |--------+ | | - No Response | #5 | | - DFQDND-Success | | | - |<-------+ | | - | | | - v V v - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 19] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - #1. 6DNAC Client constructs the FQDN again as per Host Naming Algorithm, - the DNS Zone Suffix, and it is FQDN2. - #2. It then starts Duplicate Detection only for Domain Name. 6DNAC - Client sends out NS with FQDN option and unspecified target - address. - - #3. 6DNAC Server processes the Retry Mode NS message and finds that - the FQDN2 is not in use and creates Cache entry as . - - #4. It then starts registration procedures with the DNS Server. - - #5. Meanwhile, 6DNAC Client timesout and observes that there is no - defending NA for its DFQDND NS sent out and successfully - configures its domain name. - - - 7.2.5. Domain Name Registration when DAD Fails - - Duplicate domain name detection and subsequent registration starts - if and only if the DAD for IPv6 address succeeds. If the DAD for - IPv6 address fails then no actions are taken for domain name. When - DAD fails for stateless address autoconfiguration, then the domain - configuration starts only when the address has been configured using - Stateful Address Configuration methods and the node is going on DAD - for this address. - - This scenario starts when a 6DNAC Client receives RA message with - DNS Zone Suffix and other parameters including address prefix as - specified in NDP [2461] and wants configure its IPv6 address (Global - or Site Local) and domain name. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 20] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ - | 6DNAC-A | | 6DNAC-S | | 6DNAC-B | | DNS-S | - +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ - | | | | - | | | | - | RA with | | | - | DNS Suffix Opt | | | - |<---------------| | | - | #1 | | | - |-----+ | | | - Construct | | | | - FQDN& | #2 | | | - IPv6 Addr | | | | - |<----+ | | | - DAD/DFQDND Starts | | | - | | | | - | | | | - | NS with | | | - | FQDN Opt | | | - |--------------->+--------------->| | - | #3 | #3 | | - | No Entry | | - | |------+ | | - | Create FQDN | | | - | | #4 | | - | |<-----+ | | - | | | | - | | |------+ | - | | My IPv6 Addr| #5 | - | | |<-----+ | - | | Defend DAD | | - | | with NA | | - |<---------------+<---------------| | - | #6 | #6 | | - | Entry | | - | |------+ | | - | Delete FQDN | #7 | | - | |<-----+ | | - | | | | - |----+ | | | - DAD Failed | #8 | | | - Stop DFQDND | | | | - |<---+ | | | - | | | | - v v v v - - - - #1. 6DNAC Server sends out Router Advertisement to 6DNAC Client-A. - - #2. 6DNAC Client-A constructs IPv6 Address based on the prefix and - FQDN as per Host Naming Algorithm. - - #3. It then starts Duplicate address & FQDN Detection, for the newly - constructed IPv6 address and FQDN, and sends out DAD/DFQDND NS - with FQDN option. - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 21] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - #4. 6DNAC Server processes the DAD/DFQDND NS message and finds - that there is no entry for the FQDN in its cache. And, - creates Cache entry as and starts a Registration - timer with RegistrationWaitTime seconds. - - #5. 6DNAC Client-B finds that the DAD/DFQDND-NS target address is - in its unicast address list. - - #6. It then starts defending DAD by sending NA to all-nodes multicast. - - #7. 6DNAC Server finds that the DAD has failed for 6DNAC Client-A. - And, deletes its FQDN Cache entry . - - #8. 6DNAC Client gets defending DAD-NA and desists from DAD. - And also, stops Duplicate FQDN Detection as well. - At this point the address must be configured using stateful - methods and the domain name registration starts with the DAD - for the newly constructed IPv6 address. - - 7.3. DNS Zone Suffix Discovery and FQDN Construction - - 7.3.1. Sending Router Advertisement Messages - - Routers send out Router Advertisement message periodically, - or in response to a Router Solicitation. Router should include - the DNS Zone Suffix Option in their advertisements. If the DNS - Zone Suffix changes (similar to Site Renumbering), then it should - advertise the Old Zone Suffix with zero Valid Lifetime and New - Zone Suffix with proper non-zero Valid Lifetime. In any other - case, a router should not send this option twice in a single - router advertisement. - - 7.3.2. Processing Router Advertisement Messages - - For each DNS Zone Suffix Option in Router Advertisement, - - a. 6DNAC node stores the Zone Suffix information in its local - database. Also, constructs FQDN as per Host Naming Algorithm. - - b. If the node has not configured FQDN yet, - - 1. If the node is going to perform DAD for either Site local or - Global Address, then it should include FQDN option to perform - Duplicate FQDN Detection in parallel with DAD. - - 2. If the node has already got either Site local or Global - address, then it should send out NS with FQDN option and - unspecified target address to perform Duplicate FQDN - Detection. - - c. If the node has already configured FQDN, and if the - advertisement carries two DNS Zone Suffix Options, - First DNS Zone Suffix should match with the configured FQDN - Suffix and its Valid Lifetime must be zero. Second DNS Zone - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 22] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - Suffix should have non-zero Valid Lifetime. In this case, the - node constructs new FQDN based on the new DNS Zone Suffix (from - second DNS Zone Suffix option), and perform Duplicate FQDN - Detection with unspecified target address. Also, it should - overwrite the old FQDN with the newly constructed FQDN. - - - 7.3.3. FQDN Lifetime expiry - - 6DNAC Server: - It should delete the FQDN cache entry and should de-register from - the DNS Server. - - 6DNAC Client: - It should send update to 6DNAC Server by restarting the Duplicate - FQDN Detection. - - 7.3.4. Host Naming Algorithm - - A node constructs FQDN by combining DNS Zone Suffix and the hostname - as depicted in the following diagram. - - +------------------+----------------------------------+ - | Host Name | Advertised Suffix | - +------------------+----------------------------------+ - -
- - A node can choose Host Name using any of the following methods: - - a. String form of random number generated from the Interface - Identifier. - - b. List of configured Host Names provided by the administrator. - - - The number of retries must be specified in this algorithm in - case of domain name duplication. - - - 7.4. Duplicate Domain Name Detection - - The procedure for detecting duplicated FQDNs uses Neighbor - Solicitation and Advertisement messages as described below. - - If a duplicate FQDN is detected during the procedure, the - FQDN cannot be assigned to the node. - - An FQDN on which the DFQDND Procedure is applied is said - to be tentative until the procedure has completed successfully. - A tentative FQDN is not considered "assigned to the node" in the - traditional sense. That is, the node must accept Neighbor - Advertisement message containing the tentative FQDN in the FQDN - Option. - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 23] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - It should also be noted that DFQDN must be performed prior to - registering with DNS Server to prevent multiple nodes from using - the same FQDN simultaneously. All the Duplicate Address Detection - Neighbor Solicitation messages must carry Source Link Layer Address - Option as specified in NDP [2461]. - - The detection of duplicate FQDN can be achieved through one of the - following three types of procedures. - - 1. DAD with All Nodes Multicast Address - 2. DAD with Router Alert Option for 6DNAC. - 3. Explicit Detection of Duplicate Domain Name - - Even though three solutions are listed, authors prefer only one - procedure to be followed in future based on further analysis and - comments received from others. - - 7.4.1. DAD with All Nodes Multicast Address - - 7.4.1.1. Sending Neighbor Solicitation Messages - - 6DNAC Client sends Neighbor Solicitation Messages as part - of Duplicate Address Detection SLAAC [2462] with the following - extra information and modifications: - - a. Include FQDN Option in the DAD Neighbor Solicitation Message - b. Destination Address is set to All Nodes Multicast Address - - There may be a case where DAD has succeeded but DFQDND is in Retry - Mode. In such case, the Neighbor Solicitation must carry unspecified - address in the ICMP target address field and new domain name in FQDN - option to re-try the registration of the domain name. - - 7.4.1.2. Processing Neighbor Solicitation Messages - - 6DNAC Clients must ignore the FQDN option found in any of the - neighbor solicitation messages. - - 6DNAC Server processes FQDN Option found in the Duplicate Address - Detection Neighbor Solicitation Messages as described below: - - Lookup FQDN Cache for the domain name in FQDN Option. - - If the entry exists and - i. Link Layer Address matches with SLLA option, this is the case, - where node has changed its IPv6 address or updating the valid - life time. 6DNAC Server updates its cache and also updates DNS - Server using DDNS-UPDATE. If there is no change in IPv6 address - or life time then no updates are sent to the DNS server. - - ii. Link Layer Address differs with SLLA option, defend the duplicate - FQDN Detection by sending Neighbor Advertisement Message as - described in $7.4.1.3$. - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 24] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - else, - Lookup FQDN Cache for the Link Layer Address in SLLA Option. - - If the entry exists, update the FQDN Cache and update DNS Server - using DDNS-UPDATE. This is the case, where node has changed its - domain name (similar to Site Re-numbering). - - If then entry does not exists, then it means that this is the new - registration. It must create a cache entry and start Registration - - timer with RegistrationWaitTime. At the expiry of the Registration - timer, it should update DNS Server with DDNS-UPDATE. - - 7.4.1.3. Sending Neighbor Advertisement Messages - - 6DNAC Server sends Neighbor Advertisement Messages as part - of Duplicate Address Detection SLAAC [2462] with the FQDN Option - in Neighbor Advertisement message to defend duplicate FQDN - detection. - - There may be the case where defending of duplicate address detection - is not required but defending of FQDN is required. In such instance, - the defending Neighbor Advertisement must carry FQDN and unspecified - address in the ICMP target address field. - - 7.4.1.4. Processing Neighbor Advertisement Messages - - 6DNAC Server must ignore the any FQDN option found any of - the neighbor advertisement messages. If the Neighbor Advertisement - is a DAD defending, then it must delete its FQDN Cache entry created - on the reception of DAD Neighbor Solicitation message. - - When 6DNAC Clients gets the duplicate address detection neighbor - advertisement messages with FQDN option set it means that its - duplicate FQDN detection failed and enters Retry Mode. - - 7.4.1.5. Pros and Cons - - The advantage of this procedure is that it does not need any - extension header options to be included. The disadvantage of this - procedure is that, it needs change in the existing DAD procedure. - The change is only that the DAD neighbor solicitations are to be - addressed to all nodes multicast address instead of solicited - node multicast address. The another disadvantage is that, it needs - the existence of Duplicate Address Detection Procedure to - perform duplicate FQDN detection. - - 7.4.2. DAD with Router Alert Option for 6DNAC - - 7.4.2.1. Sending Neighbor Solicitation Messages - - 6DNAC Client sends Neighbor Solicitation Messages as part - of Duplicate Address Detection SLAAC [2462] with the following - extra information: - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 25] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - a. Include Hop-by-Hop extension Header with Router Alert Option - for 6DNAC as described in IPv6 Router Alert Option[2711]. - - b. Include FQDN Option in the DAD Neighbor Solicitation Message - - 7.4.2.2. Processing Neighbor Solicitation Messages - - This is same as described in $7.4.1.2$. - - 7.4.2.3. Sending Neighbor Advertisement Messages - - This is same as described in $7.4.1.3$. - - 7.4.2.4. Processing Neighbor Advertisement Messages - - This is same as described in $7.4.1.4$. - - 7.4.2.5. Pros and Cons - - The advantage of this procedure is that it does not disturb - the existing implementation and their way of processing the - packets. The disadvantage is that, it needs the existence - of Duplicate Address Detection Procedure to perform duplicate - FQDN detection. Another disadvantage is that this procedure - requires 6DNAC Server functionality to be implemented on Router. - However, in this case 6DNAC Server can serve multiple links. - - 7.4.3. Explicit Detection of Duplicate Domain Name - - In this procedure Duplicate FQDN Detection starts after completion - of successful Site local or Global Address configuration. - - 7.4.3.1. Sending Neighbor Solicitation Messages - - 6DNAC Client sends Neighbor Solicitation Messages as part - of Duplicate FQDN Detection with the following information: - - a. Include FQDN Option in the Neighbor Solicitation Message - - b. Destination Address is set to All Nodes Multicast Address - or uses Router Alert Option for 6DNAC, when 6DNAC Server is - implemented on router. - - c. Target Address is set to Unspecified Address - - d. Other fields are set as per DAD SLAAC [2462]. - - 7.4.3.2. Processing Neighbor Solicitation Messages - - This is same as described in $7.4.1.2$. - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 26] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - 7.4.3.3. Sending Neighbor Advertisement Messages - - This is same as described in $7.4.1.3$. - - 7.4.3.4. Processing Neighbor Advertisement Messages - - This is same as described in $7.4.1.4$. - - 7.4.3.5. Pros and Cons - - The advantage of this procedure is that it does not need the - existing duplicate address detection procedure. This is introduced - as the DAD procedure is found to be redundant in when IPv6 addresses - are constructed from the interface ID [DIID]. - - Note that, if 6DNAC Clients know the address of 6DNAC Server then - they can directly send DFQDND-NS to 6DNAC Server. - - 7.4.4. Retry Mode for Re-registering Domain Name - - In retry mode, nodes construct new FQDN as per Host Naming Algorithm. - Then they restart Duplicate FQDN Detection as described in $7.4.3$. - - - 7.5. Domain Name Registration - - 6DNAC Server must be an authenticated to update the DNS Server. - 6DNAC Server must also be configured with the DNS Server - information. - - 6DNAC Server detects the DNS information (IPv6 Address and - corresponding FQDN) from DAD/DFQDND messages and caches the - information. It also have an associated Registration Timer with - RegistrationWaitTime to wait for the successful completion of - DFQDND and update DNS Server using existing protocol DDNS UPDATE - [2136]. - - - 8. Security Consideration - - If someone wants to hijack correct Domain Name registration, they - could send a NS message with incorrect or same Domain Name to the - 6DNAC server repeatedly and server would start the Domain Name - registration through above mechanism, which is a security hole. - As described in [2461], a host can check validity of NDP messages. - If the NDP message include an IP Authentication Header, the message - authenticates correctly. For DNS UPDATE processing, secure DNS - Dynamic Update is described in [3007]. - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 27] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - 9. IANA Consideration - - Values in the Router Alert Option are registered and maintained by - IANA. For 6DNAC, the value has to be assigned by IANA. Also IANA is - required to assign the Type values for DNS Zone Suffix Information - option and FADN option. - - - 10. Acknowledgement - - Special thanks are due to Badrinarayana N.S. and Christian Huitema for - many helpful suggestions and revisions. - - - 11. Intellectual Property - - The following notice is copied from RFC 2026 [Bradner, 1996], - Section 10.4, and describes the position of the IETF concerning - intellectual property claims made against this document. - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in - - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it - - has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the - IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and - standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of - claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances - of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made - to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such - proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification - can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive - Director. - - - 12. Copyright - - The following copyright notice is copied from RFC 2026 [Bradner, - 1996], Section 10.4, and describes the applicable copyright for this - document. - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society July 12, 2001. 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 - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 28] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - 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 assignees. - - 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. - - - 13. References - - [2373] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing - Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. - - [2460] Deering, S. abd R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, - Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, - December 1998. - - [2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor - Discovery for IP version 6(IPv6)", RFC 2461, December - 1998. - - [2462] S. Thomson and Narten T, "IPv6 Stateless Address Auto- - Configuration", RFC 2462, December 1998. - - [2711] C. Patridge and A.Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", - RFC 2711, October 1999. - - [1034] P. Mockapetris, "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND - FACILITIES", RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [1035] P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Implementation and - Specification" RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [2136] P. Vixie et al., "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name - System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC2136, April 1997. - - [3007] B. Wellington, "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic - Update", RFC 3007, November 2000. - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 29] - -INTERNET-DRAFT IPv6 Extensions for DNS Plug and Play April 2003 - - - [DIID] yokohama-dad-vs-diid.pdf - at http://playground.sun.com/ipng/presentations/July2002/ - - [DNSISSUES] Durand, A., "IPv6 DNS transition issues", draft-ietf- - dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-00.txt, work in progress. - - [PREFIX] S. Miyakawa, R. Droms, "Requirements for IPv6 prefix - delegation", draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation- - requirement-01.txt, work in progress. - - [Autoreg] H. Kitamura, "Domain Name Auto-Registration for - Plugged-in IPv6 Nodes", draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-name- - auto-reg-00.txt, work in progress. - - [NIQ] Matt Crawford, "IPv6 Node Information Queries", , work in progress. - - - 14. Author's Addresses - - Soohong Daniel Park - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics, KOREA - Phone: +82-31-200-3728 - Email:soohong.park@samsung.com - - Syam Madanapalli - Network Systems Division, SAMSUNG India Software Operations, INDIA - Phone: +91-80-5550555 - Email:syam@samsung.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Park & Madanapalli Expires October 2003 [Page 30] diff --git a/doc/draft/update b/doc/draft/update deleted file mode 100644 index 6ac20904ab2..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/update +++ /dev/null @@ -1,46 +0,0 @@ -#!/bin/sh -commit= -for i -do - z=`expr "$i" : 'http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/\(.*\)'` - if test -n "$z" - then - i="$z" - fi - if test -f "$i" - then - continue - fi - pat=`echo "$i" | sed 's/...txt/??.txt/'` - old=`echo $pat 2> /dev/null` - if test "X$old" != "X$pat" - then - newer=0 - for j in $old - do - if test $j ">" $i - then - newer=1 - fi - done - if test $newer = 1 - then - continue; - fi - fi - if fetch "http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/$i" - then - cvs add "$i" - if test "X$old" != "X$pat" - then - rm $old - cvs delete $old - commit="$commit $old" - fi - commit="$commit $i" - fi -done -if test -n "$commit" -then - cvs commit -m "new draft" $commit -fi diff --git a/doc/rfc/index b/doc/rfc/index deleted file mode 100644 index fea5f718192..00000000000 --- a/doc/rfc/index +++ /dev/null @@ -1,119 +0,0 @@ - 952: DOD INTERNET HOST TABLE SPECIFICATION -1032: DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE -1033: DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS OPERATIONS GUIDE -1034: DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES -1035: DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION -1101: DNS Encoding of Network Names and Other Types -1122: Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers -1123: Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support -1183: New DNS RR Definitions (AFSDB, RP, X25, ISDN and RT) -1348: DNS NSAP RRs -1535: A Security Problem and Proposed Correction - With Widely Deployed DNS Software -1536: Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested Fixes -1537: Common DNS Data File Configuration Errors -1591: Domain Name System Structure and Delegation -1611: DNS Server MIB Extensions -1612: DNS Resolver MIB Extensions -1706: DNS NSAP Resource Records -1712: DNS Encoding of Geographical Location -1750: Randomness Recommendations for Security -1876: A Means for Expressing Location Information in the Domain Name System -1886: DNS Extensions to support IP version 6 -1982: Serial Number Arithmetic -1995: Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS -1996: A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY) -2052: A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV) -2104: HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication -2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels -2133: Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6 -2136: Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE) -2137: Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update -2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER - Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM) -2168: Resolution of Uniform Resource Identifiers using the Domain Name System -2181: Clarifications to the DNS Specification -2230: Key Exchange Delegation Record for the DNS -2308: Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE) -2317: Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation -2373: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture -2374: An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format -2375: IPv6 Multicast Address Assignments -2418: IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures -2535: Domain Name System Security Extensions -2536: DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS) -2537: RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS) -2538: Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS) -2539: Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the Domain Name System (DNS) -2540: Detached Domain Name System (DNS) Information -2541: DNS Security Operational Considerations -2553: Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6 -2671: Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) -2672: Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection -2673: Binary Labels in the Domain Name System -2782: A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV) -2825: A Tangled Web: Issues of I18N, Domain Names, and the - Other Internet protocols -2826: IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root -2845: Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG) -2874: DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering -2915: The Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record -2929: Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations -2930: Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR) -2931: DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( SIG(0)s ) -3007: Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic Update -3008: Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Signing Authority -3056: Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds -3071: Reflections on the DNS, RFC 1591, and Categories of Domains -3090: DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone Status -3110: RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS) -3123: A DNS RR Type for Lists of Address Prefixes (APL RR) -3152: Delegation of IP6.ARPA -3197: Applicability Statement for DNS MIB Extensions -3225: Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC -3226: DNSSEC and IPv6 A6 aware server/resolver message size requirements -3258: Distributing Authoritative Name Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses -3363: Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) - Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS) -3364: Tradeoffs in Domain Name System (DNS) Support - for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) -3425: Obsoleting IQUERY -3445: Limiting the Scope of the KEY Resource Record (RR) -3490: Internationalizing Domain Names In Applications (IDNA) -3491: Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) -3492: Punycode:A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) -3493: Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6 -3513: Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture -3596: DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6 -3597: Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types -3645: Generic Security Service Algorithm for - Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (GSS-TSIG) -3655: Redefinition of DNS Authenticated Data (AD) bit -3658: Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) -3757: Domain Name System KEY (DNSKEY) Resource Record (RR) - Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag -3833: Threat Analysis of the Domain Name System (DNS) -3845: DNS Security (DNSSEC) NextSECure (NSEC) RDATA Format -3901: DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines -4025: A Method for Storing IPsec Keying Material in DNS -4033: DNS Security Introduction and Requirements -4034: Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions -4035: Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions -4074: Common Misbehavior Against DNS Queries for IPv6 Addresses -4159: Deprecation of "ip6.int" -4193: Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses -4255: Using DNS to Securely Publish Secure Shell (SSH) Key Fingerprints -4343: Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification -4367: What's in a Name: False Assumptions about DNS Names -4398: Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS) -4431: The DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) DNS Resource Record -4408: Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains - in E-Mail, Version 1 -4470: Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing -4634: US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and HMAC-SHA) -4641: DNSSEC Operational Practices -4648: The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings -4701: A DNS Resource Record (RR) for Encoding - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Information (DHCID RR) -5155: DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1032.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1032.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0e82721cee7..00000000000 --- a/doc/rfc/rfc1032.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,781 +0,0 @@ -Network Working Group M. Stahl -Request for Comments: 1032 SRI International - November 1987 - - - DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE - - -STATUS OF THIS MEMO - - This memo describes procedures for registering a domain with the - Network Information Center (NIC) of Defense Data Network (DDN), and - offers guidelines on the establishment and administration of a domain - in accordance with the requirements specified in RFC-920. It is - intended for use by domain administrators. This memo should be used - in conjunction with RFC-920, which is an official policy statement of - the Internet Activities Board (IAB) and the Defense Advanced Research - Projects Agency (DARPA). Distribution of this memo is unlimited. - -BACKGROUND - - Domains are administrative entities that provide decentralized - management of host naming and addressing. The domain-naming system - is distributed and hierarchical. - - The NIC is designated by the Defense Communications Agency (DCA) to - provide registry services for the domain-naming system on the DDN and - DARPA portions of the Internet. - - As registrar of top-level and second-level domains, as well as - administrator of the root domain name servers on behalf of DARPA and - DDN, the NIC is responsible for maintaining the root server zone - files and their binary equivalents. In addition, the NIC is - responsible for administering the top-level domains of "ARPA," "COM," - "EDU," "ORG," "GOV," and "MIL" on behalf of DCA and DARPA until it - becomes feasible for other appropriate organizations to assume those - responsibilities. - - It is recommended that the guidelines described in this document be - used by domain administrators in the establishment and control of - second-level domains. - -THE DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR - - The role of the domain administrator (DA) is that of coordinator, - manager, and technician. If his domain is established at the second - level or lower in the tree, the DA must register by interacting with - the management of the domain directly above his, making certain that - - - -Stahl [Page 1] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - his domain satisfies all the requirements of the administration under - which his domain would be situated. To find out who has authority - over the name space he wishes to join, the DA can ask the NIC - Hostmaster. Information on contacts for the top-level and second- - level domains can also be found on line in the file NETINFO:DOMAIN- - CONTACTS.TXT, which is available from the NIC via anonymous FTP. - - The DA should be technically competent; he should understand the - concepts and procedures for operating a domain server, as described - in RFC-1034, and make sure that the service provided is reliable and - uninterrupted. It is his responsibility or that of his delegate to - ensure that the data will be current at all times. As a manager, the - DA must be able to handle complaints about service provided by his - domain name server. He must be aware of the behavior of the hosts in - his domain, and take prompt action on reports of problems, such as - protocol violations or other serious misbehavior. The administrator - of a domain must be a responsible person who has the authority to - either enforce these actions himself or delegate them to someone - else. - - Name assignments within a domain are controlled by the DA, who should - verify that names are unique within his domain and that they conform - to standard naming conventions. He furnishes access to names and - name-related information to users both inside and outside his domain. - He should work closely with the personnel he has designated as the - "technical and zone" contacts for his domain, for many administrative - decisions will be made on the basis of input from these people. - -THE DOMAIN TECHNICAL AND ZONE CONTACT - - A zone consists of those contiguous parts of the domain tree for - which a domain server has complete information and over which it has - authority. A domain server may be authoritative for more than one - zone. The domain technical/zone contact is the person who tends to - the technical aspects of maintaining the domain's name server and - resolver software, and database files. He keeps the name server - running, and interacts with technical people in other domains and - zones to solve problems that affect his zone. - -POLICIES - - Domain or host name choices and the allocation of domain name space - are considered to be local matters. In the event of conflicts, it is - the policy of the NIC not to get involved in local disputes or in the - local decision-making process. The NIC will not act as referee in - disputes over such matters as who has the "right" to register a - particular top-level or second-level domain for an organization. The - NIC considers this a private local matter that must be settled among - - - -Stahl [Page 2] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - the parties involved prior to their commencing the registration - process with the NIC. Therefore, it is assumed that the responsible - person for a domain will have resolved any local conflicts among the - members of his domain before registering that domain with the NIC. - The NIC will give guidance, if requested, by answering specific - technical questions, but will not provide arbitration in disputes at - the local level. This policy is also in keeping with the distributed - hierarchical nature of the domain-naming system in that it helps to - distribute the tasks of solving problems and handling questions. - - Naming conventions for hosts should follow the rules specified in - RFC-952. From a technical standpoint, domain names can be very long. - Each segment of a domain name may contain up to 64 characters, but - the NIC strongly advises DAs to choose names that are 12 characters - or fewer, because behind every domain system there is a human being - who must keep track of the names, addresses, contacts, and other data - in a database. The longer the name, the more likely the data - maintainer is to make a mistake. Users also will appreciate shorter - names. Most people agree that short names are easier to remember and - type; most domain names registered so far are 12 characters or fewer. - - Domain name assignments are made on a first-come-first-served basis. - The NIC has chosen not to register individual hosts directly under - the top-level domains it administers. One advantage of the domain - naming system is that administration and data maintenance can be - delegated down a hierarchical tree. Registration of hosts at the - same level in the tree as a second-level domain would dilute the - usefulness of this feature. In addition, the administrator of a - domain is responsible for the actions of hosts within his domain. We - would not want to find ourselves in the awkward position of policing - the actions of individual hosts. Rather, the subdomains registered - under these top-level domains retain the responsibility for this - function. - - Countries that wish to be registered as top-level domains are - required to name themselves after the two-letter country code listed - in the international standard ISO-3166. In some cases, however, the - two-letter ISO country code is identical to a state code used by the - U.S. Postal Service. Requests made by countries to use the three- - letter form of country code specified in the ISO-3166 standard will - be considered in such cases so as to prevent possible conflicts and - confusion. - - - - - - - - - -Stahl [Page 3] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - -HOW TO REGISTER - - Obtain a domain questionnaire from the NIC hostmaster, or FTP the - file NETINFO:DOMAIN-TEMPLATE.TXT from host SRI-NIC.ARPA. - - Fill out the questionnaire completely. Return it via electronic mail - to HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA. - - The APPENDIX to this memo contains the application form for - registering a top-level or second-level domain with the NIC. It - supersedes the version of the questionnaire found in RFC-920. The - application should be submitted by the person administratively - responsible for the domain, and must be filled out completely before - the NIC will authorize establishment of a top-level or second-level - domain. The DA is responsible for keeping his domain's data current - with the NIC or with the registration agent with which his domain is - registered. For example, the CSNET and UUCP managements act as - domain filters, processing domain applications for their own - organizations. They pass pertinent information along periodically to - the NIC for incorporation into the domain database and root server - files. The online file NETINFO:ALTERNATE-DOMAIN-PROCEDURE.TXT - outlines this procedure. It is highly recommended that the DA review - this information periodically and provide any corrections or - additions. Corrections should be submitted via electronic mail. - -WHICH DOMAIN NAME? - - The designers of the domain-naming system initiated several general - categories of names as top-level domain names, so that each could - accommodate a variety of organizations. The current top-level - domains registered with the DDN Network Information Center are ARPA, - COM, EDU, GOV, MIL, NET, and ORG, plus a number of top-level country - domains. To join one of these, a DA needs to be aware of the purpose - for which it was intended. - - "ARPA" is a temporary domain. It is by default appended to the - names of hosts that have not yet joined a domain. When the system - was begun in 1984, the names of all hosts in the Official DoD - Internet Host Table maintained by the NIC were changed by adding - of the label ".ARPA" in order to accelerate a transition to the - domain-naming system. Another reason for the blanket name changes - was to force hosts to become accustomed to using the new style - names and to modify their network software, if necessary. This - was done on a network-wide basis and was directed by DCA in DDN - Management Bulletin No. 22. Hosts that fall into this domain will - eventually move to other branches of the domain tree. - - - - - -Stahl [Page 4] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - "COM" is meant to incorporate subdomains of companies and - businesses. - - "EDU" was initiated to accommodate subdomains set up by - universities and other educational institutions. - - "GOV" exists to act as parent domain for subdomains set up by - government agencies. - - "MIL" was initiated to act as parent to subdomains that are - developed by military organizations. - - "NET" was introduced as a parent domain for various network-type - organizations. Organizations that belong within this top-level - domain are generic or network-specific, such as network service - centers and consortia. "NET" also encompasses network - management-related organizations, such as information centers and - operations centers. - - "ORG" exists as a parent to subdomains that do not clearly fall - within the other top-level domains. This may include technical- - support groups, professional societies, or similar organizations. - - One of the guidelines in effect in the domain-naming system is that a - host should have only one name regardless of what networks it is - connected to. This implies, that, in general, domain names should - not include routing information or addresses. For example, a host - that has one network connection to the Internet and another to BITNET - should use the same name when talking to either network. For a - description of the syntax of domain names, please refer to Section 3 - of RFC-1034. - -VERIFICATION OF DATA - - The verification process can be accomplished in several ways. One of - these is through the NIC WHOIS server. If he has access to WHOIS, - the DA can type the command "whois domain ". - The reply from WHOIS will supply the following: the name and address - of the organization "owning" the domain; the name of the domain; its - administrative, technical, and zone contacts; the host names and - network addresses of sites providing name service for the domain. - - - - - - - - - - -Stahl [Page 5] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - Example: - - @whois domain rice.edu - - Rice University (RICE-DOM) - Advanced Studies and Research - Houston, TX 77001 - - Domain Name: RICE.EDU - - Administrative Contact: - Kennedy, Ken (KK28) Kennedy@LLL-CRG.ARPA (713) 527-4834 - Technical Contact, Zone Contact: - Riffle, Vicky R. (VRR) rif@RICE.EDU - (713) 527-8101 ext 3844 - - Domain servers: - - RICE.EDU 128.42.5.1 - PENDRAGON.CS.PURDUE.EDU 128.10.2.5 - - - Alternatively, the DA can send an electronic mail message to - SERVICE@SRI-NIC.ARPA. In the subject line of the message header, the - DA should type "whois domain ". The requested - information will be returned via electronic mail. This method is - convenient for sites that do not have access to the NIC WHOIS - service. - - The initial application for domain authorization should be submitted - via electronic mail, if possible, to HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA. The - questionnaire described in the appendix may be used or a separate - application can be FTPed from host SRI-NIC.ARPA. The information - provided by the administrator will be reviewed by hostmaster - personnel for completeness. There will most likely be a few - exchanges of correspondence via electronic mail, the preferred method - of communication, prior to authorization of the domain. - -HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION - - An informational table of the top-level domains and their root - servers is contained in the file NETINFO:DOMAINS.TXT online at SRI- - NIC.ARPA. This table can be obtained by FTPing the file. - Alternatively, the information can be acquired by opening a TCP or - UDP connection to the NIC Host Name Server, port 101 on SRI-NIC.ARPA, - and invoking the command "ALL-DOM". - - - - - -Stahl [Page 6] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - The following online files, all available by FTP from SRI-NIC.ARPA, - contain pertinent domain information: - - - NETINFO:DOMAINS.TXT, a table of all top-level domains and the - network addresses of the machines providing domain name - service for them. It is updated each time a new top-level - domain is approved. - - - NETINFO:DOMAIN-INFO.TXT contains a concise list of all - top-level and second-level domain names registered with the - NIC and is updated monthly. - - - NETINFO:DOMAIN-CONTACTS.TXT also contains a list of all the - top level and second-level domains, but includes the - administrative, technical and zone contacts for each as well. - - - NETINFO:DOMAIN-TEMPLATE.TXT contains the questionnaire to be - completed before registering a top-level or second-level - domain. - - For either general or specific information on the domain system, do - one or more of the following: - - 1. Send electronic mail to HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA - - 2. Call the toll-free NIC hotline at (800) 235-3155 - - 3. Use FTP to get background RFCs and other files maintained - online at the NIC. Some pertinent RFCs are listed below in - the REFERENCES section of this memo. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Stahl [Page 7] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - -REFERENCES - - The references listed here provide important background information - on the domain-naming system. Path names of the online files - available via anonymous FTP from the SRI-NIC.ARPA host are noted in - brackets. - - 1. Defense Communications Agency DDN Defense Communications - System, DDN Management Bulletin No. 22, Domain Names - Transition, March 1984. - [ DDN-NEWS:DDN-MGT-BULLETIN-22.TXT ] - - 2. Defense Communications Agency DDN Defense Communications - System, DDN Management Bulletin No. 32, Phase I of the Domain - Name Implementation, January 1987. - [ DDN-NEWS:DDN-MGT-BULLETIN-32.TXT ] - - 3. Harrenstien, K., M. Stahl, and E. Feinler, "Hostname - Server", RFC-953, DDN Network Information Center, SRI - International, October 1985. [ RFC:RFC953.TXT ] - - 4. Harrenstien, K., M. Stahl, and E. Feinler, "Official DoD - Internet Host Table Specification", RFC-952, DDN Network - Information Center, SRI International, October 1985. - [ RFC:RFC952.TXT ] - - 5. ISO, "Codes for the Representation of Names of Countries", - ISO-3166, International Standards Organization, May 1981. - [ Not online ] - - 6. Lazear, W.D., "MILNET Name Domain Transition", RFC-1031, - Mitre Corporation, October 1987. [ RFC:RFC1031.TXT ] - - 7. Lottor, M.K., "Domain Administrators Operations Guide", - RFC-1033, DDN Network Information Center, SRI International, - July 1987. [ RFC:RFC1033.TXT ] - - 8. Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", - RFC-1034, USC Information Sciences Institute, October 1987. - [ RFC:RFC1034.TXT ] - - 9. Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and - Specification", RFC-1035, USC Information Sciences Institute, - October 1987. [ RFC:RFC1035.TXT ] - - 10. Mockapetris, P., "The Domain Name System", Proceedings of the - IFIP 6.5 Working Conference on Computer Message Services, - Nottingham, England, May 1984. Also as ISI/RS-84-133, June - - - -Stahl [Page 8] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - 1984. [ Not online ] - - 11. Mockapetris, P., J. Postel, and P. Kirton, "Name Server - Design for Distributed Systems", Proceedings of the Seventh - International Conference on Computer Communication, October - 30 to November 3 1984, Sidney, Australia. Also as - ISI/RS-84-132, June 1984. [ Not online ] - - 12. Partridge, C., "Mail Routing and the Domain System", RFC-974, - CSNET-CIC, BBN Laboratories, January 1986. - [ RFC:RFC974.TXT ] - - 13. Postel, J., "The Domain Names Plan and Schedule", RFC-881, - USC Information Sciences Institute, November 1983. - [ RFC:RFC881.TXT ] - - 14. Reynolds, J., and Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", RFC-1010 - USC Information Sciences Institute, May 1986. - [ RFC:RFC1010.TXT ] - - 15. Romano, S., and Stahl, M., "Internet Numbers", RFC-1020, - SRI, November 1987. - [ RFC:RFC1020.TXT ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Stahl [Page 9] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - -APPENDIX - - The following questionnaire may be FTPed from SRI-NIC.ARPA as - NETINFO:DOMAIN-TEMPLATE.TXT. - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - To establish a domain, the following information must be sent to the - NIC Domain Registrar (HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA): - - NOTE: The key people must have electronic mailboxes and NIC - "handles," unique NIC database identifiers. If you have access to - "WHOIS", please check to see if you are registered and if so, make - sure the information is current. Include only your handle and any - changes (if any) that need to be made in your entry. If you do not - have access to "WHOIS", please provide all the information indicated - and a NIC handle will be assigned. - - (1) The name of the top-level domain to join. - - For example: COM - - (2) The NIC handle of the administrative head of the organization. - Alternately, the person's name, title, mailing address, phone number, - organization, and network mailbox. This is the contact point for - administrative and policy questions about the domain. In the case of - a research project, this should be the principal investigator. - - For example: - - Administrator - - Organization The NetWorthy Corporation - Name Penelope Q. Sassafrass - Title President - Mail Address The NetWorthy Corporation - 4676 Andrews Way, Suite 100 - Santa Clara, CA 94302-1212 - Phone Number (415) 123-4567 - Net Mailbox Sassafrass@ECHO.TNC.COM - NIC Handle PQS - - (3) The NIC handle of the technical contact for the domain. - Alternately, the person's name, title, mailing address, phone number, - organization, and network mailbox. This is the contact point for - problems concerning the domain or zone, as well as for updating - information about the domain or zone. - - - - -Stahl [Page 10] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - For example: - - Technical and Zone Contact - - Organization The NetWorthy Corporation - Name Ansel A. Aardvark - Title Executive Director - Mail Address The NetWorthy Corporation - 4676 Andrews Way, Suite 100 - Santa Clara, CA. 94302-1212 - Phone Number (415) 123-6789 - Net Mailbox Aardvark@ECHO.TNC.COM - NIC Handle AAA2 - - (4) The name of the domain (up to 12 characters). This is the name - that will be used in tables and lists associating the domain with the - domain server addresses. [While, from a technical standpoint, domain - names can be quite long (programmers beware), shorter names are - easier for people to cope with.] - - For example: TNC - - (5) A description of the servers that provide the domain service for - translating names to addresses for hosts in this domain, and the date - they will be operational. - - A good way to answer this question is to say "Our server is - supplied by person or company X and does whatever their standard - issue server does." - - For example: Our server is a copy of the one operated by - the NIC; it will be installed and made operational on - 1 November 1987. - - (6) Domains must provide at least two independent servers for the - domain. Establishing the servers in physically separate locations - and on different PSNs is strongly recommended. A description of the - server machine and its backup, including - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Stahl [Page 11] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - (a) Hardware and software (using keywords from the Assigned - Numbers RFC). - - (b) Host domain name and network addresses (which host on which - network for each connected network). - - (c) Any domain-style nicknames (please limit your domain-style - nickname request to one) - - For example: - - - Hardware and software - - VAX-11/750 and UNIX, or - IBM-PC and MS-DOS, or - DEC-1090 and TOPS-20 - - - Host domain names and network addresses - - BAR.FOO.COM 10.9.0.193 on ARPANET - - - Domain-style nickname - - BR.FOO.COM (same as BAR.FOO.COM 10.9.0.13 on ARPANET) - - (7) Planned mapping of names of any other network hosts, other than - the server machines, into the new domain's naming space. - - For example: - - BAR-FOO2.ARPA (10.8.0.193) -> FOO2.BAR.COM - BAR-FOO3.ARPA (10.7.0.193) -> FOO3.BAR.COM - BAR-FOO4.ARPA (10.6.0.193) -> FOO4.BAR.COM - - - (8) An estimate of the number of hosts that will be in the domain. - - (a) Initially - (b) Within one year - (c) Two years - (d) Five years. - - For example: - - (a) Initially = 50 - (b) One year = 100 - (c) Two years = 200 - (d) Five years = 500 - - - -Stahl [Page 12] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - (9) The date you expect the fully qualified domain name to become - the official host name in HOSTS.TXT. - - Please note: If changing to a fully qualified domain name (e.g., - FOO.BAR.COM) causes a change in the official host name of an - ARPANET or MILNET host, DCA approval must be obtained beforehand. - Allow 10 working days for your requested changes to be processed. - - ARPANET sites should contact ARPANETMGR@DDN1.ARPA. MILNET sites - should contact HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA, 800-235-3155, for - further instructions. - - (10) Please describe your organization briefly. - - For example: The NetWorthy Corporation is a consulting - organization of people working with UNIX and the C language in an - electronic networking environment. It sponsors two technical - conferences annually and distributes a bimonthly newsletter. - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - This example of a completed application corresponds to the examples - found in the companion document RFC-1033, "Domain Administrators - Operations Guide." - - (1) The name of the top-level domain to join. - - COM - - (2) The NIC handle of the administrative contact person. - - NIC Handle JAKE - - (3) The NIC handle of the domain's technical and zone - contact person. - - NIC Handle DLE6 - - (4) The name of the domain. - - SRI - - (5) A description of the servers. - - Our server is the TOPS20 server JEEVES supplied by ISI; it - will be installed and made operational on 1 July 1987. - - - - - -Stahl [Page 13] - -RFC 1032 DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS GUIDE November 1987 - - - (6) A description of the server machine and its backup: - - (a) Hardware and software - - DEC-1090T and TOPS20 - DEC-2065 and TOPS20 - - (b) Host domain name and network address - - KL.SRI.COM 10.1.0.2 on ARPANET, 128.18.10.6 on SRINET - STRIPE.SRI.COM 10.4.0.2 on ARPANET, 128.18.10.4 on SRINET - - (c) Domain-style nickname - - None - - (7) Planned mapping of names of any other network hosts, other than - the server machines, into the new domain's naming space. - - SRI-Blackjack.ARPA (128.18.2.1) -> Blackjack.SRI.COM - SRI-CSL.ARPA (192.12.33.2) -> CSL.SRI.COM - - (8) An estimate of the number of hosts that will be directly within - this domain. - - (a) Initially = 50 - (b) One year = 100 - (c) Two years = 200 - (d) Five years = 500 - - (9) A date when you expect the fully qualified domain name to become - the official host name in HOSTS.TXT. - - 31 September 1987 - - (10) Brief description of organization. - - SRI International is an independent, nonprofit, scientific - research organization. It performs basic and applied research - for government and commercial clients, and contributes to - worldwide economic, scientific, industrial, and social progress - through research and related services. - - - - - - - - - -Stahl [Page 14] - diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1033.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1033.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 37029fd9ae0..00000000000 --- a/doc/rfc/rfc1033.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1229 +0,0 @@ -Network Working Group M. Lottor -Request For Comments: 1033 SRI International - November 1987 - - - DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS OPERATIONS GUIDE - - - -STATUS OF THIS MEMO - - This RFC provides guidelines for domain administrators in operating a - domain server and maintaining their portion of the hierarchical - database. Familiarity with the domain system is assumed. - Distribution of this memo is unlimited. - -ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - - This memo is a formatted collection of notes and excerpts from the - references listed at the end of this document. Of particular mention - are Paul Mockapetris and Kevin Dunlap. - -INTRODUCTION - - A domain server requires a few files to get started. It will - normally have some number of boot/startup files (also known as the - "safety belt" files). One section will contain a list of possible - root servers that the server will use to find the up-to-date list of - root servers. Another section will list the zone files to be loaded - into the server for your local domain information. A zone file - typically contains all the data for a particular domain. This guide - describes the data formats that can be used in zone files and - suggested parameters to use for certain fields. If you are - attempting to do anything advanced or tricky, consult the appropriate - domain RFC's for more details. - - Note: Each implementation of domain software may require different - files. Zone files are standardized but some servers may require - other startup files. See the appropriate documentation that comes - with your software. See the appendix for some specific examples. - -ZONES - - A zone defines the contents of a contiguous section of the domain - space, usually bounded by administrative boundaries. There will - typically be a separate data file for each zone. The data contained - in a zone file is composed of entries called Resource Records (RRs). - - - - -Lottor [Page 1] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - You may only put data in your domain server that you are - authoritative for. You must not add entries for domains other than - your own (except for the special case of "glue records"). - - A domain server will probably read a file on start-up that lists the - zones it should load into its database. The format of this file is - not standardized and is different for most domain server - implementations. For each zone it will normally contain the domain - name of the zone and the file name that contains the data to load for - the zone. - -ROOT SERVERS - - A resolver will need to find the root servers when it first starts. - When the resolver boots, it will typically read a list of possible - root servers from a file. - - The resolver will cycle through the list trying to contact each one. - When it finds a root server, it will ask it for the current list of - root servers. It will then discard the list of root servers it read - from the data file and replace it with the current list it received. - - Root servers will not change very often. You can get the names of - current root servers from the NIC. - - FTP the file NETINFO:ROOT-SERVERS.TXT or send a mail request to - NIC@SRI-NIC.ARPA. - - As of this date (June 1987) they are: - - SRI-NIC.ARPA 10.0.0.51 26.0.0.73 - C.ISI.EDU 10.0.0.52 - BRL-AOS.ARPA 192.5.25.82 192.5.22.82 128.20.1.2 - A.ISI.EDU 26.3.0.103 - -RESOURCE RECORDS - - Records in the zone data files are called resource records (RRs). - They are specified in RFC-883 and RFC-973. An RR has a standard - format as shown: - - [] [] - - The record is divided into fields which are separated by white space. - - - - The name field defines what domain name applies to the given - - - -Lottor [Page 2] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - RR. In some cases the name field can be left blank and it will - default to the name field of the previous RR. - - - - TTL stands for Time To Live. It specifies how long a domain - resolver should cache the RR before it throws it out and asks a - domain server again. See the section on TTL's. If you leave - the TTL field blank it will default to the minimum time - specified in the SOA record (described later). - - - - The class field specifies the protocol group. If left blank it - will default to the last class specified. - - - - The type field specifies what type of data is in the RR. See - the section on types. - - - - The data field is defined differently for each type and class - of data. Popular RR data formats are described later. - - The domain system does not guarantee to preserve the order of - resource records. Listing RRs (such as multiple address records) in - a certain order does not guarantee they will be used in that order. - - Case is preserved in names and data fields when loaded into the name - server. All comparisons and lookups in the name server are case - insensitive. - - Parenthesis ("(",")") are used to group data that crosses a line - boundary. - - A semicolon (";") starts a comment; the remainder of the line is - ignored. - - The asterisk ("*") is used for wildcarding. - - The at-sign ("@") denotes the current default domain name. - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 3] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - -NAMES - - A domain name is a sequence of labels separated by dots. - - Domain names in the zone files can be one of two types, either - absolute or relative. An absolute name is the fully qualified domain - name and is terminated with a period. A relative name does not - terminate with a period, and the current default domain is appended - to it. The default domain is usually the name of the domain that was - specified in the boot file that loads each zone. - - The domain system allows a label to contain any 8-bit character. - Although the domain system has no restrictions, other protocols such - as SMTP do have name restrictions. Because of other protocol - restrictions, only the following characters are recommended for use - in a host name (besides the dot separator): - - "A-Z", "a-z", "0-9", dash and underscore - -TTL's (Time To Live) - - It is important that TTLs are set to appropriate values. The TTL is - the time (in seconds) that a resolver will use the data it got from - your server before it asks your server again. If you set the value - too low, your server will get loaded down with lots of repeat - requests. If you set it too high, then information you change will - not get distributed in a reasonable amount of time. If you leave the - TTL field blank, it will default to what is specified in the SOA - record for the zone. - - Most host information does not change much over long time periods. A - good way to set up your TTLs would be to set them at a high value, - and then lower the value if you know a change will be coming soon. - You might set most TTLs to anywhere between a day (86400) and a week - (604800). Then, if you know some data will be changing in the near - future, set the TTL for that RR down to a lower value (an hour to a - day) until the change takes place, and then put it back up to its - previous value. - - Also, all RRs with the same name, class, and type should have the - same TTL value. - -CLASSES - - The domain system was designed to be protocol independent. The class - field is used to identify the protocol group that each RR is in. - - The class of interest to people using TCP/IP software is the class - - - -Lottor [Page 4] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - "Internet". Its standard designation is "IN". - - A zone file should only contain RRs of the same class. - -TYPES - - There are many defined RR types. For a complete list, see the domain - specification RFCs. Here is a list of current commonly used types. - The data for each type is described in the data section. - - Designation Description - ========================================== - SOA Start Of Authority - NS Name Server - - A Internet Address - CNAME Canonical Name (nickname pointer) - HINFO Host Information - WKS Well Known Services - - MX Mail Exchanger - - PTR Pointer - -SOA (Start Of Authority) - - [] [] SOA ( - - - - - ) - - The Start Of Authority record designates the start of a zone. The - zone ends at the next SOA record. - - is the name of the zone. - - is the name of the host on which the master zone file - resides. - - is a mailbox for the person responsible for the zone. It is - formatted like a mailing address but the at-sign that normally - separates the user from the host name is replaced with a dot. - - is the version number of the zone file. It should be - incremented anytime a change is made to data in the zone. - - - - -Lottor [Page 5] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - is how long, in seconds, a secondary name server is to - check with the primary name server to see if an update is needed. A - good value here would be one hour (3600). - - is how long, in seconds, a secondary name server is to retry - after a failure to check for a refresh. A good value here would be - 10 minutes (600). - - is the upper limit, in seconds, that a secondary name server - is to use the data before it expires for lack of getting a refresh. - You want this to be rather large, and a nice value is 3600000, about - 42 days. - - is the minimum number of seconds to be used for TTL values - in RRs. A minimum of at least a day is a good value here (86400). - - There should only be one SOA record per zone. A sample SOA record - would look something like: - - @ IN SOA SRI-NIC.ARPA. HOSTMASTER.SRI-NIC.ARPA. ( - 45 ;serial - 3600 ;refresh - 600 ;retry - 3600000 ;expire - 86400 ) ;minimum - - -NS (Name Server) - - [] [] NS - - The NS record lists the name of a machine that provides domain - service for a particular domain. The name associated with the RR is - the domain name and the data portion is the name of a host that - provides the service. If machines SRI-NIC.ARPA and C.ISI.EDU provide - name lookup service for the domain COM then the following entries - would be used: - - COM. NS SRI-NIC.ARPA. - NS C.ISI.EDU. - - Note that the machines providing name service do not have to live in - the named domain. There should be one NS record for each server for - a domain. Also note that the name "COM" defaults for the second NS - record. - - NS records for a domain exist in both the zone that delegates the - domain, and in the domain itself. - - - -Lottor [Page 6] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - -GLUE RECORDS - - If the name server host for a particular domain is itself inside the - domain, then a 'glue' record will be needed. A glue record is an A - (address) RR that specifies the address of the server. Glue records - are only needed in the server delegating the domain, not in the - domain itself. If for example the name server for domain SRI.COM was - KL.SRI.COM, then the NS record would look like this, but you will - also need to have the following A record. - - SRI.COM. NS KL.SRI.COM. - KL.SRI.COM. A 10.1.0.2 - - -A (Address) - - [] [] A
- - The data for an A record is an internet address in dotted decimal - form. A sample A record might look like: - - SRI-NIC.ARPA. A 10.0.0.51 - - There should be one A record for each address of a host. - -CNAME ( Canonical Name) - - [] [] CNAME - - The CNAME record is used for nicknames. The name associated with the - RR is the nickname. The data portion is the official name. For - example, a machine named SRI-NIC.ARPA may want to have the nickname - NIC.ARPA. In that case, the following RR would be used: - - NIC.ARPA. CNAME SRI-NIC.ARPA. - - There must not be any other RRs associated with a nickname of the - same class. - - Nicknames are also useful when a host changes it's name. In that - case, it is usually a good idea to have a CNAME pointer so that - people still using the old name will get to the right place. - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 7] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - -HINFO (Host Info) - - [] [] HINFO - - The HINFO record gives information about a particular host. The data - is two strings separated by whitespace. The first string is a - hardware description and the second is software. The hardware is - usually a manufacturer name followed by a dash and model designation. - The software string is usually the name of the operating system. - - Official HINFO types can be found in the latest Assigned Numbers RFC, - the latest of which is RFC-1010. The Hardware type is called the - Machine name and the Software type is called the System name. - - Some sample HINFO records: - - SRI-NIC.ARPA. HINFO DEC-2060 TOPS20 - UCBARPA.Berkeley.EDU. HINFO VAX-11/780 UNIX - - -WKS (Well Known Services) - - [] [] WKS
- - The WKS record is used to list Well Known Services a host provides. - WKS's are defined to be services on port numbers below 256. The WKS - record lists what services are available at a certain address using a - certain protocol. The common protocols are TCP or UDP. A sample WKS - record for a host offering the same services on all address would - look like: - - Official protocol names can be found in the latest Assigned Numbers - RFC, the latest of which is RFC-1010. - - SRI-NIC.ARPA. WKS 10.0.0.51 TCP TELNET FTP SMTP - WKS 10.0.0.51 UDP TIME - WKS 26.0.0.73 TCP TELNET FTP SMTP - WKS 26.0.0.73 UDP TIME - -MX (Mail Exchanger) (See RFC-974 for more details.) - - [] [] MX - - MX records specify where mail for a domain name should be delivered. - There may be multiple MX records for a particular name. The - preference value specifies the order a mailer should try multiple MX - records when delivering mail. Zero is the highest preference. - Multiple records for the same name may have the same preference. - - - -Lottor [Page 8] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - A host BAR.FOO.COM may want its mail to be delivered to the host - PO.FOO.COM and would then use the MX record: - - BAR.FOO.COM. MX 10 PO.FOO.COM. - - A host BAZ.FOO.COM may want its mail to be delivered to one of three - different machines, in the following order: - - BAZ.FOO.COM. MX 10 PO1.FOO.COM. - MX 20 PO2.FOO.COM. - MX 30 PO3.FOO.COM. - - An entire domain of hosts not connected to the Internet may want - their mail to go through a mail gateway that knows how to deliver - mail to them. If they would like mail addressed to any host in the - domain FOO.COM to go through the mail gateway they might use: - - FOO.COM. MX 10 RELAY.CS.NET. - *.FOO.COM. MX 20 RELAY.CS.NET. - - Note that you can specify a wildcard in the MX record to match on - anything in FOO.COM, but that it won't match a plain FOO.COM. - -IN-ADDR.ARPA - - The structure of names in the domain system is set up in a - hierarchical way such that the address of a name can be found by - tracing down the domain tree contacting a server for each label of - the name. Because of this 'indexing' based on name, there is no easy - way to translate a host address back into its host name. - - In order to do the reverse translation easily, a domain was created - that uses hosts' addresses as part of a name that then points to the - data for that host. In this way, there is now an 'index' to hosts' - RRs based on their address. This address mapping domain is called - IN-ADDR.ARPA. Within that domain are subdomains for each network, - based on network number. Also, for consistency and natural - groupings, the 4 octets of a host number are reversed. - - For example, the ARPANET is net 10. That means there is a domain - called 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA. Within this domain there is a PTR RR at - 51.0.0.10.IN-ADDR that points to the RRs for the host SRI-NIC.ARPA - (who's address is 10.0.0.51). Since the NIC is also on the MILNET - (Net 26, address 26.0.0.73), there is also a PTR RR at 73.0.0.26.IN- - ADDR.ARPA that points to the same RR's for SRI-NIC.ARPA. The format - of these special pointers is defined below along with the examples - for the NIC. - - - - -Lottor [Page 9] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - -PTR - - [] [] PTR - - The PTR record is used to let special names point to some other - location in the domain tree. They are mainly used in the IN- - ADDR.ARPA records for translation of addresses to names. PTR's - should use official names and not aliases. - - For example, host SRI-NIC.ARPA with addresses 10.0.0.51 and 26.0.0.73 - would have the following records in the respective zone files for net - 10 and net 26: - - 51.0.0.10.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SRI-NIC.ARPA. - 73.0.0.26.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SRI-NIC.ARPA. - -GATEWAY PTR's - - The IN-ADDR tree is also used to locate gateways on a particular - network. Gateways have the same kind of PTR RRs as hosts (as above) - but in addition they have other PTRs used to locate them by network - number alone. These records have only 1, 2, or 3 octets as part of - the name depending on whether they are class A, B, or C networks, - respectively. - - Lets take the SRI-CSL gateway for example. It connects 3 different - networks, one class A, one class B and one class C. It will have the - standard RR's for a host in the CSL.SRI.COM zone: - - GW.CSL.SRI.COM. A 10.2.0.2 - A 128.18.1.1 - A 192.12.33.2 - - Also, in 3 different zones (one for each network), it will have one - of the following number to name translation pointers: - - 2.0.2.10.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - 1.1.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - 1.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - - In addition, in each of the same 3 zones will be one of the following - gateway location pointers: - - 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - 18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - 33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - - - - - -Lottor [Page 10] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - -INSTRUCTIONS - - Adding a subdomain. - - To add a new subdomain to your domain: - - Setup the other domain server and/or the new zone file. - - Add an NS record for each server of the new domain to the zone - file of the parent domain. - - Add any necessary glue RRs. - - Adding a host. - - To add a new host to your zone files: - - Edit the appropriate zone file for the domain the host is in. - - Add an entry for each address of the host. - - Optionally add CNAME, HINFO, WKS, and MX records. - - Add the reverse IN-ADDR entry for each host address in the - appropriate zone files for each network the host in on. - - Deleting a host. - - To delete a host from the zone files: - - Remove all the hosts' resource records from the zone file of - the domain the host is in. - - Remove all the hosts' PTR records from the IN-ADDR zone files - for each network the host was on. - - Adding gateways. - - Follow instructions for adding a host. - - Add the gateway location PTR records for each network the - gateway is on. - - Deleting gateways. - - Follow instructions for deleting a host. - - Also delete the gateway location PTR records for each network - - - -Lottor [Page 11] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - the gateway was on. - -COMPLAINTS - - These are the suggested steps you should take if you are having - problems that you believe are caused by someone else's name server: - - - 1. Complain privately to the responsible person for the domain. You - can find their mailing address in the SOA record for the domain. - - 2. Complain publicly to the responsible person for the domain. - - 3. Ask the NIC for the administrative person responsible for the - domain. Complain. You can also find domain contacts on the NIC in - the file NETINFO:DOMAIN-CONTACTS.TXT - - 4. Complain to the parent domain authorities. - - 5. Ask the parent authorities to excommunicate the domain. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 12] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - -EXAMPLE DOMAIN SERVER DATABASE FILES - - The following examples show how zone files are set up for a typical - organization. SRI will be used as the example organization. SRI has - decided to divided their domain SRI.COM into a few subdomains, one - for each group that wants one. The subdomains are CSL and ISTC. - - Note the following interesting items: - - There are both hosts and domains under SRI.COM. - - CSL.SRI.COM is both a domain name and a host name. - - All the domains are serviced by the same pair of domain servers. - - All hosts at SRI are on net 128.18 except hosts in the CSL domain - which are on net 192.12.33. Note that a domain does not have to - correspond to a physical network. - - The examples do not necessarily correspond to actual data in use - by the SRI domain. - - SRI Domain Organization - - +-------+ - | COM | - +-------+ - | - +-------+ - | SRI | - +-------+ - | - +----------++-----------+ - | | | - +-------+ +------+ +-------+ - | CSL | | ISTC | | Hosts | - +-------+ +------+ +-------+ - | | - +-------+ +-------+ - | Hosts | | Hosts | - +-------+ +-------+ - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 13] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - [File "CONFIG.CMD". Since bootstrap files are not standardized, this - file is presented using a pseudo configuration file syntax.] - - load root server list from file ROOT.SERVERS - load zone SRI.COM. from file SRI.ZONE - load zone CSL.SRI.COM. from file CSL.ZONE - load zone ISTC.SRI.COM. from file ISTC.ZONE - load zone 18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. from file SRINET.ZONE - load zone 33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. from file SRI-CSL-NET.ZONE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 14] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - [File "ROOT.SERVERS". Again, the format of this file is not - standardized.] - - ;list of possible root servers - SRI-NIC.ARPA 10.0.0.51 26.0.0.73 - C.ISI.EDU 10.0.0.52 - BRL-AOS.ARPA 192.5.25.82 192.5.22.82 128.20.1.2 - A.ISI.EDU 26.3.0.103 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 15] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - [File "SRI.ZONE"] - - SRI.COM. IN SOA KL.SRI.COM. DLE.STRIPE.SRI.COM. ( - 870407 ;serial - 1800 ;refresh every 30 minutes - 600 ;retry every 10 minutes - 604800 ;expire after a week - 86400 ;default of an hour - ) - - SRI.COM. NS KL.SRI.COM. - NS STRIPE.SRI.COM. - MX 10 KL.SRI.COM. - - ;SRI.COM hosts - - KL A 10.1.0.2 - A 128.18.10.6 - MX 10 KL.SRI.COM. - - STRIPE A 10.4.0.2 - STRIPE A 128.18.10.4 - MX 10 STRIPE.SRI.COM. - - NIC CNAME SRI-NIC.ARPA. - - Blackjack A 128.18.2.1 - HINFO VAX-11/780 UNIX - WKS 128.18.2.1 TCP TELNET FTP - - CSL A 192.12.33.2 - HINFO FOONLY-F4 TOPS20 - WKS 192.12.33.2 TCP TELNET FTP SMTP FINGER - MX 10 CSL.SRI.COM. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 16] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - [File "CSL.ZONE"] - - CSL.SRI.COM. IN SOA KL.SRI.COM. DLE.STRIPE.SRI.COM. ( - 870330 ;serial - 1800 ;refresh every 30 minutes - 600 ;retry every 10 minutes - 604800 ;expire after a week - 86400 ;default of a day - ) - - CSL.SRI.COM. NS KL.SRI.COM. - NS STRIPE.SRI.COM. - A 192.12.33.2 - - ;CSL.SRI.COM hosts - - A CNAME CSL.SRI.COM. - B A 192.12.33.3 - HINFO FOONLY-F4 TOPS20 - WKS 192.12.33.3 TCP TELNET FTP SMTP - GW A 10.2.0.2 - A 192.12.33.1 - A 128.18.1.1 - HINFO PDP-11/23 MOS - SMELLY A 192.12.33.4 - HINFO IMAGEN IMAGEN - SQUIRREL A 192.12.33.5 - HINFO XEROX-1100 INTERLISP - VENUS A 192.12.33.7 - HINFO SYMBOLICS-3600 LISPM - HELIUM A 192.12.33.30 - HINFO SUN-3/160 UNIX - ARGON A 192.12.33.31 - HINFO SUN-3/75 UNIX - RADON A 192.12.33.32 - HINFO SUN-3/75 UNIX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 17] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - [File "ISTC.ZONE"] - - ISTC.SRI.COM. IN SOA KL.SRI.COM. roemers.JOYCE.ISTC.SRI.COM. ( - 870406 ;serial - 1800 ;refresh every 30 minutes - 600 ;retry every 10 minutes - 604800 ;expire after a week - 86400 ;default of a day - ) - - ISTC.SRI.COM. NS KL.SRI.COM. - NS STRIPE.SRI.COM. - MX 10 SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM. - - ; ISTC hosts - - joyce A 128.18.4.2 - HINFO VAX-11/750 UNIX - bozo A 128.18.0.6 - HINFO SUN UNIX - sundae A 128.18.0.11 - HINFO SUN UNIX - tsca A 128.18.0.201 - A 10.3.0.2 - HINFO VAX-11/750 UNIX - MX 10 TSCA.ISTC.SRI.COM. - tsc CNAME tsca - prmh A 128.18.0.203 - A 10.2.0.51 - HINFO PDP-11/44 UNIX - spam A 128.18.4.3 - A 10.2.0.107 - HINFO VAX-11/780 UNIX - MX 10 SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 18] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - [File "SRINET.ZONE"] - - 18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. IN SOA KL.SRI.COM DLE.STRIPE.SRI.COM. ( - 870406 ;serial - 1800 ;refresh every 30 minutes - 600 ;retry every 10 minutes - 604800 ;expire after a week - 86400 ;default of a day - ) - - 18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. NS KL.SRI.COM. - NS STRIPE.SRI.COM. - PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - - ; SRINET [128.18.0.0] Address Translations - - ; SRI.COM Hosts - 1.2.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR Blackjack.SRI.COM. - - ; ISTC.SRI.COM Hosts - 2.4.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR joyce.ISTC.SRI.COM. - 6.0.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR bozo.ISTC.SRI.COM. - 11.0.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR sundae.ISTC.SRI.COM. - 201.0.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR tsca.ISTC.SRI.COM. - 203.0.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR prmh.ISTC.SRI.COM. - 3.4.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR spam.ISTC.SRI.COM. - - ; CSL.SRI.COM Hosts - 1.1.18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 19] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - - [File "SRI-CSL-NET.ZONE"] - - 33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. IN SOA KL.SRI.COM DLE.STRIPE.SRI.COM. ( - 870404 ;serial - 1800 ;refresh every 30 minutes - 600 ;retry every 10 minutes - 604800 ;expire after a week - 86400 ;default of a day - ) - - 33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. NS KL.SRI.COM. - NS STRIPE.SRI.COM. - PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - - ; SRI-CSL-NET [192.12.33.0] Address Translations - - ; SRI.COM Hosts - 2.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CSL.SRI.COM. - - ; CSL.SRI.COM Hosts - 1.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW.CSL.SRI.COM. - 3.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR B.CSL.SRI.COM. - 4.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SMELLY.CSL.SRI.COM. - 5.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SQUIRREL.CSL.SRI.COM. - 7.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR VENUS.CSL.SRI.COM. - 30.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HELIUM.CSL.SRI.COM. - 31.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARGON.CSL.SRI.COM. - 32.33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RADON.CSL.SRI.COM. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 20] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - -APPENDIX - - BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain server) distributed with 4.3 BSD - UNIX - - This section describes two BIND implementation specific files; the - boot file and the cache file. BIND has other options, files, and - specifications that are not described here. See the Name Server - Operations Guide for BIND for details. - - The boot file for BIND is usually called "named.boot". This - corresponds to file "CONFIG.CMD" in the example section. - - -------------------------------------------------------- - cache . named.ca - primary SRI.COM SRI.ZONE - primary CSL.SRI.COM CSL.ZONE - primary ISTC.SRI.COM ISTC.ZONE - primary 18.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA SRINET.ZONE - primary 33.12.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA SRI-CSL-NET.ZONE - -------------------------------------------------------- - - The cache file for BIND is usually called "named.ca". This - corresponds to file "ROOT.SERVERS" in the example section. - - ------------------------------------------------- - ;list of possible root servers - . 1 IN NS SRI-NIC.ARPA. - NS C.ISI.EDU. - NS BRL-AOS.ARPA. - NS C.ISI.EDU. - ;and their addresses - SRI-NIC.ARPA. A 10.0.0.51 - A 26.0.0.73 - C.ISI.EDU. A 10.0.0.52 - BRL-AOS.ARPA. A 192.5.25.82 - A 192.5.22.82 - A 128.20.1.2 - A.ISI.EDU. A 26.3.0.103 - ------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 21] - -RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 - - -REFERENCES - - [1] Dunlap, K., "Name Server Operations Guide for BIND", CSRG, - Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, - University of California, Berkeley, California. - - [2] Partridge, C., "Mail Routing and the Domain System", RFC-974, - CSNET CIC BBN Laboratories, January 1986. - - [3] Mockapetris, P., "Domains Names - Concepts and Facilities", - RFC-1034, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987. - - [4] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementations Specification", - RFC-1035, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Lottor [Page 22] - diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1034.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1034.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 55cdb21fe65..00000000000 --- a/doc/rfc/rfc1034.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3077 +0,0 @@ -Network Working Group P. Mockapetris -Request for Comments: 1034 ISI -Obsoletes: RFCs 882, 883, 973 November 1987 - - - DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES - - - -1. STATUS OF THIS MEMO - -This RFC is an introduction to the Domain Name System (DNS), and omits -many details which can be found in a companion RFC, "Domain Names - -Implementation and Specification" [RFC-1035]. That RFC assumes that the -reader is familiar with the concepts discussed in this memo. - -A subset of DNS functions and data types constitute an official -protocol. The official protocol includes standard queries and their -responses and most of the Internet class data formats (e.g., host -addresses). - -However, the domain system is intentionally extensible. Researchers are -continuously proposing, implementing and experimenting with new data -types, query types, classes, functions, etc. Thus while the components -of the official protocol are expected to stay essentially unchanged and -operate as a production service, experimental behavior should always be -expected in extensions beyond the official protocol. Experimental or -obsolete features are clearly marked in these RFCs, and such information -should be used with caution. - -The reader is especially cautioned not to depend on the values which -appear in examples to be current or complete, since their purpose is -primarily pedagogical. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. - -2. INTRODUCTION - -This RFC introduces domain style names, their use for Internet mail and -host address support, and the protocols and servers used to implement -domain name facilities. - -2.1. The history of domain names - -The impetus for the development of the domain system was growth in the -Internet: - - - Host name to address mappings were maintained by the Network - Information Center (NIC) in a single file (HOSTS.TXT) which - was FTPed by all hosts [RFC-952, RFC-953]. The total network - - - -Mockapetris [Page 1] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - - bandwidth consumed in distributing a new version by this - scheme is proportional to the square of the number of hosts in - the network, and even when multiple levels of FTP are used, - the outgoing FTP load on the NIC host is considerable. - Explosive growth in the number of hosts didn't bode well for - the future. - - - The network population was also changing in character. The - timeshared hosts that made up the original ARPANET were being - replaced with local networks of workstations. Local - organizations were administering their own names and - addresses, but had to wait for the NIC to change HOSTS.TXT to - make changes visible to the Internet at large. Organizations - also wanted some local structure on the name space. - - - The applications on the Internet were getting more - sophisticated and creating a need for general purpose name - service. - - -The result was several ideas about name spaces and their management -[IEN-116, RFC-799, RFC-819, RFC-830]. The proposals varied, but a -common thread was the idea of a hierarchical name space, with the -hierarchy roughly corresponding to organizational structure, and names -using "." as the character to mark the boundary between hierarchy -levels. A design using a distributed database and generalized resources -was described in [RFC-882, RFC-883]. Based on experience with several -implementations, the system evolved into the scheme described in this -memo. - -The terms "domain" or "domain name" are used in many contexts beyond the -DNS described here. Very often, the term domain name is used to refer -to a name with structure indicated by dots, but no relation to the DNS. -This is particularly true in mail addressing [Quarterman 86]. - -2.2. DNS design goals - -The design goals of the DNS influence its structure. They are: - - - The primary goal is a consistent name space which will be used - for referring to resources. In order to avoid the problems - caused by ad hoc encodings, names should not be required to - contain network identifiers, addresses, routes, or similar - information as part of the name. - - - The sheer size of the database and frequency of updates - suggest that it must be maintained in a distributed manner, - with local caching to improve performance. Approaches that - - - -Mockapetris [Page 2] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - - attempt to collect a consistent copy of the entire database - will become more and more expensive and difficult, and hence - should be avoided. The same principle holds for the structure - of the name space, and in particular mechanisms for creating - and deleting names; these should also be distributed. - - - Where there tradeoffs between the cost of acquiring data, the - speed of updates, and the accuracy of caches, the source of - the data should control the tradeoff. - - - The costs of implementing such a facility dictate that it be - generally useful, and not restricted to a single application. - We should be able to use names to retrieve host addresses, - mailbox data, and other as yet undetermined information. All - data associated with a name is tagged with a type, and queries - can be limited to a single type. - - - Because we want the name space to be useful in dissimilar - networks and applications, we provide the ability to use the - same name space with different protocol families or - management. For example, host address formats differ between - protocols, though all protocols have the notion of address. - The DNS tags all data with a class as well as the type, so - that we can allow parallel use of different formats for data - of type address. - - - We want name server transactions to be independent of the - communications system that carries them. Some systems may - wish to use datagrams for queries and responses, and only - establish virtual circuits for transactions that need the - reliability (e.g., database updates, long transactions); other - systems will use virtual circuits exclusively. - - - The system should be useful across a wide spectrum of host - capabilities. Both personal computers and large timeshared - hosts should be able to use the system, though perhaps in - different ways. - -2.3. Assumptions about usage - -The organization of the domain system derives from some assumptions -about the needs and usage patterns of its user community and is designed -to avoid many of the the complicated problems found in general purpose -database systems. - -The assumptions are: - - - The size of the total database will initially be proportional - - - -Mockapetris [Page 3] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - - to the number of hosts using the system, but will eventually - grow to be proportional to the number of users on those hosts - as mailboxes and other information are added to the domain - system. - - - Most of the data in the system will change very slowly (e.g., - mailbox bindings, host addresses), but that the system should - be able to deal with subsets that change more rapidly (on the - order of seconds or minutes). - - - The administrative boundaries used to distribute - responsibility for the database will usually correspond to - organizations that have one or more hosts. Each organization - that has responsibility for a particular set of domains will - provide redundant name servers, either on the organization's - own hosts or other hosts that the organization arranges to - use. - - - Clients of the domain system should be able to identify - trusted name servers they prefer to use before accepting - referrals to name servers outside of this "trusted" set. - - - Access to information is more critical than instantaneous - updates or guarantees of consistency. Hence the update - process allows updates to percolate out through the users of - the domain system rather than guaranteeing that all copies are - simultaneously updated. When updates are unavailable due to - network or host failure, the usual course is to believe old - information while continuing efforts to update it. The - general model is that copies are distributed with timeouts for - refreshing. The distributor sets the timeout value and the - recipient of the distribution is responsible for performing - the refresh. In special situations, very short intervals can - be specified, or the owner can prohibit copies. - - - In any system that has a distributed database, a particular - name server may be presented with a query that can only be - answered by some other server. The two general approaches to - dealing with this problem are "recursive", in which the first - server pursues the query for the client at another server, and - "iterative", in which the server refers the client to another - server and lets the client pursue the query. Both approaches - have advantages and disadvantages, but the iterative approach - is preferred for the datagram style of access. The domain - system requires implementation of the iterative approach, but - allows the recursive approach as an option. - - - - - -Mockapetris [Page 4] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - -The domain system assumes that all data originates in master files -scattered through the hosts that use the domain system. These master -files are updated by local system administrators. Master files are text -files that are read by a local name server, and hence become available -through the name servers to users of the domain system. The user -programs access name servers through standard programs called resolvers. - -The standard format of master files allows them to be exchanged between -hosts (via FTP, mail, or some other mechanism); this facility is useful -when an organization wants a domain, but doesn't want to support a name -server. The organization can maintain the master files locally using a -text editor, transfer them to a foreign host which runs a name server, -and then arrange with the system administrator of the name server to get -the files loaded. - -Each host's name servers and resolvers are configured by a local system -administrator [RFC-1033]. For a name server, this configuration data -includes the identity of local master files and instructions on which -non-local master files are to be loaded from foreign servers. The name -server uses the master files or copies to load its zones. For -resolvers, the configuration data identifies the name servers which -should be the primary sources of information. - -The domain system defines procedures for accessing the data and for -referrals to other name servers. The domain system also defines -procedures for caching retrieved data and for periodic refreshing of -data defined by the system administrator. - -The system administrators provide: - - - The definition of zone boundaries. - - - Master files of data. - - - Updates to master files. - - - Statements of the refresh policies desired. - -The domain system provides: - - - Standard formats for resource data. - - - Standard methods for querying the database. - - - Standard methods for name servers to refresh local data from - foreign name servers. - - - - - -Mockapetris [Page 5] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - -2.4. Elements of the DNS - -The DNS has three major components: - - - The DOMAIN NAME SPACE and RESOURCE RECORDS, which are - specifications for a tree structured name space and data - associated with the names. Conceptually, each node and leaf - of the domain name space tree names a set of information, and - query operations are attempts to extract specific types of - information from a particular set. A query names the domain - name of interest and describes the type of resource - information that is desired. For example, the Internet - uses some of its domain names to identify hosts; queries for - address resources return Internet host addresses. - - - NAME SERVERS are server programs which hold information about - the domain tree's structure and set information. A name - server may cache structure or set information about any part - of the domain tree, but in general a particular name server - has complete information about a subset of the domain space, - and pointers to other name servers that can be used to lead to - information from any part of the domain tree. Name servers - know the parts of the domain tree for which they have complete - information; a name server is said to be an AUTHORITY for - these parts of the name space. Authoritative information is - organized into units called ZONEs, and these zones can be - automatically distributed to the name servers which provide - redundant service for the data in a zone. - - - RESOLVERS are programs that extract information from name - servers in response to client requests. Resolvers must be - able to access at least one name server and use that name - server's information to answer a query directly, or pursue the - query using referrals to other name servers. A resolver will - typically be a system routine that is directly accessible to - user programs; hence no protocol is necessary between the - resolver and the user program. - -These three components roughly correspond to the three layers or views -of the domain system: - - - From the user's point of view, the domain system is accessed - through a simple procedure or OS call to a local resolver. - The domain space consists of a single tree and the user can - request information from any section of the tree. - - - From the resolver's point of view, the domain system is - composed of an unknown number of name servers. Each name - - - -Mockapetris [Page 6] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - - server has one or more pieces of the whole domain tree's data, - but the resolver views each of these databases as essentially - static. - - - From a name server's point of view, the domain system consists - of separate sets of local information called zones. The name - server has local copies of some of the zones. The name server - must periodically refresh its zones from master copies in - local files or foreign name servers. The name server must - concurrently process queries that arrive from resolvers. - -In the interests of performance, implementations may couple these -functions. For example, a resolver on the same machine as a name server -might share a database consisting of the the zones managed by the name -server and the cache managed by the resolver. - -3. DOMAIN NAME SPACE and RESOURCE RECORDS - -3.1. Name space specifications and terminology - -The domain name space is a tree structure. Each node and leaf on the -tree corresponds to a resource set (which may be empty). The domain -system makes no distinctions between the uses of the interior nodes and -leaves, and this memo uses the term "node" to refer to both. - -Each node has a label, which is zero to 63 octets in length. Brother -nodes may not have the same label, although the same label can be used -for nodes which are not brothers. One label is reserved, and that is -the null (i.e., zero length) label used for the root. - -The domain name of a node is the list of the labels on the path from the -node to the root of the tree. By convention, the labels that compose a -domain name are printed or read left to right, from the most specific -(lowest, farthest from the root) to the least specific (highest, closest -to the root). - -Internally, programs that manipulate domain names should represent them -as sequences of labels, where each label is a length octet followed by -an octet string. Because all domain names end at the root, which has a -null string for a label, these internal representations can use a length -byte of zero to terminate a domain name. - -By convention, domain names can be stored with arbitrary case, but -domain name comparisons for all present domain functions are done in a -case-insensitive manner, assuming an ASCII character set, and a high -order zero bit. This means that you are free to create a node with -label "A" or a node with label "a", but not both as brothers; you could -refer to either using "a" or "A". When you receive a domain name or - - - -Mockapetris [Page 7] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - -label, you should preserve its case. The rationale for this choice is -that we may someday need to add full binary domain names for new -services; existing services would not be changed. - -When a user needs to type a domain name, the length of each label is -omitted and the labels are separated by dots ("."). Since a complete -domain name ends with the root label, this leads to a printed form which -ends in a dot. We use this property to distinguish between: - - - a character string which represents a complete domain name - (often called "absolute"). For example, "poneria.ISI.EDU." - - - a character string that represents the starting labels of a - domain name which is incomplete, and should be completed by - local software using knowledge of the local domain (often - called "relative"). For example, "poneria" used in the - ISI.EDU domain. - -Relative names are either taken relative to a well known origin, or to a -list of domains used as a search list. Relative names appear mostly at -the user interface, where their interpretation varies from -implementation to implementation, and in master files, where they are -relative to a single origin domain name. The most common interpretation -uses the root "." as either the single origin or as one of the members -of the search list, so a multi-label relative name is often one where -the trailing dot has been omitted to save typing. - -To simplify implementations, the total number of octets that represent a -domain name (i.e., the sum of all label octets and label lengths) is -limited to 255. - -A domain is identified by a domain name, and consists of that part of -the domain name space that is at or below the domain name which -specifies the domain. A domain is a subdomain of another domain if it -is contained within that domain. This relationship can be tested by -seeing if the subdomain's name ends with the containing domain's name. -For example, A.B.C.D is a subdomain of B.C.D, C.D, D, and " ". - -3.2. Administrative guidelines on use - -As a matter of policy, the DNS technical specifications do not mandate a -particular tree structure or rules for selecting labels; its goal is to -be as general as possible, so that it can be used to build arbitrary -applications. In particular, the system was designed so that the name -space did not have to be organized along the lines of network -boundaries, name servers, etc. The rationale for this is not that the -name space should have no implied semantics, but rather that the choice -of implied semantics should be left open to be used for the problem at - - - -Mockapetris [Page 8] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - -hand, and that different parts of the tree can have different implied -semantics. For example, the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain is organized and -distributed by network and host address because its role is to translate -from network or host numbers to names; NetBIOS domains [RFC-1001, RFC- -1002] are flat because that is appropriate for that application. - -However, there are some guidelines that apply to the "normal" parts of -the name space used for hosts, mailboxes, etc., that will make the name -space more uniform, provide for growth, and minimize problems as -software is converted from the older host table. The political -decisions about the top levels of the tree originated in RFC-920. -Current policy for the top levels is discussed in [RFC-1032]. MILNET -conversion issues are covered in [RFC-1031]. - -Lower domains which will eventually be broken into multiple zones should -provide branching at the top of the domain so that the eventual -decomposition can be done without renaming. Node labels which use -special characters, leading digits, etc., are likely to break older -software which depends on more restrictive choices. - -3.3. Technical guidelines on use - -Before the DNS can be used to hold naming information for some kind of -object, two needs must be met: - - - A convention for mapping between object names and domain - names. This describes how information about an object is - accessed. - - - RR types and data formats for describing the object. - -These rules can be quite simple or fairly complex. Very often, the -designer must take into account existing formats and plan for upward -compatibility for existing usage. Multiple mappings or levels of -mapping may be required. - -For hosts, the mapping depends on the existing syntax for host names -which is a subset of the usual text representation for domain names, -together with RR formats for describing host addresses, etc. Because we -need a reliable inverse mapping from address to host name, a special -mapping for addresses into the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain is also defined. - -For mailboxes, the mapping is slightly more complex. The usual mail -address @ is mapped into a domain name by -converting into a single label (regardles of dots it -contains), converting into a domain name using the usual -text format for domain names (dots denote label breaks), and -concatenating the two to form a single domain name. Thus the mailbox - - - -Mockapetris [Page 9] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - -HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA is represented as a domain name by -HOSTMASTER.SRI-NIC.ARPA. An appreciation for the reasons behind this -design also must take into account the scheme for mail exchanges [RFC- -974]. - -The typical user is not concerned with defining these rules, but should -understand that they usually are the result of numerous compromises -between desires for upward compatibility with old usage, interactions -between different object definitions, and the inevitable urge to add new -features when defining the rules. The way the DNS is used to support -some object is often more crucial than the restrictions inherent in the -DNS. - -3.4. Example name space - -The following figure shows a part of the current domain name space, and -is used in many examples in this RFC. Note that the tree is a very -small subset of the actual name space. - - | - | - +---------------------+------------------+ - | | | - MIL EDU ARPA - | | | - | | | - +-----+-----+ | +------+-----+-----+ - | | | | | | | - BRL NOSC DARPA | IN-ADDR SRI-NIC ACC - | - +--------+------------------+---------------+--------+ - | | | | | - UCI MIT | UDEL YALE - | ISI - | | - +---+---+ | - | | | - LCS ACHILLES +--+-----+-----+--------+ - | | | | | | - XX A C VAXA VENERA Mockapetris - -In this example, the root domain has three immediate subdomains: MIL, -EDU, and ARPA. The LCS.MIT.EDU domain has one immediate subdomain named -XX.LCS.MIT.EDU. All of the leaves are also domains. - -3.5. Preferred name syntax - -The DNS specifications attempt to be as general as possible in the rules - - - -Mockapetris [Page 10] - -RFC 1034 Domain Concepts and Facilities November 1987 - - -for constructing domain names. The idea is that the name of any -existing object can be expressed as a domain name with minimal changes. -However, when assigning a domain name for an object, the prudent user -will select a name which satisfies both the rules of the domain system -and any existing rules for the object, whether these rules are published -or implied by existing programs. - -For example, when naming a mail domain, the user should satisfy both the -rules of this memo and those in RFC-822. When creating a new host name, -the old rules for HOSTS.TXT should be followed. This avoids problems -when old software is converted to use domain names. - -The following syntax will result in fewer problems with many -applications that use domain names (e.g., mail, TELNET). - - ::= | " " - - ::=