ComputerSurge/bind9
3
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests 1 Activity
Files
9b2f3d9ab697c23647a50265b7fe47c461fbfc1e
bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-19.txt
Mark Andrews 7fb2b51201 new draft
2010-04-21 00:42:57 +00:00

1009 lines
37 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) April 20, 2010
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 22, 2010
Update to DNAME Redirection in the DNS
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-19
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
a revision of the original specification in RFC 2672, also aligning
RFC 3363 and RFC 4294 with this revision.
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].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 22, 2010.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The DNAME Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. The DNAME Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. DNAME Owner Name Matching the QNAME . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Names Next to and Below a DNAME Record . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5. Compression of the DNAME record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. CNAME synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Server algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Wildcards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Acceptance and Intermediate Storage . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. DNAME Discussions in Other Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Other Issues with DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Canonical hostnames cannot be below DNAME owners . . . . . 13
5.2. Dynamic Update and DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. DNSSEC and DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.1. Signed DNAME, Unsigned Synthesized CNAME . . . . . . . 13
5.3.2. DNAME Bit in NSEC Type Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3.3. DNAME Chains as Strong as the Weakest Link . . . . . . 14
5.3.4. Validators Must Understand DNAME . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3.4.1. DNAME in Bitmap Causes Invalid Name Error . . . . 14
5.3.4.2. Valid Name Error Response Involving DNAME in
Bitmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3.4.3. Response With Synthesized CNAME . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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 descendants 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 a revision 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 aliasing 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.
This revision to DNAME does not change the wire format or the
handling of DNAME Resource Records. 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 October 22, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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 is to be applied for all names below the owner name of
the DNAME RR. 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 in the case when 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 October 22, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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). Thus every line contains one example substitution. 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. [0]
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.
[0] The result depends on the QTYPE. If the QTYPE = DNAME, then
the result is "example.com." else "<no match>"
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 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.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
2.3. DNAME Owner Name Matching the QNAME
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
resource record types at that domain name, except DNAMEs, CNAMEs or
other types that have restrictions on what they can co-exist with.
When there is a match of the QTYPE to a type (or types) also owned by
the owner name the response is sourced from the owner name. E.g., a
QTYPE of ANY would return the (available) types at the owner name,
not the target name.
DNAME RRs MUST NOT appear at the same owner name as an NS RR unless
the owner name is the zone apex as this would constitute data below a
zone cut.
If a DNAME record is present at the zone apex, there is still a need
to have the customary SOA and NS resource records there as well.
Such a DNAME cannot be used to 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 sub-domain of the owner of a
DNAME RR. To get the contents for names subordinate to that owner
name, the DNAME redirection must be invoked and the resulting target
queried. A server MAY refuse to load a zone that has data at a sub-
domain of a domain name owning a DNAME RR. If the server does load
the zone, those names below the DNAME RR will be occluded as
described in 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,
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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 has never been
specified and this document also does not specify this signaling
behavior.
RFC 2672 (obsoleted by this document) stated that the EDNS version
had a meaning for understanding of DNAME and DNAME target name
compression. This document revises RFC 2672, in that there is no
EDNS version signaling for DNAME.
3. Processing
The DNAME RR causes type NS additional section processing. This
refers to action at step 6 of the server algorithm outlined in
section 3.2.
3.1. CNAME synthesis
When preparing a response, a server performing a DNAME substitution
will in all cases include the relevant DNAME RR in the answer
section. Relevant includes the following cases:
1. The DNAME is being employed as a substitution instruction.
2. The DNAME itself matches the QTYPE and the owner name matches
QNAME.
When the owner name name matches the QNAME and the QTYPE matches
another type owned there, the DNAME is not included in the answer.
A CNAME RR with TTL equal to the corresponding DNAME RR is
synthesized and included in the answer section when the DNAME is
employed as a substitution instruction. The owner name of the CNAME
is the QNAME of the query. The DNSSEC specification [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 signature
over the DNAME RR.
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. If the server in question is a cache, the
synthesized CNAME's TTL SHOULD be equal to the decremented TTL of the
cached DNAME.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
Resolvers MUST be able to handle a synthesized CNAME TTL of zero or
equal to the TTL of the corresponding DNAME record (as some older
authoritative server implementations set the TTL of synthesized
CNAMEs to zero). A TTL of zero means that the CNAME can be discarded
immediately after processing the answer.
3.2. Server algorithm
Below is the server algorithm, which appeared in RFC 2672 Section
4.1.
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.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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. 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.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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
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 the zone or refuse dynamic updates.
3.4. Acceptance and Intermediate Storage
Recursive caching name servers 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 caching name server 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.
Recursive caching name servers MUST perform CNAME synthesis on behalf
of clients.
If a recursive caching name server encounters a DNAME RR which
contradicts information already in the cache (excluding CNAME
records), it SHOULD NOT cache the DNAME RR, but it MAY cache the
CNAME record received along with it, subject to the rules for CNAME.
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 October 22, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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 October 22, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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
non-DNAME/CNAME RR at a name that already has a DNAME RR associated
with that name. Otherwise, replace the DNAME RR with the DNAME (or
CNAME) update RR. This is similar behavior to dynamic updates to an
owner name of a CNAME RR [RFC2136].
5.3. DNSSEC and DNAME
The following subsections specify the behavior of implementations
that understand both DNSSEC and DNAME (synthesis).
5.3.1. Signed DNAME, Unsigned Synthesized CNAME
In any response, a signed DNAME RR indicates a non-terminal
redirection of the query. There might or might not be a server
synthesized CNAME in the answer section; if there is, the CNAME will
never be signed. For a DNSSEC validator, verification of the DNAME
RR and then checking that the CNAME was properly synthesized is
sufficient proof.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
5.3.2. DNAME Bit in NSEC Type Map
In any negative response, the NSEC or NSEC3 [RFC5155] record type bit
map SHOULD be checked to see that there was no DNAME that could have
been applied. If the DNAME bit in the type bit map is set and the
query name is a sub-domain of the closest encloser that is asserted,
then DNAME substitution should have been done, but the substitution
has not been done as specified.
5.3.3. DNAME Chains as Strong as the Weakest Link
A response can contain a chain of DNAME and CNAME redirections. That
chain can end in a positive answer or a negative (no name error or no
data error) reply. Each step in that chain results in resource
records added to the answer or authority section of the response.
Only if all steps are secure can the AD bit be set for the response.
If one of the steps is bogus, the result is bogus.
5.3.4. Validators Must Understand DNAME
Below are examples of why DNSSEC validators MUST understand DNAME.
In the examples below, SOA records, wildcard denial NSECs and other
material not under discussion has been omitted or shortened.
5.3.4.1. DNAME in Bitmap Causes Invalid Name Error
;; Header: QR AA RCODE=3(NXDOMAIN)
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 4096
;; Question
foo.bar.example.com. IN A
;; Authority
bar.example.com. NSEC dub.example.com. A DNAME
bar.example.com. RRSIG NSEC [valid signature]
If this is the received response, then only by understanding that the
DNAME bit in the NSEC bitmap 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.
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
5.3.4.2. Valid Name Error Response Involving DNAME in Bitmap
;; Header: QR AA RCODE=3(NXDOMAIN)
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 4096
;; Question
cee.example.com. IN A
;; Authority
bar.example.com. NSEC dub.example.com. A DNAME
bar.example.com. RRSIG NSEC [valid signature]
This response 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'.
5.3.4.3. Response With Synthesized CNAME
;; Header: QR AA RCODE=0(NOERROR)
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 4096
;; 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 response shown above has the synthesized CNAME included.
However, the CNAME has no signature, since the server does not sign
online. So this response 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. The validator must verify the DNAME signature and then
recursively resolve further to query for the foo.bar.example.net A
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.
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
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
redirection zone's security status. For validating resolvers, the
lowest security status of the links in the chain of CNAME and DNAME
redirections is applied to the result.
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].
The examples in Section 5.3.4 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
Hoenes 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.
[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.
[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
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
(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.
[RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008.
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 October 22, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DNAME Redirection April 2010
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@gmail.com
Wouter Wijngaards
NLnet Labs
Science Park 140
Amsterdam 1098 XG
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-20-888-4551
EMail: wouter@nlnetlabs.nl
Rose & Wijngaards Expires October 22, 2010 [Page 18]
View Git Blame Copy Permalink