wdiff rfc6804.original rfc6804.txt

Internet Draft Bill
Independent Submission B. Manning
draft-manning-opcode-discover-07.txt
Expires: 17 february 2013 17 september
Request for Comments: 6804 November 2012
Intendend Status: Historical
Category: Historic
ISSN: 2070-1721

DISCOVER: Supporting Multicast DNS Queries

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

This Internet-Draft will expire on 17 february 2013.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

IETF Legal Notices

Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and document describes the persons identified as DISCOVER opcode, an experimental
extension to the
document authors. All rights reserved. Domain Name System (DNS) to use multicast queries
for resource discovery. This Internet-Draft is submitted opcode was tested in full conformance with the provisions
of BCP 78 experiments run
during 1995 and BCP 79. 1996 for the Topology Based Domain Search (TBDS)
project. This document project is subject to BCP 78 no longer active and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating there are no current
plans to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on restart it. TBDS was the date of
publication first known use of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights multicast
transport for DNS. A client multicasts a DNS query using the
DISCOVER opcode and restrictions with respect
to this document.

"This processes the multiple responses that may result.

Status of This Memo

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for the authors
retain all their rights."

"This historical record.

This document and defines a Historic Document for 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, THE
IETF TRUST 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 Internet community.
This is a contribution to the validity or scope RFC Series, independently of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain
RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to the implementation or use of the technology described
in publish this document at
its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
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 Editor are not a candidate for any
assurances level of licenses to be made available, or the result Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for RFC 5741.

Information about the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users current status of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr."

"The IETF invites document, any interested party to bring errata,
and how to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that provide feedback on it may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF obtained at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org."

Abstract

This document describes the DISCOVER opcode, an experimental
extension to the Domain Name System (DNS) to use multicast queries
for resource discovery. This opcode was tested in experiments run
during 1995
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6804.

This project document is no longer
active subject to BCP 78 and there are no current plans the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to restart. TBDS was IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the first known
use date of multicast transport for DNS. A client multicasts a DNS
query using the DISCOVER opcode
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and processes the multiple responses
that may result. restrictions with respect
to this document.

1. Introduction

The TBDS project developed extensions to existing network services to
enable
application client and server software for clients and servers of an application to become
more resilient to changes in topology by dynamically sensing changes
and switching between client/server and peer-peer methods for both
end-system-to-server and server-to-server communications.

The first existing network service to be investigated was the Domain
Name Systems (DNS) (DNS), which is used to map symbolic Internet names to
numeric Internet addresses. Based upon a hierarchical tree
structure, the DNS relies upon uninterrupted connectivity of nodes to
a special set of static, manually configured root servers. To
improve the robustness and availability of the DNS service, TBDS
developed and defined enhancements that enable nodes to map names to
numbers without the need for uninterrupted connectivity to the
Internet root servers. These techniques were automated, allowing
transition between connected and unconnected operations to be done
without direct human intervention.

These enhancements to the DNS server code are based on the open
source BIND to support reception and processing of multicast packets.

Proof of concept

Proof-of-concept modifications to BIND 8.1.2 were made to show that
multicast awareness could be added to BIND. An analysis was made of
the existing DNS code deployment and the schedule of new feature
deployment so that we could synchronize TBDS with a more appropriate
code base. Testing identified a race condition due to overloading
the semantics of the DNS Opcode opcode that was used to communicate to
servers.

This race condition was explored within the IETF in our regarding use of
existing DNS Opcodes. opcodes. Discussion within the team and with others in
the IETF led to the idea that we needed a new Opcode opcode that would not
overload the semantics of existing Opcodes. opcodes. The original DNS design
specification presumes that few clients exist that would share common
DNS data. To correct this problem problem, a new Opcode opcode was designed to
disambiguate TBDS requests from normal nameserver requests.

In the standard Domain Name System(DNS)[1][2], System (DNS) [1] [2], queries are always
unicast using the QUERY opcode. The TBDS research project[4], project [5],
funded under DARPA grant F30602-99-1-0523, explored the use of
multicast DNS [1][2] [1] [2] queries for resource discovery by autonomous,
mobile nodes in disconnected networks. The operations model is
covered in the TBDS documentation. Multicast queries may return
multiple replies, while the standard DNS QUERY operation [3] (see
Sections 3.7, 4.3, and 5 of RFC 1034 [1]; and Section 4.1.1 of RFC
1035 [2]) expects a single reply. Instead of extending the QUERY
opcode, the project developed and tested a new query operation,
DISCOVER, that was designed to accommodate multiple responses from a
multicast query. The ability to accept multiple replies provides a
basis for discrimination of Man In The Middle man-in-the-middle attacks, which succeed
by being the first to respond. Use of DISCOVER requires the use of
caching in the receiver, so the ephemeral nature of stub resovlvers
is precluded.

This memo documents the processing rules for DISCOVER, for possible
incorporation in a future revision of the DNS 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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [3].

2. DISCOVER Processing Rules

A requester will send a DISCOVER query message to a multicast
destination address, with some particular multicast scope. The
requester must be prepared to receive multiple replies from multiple
responders, although we expect that there will be a single reply per
responder.

DISCOVER responses (i.e., response messages from DISCOVER queries)
have standard Answer, Authority, and Additional sections. For
example, the DISCOVER response is the same as the response to a QUERY
operation. Zero-content answers should not be sent, to avoid badly
formed or unfulfilled requests. Responses should be sent to
th the
unicast address of the requester, and the source address should
reflect the unicast address of the responder. DISCOVER responses may
echo the request's Question section or leave it blank, just as for
QUERY.

DISCOVER works like QUERY, except: with the following exceptions:

1. The Question section of a DISCOVER operation contains
<QNAME=zonename,QTYPE=SOA> tuples, if the section is present.

Within TBDS, this structure was augmented with:
<QNAME=service,QTYPE=SRV>. While this worked, it would be
cleaner to ask the SRV question in a separate pass, and pass; any future
work should take this into consideration.

2. If QDCOUNT equals 0, then only servers willing to do recursion
should answer; other servers must silently discard a DISCOVER
request with QDCOUNT equals 0.

3. if If QDCOUNT is not equal to 0, then only servers that are
authoritative for the zones named by some QNAME should answer.

Hence, replies to DISCOVER queries will always be authoritative or
else have RA (Recursion Available) set.

3. Using DISCOVER Queries

3.1

3.1. Performing Host Lookups

To perform a hostname lookup using DISCOVER, a node could:

o Compute the zone name of the enclosing in-addr.arpa, ip6.int,
or ip6.arpa domain.

o DISCOVER whether any in-scope server(s) are authoritative for
this zone.

If so, query these authoritative servers for local
in-addr/ip6 names.

o If not, DISCOVER whether there are recursive servers available.

If so, query these recursive servers for local in-addr/ip6
names.

The requester can determine from the replies whether there are
any DNS servers that are authoritative (or support recursion)
for the zone.

o Once the host's FQDN Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) is known,
repeat the process to discover the closest enclosing
authoritative server for this local name.

o Cache all NS and A data learned in this process, respecting TTL's.

3.2
Times To Live (TTLs).

3.2. Performing Service Lookups

To lookup a service name using DISCOVER, the following steps may be
used:

o Use DISCOVER as outlined in Section 3.1 to perform
gethostbyaddr() and then gethostbyname() on one's own
link-local link-
local address. This gives a list of local authoritative
servers.

o Assume that the closest enclosing zone for which an
authoritative server responds to an in-scope DISCOVER message
is this host's "parent domain", and compute the SRV name as

_service._transport.*.parentdomain.

This is a change to the definition as defined provided in RFC 1034 [1]. A
wildcard label ("*") in the QNAME used in a DNS message with
op-code
the opcode DISCOVER should be evaluated with special rules: the
wildcardshould
wildcard should match any label for which the DNS server data
is authoritative. For example 'x.*.example.com.' would match
'x.y.example.com.' and 'x.yy.example.com.', provided that the
server was authoritative for 'example.com.'

o Finally, send a an SRV query for this SRV name to the discovered
local authoritative servers, servers to complete the getservbyname()
call.

This call returns a structure that can be populated by response
values, as follows:

s_name The name of the service, "_service" without the
preceding underscore.

s_aliases The names returned in the SRV RRs Resource Records (RRs)
in replies to the query.

s_port The port number in the SRV RRs replies to the query.
If these port numbers disagree - do not match, one of the port
numbers is chosen, and only those names which that
correspond are returned.

s_proto The transport protocol passed from named by the DNS process
using the "_transport" label, without the preceding
underscore.

3.3

3.3. Using DISCOVER for Disconnected Names

DISCOVER allows discovery of a host (for example, a printer offering
LPD services) whose DNS server answers authoritatively for a domain
name that hasn't been delegated to it, but is defined within some
local scope. Since DISCOVER is explicitly defined to discover
undelegated zones for tightly-scoped tightly scoped queries, this behavior isn't a
violation of DNS's coherency principles. Note that a responder to
DISCOVER might not be traditional DNS software, it could be
special-purpose special-
purpose software.

DISCOVER usage for disconnected networks with no authoritative
servers can be achieved using the following conditions. conditions:

o Hosts run a "stub authoritative server" that acts as though its
FQDN were a zone name.

o The computed SOA gives the host's FQDN as the MNAME, "." as the
ANAME, seconds-since-1Jan2000 as the SERIAL, and low constants
for EXPIRE and the other SOA timers.

o NS is used as the host's FQDN.

o The glue is computed as the host's link-local address, or hosts
may run a "DNS stub server" that acts as though its FQDN were a
zone name.

The rules governing the behavior of this server consists consist of a single
change to the method of use, and no change whatsoever to the current
format of DNS packets. Specifically, this extension allows UDP DNS
queries, as documented in RFC 1035, sections Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 4.1.2, and 4.2.1,
to be addressed to port 53 of statically-assigned statically assigned relative offset -4
within the range of multicast addresses defined as "administratively
scoped" by Section 9 of RFC 2365, section 9. 2365 [6]. Within the full /8 of
administratively scoped addresses, this corresponds to the
destination address 239.255.255.251. Until MZAP the Multicast-Scope Zone
Announcement Protocol (MZAP) or a similar protocol is implemented to
allow hosts to discover the extent of the local multicast scopes which that
enclose them, it is anticipated that implementations will simply
utilize the destination address 239.255.255.251. Queries sent via
multicast MUST NOT request recursion.

In order to receive multicasted queries, DNS server implementations
MUST listen on the -4 offset to their local scope (as above, in the
absence of a method of determining the scope, this will be assumed to
be relative to the full /8 allocated for administratively-scoped administratively scoped
multicast use, or 239.255.255.251), 239.255.255.251) and respond via ordinary unicast
UDP to ONLY those queries for which they have a positive answer which that
originated within a locally-configured zone file. That is, a server
MUST NOT answer a multicasted query with cached information which that it
received from another server, nor may it request further resolution
from other servers on behalf of a multicasted query. A multicast-capable multicast-
capable server may, however, utilize multicast queries to perform
further resolution on behalf of queries received via ordinary
unicast. This is referred to as "proxy" operation.
Multicast-enabled Multicast-
enabled DNS servers MUST answer multicasted queries
non-authoritatively. non-
authoritatively. That is, when responding to a query which that was
received via multicast, they MUST NOT include an NS record which that
contains data which that resolves back to their own IP address and MUST NOT
set the AA bit.

Resolvers MUST anticipate receiving no replies to some multicasted
queries, in the event that no multicast-enabled DNS server
implementations are active within the local scope, or in the event
that no positive responses exist to the transmitted query. That is,
a query for the MX record for host.domain.com would go unanswered if
no local server was able to resolve that request, if no MX record
exists for host.domain.com, or if no local servers were capable of
receiving multicast queries. The resolver which that initiated the query
MUST treat such non-response as a non-cacheable negative response.
Since this multicast transmission does not provide reliable delivery,
resolvers MAY repeat the transmission of a query in order to assure
themselves that is has been received by any hosts capable of answering, however
answering; however, any resolvers which that repeat a query MUST increase
the interval by a factor of two between each repetition. It is more
likely, however, that any repeated queries will be performed under
the explicit direction of the application driving the query, rather
than autonomously by the resolver implementation.

It will often be the case that multicast queries will result in
responses from multiple servers. In the event that the multicast
query was generated via a current API such as gethostbyname, or as
the result of a proxy operation, the first response received must be
passed to the requesting application or host, and all
subsequently-received subsequently
received responses must be discarded. Future multicast-aware APIs
that use DISCOVER should anticipate receiving multiple independent RR-sets RR
sets in response to queries and using external heristics for
selecting the most appropriate RR-set. RR set.

Such servers should answer DISCOVER packets for its zone, and will be
found by the iterative "discover closest enclosing authority server"
by DISCOVER clients, in either the gethostbyname() or SRV cases
described above. Note that stub servers answer only with zone names which
that exactly match QNAME's, not with zone names which that are owned by
QNAME's.

4. IANA Considerations

At such time as this idea might be considered for a future addition
to the DNS protocol, the IANA would need to assign a value for the
opcode.

5. Security Considerations

The following paragraph on security considerations was written very
early in the use and exploration of IP multicast and and, as such,
represents a fairly naive view on the type and scope of exploits that
are enabled through the use of IP multicast. A more up to date up-to-date
understanding of multicast security considerations may be found in
RFC 5294[3]. 5294 [4].

No new security considerations are known to be introduced with a new
DNS query operation. However, using multicast for service discovery
has the potential for denial of service from flooding attacks. How
to scope multicast is not part of the DISCOVER processing rules. It
may also be possible to enable deliberate misconfiguration of clients
simply by running a malicious DNS server that falsely claims to be
authoritative for delegations. One possible way to mitigate this
threat is to use credentials, such as CERT resource records within an
RR set. The TBDS project took this approach. TBDS did not directly
utilize DNSSEC and DNS Security (DNSSEC), so possible interactions with
DNSSEC aware/capable DNSSEC-
aware/-capable servers are unknown.

6. Acknowledgments

This material was generated in discussions on the mdns mailing list
hosted by Zocalo in March 2000 and updated by discussions in
September/October 2003 on a closed mailing list. David Lawrence,
Scott Rose, Stuart Cheshire, Bill Woodcock, and Erik Guttman were
active contributors. Suzanne Woolf was part of the original
implementation team and an invaluable sanity checker. Funding for
the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet
Society.

7. References

Normative:

7.1. Normative References

[1] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

[2] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND
SPECIFICATION", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[4] Savola, P., Lingard, P. and J. Lingard, "Host Threats to Protocol Independent
Multicast (PIM)", RFC 5294, August 2008
Informative:

[3] QUERY opcode -- defined in section 3.7, 4.3, and section 5 of RFC
1034 and in section 4.1.1 of RFC 1035.
[4] 2008.

7.2. Informative References

[5] Manning, B., "TBDS - Topology "Topology Based Domain Search.", Project Search (TBDS)", Final
Report, http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA407598 June 2002,
<http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA407598>.

[6] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23, RFC
2365, July 1998.

Authors' Addresses

Bill Manning
PO 12317
Marina del Rey, CA. 90295
United States

EMail: bmanning@sfc.keio.ac.jp