ComputerSurge/bind9
3
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests 1 Activity
Files
6b87f604311735826a0b2e1bde672a2a4f352892
bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-13.txt
Mark Andrews 3e358ada3e new draft
2008-05-03 04:21:58 +00:00

953 lines
36 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters
This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose
Internet-Draft NIST
Obsoletes: 2672 (if approved) W. Wijngaards
Updates: 3363,4294 NLnet Labs
(if approved) May 2, 2008
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 3, 2008
Update to DNAME Redirection in the DNS
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-13
Status of This Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 3, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
The DNAME record provides redirection for a sub-tree of the domain
name tree in the DNS system. That is, all names that end with a
particular suffix are redirected to another part of the DNS. This is
an update of the original specification in RFC 2672, also aligning
RFC 3363 and RFC 4294 with this revision.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The DNAME Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. The DNAME Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. DNAME Apex not Redirected itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Names Next to and Below a DNAME Record . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Compression of the DNAME record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. CNAME synthesis and UD bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Server algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Wildcards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Acceptance and Intermediate Storage . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. DNAME Discussions in Other Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Other Issues with DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Canonical hostnames cannot be below DNAME owners . . . . . 12
5.2. Dynamic Update and DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. DNSSEC and DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.1. DNAME bit in NSEC type map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.2. Validators Must Understand DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.2.1. DNAME in Bitmap Causes Invalid Name Error . . . . 13
5.3.2.2. Valid Name Error Response Involving DNAME in
Bitmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.2.3. Response With Synthesized CNAME . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
1. Introduction
DNAME is a DNS Resource Record type originally defined in RFC 2672
[RFC2672]. DNAME provides redirection from a part of the DNS name
tree to another part of the DNS name tree.
The DNAME RR and the CNAME RR [RFC1034] cause a lookup to
(potentially) return data corresponding to a domain name different
from the queried domain name. The difference between the two
resource records is that the CNAME RR directs the lookup of data at
its owner to another single name, a DNAME RR directs lookups for data
at descendents of its owner's name to corresponding names under a
different (single) node of the tree.
Take for example, looking through a zone (see RFC 1034 [RFC1034],
section 4.3.2, step 3) for the domain name "foo.example.com" and a
DNAME resource record is found at "example.com" indicating that all
queries under "example.com" be directed to "example.net". The lookup
process will return to step 1 with the new query name of
"foo.example.net". Had the query name been "www.foo.example.com" the
new query name would be "www.foo.example.net".
This document is an update of the original specification of DNAME in
RFC 2672 [RFC2672]. DNAME was conceived to help with the problem of
maintaining address-to-name mappings in a context of network
renumbering. With a careful set-up, a renumbering event in the
network causes no change to the authoritative server that has the
address-to-name mappings. Examples in practice are classless reverse
address space delegations.
Another usage of DNAME lies in redirection of name spaces. For
example, a zone administrator may want sub-trees of the DNS to
contain the same information. Examples include punycode alternates
for domain spaces. DNAME is also used for the redirection of ENUM
domains to another maintaining party.
This update to DNAME does not change the wire format or the handling
of DNAME Resource Records by existing software. A new UD (Understand
DNAME) bit in the EDNS flags field can be used to signal that CNAME
synthesis is not needed. Discussion is added on problems that may be
encountered when using DNAME.
2. The DNAME Resource Record
2.1. Format
The DNAME RR has mnemonic DNAME and type code 39 (decimal). It is
not class-sensitive.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
Its RDATA is comprised of a single field, <target>, which contains a
fully qualified domain name that must be sent in uncompressed form
[RFC1035], [RFC3597]. The <target> field MUST be present. The
presentation format of <target> is that of a domain name [RFC1035].
<owner> <ttl> <class> DNAME <target>
The effect of the DNAME RR is the substitution of the record's
<target> for its owner name, as a suffix of a domain name. This
substitution has to be applied for every DNAME RR found in the
resolution process, which allows fairly lengthy valid chains of DNAME
RRs.
Details of the substitution process, methods to avoid conflicting
resource records, and rules for specific corner cases are given in
the following subsections.
2.2. The DNAME Substitution
When following RFC 1034 [RFC1034], section 4.3.2's algorithm's third
step, "start matching down, label by label, in the zone" and a node
is found to own a DNAME resource record a DNAME substitution occurs.
The name being sought may be the original query name or a name that
is the result of a CNAME resource record being followed or a
previously encountered DNAME. As is the case of finding a CNAME
resource record or NS resource record set, the processing of a DNAME
will happen prior to finding the desired domain name.
A DNAME substitution is performed by replacing the suffix labels of
the name being sought matching the owner name of the DNAME resource
record with the string of labels in the RDATA field. The matching
labels end with the root label in all cases. Only whole labels are
replaced. See the table of examples for common cases and corner
cases.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
In the table below, the QNAME refers to the query name. The owner is
the DNAME owner domain name, and the target refers to the target of
the DNAME record. The result is the resulting name after performing
the DNAME substitution on the query name. "no match" means that the
query did not match the DNAME and thus no substitution is performed
and a possible error message is returned (if no other result is
possible). In the examples below, 'cyc' and 'shortloop' contain
loops.
QNAME owner DNAME target result
---------------- -------------- -------------- -----------------
com. example.com. example.net. <no match>
example.com. example.com. example.net. <no match>
a.example.com. example.com. example.net. a.example.net.
a.b.example.com. example.com. example.net. a.b.example.net.
ab.example.com. b.example.com. example.net. <no match>
foo.example.com. example.com. example.net. foo.example.net.
a.x.example.com. x.example.com. example.net. a.example.net.
a.example.com. example.com. y.example.net. a.y.example.net.
cyc.example.com. example.com. example.com. cyc.example.com.
cyc.example.com. example.com. c.example.com. cyc.c.example.com.
shortloop.x.x. x. . shortloop.x.
shortloop.x. x. . shortloop.
Table 1. DNAME Substitution Examples.
It is possible for DNAMEs to form loops, just as CNAMEs can form
loops. DNAMEs and CNAMEs can chain together to form loops. A single
corner case DNAME can form a loop. Resolvers and servers should be
cautious in devoting resources to a query, but be aware that fairly
long chains of DNAMEs may be valid. Zone content administrators
should take care to insure that there are no loops that could occur
when using DNAME or DNAME/CNAME redirection.
The domain name can get too long during substitution. For example,
suppose the target name of the DNAME RR is 250 octets in length
(multiple labels), if an incoming QNAME that has a first label over 5
octets in length, the result of the result would be a name over 255
octets. If this occurs the server returns an RCODE of YXDOMAIN
[RFC2136]. The DNAME record and its signature (if the zone is
signed) are included in the answer as proof for the YXDOMAIN (value
6) RCODE.
2.3. DNAME Apex not Redirected itself
Unlike a CNAME RR, a DNAME RR redirects DNS names subordinate to its
owner name; the owner name of a DNAME is not redirected itself. The
domain name that owns a DNAME record is allowed to have other
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
resource record types at that domain name, except DNAMEs or CNAMEs.
This means that DNAME RRs are not allowed at the parent side of a
delegation point but are allowed at a zone apex.
The reason for this decision was that one can have a DNAME at the
zone apex. There still is a need to have the customary SOA and NS
resource records at the zone apex. This means that DNAME does not
mirror a zone completely, as it does not mirror the zone apex.
These rules also allow DNAME records to be queried through RFC 1034
[RFC1034] compliant, DNAME-unaware caches.
2.4. Names Next to and Below a DNAME Record
Resource records MUST NOT exist at any domain name subordinate to the
owner of a DNAME RR. To get the contents for names subordinate to
that owner, the DNAME redirection must be invoked and the resulting
target queried. A server MAY refuse to load a zone that has data at
a domain name subordinate to a domain name owning a DNAME RR. If the
server does load the zone, those names below the DNAME RR will be
occluded, RFC 2136 [RFC2136], section 7.18. Also a server SHOULD
refuse to load a zone subordinate to the owner of a DNAME record in
the ancestor zone. See Section 5.2 for further discussion related to
dynamic update.
DNAME is a singleton type, meaning only one DNAME is allowed per
name. The owner name of a DNAME can only have one DNAME RR, and no
CNAME RRs can exist at that name. These rules make sure that for a
single domain name only one redirection exists, and thus no confusion
which one to follow. A server SHOULD refuse to load a zone that
violates these rules.
2.5. Compression of the DNAME record.
The DNAME owner name can be compressed like any other owner name.
The DNAME RDATA target name MUST NOT be sent out in compressed form,
so that a DNAME RR can be treated as an unknown type [RFC3597].
Although the previous DNAME specification [RFC2672] (that is
obsoleted by this specification) talked about signaling to allow
compression of the target name, such signaling is not specified.
RFC 2672 stated that the EDNS version had a meaning for understanding
of DNAME and DNAME target name compression. This document updates
RFC 2672, in that there is no EDNS version signaling for DNAME.
However, the flags section of EDNS(0) is updated with a Understand-
DNAME flag by this document (See Section 3.3).
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
3. Processing
The DNAME RR causes type NS additional section processing.
3.1. CNAME synthesis and UD bit
When preparing an response, a server upon performing a DNAME
substitution will in all cases include the DNAME RR used in the
answer section. A CNAME RR record with TTL equal to the
corresponding DNAME RR is synthesized and included in the answer
section for old resolvers. The owner name of the CNAME is the QNAME
of the query. DNSSEC [RFC4033], [RFC4034], [RFC4035] says that the
synthesized CNAME does not have to be signed. The DNAME has an RRSIG
and a validating resolver can check the CNAME against the DNAME
record and validate the DNAME record.
Resolvers MUST be able to handle a synthesized CNAME TTL of zero or
equal to the TTL of the corresponding DNAME record. A TTL of zero
means that the CNAME can be discarded immediately after processing
the answer. DNAME aware resolvers can set the Understand-DNAME (UD
bit) to receive a response with only the DNAME RR and no synthesized
CNAMEs.
The UD bit is part of the EDNS [RFC2671] extended RCODE and Flags
field. It is used to omit server processing, transmission and
resolver processing of unsigned synthesized CNAMEs. Resolvers can
set this in a query to request omission of the synthesized CNAMEs.
Servers copy the UD bit to the response, and can omit synthesized
CNAMEs from the answer. Older resolvers do not set the UD bit, and
older servers do not copy the UD bit to the answer, and will not omit
synthesized CNAMEs.
Updated EDNS extended RCODE and Flags field.
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
0: | EXTENDED-RCODE | VERSION |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
2: |DO|UD| Z |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Servers MUST be able to answer a query for a synthesized CNAME. Like
other query types this invokes the DNAME, and synthesizes the CNAME
into the answer.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
3.2. Server algorithm
Below the server algorithm, which appeared in RFC 2672 Section 4.1,
is expanded to handle the UD (Understand DNAME) bit.
1. Set or clear the value of recursion available in the response
depending on whether the name server is willing to provide
recursive service. If recursive service is available and
requested via the RD bit in the query, go to step 5, otherwise
step 2.
2. Search the available zones for the zone which is the nearest
ancestor to QNAME. If such a zone is found, go to step 3,
otherwise step 4.
3. Start matching down, label by label, in the zone. The matching
process can terminate several ways:
A. If the whole of QNAME is matched, we have found the node.
If the data at the node is a CNAME, and QTYPE does not match
CNAME, copy the CNAME RR into the answer section of the
response, change QNAME to the canonical name in the CNAME RR,
and go back to step 1.
Otherwise, copy all RRs which match QTYPE into the answer
section and go to step 6.
B. If a match would take us out of the authoritative data, we
have a referral. This happens when we encounter a node with
NS RRs marking cuts along the bottom of a zone.
Copy the NS RRs for the sub-zone into the authority section
of the reply. Put whatever addresses are available into the
additional section, using glue RRs if the addresses are not
available from authoritative data or the cache. Go to step
4.
C. If at some label, a match is impossible (i.e., the
corresponding label does not exist), look to see whether the
last label matched has a DNAME record.
If a DNAME record exists at that point, copy that record into
the answer section. If substitution of its <target> for its
<owner> in QNAME would overflow the legal size for a <domain-
name>, set RCODE to YXDOMAIN [RFC2136] and exit; otherwise
perform the substitution and continue. If the EDNS OPT
record is present in the query and the UD bit is set, the
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
server MAY copy the UD bit to the answer EDNS OPT record, and
omit CNAME synthesis. Else the server MUST synthesize a
CNAME record as described above and include it in the answer
section. Go back to step 1.
If there was no DNAME record, look to see if the "*" label
exists.
If the "*" label does not exist, check whether the name we
are looking for is the original QNAME in the query or a name
we have followed due to a CNAME or DNAME. If the name is
original, set an authoritative name error in the response and
exit. Otherwise just exit.
If the "*" label does exist, match RRs at that node against
QTYPE. If any match, copy them into the answer section, but
set the owner of the RR to be QNAME, and not the node with
the "*" label. If the data at the node with the "*" label is
a CNAME, and QTYPE doesn't match CNAME, copy the CNAME RR
into the answer section of the response changing the owner
name to the QNAME, change QNAME to the canonical name in the
CNAME RR, and go back to step 1. Otherwise, Go to step 6.
4. Start matching down in the cache. If QNAME is found in the
cache, copy all RRs attached to it that match QTYPE into the
answer section. If QNAME is not found in the cache but a DNAME
record is present at an ancestor of QNAME, copy that DNAME record
into the answer section. If there was no delegation from
authoritative data, look for the best one from the cache, and put
it in the authority section. Go to step 6.
5. Use the local resolver or a copy of its algorithm to answer the
query. Store the results, including any intermediate CNAMEs and
DNAMEs, in the answer section of the response.
6. Using local data only, attempt to add other RRs which may be
useful to the additional section of the query. Exit.
Note that there will be at most one ancestor with a DNAME as
described in step 4 unless some zone's data is in violation of the
no-descendants limitation in section 3. An implementation might take
advantage of this limitation by stopping the search of step 3c or
step 4 when a DNAME record is encountered.
3.3. Wildcards
The use of DNAME in conjunction with wildcards is discouraged
[RFC4592]. Thus records of the form "*.example.com DNAME
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
example.net" SHOULD NOT be used.
The interaction between the expansion of the wildcard and the
redirection of the DNAME is non-deterministic. Because the
processing is non-deterministic, DNSSEC validating resolvers may not
be able to validate a wildcarded DNAME.
A server MAY give a warning that the behavior is unspecified if such
a wildcarded DNAME is loaded. The server MAY refuse it, refuse to
load or refuse dynamic update.
3.4. Acceptance and Intermediate Storage
DNS caches can encounter data at names below the owner name of a
DNAME RR, due to a change at the authoritative server where data from
before and after the change resides in the cache. This conflict
situation is a transitional phase, that ends when the old data times
out. The cache can opt to store both old and new data and treat each
as if the other did not exist, or drop the old data, or drop the
longer domain name. In any approach, consistency returns after the
older data TTL times out.
DNS caches MUST perform CNAME synthesis on behalf of DNAME-ignorant
clients. A DNS cache that understands DNAMEs can send out queries on
behalf of clients with the UD bit set (See Section 3.1). After
receiving the answers the DNS cache sends replies to DNAME ignorant
clients that include DNAMEs and synthesized CNAMEs.
4. DNAME Discussions in Other Documents
In [RFC2181], in Section 10.3., the discussion on MX and NS records
touches on redirection by CNAMEs, but this also holds for DNAMEs.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
Excerpt from 10.3. MX and NS records (in RFC 2181).
The domain name used as the value of a NS resource record,
or part of the value of a MX resource record must not be
an alias. Not only is the specification clear on this
point, but using an alias in either of these positions
neither works as well as might be hoped, nor well fulfills
the ambition that may have led to this approach. This
domain name must have as its value one or more address
records. Currently those will be A records, however in
the future other record types giving addressing
information may be acceptable. It can also have other
RRs, but never a CNAME RR.
The DNAME RR is discussed in RFC 3363, section 4, on A6 and DNAME.
The opening premise of this section is demonstrably wrong, and so the
conclusion based on that premise is wrong. In particular, [RFC3363]
deprecates the use of DNAME in the IPv6 reverse tree, which is then
carried forward as a recommendation in [RFC4294]. Based on the
experience gained in the meantime, [RFC3363] should be revised,
dropping all constraints on having DNAME RRs in these zones. This
would greatly improve the manageability of the IPv6 reverse tree.
These changes are made explicit below.
In [RFC3363], the paragraph
"The issues for DNAME in the reverse mapping tree appears to be
closely tied to the need to use fragmented A6 in the main tree: if
one is necessary, so is the other, and if one isn't necessary, the
other isn't either. Therefore, in moving RFC 2874 to experimental,
the intent of this document is that use of DNAME RRs in the reverse
tree be deprecated."
is to be replaced with the word "DELETED".
In [RFC4294], the reference to DNAME was left in as an editorial
oversight. The paragraph
"Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
DNAME Resource Records [RFC3363]."
is to be replaced by
"Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental
A6 Resource Record [RFC3363]."
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
5. Other Issues with DNAME
There are several issues to be aware of about the use of DNAME.
5.1. Canonical hostnames cannot be below DNAME owners
The names listed as target names of MX, NS, PTR and SRV [RFC2782]
records must be canonical hostnames. This means no CNAME or DNAME
redirection may be present during DNS lookup of the address records
for the host. This is discussed in RFC 2181 [RFC2181], section 10.3,
and RFC 1912 [RFC1912], section 2.4. For SRV see RFC 2782 [RFC2782]
page 4.
The upshot of this is that although the lookup of a PTR record can
involve DNAMEs, the name listed in the PTR record can not fall under
a DNAME. The same holds for NS, SRV and MX records. For example,
when punycode alternates for a zone use DNAME then the NS, MX, SRV
and PTR records that point to that zone must use names without
punycode in their RDATA. What must be done then is to have the
domain names with DNAME substitution already applied to it as the MX,
NS, PTR, SRV data. These are valid canonical hostnames.
5.2. Dynamic Update and DNAME
DNAME records can be added, changed and removed in a zone using
dynamic update transactions. Adding a DNAME RR to a zone occludes
any domain names that may exist under the added DNAME.
A server MUST ignore a dynamic update message that attempts to add a
DNAME RR at a name that already has a CNAME RR or another DNAME RR
associated with that name.
5.3. DNSSEC and DNAME
5.3.1. DNAME bit in NSEC type map
When a validator checks the NSEC RRs returned on a name error
response, it SHOULD check that the DNAME bit is not set. If the
DNAME bit is set then the DNAME substitution should have been done,
but has not.
5.3.2. Validators Must Understand DNAME
Examples of why DNSSEC validators MUST understand DNAME.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
5.3.2.1. DNAME in Bitmap Causes Invalid Name Error
;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=3(NXDOMAIN)
;; Question
foo.bar.example.com. IN A
;; Answer
bar.example.com. NSEC dub.example.com. A DNAME
bar.example.com. RRSIG NSEC [valid signature]
If this is the response, then only by understanding that the DNAME
bit means that foo.bar.example.com needed to have been redirected by
the DNAME, the validator can see that it is a BOGUS reply from an
attacker that collated existing records from the DNS to create a
confusing reply.
If the DNAME bit had not been set in the NSEC record above then the
answer would have validated as a correct name error response.
5.3.2.2. Valid Name Error Response Involving DNAME in Bitmap
;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=3(NXDOMAIN)
;; Question
cee.example.com. IN A
;; Answer
bar.example.com. NSEC dub.example.com. A DNAME
bar.example.com. RRSIG NSEC [valid signature]
This reply has the same NSEC records as the example above, but with
this query name (cee.example.com), the answer is validated, because
'cee' does not get redirected by the DNAME at 'bar'.
5.3.2.3. Response With Synthesized CNAME
;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0(NOERROR)
;; Question
foo.bar.example.com. IN A
;; Answer
bar.example.com. DNAME bar.example.net.
bar.example.com. RRSIG DNAME [valid signature]
foo.bar.example.com. CNAME foo.bar.example.net.
The answer shown above has the synthesized CNAME included. However,
the CNAME has no signature, since the server does not sign online.
So it cannot be trusted. It could be altered by an attacker to be
foo.bar.example.com CNAME bla.bla.example. The DNAME record does
have its signature included, since it does not change for every query
name. The validator must verify the DNAME signature and then
recursively resolve further to query for the foo.bar.example.net A
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
record.
6. IANA Considerations
The DNAME Resource Record type code 39 (decimal) originally has been
registered by [RFC2672]. IANA should update the DNS resource record
registry to point to this document for RR type 39.
This draft requests the second highest bit in the EDNS flags field
for the Understand-DNAME (UD) flag.
7. Security Considerations
DNAME redirects queries elsewhere, which may impact security based on
policy and the security status of the zone with the DNAME and the
redirection zone's security status.
If a validating resolver accepts wildcarded DNAMEs, this creates
security issues. Since the processing of a wildcarded DNAME is non-
deterministic and the CNAME that was substituted by the server has no
signature, the resolver may choose a different result than what the
server meant, and consequently end up at the wrong destination. Use
of wildcarded DNAMEs is discouraged in any case [RFC4592].
A validating resolver MUST understand DNAME, according to [RFC4034].
In Section 5.3.2 examples are given that illustrate this need.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge Matt Larson for
beginning this effort to address the issues related to the DNAME RR
type. The authors would also like to acknowledge Paul Vixie, Ed
Lewis, Mark Andrews, Mike StJohns, Niall O'Reilly, Sam Weiler, Alfred
Hines and Kevin Darcy for their review and comments on this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, April 1997.
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, August 1999.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[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.
[RFC4592] Lewis, E., "The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name
System", RFC 4592, July 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC1912] Barr, D., "Common DNS Operational and Configuration
Errors", RFC 1912, February 1996.
[RFC2672] Crawford, M., "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection",
RFC 2672, August 1999.
[RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
August 2002.
[RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
April 2006.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
Authors' Addresses
Scott Rose
NIST
100 Bureau Dr.
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
USA
Phone: +1-301-975-8439
Fax: +1-301-975-6238
EMail: scottr@nist.gov
Wouter Wijngaards
NLnet Labs
Kruislaan 419
Amsterdam 1098 VA
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-20-888-4551
EMail: wouter@nlnetlabs.nl
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection May 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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, 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.
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).
Rose & Wijngaards Expires November 3, 2008 [Page 17]
View Git Blame Copy Permalink