+++ /dev/null
-
-
-
-DNSEXT D. Blacka
-Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
-Intended status: Standards Track April 7, 2006
-Expires: October 9, 2006
-
-
- DNSSEC Experiments
- draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-03
-
-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 October 9, 2006.
-
-Copyright Notice
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 1]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-Abstract
-
- This document describes a methodology for deploying alternate, non-
- backwards-compatible, DNSSEC methodologies in an experimental fashion
- without disrupting the deployment of standard DNSSEC.
-
-
-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. Use in Non-Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
- Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 2]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-1. Definitions and Terminology
-
- Throughout this document, familiarity with the DNS system (RFC 1035
- [5]) and the DNS security extensions ([2], [3], and [4] is assumed.
-
- 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].
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 3]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-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 security-
- aware resolvers.
-
- This document describes a standard methodology for setting up 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
- security-aware resolvers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 4]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-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 servers that do implement the
- DNSSEC standard.
-
- Non-Backwards-Compatible: describes experiments that would cause a
- standard security-aware resolver to (incorrectly) determine that
- all or part of a zone is bogus, or to otherwise not interoperate
- 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 may be used
- if desired.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 5]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-4. Method
-
- The core of the methodology is the use of strictly unknown algorithm
- identifiers when signing the experimental zone, and more importantly,
- having only unknown algorithm identifiers in the 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
- algorithm identifiers. From [4], 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 likely that a validator would implement this behavior, or, more to
- the point, it would handle this situation in a safe way (see below
- (Section 6).)
-
- Because we are talking about experiments, it is RECOMMENDED that
- private algorithm numbers be used (see [3], appendix A.1.1. Note
- that secure handling of private algorithms requires special handing
- by the validator logic. See [6] for further 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 suggested 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
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 6]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
- will suffice.
-
- Using this method, resolvers (or, more specifically, 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 security-aware servers and
- resolvers: servers and resolvers that are aware of the experiment
- (and thus recognize the experiment's algorithm identifiers and
- experimental semantics), and servers and resolvers that are unaware
- 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 is
- not.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 7]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-5. Defining an Experiment
-
- The DNSSEC experiment MUST define the particular set of (previously
- unknown) algorithm identifiers 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.
-
- For example, an experiment might specify in its description the DNS
- name "dnssec-experiment-a.example.com" as the base name, and declare
- that "3.dnssec-experiment-a.example.com" is an alias of DNSSEC
- algorithm 3 (DSA), and that "5.dnssec-experiment-a.example.com" is an
- alias of DNSSEC algorithm 5 (RSASHA1).
-
- Resolvers MUST only recognize the experiment's semantics when present
- in a zone signed by one or more of these algorithm identifiers. This
- is necessary to isolate the semantics of one experiment from any
- others that the resolver might understand.
-
- In general, 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 October 9, 2006 [Page 8]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-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 a non-validatable response and conclude
- that the response is bogus, either due to local policy or
- implementation details. This is not expected to be a common
- case, however.
-
- 2. It will not be possible for security-aware resolvers unaware of
- the experiment to build a chain of trust through an experimental
- zone.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 9]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-7. Use in Non-Experiments
-
- This general methodology MAY be used for non-backwards compatible
- DNSSEC protocol changes that start out as or become standards. In
- this case:
-
- o The protocol change SHOULD use public IANA allocated algorithm
- identifiers instead of private algorithm identifiers. This will
- help identify the protocol change as a standard, rather than an
- experiment.
-
- o Resolvers MAY recognize the protocol change in zones not signed
- (or not solely signed) using the new algorithm identifiers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 10]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-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 October 9, 2006 [Page 11]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-9. IANA Considerations
-
- This document has no IANA actions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 12]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-10. References
-
-10.1. Normative References
-
- [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
- Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
-
- [2] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
- "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033,
- March 2005.
-
- [3] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
- "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
- March 2005.
-
- [4] 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
-
- [5] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
- specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
-
- [6] Austein, R. and S. Weiler, "Clarifications and Implementation
- Notes for DNSSECbis", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-02
- (work in progress), January 2006.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 13]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-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 October 9, 2006 [Page 14]
-\f
-Internet-Draft DNSSEC Experiments April 2006
-
-
-Full 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.
-
- 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.
-
-
-Acknowledgment
-
- Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
- Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
-
-
-
-
-
-Blacka Expires October 9, 2006 [Page 15]
-\f
+++ /dev/null
-
-This Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience-01.txt, has expired, and has been deleted
-from the Internet-Drafts directory. An Internet-Draft expires 185 days from
-the date that it is posted unless it is replaced by an updated version, or the
-Secretariat has been notified that the document is under official review by the
-IESG or has been passed to the RFC Editor for review and/or publication as an
-RFC. This Internet-Draft was not published as an RFC.
-
-Internet-Drafts are not archival documents, and copies of Internet-Drafts that have
-been deleted from the directory are not available. The Secretariat does not have
-any information regarding the future plans of the author(s) or working group, if
-applicable, with respect to this deleted Internet-Draft. For more information, or
-to request a copy of the document, please contact the author(s) directly.
-
-Draft Author(s):
-Remco van Mook <remco@virtu.nl>,
-Bert Hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>
+++ /dev/null
-
-
-
-
-
-
-DNSEXT Working Group Bernard Aboba
-INTERNET-DRAFT Dave Thaler
-Category: Standards Track Levon Esibov
-<draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-46.txt> Microsoft Corporation
-16 April 2006
-
- 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 October 15, 2006.
-
-Copyright Notice
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2006.
-
-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 16 April 2006
-
-
-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 ............................. 5
- 2.2 Sender Behavior ................................. 8
- 2.3 Responder Behavior .............................. 8
- 2.4 Unicast Queries and Responses ................... 11
- 2.5 Off-link Detection .............................. 11
- 2.6 Responder Responsibilities ...................... 12
- 2.7 Retransmission and Jitter ....................... 13
- 2.8 DNS TTL ......................................... 14
- 2.9 Use of the Authority and Additional Sections .... 14
-3. Usage model ........................................... 15
- 3.1 LLMNR Configuration ............................. 16
-4. Conflict Resolution ................................... 18
- 4.1 Uniqueness Verification ......................... 18
- 4.2 Conflict Detection and Defense .................. 19
- 4.3 Considerations for Multiple Interfaces .......... 20
- 4.4 API issues ...................................... 22
-5. Security Considerations ............................... 22
- 5.1 Denial of Service ............................... 22
- 5.2 Spoofing ...............,........................ 23
- 5.3 Authentication .................................. 24
- 5.4 Cache and Port Separation ....................... 24
-6. IANA considerations ................................... 25
-7. Constants ............................................. 25
-8. References ............................................ 26
- 8.1 Normative References ............................ 26
- 8.2 Informative References .......................... 26
-Acknowledgments .............................................. 28
-Authors' Addresses ........................................... 28
-Intellectual Property Statement .............................. 29
-Disclaimer of Validity ....................................... 29
-Copyright Statement .......................................... 29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 2]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-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.
-
- 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.
-
-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].
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 3]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-1.2. Terminology
-
- This document assumes familiarity with DNS terminology defined in
- [RFC1035]. Other terminology used in this document includes:
-
-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 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 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].
-
- A typical sequence of events for LLMNR usage is as follows:
-
- [a] An LLMNR sender sends an LLMNR query to the link-scope
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 4]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- multicast address(es), unless a unicast query is indicated,
- as specified in Section 2.4.
-
- [b] A responder responds to this query only if it is authoritative
- for the 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.
-
- [c] 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:
-
- 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:
-
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 5]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-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.
-
-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 resend the LLMNR query over TCP using the
- unicast address of the responder as the destination address. If
- the sender receives a response to the TCP query, then it SHOULD
- discard the UDP response with the TC bit set. 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.
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 6]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-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. This
- may be required, for example, when an LLMNR query includes a TSIG
- RR in the additional section, and the responder encounters a
- problem that requires returning a non-zero RCODE. TSIG error
- conditions defined in [RFC2845] include a TSIG RR in an
- unacceptable position (RCODE=1) or a TSIG RR which does not
- validate (RCODE=9 with TSIG ERROR 17 (BADKEY) or 16 (BADSIG)).
-
- 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
- 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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 7]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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
- silently discarded.
-
- 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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 8]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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:
-
-[a] Responders MUST listen on UDP port 5355 on the link-scope multicast
- address(es) defined in Section 2, and on 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.
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 9]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-[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.
-
- 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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 10]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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.
-
- A unicast PTR RR query for an off-link address will not elicit a
- response, but instead an ICMP TTL or Hop Limit exceeded message will
- be received. An implementation receiving an ICMP message in response
- to a TCP connection setup attempt can return immediately, treating
- this as a response that no such name exists (RCODE=3 is returned).
- An implementation that cannot process ICMP messages MAY send
- multicast UDP queries for PTR RRs. Since TCP implementations will
- not retransmit prior to RTOmin, a considerable period will elapse
- before TCP retransmits multiple times, resulting in a long timeout
- for TCP PTR RR queries sent to an off-link destination.
-
-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.
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 11]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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 early implementations of [RFC3927].
-
- 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:
-
- [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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 12]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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.
- 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.
-
- However, if the first response has the 'C' bit set, then the sender
- SHOULD wait for LLMNR_TIMEOUT + JITTER_INTERVAL 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.
-
- 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, 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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 13]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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
- 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.
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 14]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-3. Usage Model
-
- LLMNR is a peer-to-peer name resolution protocol that is not intended
- as a replacement for DNS; rather, it enables name resolution in
- scenarios in which conventional DNS name resolution is not possible.
- This includes 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.
-
- By default, an LLMNR sender SHOULD send LLMNR queries only for
- single-label names. In order to reduce unnecessary DNS queries, stub
- resolvers supporting both DNS and LLMNR SHOULD avoid sending DNS
- queries for single-label names. An LLMNR sender SHOULD NOT be
- enabled to send a query for any name, except where security
- mechanisms (described in Section 5.3) can be utilized.
-
- Regardless of whether security mechanisms can be utilized, LLMNR
- queries SHOULD NOT be sent unless 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, a
- host SHOULD attempt to reach DNS servers over all 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 implies 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.
-
- Since LLMNR is a secondary name resolution mechanism, its usage is in
- part determined by the behavior of DNS implementations. In general,
- robust DNS resolver implementations are more likely to avoid
- unnecessary LLMNR queries.
-
- As noted in [DNSPerf], even when DNS servers are configured, a
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 15]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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 back-off. [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
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
-3.1. LLMNR Configuration
-
- 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.
-
- 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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 16]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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
- 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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 17]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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.
-
-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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 18]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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
- 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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 19]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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.
-
-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.
-
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 20]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- ---------- ----------
- | | | |
- [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
- 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.
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 21]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-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
- 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
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 22]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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)
- 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.
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 23]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- This vulnerability can be reduced by limiting use of LLMNR to
- resolution of single-label names as described in Section 3, or by
- implementation of authentication (see Section 5.3).
-
-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. Where a pre-arranged security configuration is possible,
- 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, based on group keys. While group
- keys can be used to demonstrate membership in a group, they do not
- protect against forgery by an attacker that is a member of the
- group.
-
-[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. As with TSIG, this does not
- protect against forgery by an attacker with access to the group
- pre-shared key.
-
-[c] LLMNR implementations MAY support DNSSEC [RFC4033]. In order to
- support DNSSEC, LLMNR implementations MAY be configured with trust
- anchors, or they MAY make use of keys obtained from DNS queries.
- Since LLMNR does not support "delegated trust" (CD or AD bits),
- LLMNR implementations cannot make use of DNSSEC unless they are
- DNSSEC-aware and support validation. Unlike approaches [a] or [b],
- DNSSEC permits a responder to demonstrate ownership of a name, not
- just membership within a trusted group. As a result, it enables
- protection against forgery.
-
-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.
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 24]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
- 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 SHOULD NOT be used as a primary name resolution
- mechanism.
-
-6. IANA Considerations
-
- 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.
-
- This specification creates two new name spaces: the LLMNR namespace
- and the reserved bits in the LLMNR header. The reserved bits in the
- LLMNR header are allocated by IETF Consensus, in accordance with BCP
- 26 [RFC2434].
-
- In order to to avoid creating any new administrative procedures,
- administration of the LLMNR namespace will piggyback on the
- administration of the DNS namespace.
-
- The rights to use a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) within LLMNR
- are obtained coincident with acquiring the rights to use that name
- within DNS. Those wishing to use a FQDN within LLMNR should first
- acquire the rights to use the corresponding FQDN within DNS. Using a
- FQDN within LLMNR without ownership of the corresponding name in DNS
- creates the possibility of conflict and therefore is discouraged.
-
- LLMNR responders may self-allocate a name within the single-label
- name space, first defined in [RFC1001]. Since single-label names are
- not unique, no registration process is required.
-
-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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 25]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-8. References
-
-8.1. Normative References
-
-[RFC1001] Auerbach, K. and A. Aggarwal, "Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS
- Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Concepts and Methods", RFC
- 1001, March 1987.
-
-[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
- Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987.
-
-[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
-
-[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.
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 26]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-[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.
-
-[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.
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 27]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-[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.
-
-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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 28]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Aboba, Thaler & Esibov Standards Track [Page 29]
-
-
-
-
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT LLMNR 16 April 2006
-
-
-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 30]
-
-
-
+++ /dev/null
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS
-OBSOLETES: RFC 2536 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Motorola Laboratories
-Expires: September 2006 March 2006
-
-
- DSA Keying and Signature Information in the DNS
- --- ------ --- --------- ----------- -- --- ---
- <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-07.txt>
- 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
- <namedroppers@ops.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
-
-
-
-Abstract
-
- The standard method of encoding US Government Digital Signature
- Algorithm keying and signature information for use in the Domain Name
- System is specified.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1]
-\f
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS
-
-
-Table of Contents
-
- Status of This Document....................................1
- Abstract...................................................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, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions.......5
-
- Normative References.......................................7
- Informative References.....................................7
-
- Author's Address...........................................8
- Expiration and File Name...................................8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2]
-\f
-
-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]
-\f
-
-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]
-\f
-
-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, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions
-
- 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.
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5]
-\f
-
-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.
-
- 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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6]
-\f
-
-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]
-\f
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT DSA Information in the DNS
-
-
-Author's 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 September 2006.
-
- Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-07.txt.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8]
-\f
+++ /dev/null
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS
-OBSOLETES: RFC 2539 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Motorola Laboratories
-Expires: September 2006 March 2006
-
-
-
-
- Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keying Information in the DNS
- ------- -- -------------- ------ ----------- -- --- ---
- <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-07.txt>
-
-
-
-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
- <namedroppers@ops.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
-
-
-Abstract
-
- The standard method for encoding Diffie-Hellman keys in the Domain
- Name System is specified.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1]
-\f
-
-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
-
- 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, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions.......5
-
- Normative References.......................................7
- Informative Refences.......................................7
-
- Author's 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]
-\f
-
-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].
-
- 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 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
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 3]
-\f
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS
-
-
- key is the pair p and g, which is the same for both parties, and
- their individual X (or Y).
-
- For further information about Diffie-Hellman and precautions to take
- 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]
-\f
-
-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, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions
-
- 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.
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5]
-\f
-
-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.
-
- 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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6]
-\f
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS
-
-
-Normative References
-
- [RFC 2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
- Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
-
- [RFC 2434] - "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section
- in RFCs", T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, October 1998.
-
- [RFC 2631] - "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method", E. Rescorla, June
- 1999.
-
- [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]
-\f
-
-INTERNET-DRAFT Diffie-Hellman Information in the DNS
-
-
-Author's 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 September 2006.
-
- Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-07.txt.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8]
-\f
-
-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]
-\f
-
-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]
-\f
+++ /dev/null
-
-
-
-Network Working Group M. StJohns
-Internet-Draft Nominum, Inc.
-Intended status: Informational November 29, 2006
-Expires: June 2, 2007
-
-
- Automated Updates of DNSSEC Trust Anchors
- draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-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 June 2, 2007.
-
-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 N-1 key compromises of N keys 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(s).
-
- This mechanism will require changes to resolver management behavior
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 1]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
- (but not resolver resolution behavior), and the addition of a single
- flag bit to the DNSKEY record.
-
-
-Table of Contents
-
- 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
- 1.1. Compliance Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
- 2. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 2.1. Revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 2.2. Add Hold-Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 2.3. Active Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 2.4. Resolver Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 2.4.1. Add Hold-Down Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 2.4.2. Remove Hold-Down Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 2.4.3. Minimum Trust Anchors per Trust Point . . . . . . . . 6
- 3. Changes to DNSKEY RDATA Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 4. State Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 4.1. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 4.2. States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 5. Trust Point Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 6. Scenarios - Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 6.1. Adding a Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 6.2. Deleting a Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 6.3. Key Roll-Over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 6.4. Active Key Compromised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 6.5. Stand-by Key Compromised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 6.6. Trust Point Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 8.1. Key Ownership vs Acceptance Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 8.2. Multiple Key Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 8.3. Dynamic Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
- Editorial Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
- Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 2]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
-1. Introduction
-
- As part of the reality of fielding DNSSEC (Domain Name System
- Security Extensions) [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].
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 3]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
-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 zone operator adds a new SEP key (i.e. a
- DNSKEY with the Secure Entry Point bit set) (see [RFC4034]section
- 2.1.1) to a trust point DNSKEY RRSet, and when that RRSet is
- validated by an existing trust anchor, then the resolver can add the
- new key to its valid set of trust anchors for that trust point.
-
- 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, we need to prevent an attacker from adding a new key and
- revoking 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 7 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 it signed 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.
-
- A self-signed RRSet is a DNSKEY RRSet which contains the specific
- DNSKEY and for which there is a corresponding validated RRSIG record.
- It's not a special DNSKEY RRSet, just a way of describing the
- validation requirements for that RRSet.
-
- 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.
-
- In the given example, the attacker could revoke B because it has
- knowledge of B's private key, but could not revoke A.
-
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 4]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
-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 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 for that
- key 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. 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
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 5]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
- RRSet or half the RRSIG expiration interval and no more often than
- once per hour. 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. I.e.: retryTime = MAX (1 hour, MIN (1 day, .1 *
- origTTL, .1 * expireInterval)).
-
-2.4. Resolver Parameters
-
-2.4.1. Add Hold-Down Time
-
- The add hold-down time is 30 days or the expiration time of the
- original TTL of the first trust point DNSKEY RRSet which contained
- the new 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.
-
-2.4.2. Remove Hold-Down Time
-
- The remove hold-down time is 30 days. This parameter is solely a key
- management database bookeeping parameter. Failure to remove
- information about the state of defunct keys from the database will
- not adversely impact the security of this protocol, but may end up
- with a database cluttered with obsolete key information.
-
-2.4.3. 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
- validating the revocation.
-
-
-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
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 6]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
- 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.
-
- 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 | | | | | | |
- ----------------------------------------------------------
-
-
- State Table
-
-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 it's 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 June 2, 2007 [Page 7]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 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 either hasn't yet
- been seen at the resolver or was seen but was absent from the last
- DNSKEY RRSet (e.g. KeyRem event).
- 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.
- 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. (Note: this state is
- more or less equivalent to the "Start" state, except that it's bad
- practice to re-introduce previously used keys - think of this as
- the holding state for all the old keys for which the resolver no
- longer needs to track state.)
-
-
-5. 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 configured trust points, data
- at and below the deleted trust point are considered insecure by the
- resolver. If there ARE superior configured trust points, data at and
- below the deleted trust point are evaluated with respect to the
- superior trust point(s).
-
- Alternately, a trust point which is subordinate to another configured
- trust point MAY be deleted by a resolver after 180 days where such
- subordinate trust point validly chains to a superior trust point.
- The decision to delete the subordinate trust anchor is a local
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 8]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
- configuration decision. Once the subordinate trust point is deleted,
- validation of the subordinate zone is dependent on validating the
- chain of trust to the superior trust point.
-
-
-6. Scenarios - Informative
-
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
-6.1. 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 (i.e. for various resolvers timers to go off and for
- them to retrieve the new DNSKEY RRSet and signatures).
- 6. The new trust anchor will be populated at the resolvers on the
- schedule described by the state table and update algorithm - see
- Section 2 above
-
-6.2. Deleting a Trust Anchor
-
- Assume existing trust anchors 'A' and 'B' and that you want to revoke
- and delete 'A'.
- 1. Set the revocation 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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 9]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
-6.3. 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.
-
-6.4. Active Key Compromised
-
- This is the same as the mechanism for Key Roll-Over (Section 6.3)
- above assuming 'A' is the active key.
-
-6.5. Stand-by Key Compromised
-
- Using the same assumptions and naming conventions as Key Roll-Over
- (Section 6.3) 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.
-
-6.6. Trust Point Deletion
-
- To delete a trust point which is subordinate to another configured
- trust point (e.g. example.com to .com) requires some juggling of the
- data. The specific process is:
- 1. Generate a new DNSKEY and DS record and provide the DS record to
- the parent along with DS records for the old keys
- 2. Once the parent has published the DSs, add the new DNSKEY to the
- RRSet and revoke ALL of the old keys at the same time while
- signing the DNSKEY RRSet with all of the old and new keys.
- 3. After 30 days stop publishing the old, revoked keys and remove
- any corresponding DS records in the parent.
- Revoking the old trust point keys at the same time as adding new keys
- that chain to a superior trust prevents the resolver from adding the
- new keys as trust anchors. Adding DS records for the old keys avoids
- a race condition where either the subordinate zone becomes unsecure
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 10]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
- (because the trust point was deleted) or becomes bogus (because it
- didn't chain to the superior zone).
-
-
-7. 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.
-
-
-8. Security Considerations
-
- In addition to the following sections, see also Theory of Operation
- above and especially Section 2.2 for related discussions.
-
-8.1. Key Ownership vs Acceptance Policy
-
- The reader should note that, while the zone owner is responsible for
- 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 to
- 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.
-
-8.2. 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.
-
-8.3. Dynamic Updates
-
- Allowing a resolver to update its trust anchor set based on 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
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 11]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
- lack of a standard management framework for DNS, this approach is no
- worse than the existing situation.
-
-
-9. Normative References
-
- [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
- Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
-
- [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
-
- [msj2] msj: To be assigned.
-
-
-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 June 2, 2007 [Page 12]
-\f
-Internet-Draft trustanchor-update November 2006
-
-
-Full 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.
-
- 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.
-
-
-Acknowledgment
-
- Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
- Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
-
-
-
-
-
-StJohns Expires June 2, 2007 [Page 13]
-\f
-
+++ /dev/null
-
-
-
-
-
-
- DNSOP Working Group Paul Vixie, ISC
- INTERNET-DRAFT Akira Kato, WIDE
- <draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-06.txt> August 2006
-
- DNS Referral 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 (2006). 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, and suggests ways to optimize the use of
- this limited space. Guidance is offered to DNS server implementors
- and to DNS zone operators.
-
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 1]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 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 IP
- reassembly limit for IPv4, it became a hard DNS protocol limit and is
- not implicitly relaxed by changes in transport, for example to IPv6.
-
- 1.2. The EDNS0 protocol extension (see [RFC2671 2.3, 4.5]) permits
- larger responses by mutual agreement of the requester and responder.
- The 512 octet message size limit will remain in practical effect until
- there is widespread deployment of EDNS0 in DNS resolvers on the
- Internet.
-
- 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.
- Negative responses are quite small, but for positive and delegation
- responses, every octet must be carefully and sparingly allocated. This
- document specifically addresses delegation response sizes.
-
- 2 - Delegation Details
-
- 2.1. RELEVANT PROTOCOL ELEMENTS
-
- 2.1.1. A delegation response will include the following elements:
-
- Header Section: fixed length (12 octets)
- Question Section: original query (name, class, type)
- Answer Section: empty, or a CNAME/DNAME chain
- Authority Section: NS RRset (nameserver names)
- Additional Section: A and AAAA RRsets (nameserver addresses)
-
- 2.1.2. If the total response size exceeds 512 octets, and if the data
- that does not fit was "required", then the TC bit will be set
- (indicating truncation). This will usually cause the requester to retry
- using TCP, depending on what information was desired and what
- information was omitted. For example, truncation in the authority
- section is of no interest to a stub resolver who only plans to consume
- the answer section. 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 requirement that UDP be attempted before falling back to TCP.
-
- 2.1.3. RRsets are never sent partially unless TC bit set to indicate
- truncation. When TC bit is set, the final apparent RRset in the final
- non-empty section must be considered "possibly damaged" (see [RFC1035
- 6.2], [RFC2181 9]).
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 2]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- 2.1.4. With or without truncation, the glue present in the additional
- data section should be considered "possibly incomplete", and requesters
- should be prepared to re-query for any damaged or missing RRsets. Note
- that truncation of the additional data section might not be signalled
- via the TC bit since additional data is often optional (see discussion
- in [RFC4472 B]).
-
- 2.1.5. 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 (see [RFC1035
- 4.1.4]). If all nameserver names in a message share a common parent
- (for example, all ending in ".ROOT-SERVERS.NET"), then more space will
- be available for incompressable data (such as nameserver addresses).
-
- 2.1.6. The query name can be as long as 255 octets of network data. In
- this worst case scenario, the question section will be 259 octets in
- size, which would leave only 240 octets for the authority and additional
- sections (after deducting 12 octets for the fixed length header.)
-
- 2.2. ADVICE TO ZONE OWNERS
-
- 2.2.1. 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. Note that if the zone
- contains any wildcards, it is possible for maximum length queries to
- require positive responses, but that it is reasonable to expect
- truncation and TCP retry in that case. For cost and performance
- reasons, the majority of requests should be satisfied without truncation
- or TCP retry.
-
- 2.2.2. Some queries to non-existing names can be large, but this is not
- a problem because negative responses need not contain any answer,
- authority or additional records. See [RFC2308 2.1] for more information
- about the format of negative responses.
-
- 2.2.3. The minimum useful number of name servers is two, for redundancy
- (see [RFC1034 4.1]). A zone's name servers should be reachable by all
- IP transport protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.
-
- 2.2.4. The best case is no truncation at all. This is because many
- requesters will retry using TCP immediately, or will automatically re-
- query for RRsets that are possibly truncated, without considering
- whether the omitted data was actually necessary.
-
-
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 3]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- 2.3. ADVICE TO SERVER IMPLEMENTORS
-
- 2.3.1. In case of multi-homed name servers, it is advantageous to
- include an address record from each of several name servers before
- including several address records for any one name server. If address
- records for more than one transport (for example, A and AAAA) are
- available, then it is advantageous to include records of both types
- early on, before the message is full.
-
- 2.3.2. Each added NS RR for a zone will add 12 fixed octets (name, type,
- class, ttl, and rdlen) plus 2 to 255 variable octets (for the NSDNAME).
- Each A RR will require 16 octets, and each AAAA RR will require 28
- octets.
-
- 2.3.3. While DNS distinguishes between necessary and optional resource
- records, this distinction is according to protocol elements necessary to
- signify facts, and takes no official notice of protocol content
- necessary to ensure correct operation. For example, a nameserver name
- that is in or below the zone cut being described by a delegation is
- "necessary content," since there is no way to reach that zone unless the
- parent zone's delegation includes "glue records" describing that name
- server's addresses.
-
- 2.3.4. It is also necessary to distinguish between "explicit truncation"
- where a message could not contain enough records to convey its intended
- meaning, and so the TC bit has been set, and "silent truncation", where
- the message was not large enough to contain some records which were "not
- required", and so the TC bit was not set.
-
- 2.3.5. A delegation response should prioritize glue records as follows.
-
- first
- All glue RRsets for one name server whose name is in or below the
- zone being delegated, or which has multiple address RRsets (currently
- A and AAAA), or preferably both;
-
- second
- Alternate between adding all glue RRsets for any name servers whose
- names are in or below the zone being delegated, and all glue RRsets
- for any name servers who have multiple address RRsets (currently A
- and AAAA);
-
- thence
- All other glue RRsets, in any order.
-
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 4]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- Whenever there are multiple candidates for a position in this priority
- scheme, one should be chosen on a round-robin or fully random basis.
-
- The goal of this priority scheme is to offer "necessary" glue first,
- avoiding silent truncation for this glue if possible.
-
- 2.3.6. If any "necessary content" is silently truncated, then it is
- advisable that the TC bit be set in order to force a TCP retry, rather
- than have the zone be unreachable. Note that a parent server's proper
- response to a query for in-child glue or below-child glue is a referral
- rather than an answer, and that this referral MUST be able to contain
- the in-child or below-child glue, and that in outlying cases, only EDNS
- or TCP will be large enough to contain that data.
-
- 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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 5]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- ;; 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
-
- 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, due to the use of DNS compression pointers in the last 12
- occurances of the parent domain name. 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):
- only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
- A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow)
- preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 3 (yellow)
- For average size query (64 byte):
- only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
- A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 4 (green)
- preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 6]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- % 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):
- only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
- A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow)
- preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 2 (yellow)
- For average size query (64 byte):
- only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
- A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 4 (green)
- preferred-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
- "yellow" if two or more could fit, or "orange" if only one could fit, or
- "red" if no address record 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.
-
- We're assuming a medium query name size of 64 since that is the typical
- 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, since the common parent domain name only appears
- once in a DNS message and is referred to via "compression pointers"
- thereafter.
-
- 4.2. If all nameserver names for a zone share a common parent, then it
- is operationally advisable to make all servers for the zone thus served
- also be authoritative for the zone of that common parent. For example,
- the root name servers (?.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) can answer authoritatively
- for the ROOT-SERVERS.NET. This is to ensure that the zone's servers
- always have the zone's nameservers' glue available when delegating, and
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 7]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- will be able to respond with answers rather than referrals if a
- requester who wants that glue comes back asking for it. In this case
- the name server will likely be a "stealth server" -- authoritative but
- unadvertised in the glue zone's NS RRset. See [RFC1996 2] for more
- information about stealth servers.
-
- 4.3. Thirteen (13) is the effective maximum number of nameserver names
- usable traditional (non-extended) DNS, assuming a common parent domain
- name, and given that implicit referral response truncation is
- undesirable in the average case.
-
- 4.4. Multi-homing of name servers within a protocol family is
- inadvisable since the necessary glue RRsets (A or AAAA) are atomically
- indivisible, and will be larger than a single resource record. Larger
- RRsets are more likely to lead to or encounter truncation.
-
- 4.5. Multi-homing of name servers across protocol families is less
- likely to lead to or encounter truncation, partly because multiprotocol
- clients are more likely to speak EDNS which can use a larger response
- size limit, and partly because the resource records (A and AAAA) are in
- different RRsets and are therefore divisible from each other.
-
- 4.6. Name server names which are at or below the zone they serve are
- more sensitive to referral response truncation, and glue records for
- them should be considered "less optional" than other glue records, in
- the assembly of referral responses.
-
- 4.7. If a zone is served by thirteen (13) name servers having a common
- parent name (such as ?.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) and each such name server has a
- single address record in some protocol family (e.g., an A RR), then all
- thirteen name servers or any subset thereof could multi-home in a second
- protocol family by adding a second address record (e.g., an AAAA RR)
- without reducing the reachability of the zone thus served.
-
- 5 - Source Code
-
- #!/usr/bin/perl
- #
- # SYNOPSIS
- # repsize.pl [ -z zone ] fqdn_ns1 fqdn_ns2 ...
- # if all queries are assumed to have a same zone suffix,
- # such as "jp" in JP TLD servers, specify it in -z option
- #
- use strict;
- use Getopt::Std;
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 8]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- 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 $n_ns = 0;
-
- getopt('z', %opts);
- if (defined($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);
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 9]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- $n_a_aaaa = atmost(int($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 " only A is considered: ";
- printf "# of A is %d (%s)\n", $n_a, &judge($n_a, $n_ns);
- printf " A and AAAA are considered: ";
- printf "# of A+AAAA is %d (%s)\n",
- $n_a_aaaa, &judge($n_a_aaaa, $n_ns);
- printf " preferred-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;
- }
-
- 6 - Security Considerations
-
- The recommendations contained in this document have no known security
- implications.
-
- 7 - IANA Considerations
-
- This document does not call for changes or additions to any IANA
- registry.
-
- 8 - Acknowledgement
-
- The authors thank Peter Koch, Rob Austein, Joe Abley, and Mark Andrews
- for their valuable comments and suggestions.
-
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 10]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation (research
- grant SCI-0427144) and DNS-OARC.
-
- 9 - References
-
- [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P.V., "Domain names - Concepts and Facilities",
- RFC1034, November 1987.
-
- [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P.V., "Domain names - Implementation and
- Specification", RFC1035, November 1987.
-
- [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
- Application and Support", RFC1123, October 1989.
-
- [RFC1996] Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
- Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC1996, August 1996.
-
- [RFC2181] Elz, R., Bush, R., "Clarifications to the DNS Specification",
- RFC2181, July 1997.
-
- [RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)",
- RFC2308, March 1998.
-
- [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC2671,
- August 1999.
-
- [RFC4472] Durand, A., Ihren, J., Savola, P., "Operational Consideration
- and Issues with IPV6 DNS", April 2006.
-
- 10 - Authors' Addresses
-
- Paul Vixie
- Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
- 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 January 2007 [Page 11]
-\f
- INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
-
-
- Full 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.
-
- 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 provided by the IETF
- Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
-
-
-
-
- Expires January 2007 [Page 12]
-\f
-
+++ /dev/null
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Network Working Group S. Josefsson
-Request for Comments: 4648 SJD
-Obsoletes: 3548 October 2006
-Category: Standards Track
-
-
- The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings
-
-Status of This Memo
-
- This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
- Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
- improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
- Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
- and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
-Copyright Notice
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
-
-Abstract
-
- This document describes the commonly used base 64, base 32, and base
- 16 encoding schemes. It also discusses the use of line-feeds in
- encoded data, use of padding in encoded data, use of non-alphabet
- characters in encoded data, use of different encoding alphabets, and
- canonical encodings.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 1]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-Table of Contents
-
- 1. Introduction ....................................................3
- 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................3
- 3. Implementation Discrepancies ....................................3
- 3.1. Line Feeds in Encoded Data .................................3
- 3.2. Padding of Encoded Data ....................................4
- 3.3. Interpretation of Non-Alphabet Characters in Encoded Data ..4
- 3.4. Choosing the Alphabet ......................................4
- 3.5. Canonical Encoding .........................................5
- 4. Base 64 Encoding ................................................5
- 5. Base 64 Encoding with URL and Filename Safe Alphabet ............7
- 6. Base 32 Encoding ................................................8
- 7. Base 32 Encoding with Extended Hex Alphabet ....................10
- 8. Base 16 Encoding ...............................................10
- 9. Illustrations and Examples .....................................11
- 10. Test Vectors ..................................................12
- 11. ISO C99 Implementation of Base64 ..............................14
- 12. Security Considerations .......................................14
- 13. Changes Since RFC 3548 ........................................15
- 14. Acknowledgements ..............................................15
- 15. Copying Conditions ............................................15
- 16. References ....................................................16
- 16.1. Normative References .....................................16
- 16.2. Informative References ...................................16
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 2]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-1. Introduction
-
- Base encoding of data is used in many situations to store or transfer
- data in environments that, perhaps for legacy reasons, are restricted
- to US-ASCII [1] data. Base encoding can also be used in new
- applications that do not have legacy restrictions, simply because it
- makes it possible to manipulate objects with text editors.
-
- In the past, different applications have had different requirements
- and thus sometimes implemented base encodings in slightly different
- ways. Today, protocol specifications sometimes use base encodings in
- general, and "base64" in particular, without a precise description or
- reference. Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [4] is often
- used as a reference for base64 without considering the consequences
- for line-wrapping or non-alphabet characters. The purpose of this
- specification is to establish common alphabet and encoding
- considerations. This will hopefully reduce ambiguity in other
- documents, leading to better interoperability.
-
-2. Conventions Used 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 [2].
-
-3. Implementation Discrepancies
-
- Here we discuss the discrepancies between base encoding
- implementations in the past and, where appropriate, mandate a
- specific recommended behavior for the future.
-
-3.1. Line Feeds in Encoded Data
-
- MIME [4] is often used as a reference for base 64 encoding. However,
- MIME does not define "base 64" per se, but rather a "base 64 Content-
- Transfer-Encoding" for use within MIME. As such, MIME enforces a
- limit on line length of base 64-encoded data to 76 characters. MIME
- inherits the encoding from Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM) [3], stating
- that it is "virtually identical"; however, PEM uses a line length of
- 64 characters. The MIME and PEM limits are both due to limits within
- SMTP.
-
- Implementations MUST NOT add line feeds to base-encoded data unless
- the specification referring to this document explicitly directs base
- encoders to add line feeds after a specific number of characters.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 3]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-3.2. Padding of Encoded Data
-
- In some circumstances, the use of padding ("=") in base-encoded data
- is not required or used. In the general case, when assumptions about
- the size of transported data cannot be made, padding is required to
- yield correct decoded data.
-
- Implementations MUST include appropriate pad characters at the end of
- encoded data unless the specification referring to this document
- explicitly states otherwise.
-
- The base64 and base32 alphabets use padding, as described below in
- sections 4 and 6, but the base16 alphabet does not need it; see
- section 8.
-
-3.3. Interpretation of Non-Alphabet Characters in Encoded Data
-
- Base encodings use a specific, reduced alphabet to encode binary
- data. Non-alphabet characters could exist within base-encoded data,
- caused by data corruption or by design. Non-alphabet characters may
- be exploited as a "covert channel", where non-protocol data can be
- sent for nefarious purposes. Non-alphabet characters might also be
- sent in order to exploit implementation errors leading to, e.g.,
- buffer overflow attacks.
-
- Implementations MUST reject the encoded data if it contains
- characters outside the base alphabet when interpreting base-encoded
- data, unless the specification referring to this document explicitly
- states otherwise. Such specifications may instead state, as MIME
- does, that characters outside the base encoding alphabet should
- simply be ignored when interpreting data ("be liberal in what you
- accept"). Note that this means that any adjacent carriage return/
- line feed (CRLF) characters constitute "non-alphabet characters" and
- are ignored. Furthermore, such specifications MAY ignore the pad
- character, "=", treating it as non-alphabet data, if it is present
- before the end of the encoded data. If more than the allowed number
- of pad characters is found at the end of the string (e.g., a base 64
- string terminated with "==="), the excess pad characters MAY also be
- ignored.
-
-3.4. Choosing the Alphabet
-
- Different applications have different requirements on the characters
- in the alphabet. Here are a few requirements that determine which
- alphabet should be used:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 4]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
- o Handled by humans. The characters "0" and "O" are easily
- confused, as are "1", "l", and "I". In the base32 alphabet below,
- where 0 (zero) and 1 (one) are not present, a decoder may
- interpret 0 as O, and 1 as I or L depending on case. (However, by
- default it should not; see previous section.)
-
- o Encoded into structures that mandate other requirements. For base
- 16 and base 32, this determines the use of upper- or lowercase
- alphabets. For base 64, the non-alphanumeric characters (in
- particular, "/") may be problematic in file names and URLs.
-
- o Used as identifiers. Certain characters, notably "+" and "/" in
- the base 64 alphabet, are treated as word-breaks by legacy text
- search/index tools.
-
- There is no universally accepted alphabet that fulfills all the
- requirements. For an example of a highly specialized variant, see
- IMAP [8]. In this document, we document and name some currently used
- alphabets.
-
-3.5. Canonical Encoding
-
- The padding step in base 64 and base 32 encoding can, if improperly
- implemented, lead to non-significant alterations of the encoded data.
- For example, if the input is only one octet for a base 64 encoding,
- then all six bits of the first symbol are used, but only the first
- two bits of the next symbol are used. These pad bits MUST be set to
- zero by conforming encoders, which is described in the descriptions
- on padding below. If this property do not hold, there is no
- canonical representation of base-encoded data, and multiple base-
- encoded strings can be decoded to the same binary data. If this
- property (and others discussed in this document) holds, a canonical
- encoding is guaranteed.
-
- In some environments, the alteration is critical and therefore
- decoders MAY chose to reject an encoding if the pad bits have not
- been set to zero. The specification referring to this may mandate a
- specific behaviour.
-
-4. Base 64 Encoding
-
- The following description of base 64 is derived from [3], [4], [5],
- and [6]. This encoding may be referred to as "base64".
-
- The Base 64 encoding is designed to represent arbitrary sequences of
- octets in a form that allows the use of both upper- and lowercase
- letters but that need not be human readable.
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 5]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
- A 65-character subset of US-ASCII is used, enabling 6 bits to be
- represented per printable character. (The extra 65th character, "=",
- is used to signify a special processing function.)
-
- The encoding process represents 24-bit groups of input bits as output
- strings of 4 encoded characters. Proceeding from left to right, a
- 24-bit input group is formed by concatenating 3 8-bit input groups.
- These 24 bits are then treated as 4 concatenated 6-bit groups, each
- of which is translated into a single character in the base 64
- alphabet.
-
- Each 6-bit group is used as an index into an array of 64 printable
- characters. The character referenced by the index is placed in the
- output string.
-
- Table 1: The Base 64 Alphabet
-
- Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding
- 0 A 17 R 34 i 51 z
- 1 B 18 S 35 j 52 0
- 2 C 19 T 36 k 53 1
- 3 D 20 U 37 l 54 2
- 4 E 21 V 38 m 55 3
- 5 F 22 W 39 n 56 4
- 6 G 23 X 40 o 57 5
- 7 H 24 Y 41 p 58 6
- 8 I 25 Z 42 q 59 7
- 9 J 26 a 43 r 60 8
- 10 K 27 b 44 s 61 9
- 11 L 28 c 45 t 62 +
- 12 M 29 d 46 u 63 /
- 13 N 30 e 47 v
- 14 O 31 f 48 w (pad) =
- 15 P 32 g 49 x
- 16 Q 33 h 50 y
-
- Special processing is performed if fewer than 24 bits are available
- at the end of the data being encoded. A full encoding quantum is
- always completed at the end of a quantity. When fewer than 24 input
- bits are available in an input group, bits with value zero are added
- (on the right) to form an integral number of 6-bit groups. Padding
- at the end of the data is performed using the '=' character. Since
- all base 64 input is an integral number of octets, only the following
- cases can arise:
-
- (1) The final quantum of encoding input is an integral multiple of 24
- bits; here, the final unit of encoded output will be an integral
- multiple of 4 characters with no "=" padding.
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 6]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
- (2) The final quantum of encoding input is exactly 8 bits; here, the
- final unit of encoded output will be two characters followed by
- two "=" padding characters.
-
- (3) The final quantum of encoding input is exactly 16 bits; here, the
- final unit of encoded output will be three characters followed by
- one "=" padding character.
-
-5. Base 64 Encoding with URL and Filename Safe Alphabet
-
- The Base 64 encoding with an URL and filename safe alphabet has been
- used in [12].
-
- An alternative alphabet has been suggested that would use "~" as the
- 63rd character. Since the "~" character has special meaning in some
- file system environments, the encoding described in this section is
- recommended instead. The remaining unreserved URI character is ".",
- but some file system environments do not permit multiple "." in a
- filename, thus making the "." character unattractive as well.
-
- The pad character "=" is typically percent-encoded when used in an
- URI [9], but if the data length is known implicitly, this can be
- avoided by skipping the padding; see section 3.2.
-
- This encoding may be referred to as "base64url". This encoding
- should not be regarded as the same as the "base64" encoding and
- should not be referred to as only "base64". Unless clarified
- otherwise, "base64" refers to the base 64 in the previous section.
-
- This encoding is technically identical to the previous one, except
- for the 62:nd and 63:rd alphabet character, as indicated in Table 2.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 7]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
- Table 2: The "URL and Filename safe" Base 64 Alphabet
-
- Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding
- 0 A 17 R 34 i 51 z
- 1 B 18 S 35 j 52 0
- 2 C 19 T 36 k 53 1
- 3 D 20 U 37 l 54 2
- 4 E 21 V 38 m 55 3
- 5 F 22 W 39 n 56 4
- 6 G 23 X 40 o 57 5
- 7 H 24 Y 41 p 58 6
- 8 I 25 Z 42 q 59 7
- 9 J 26 a 43 r 60 8
- 10 K 27 b 44 s 61 9
- 11 L 28 c 45 t 62 - (minus)
- 12 M 29 d 46 u 63 _
- 13 N 30 e 47 v (underline)
- 14 O 31 f 48 w
- 15 P 32 g 49 x
- 16 Q 33 h 50 y (pad) =
-
-6. Base 32 Encoding
-
- The following description of base 32 is derived from [11] (with
- corrections). This encoding may be referred to as "base32".
-
- The Base 32 encoding is designed to represent arbitrary sequences of
- octets in a form that needs to be case insensitive but that need not
- be human readable.
-
- A 33-character subset of US-ASCII is used, enabling 5 bits to be
- represented per printable character. (The extra 33rd character, "=",
- is used to signify a special processing function.)
-
- The encoding process represents 40-bit groups of input bits as output
- strings of 8 encoded characters. Proceeding from left to right, a
- 40-bit input group is formed by concatenating 5 8bit input groups.
- These 40 bits are then treated as 8 concatenated 5-bit groups, each
- of which is translated into a single character in the base 32
- alphabet. When a bit stream is encoded via the base 32 encoding, the
- bit stream must be presumed to be ordered with the most-significant-
- bit first. That is, the first bit in the stream will be the high-
- order bit in the first 8bit byte, the eighth bit will be the low-
- order bit in the first 8bit byte, and so on.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 8]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
- Each 5-bit group is used as an index into an array of 32 printable
- characters. The character referenced by the index is placed in the
- output string. These characters, identified in Table 3, below, are
- selected from US-ASCII digits and uppercase letters.
-
- Table 3: The Base 32 Alphabet
-
- Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding
- 0 A 9 J 18 S 27 3
- 1 B 10 K 19 T 28 4
- 2 C 11 L 20 U 29 5
- 3 D 12 M 21 V 30 6
- 4 E 13 N 22 W 31 7
- 5 F 14 O 23 X
- 6 G 15 P 24 Y (pad) =
- 7 H 16 Q 25 Z
- 8 I 17 R 26 2
-
- Special processing is performed if fewer than 40 bits are available
- at the end of the data being encoded. A full encoding quantum is
- always completed at the end of a body. When fewer than 40 input bits
- are available in an input group, bits with value zero are added (on
- the right) to form an integral number of 5-bit groups. Padding at
- the end of the data is performed using the "=" character. Since all
- base 32 input is an integral number of octets, only the following
- cases can arise:
-
- (1) The final quantum of encoding input is an integral multiple of 40
- bits; here, the final unit of encoded output will be an integral
- multiple of 8 characters with no "=" padding.
-
- (2) The final quantum of encoding input is exactly 8 bits; here, the
- final unit of encoded output will be two characters followed by
- six "=" padding characters.
-
- (3) The final quantum of encoding input is exactly 16 bits; here, the
- final unit of encoded output will be four characters followed by
- four "=" padding characters.
-
- (4) The final quantum of encoding input is exactly 24 bits; here, the
- final unit of encoded output will be five characters followed by
- three "=" padding characters.
-
- (5) The final quantum of encoding input is exactly 32 bits; here, the
- final unit of encoded output will be seven characters followed by
- one "=" padding character.
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 9]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-7. Base 32 Encoding with Extended Hex Alphabet
-
- The following description of base 32 is derived from [7]. This
- encoding may be referred to as "base32hex". This encoding should not
- be regarded as the same as the "base32" encoding and should not be
- referred to as only "base32". This encoding is used by, e.g.,
- NextSECure3 (NSEC3) [10].
-
- One property with this alphabet, which the base64 and base32
- alphabets lack, is that encoded data maintains its sort order when
- the encoded data is compared bit-wise.
-
- This encoding is identical to the previous one, except for the
- alphabet. The new alphabet is found in Table 4.
-
- Table 4: The "Extended Hex" Base 32 Alphabet
-
- Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding
- 0 0 9 9 18 I 27 R
- 1 1 10 A 19 J 28 S
- 2 2 11 B 20 K 29 T
- 3 3 12 C 21 L 30 U
- 4 4 13 D 22 M 31 V
- 5 5 14 E 23 N
- 6 6 15 F 24 O (pad) =
- 7 7 16 G 25 P
- 8 8 17 H 26 Q
-
-8. Base 16 Encoding
-
- The following description is original but analogous to previous
- descriptions. Essentially, Base 16 encoding is the standard case-
- insensitive hex encoding and may be referred to as "base16" or "hex".
-
- A 16-character subset of US-ASCII is used, enabling 4 bits to be
- represented per printable character.
-
- The encoding process represents 8-bit groups (octets) of input bits
- as output strings of 2 encoded characters. Proceeding from left to
- right, an 8-bit input is taken from the input data. These 8 bits are
- then treated as 2 concatenated 4-bit groups, each of which is
- translated into a single character in the base 16 alphabet.
-
- Each 4-bit group is used as an index into an array of 16 printable
- characters. The character referenced by the index is placed in the
- output string.
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 10]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
- Table 5: The Base 16 Alphabet
-
- Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding Value Encoding
- 0 0 4 4 8 8 12 C
- 1 1 5 5 9 9 13 D
- 2 2 6 6 10 A 14 E
- 3 3 7 7 11 B 15 F
-
- Unlike base 32 and base 64, no special padding is necessary since a
- full code word is always available.
-
-9. Illustrations and Examples
-
- To translate between binary and a base encoding, the input is stored
- in a structure, and the output is extracted. The case for base 64 is
- displayed in the following figure, borrowed from [5].
-
- +--first octet--+-second octet--+--third octet--+
- |7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0|7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0|7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0|
- +-----------+---+-------+-------+---+-----------+
- |5 4 3 2 1 0|5 4 3 2 1 0|5 4 3 2 1 0|5 4 3 2 1 0|
- +--1.index--+--2.index--+--3.index--+--4.index--+
-
- The case for base 32 is shown in the following figure, borrowed from
- [7]. Each successive character in a base-32 value represents 5
- successive bits of the underlying octet sequence. Thus, each group
- of 8 characters represents a sequence of 5 octets (40 bits).
-
- 1 2 3
- 01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901 23456789
- +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
- |< 1 >< 2| >< 3 ><|.4 >< 5.|>< 6 ><.|7 >< 8 >|
- +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
- <===> 8th character
- <====> 7th character
- <===> 6th character
- <====> 5th character
- <====> 4th character
- <===> 3rd character
- <====> 2nd character
- <===> 1st character
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 11]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
- The following example of Base64 data is from [5], with corrections.
-
- Input data: 0x14fb9c03d97e
- Hex: 1 4 f b 9 c | 0 3 d 9 7 e
- 8-bit: 00010100 11111011 10011100 | 00000011 11011001 01111110
- 6-bit: 000101 001111 101110 011100 | 000000 111101 100101 111110
- Decimal: 5 15 46 28 0 61 37 62
- Output: F P u c A 9 l +
-
- Input data: 0x14fb9c03d9
- Hex: 1 4 f b 9 c | 0 3 d 9
- 8-bit: 00010100 11111011 10011100 | 00000011 11011001
- pad with 00
- 6-bit: 000101 001111 101110 011100 | 000000 111101 100100
- Decimal: 5 15 46 28 0 61 36
- pad with =
- Output: F P u c A 9 k =
-
- Input data: 0x14fb9c03
- Hex: 1 4 f b 9 c | 0 3
- 8-bit: 00010100 11111011 10011100 | 00000011
- pad with 0000
- 6-bit: 000101 001111 101110 011100 | 000000 110000
- Decimal: 5 15 46 28 0 48
- pad with = =
- Output: F P u c A w = =
-
-10. Test Vectors
-
- BASE64("") = ""
-
- BASE64("f") = "Zg=="
-
- BASE64("fo") = "Zm8="
-
- BASE64("foo") = "Zm9v"
-
- BASE64("foob") = "Zm9vYg=="
-
- BASE64("fooba") = "Zm9vYmE="
-
- BASE64("foobar") = "Zm9vYmFy"
-
- BASE32("") = ""
-
- BASE32("f") = "MY======"
-
- BASE32("fo") = "MZXQ===="
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 12]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
- BASE32("foo") = "MZXW6==="
-
- BASE32("foob") = "MZXW6YQ="
-
- BASE32("fooba") = "MZXW6YTB"
-
- BASE32("foobar") = "MZXW6YTBOI======"
-
- BASE32-HEX("") = ""
-
- BASE32-HEX("f") = "CO======"
-
- BASE32-HEX("fo") = "CPNG===="
-
- BASE32-HEX("foo") = "CPNMU==="
-
- BASE32-HEX("foob") = "CPNMUOG="
-
- BASE32-HEX("fooba") = "CPNMUOJ1"
-
- BASE32-HEX("foobar") = "CPNMUOJ1E8======"
-
- BASE16("") = ""
-
- BASE16("f") = "66"
-
- BASE16("fo") = "666F"
-
- BASE16("foo") = "666F6F"
-
- BASE16("foob") = "666F6F62"
-
- BASE16("fooba") = "666F6F6261"
-
- BASE16("foobar") = "666F6F626172"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 13]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-11. ISO C99 Implementation of Base64
-
- An ISO C99 implementation of Base64 encoding and decoding that is
- believed to follow all recommendations in this RFC is available from:
-
- http://josefsson.org/base-encoding/
-
- This code is not normative.
-
- The code could not be included in this RFC for procedural reasons
- (RFC 3978 section 5.4).
-
-12. Security Considerations
-
- When base encoding and decoding is implemented, care should be taken
- not to introduce vulnerabilities to buffer overflow attacks, or other
- attacks on the implementation. A decoder should not break on invalid
- input including, e.g., embedded NUL characters (ASCII 0).
-
- If non-alphabet characters are ignored, instead of causing rejection
- of the entire encoding (as recommended), a covert channel that can be
- used to "leak" information is made possible. The ignored characters
- could also be used for other nefarious purposes, such as to avoid a
- string equality comparison or to trigger implementation bugs. The
- implications of ignoring non-alphabet characters should be understood
- in applications that do not follow the recommended practice.
- Similarly, when the base 16 and base 32 alphabets are handled case
- insensitively, alteration of case can be used to leak information or
- make string equality comparisons fail.
-
- When padding is used, there are some non-significant bits that
- warrant security concerns, as they may be abused to leak information
- or used to bypass string equality comparisons or to trigger
- implementation problems.
-
- Base encoding visually hides otherwise easily recognized information,
- such as passwords, but does not provide any computational
- confidentiality. This has been known to cause security incidents
- when, e.g., a user reports details of a network protocol exchange
- (perhaps to illustrate some other problem) and accidentally reveals
- the password because she is unaware that the base encoding does not
- protect the password.
-
- Base encoding adds no entropy to the plaintext, but it does increase
- the amount of plaintext available and provide a signature for
- cryptanalysis in the form of a characteristic probability
- distribution.
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 14]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-13. Changes Since RFC 3548
-
- Added the "base32 extended hex alphabet", needed to preserve sort
- order of encoded data.
-
- Referenced IMAP for the special Base64 encoding used there.
-
- Fixed the example copied from RFC 2440.
-
- Added security consideration about providing a signature for
- cryptoanalysis.
-
- Added test vectors.
-
- Fixed typos.
-
-14. Acknowledgements
-
- Several people offered comments and/or suggestions, including John E.
- Hadstate, Tony Hansen, Gordon Mohr, John Myers, Chris Newman, and
- Andrew Sieber. Text used in this document are based on earlier RFCs
- describing specific uses of various base encodings. The author
- acknowledges the RSA Laboratories for supporting the work that led to
- this document.
-
- This revised version is based in parts on comments and/or suggestions
- made by Roy Arends, Eric Blake, Brian E Carpenter, Elwyn Davies, Bill
- Fenner, Sam Hartman, Ted Hardie, Per Hygum, Jelte Jansen, Clement
- Kent, Tero Kivinen, Paul Kwiatkowski, and Ben Laurie.
-
-15. Copying Conditions
-
- Copyright (c) 2000-2006 Simon Josefsson
-
- Regarding the abstract and sections 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 of
- this document, that were 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 and do not falsely purport to be IETF RFC documents.
- Derivative works need not be licensed under similar terms.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 15]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-16. References
-
-16.1. Normative References
-
- [1] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,
- October 1969.
-
- [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
- Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
-
-16.2. Informative References
-
- [3] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail:
- Part I: Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures", RFC
- 1421, February 1993.
-
- [4] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
- Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
- RFC 2045, November 1996.
-
- [5] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., and R. Thayer,
- "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 2440, November 1998.
-
- [6] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
- "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March
- 2005.
-
- [7] Klyne, G. and L. Masinter, "Identifying Composite Media
- Features", RFC 2938, September 2000.
-
- [8] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
- 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
-
- [9] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
- Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
- January 2005.
-
- [10] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNSSEC Hash
- Authenticated Denial of Existence", Work in Progress, June
- 2006.
-
- [11] Myers, J., "SASL GSSAPI mechanisms", Work in Progress, May
- 2000.
-
- [12] Wilcox-O'Hearn, B., "Post to P2P-hackers mailing list",
- http://zgp.org/pipermail/p2p-hackers/2001-September/
- 000315.html, September 2001.
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 16]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-Author's Address
-
- Simon Josefsson
- SJD
- EMail: simon@josefsson.org
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 17]
-\f
-RFC 4648 Base-N Encodings October 2006
-
-
-Full 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.
-
- 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 provided by the IETF
- Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Josefsson Standards Track [Page 18]
-\f
projects / thirdparty / bind9.git / commitdiff
