draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-04.txt   rfc3646.txt 
Dynamic Host Configuration Group R. Droms (ed.) Network Working Group R. Droms, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Request for Comments: 3646 Cisco Systems
Expires: February 22, 2004 August 24, 2003 Category: Standards Track December 2003
DNS Configuration options for DHCPv6 DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-04.txt Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
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 February 22, 2004.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes DHCPv6 options for passing a list of This document describes Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
available DNS recursive name servers and a domain search list to a (DHCPv6) options for passing a list of available DNS recursive name
client. servers and a domain search list to a client.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes two options for passing configuration This document describes two options for passing configuration
information related to Domain Name Service (DNS) (RFC 1034 [6] and information related to Domain Name Service (DNS) (RFC 1034 [6] and
RFC 1035 [1]) in DHCPv6 (RFC 3315 [2]). RFC 1035 [1]) in DHCPv6 (RFC 3315 [2]).
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be
interpreted as described in RFC2119 [3]. interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [3].
Throughout this document, unless otherwise specified, the acronym Throughout this document, unless otherwise specified, the acronym
DHCP refers to DHCP as specified in RFC 3315. DHCP refers to DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6) as specified in RFC 3315.
This document uses terminology specific to IPv6 and DHCP as defined This document uses terminology specific to IPv6 and DHCP as defined
in section "Terminology" of RFC 3315. in section "Terminology" of RFC 3315.
3. DNS Recursive Name Server option 3. DNS Recursive Name Server option
The DNS Recursive Name Server option provides a list of one or more The DNS Recursive Name Server option provides a list of one or more
IPv6 addresses of DNS recursive recursive name servers to which a IPv6 addresses of DNS recursive name servers to which a client's DNS
client's DNS resolver MAY send DNS queries [1]. The DNS servers are resolver MAY send DNS queries [1]. The DNS servers are listed in the
listed in the order of preference for use by the client resolver. order of preference for use by the client resolver.
The format of the DNS Recursive Name Server option is: The format of the DNS Recursive Name Server option is:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_DNS_SERVERS | option-len | | OPTION_DNS_SERVERS | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| DNS-recursive-name-server (IPv6 address) | | DNS-recursive-name-server (IPv6 address) |
skipping to change at page 2, line 40 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| DNS-recursive-name-server (IPv6 address) | | DNS-recursive-name-server (IPv6 address) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
option-code: OPTION_DNS_SERVERS (tbd) option-code: OPTION_DNS_SERVERS (23)
option-len: Length of the list of DNS recursive name option-len: Length of the list of DNS recursive name
servers in octets; must be a multiple of 16 servers in octets; must be a multiple of
16
DNS-recursive-name-server: IPv6 address of DNS recursive name server DNS-recursive-name-server: IPv6 address of DNS recursive name server
4. Domain Search List option 4. Domain Search List option
The Domain Search List option specifies the domain search list the The Domain Search List option specifies the domain search list the
client is to use when resolving hostnames with DNS. This option does client is to use when resolving hostnames with DNS. This option does
not apply to other name resolution mechanisms. not apply to other name resolution mechanisms.
The format of the Domain Search List option is: The format of the Domain Search List option is:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST | option-len | | OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| searchlist | | searchlist |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
option-code: OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST (tbd) option-code: OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST (24)
option-len: Length of the 'searchlist' field in octets option-len: Length of the 'searchlist' field in octets
searchlist: The specification of the list of domain names in the searchlist: The specification of the list of domain names in the
Domain Search List Domain Search List
The list of domain names in the 'searchlist' MUST be encoded as The list of domain names in the 'searchlist' MUST be encoded as
specified in section "Representation and use of domain names" of RFC specified in section "Representation and use of domain names" of RFC
3315. 3315.
5. Appearance of these options 5. Appearance of these options
The DNS Recursive Name Server option MUST NOT appear in other than The DNS Recursive Name Server option MUST NOT appear in any other
the following messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew, Rebind, than the following messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew,
Information-Request, Reply. Rebind, Information-Request, and Reply.
The Domain Search List option MUST NOT appear in other than the The Domain Search List option MUST NOT appear in any other than the
following messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew, Rebind, following messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew, Rebind,
Information-Request, Reply. Information-Request, and Reply.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The DNS Recursive Name Server option may be used by an intruder DHCP The DNS Recursive Name Server option may be used by an intruder DHCP
server to cause DHCP clients to send DNS queries to an intruder DNS server to cause DHCP clients to send DNS queries to an intruder DNS
recursive name server. The results of these misdirected DNS queries recursive name server. The results of these misdirected DNS queries
may be used to spoof DNS names. may be used to spoof DNS names.
To avoid attacks through the DNS Recursive Name Server option, the To avoid attacks through the DNS Recursive Name Server option, the
DHCP client SHOULD require DHCP authentication (see section DHCP client SHOULD require DHCP authentication (see section
"Authentication of DHCP messages" in RFC 3315) before installing a "Authentication of DHCP messages" in RFC 3315) before installing a
list of DNS recursive name servers obtained through authenticated list of DNS recursive name servers obtained through authenticated
DHCP . DHCP .
The Domain Search List option may be used by an intruder DHCP server The Domain Search List option may be used by an intruder DHCP server
to cause DHCP clients to search through invalid domains for to cause DHCP clients to search through invalid domains for
incompletely specified domain names. The results of these misdirected incompletely specified domain names. The results of these
searches may be used to spoof DNS names. Note that support for misdirected searches may be used to spoof DNS names. Note that
DNSSEC [4] will not avert this attack, because the resource records support for DNSSEC [4] will not avert this attack, because the
in the invalid domains may be legitimately signed. resource records in the invalid domains may be legitimately signed.
The degree to which a host is vulnerable to attack via an invalid The degree to which a host is vulnerable to attack via an invalid
domain search option is determined in part by DNS resolver behavior. domain search option is determined in part by DNS resolver behavior.
RFC1535 [7] contains a discussion of security weaknesses related to RFC1535 [7] contains a discussion of security weaknesses related to
implicit as well as explicit domain searchlists, and provides implicit as well as explicit domain searchlists, and provides
recommendations relating to resolver searchlist processing. Section 6 recommendations relating to resolver searchlist processing. Section
of RFC1536 [5] also addresses this vulnerability, and recommends that 6 of RFC1536 [5] also addresses this vulnerability, and recommends
resolvers: that resolvers:
1. Use searchlists only when explicitly specified; no implicit 1. Use searchlists only when explicitly specified; no implicit
searchlists should be used. searchlists should be used.
2. Resolve a name that contains any dots by first trying it as an 2. Resolve a name that contains any dots by first trying it as an
FQDN and if that fails, with the names in the searchlist FQDN and if that fails, with the names in the searchlist appended.
appended.
3. Resolve a name containing no dots by appending with the 3. Resolve a name containing no dots by appending with the searchlist
searchlist right away, but once again, no implicit searchlists right away, but once again, no implicit searchlists should be
should be used. used.
In order to minimize potential vulnerabilities it is recommended In order to minimize potential vulnerabilities it is recommended
that: that:
1. Hosts implementing the domain search option SHOULD also implement 1. Hosts implementing the domain search option SHOULD also implement
the searchlist recommendations of RFC1536, section 6. the searchlist recommendations of RFC1536, section 6.
2. Where DNS parameters such as the domain searchlist or DNS servers 2. Where DNS parameters such as the domain searchlist or DNS servers
have been manually configured, these parameters SHOULD NOT be have been manually configured, these parameters SHOULD NOT be
overridden by DHCP. overridden by DHCP.
3. A host SHOULD require the use of DHCP authentication (see section 3. A host SHOULD require the use of DHCP authentication (see section
"Authentication of DHCP messages" in RFC 3315) prior to accepting "Authentication of DHCP messages" in RFC 3315) prior to accepting
a domain search option. a domain search option.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign an option code to the DNS Recursive Name IANA has assigned an option code to the DNS Recursive Name Server
Server option and to the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option (23) and to the Domain Search List option (24) from the DHCP
option code space defined in section "IANA Considerations" of RFC option code space defined in section "IANA Considerations" of RFC
3315. 3315.
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgements
This option was originally part of the DHCPv6 specification, written This option was originally part of the DHCPv6 specification, written
by Jim Bound, Mike Carney, Charlie Perkins, Ted Lemon, Bernie Volz by Jim Bound, Mike Carney, Charlie Perkins, Ted Lemon, Bernie Volz
and Ralph Droms. and Ralph Droms.
The analysis of the potential attack through the domain search list The analysis of the potential attack through the domain search list
is taken from the specification of the DHCPv4 Domain Search option, is taken from the specification of the DHCPv4 Domain Search option,
RFC3397 [8]. RFC3397 [8].
Thanks to Rob Austein, Alain Durand, Peter Koch, Tony Lindstrom and Thanks to Rob Austein, Alain Durand, Peter Koch, Tony Lindstrom and
Pekka Savola for their contributions to this document. Pekka Savola for their contributions to this document.
Normative References 9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[2] Bound, J., Carney, M., Perkins, C., Lemon, T., Volz, B. and R. [2] Bound, J., Carney, M., Perkins, C., Lemon, T., Volz, B. and R.
Droms (ed.), "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 Droms (ed.), "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, May 2003. (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, May 2003.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC [4] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
2535, March 1999. 2535, March 1999.
[5] Kumar, A., Postel, J., Neuman, C., Danzig, P. and S. Miller, [5] Kumar, A., Postel, J., Neuman, C., Danzig, P. and S. Miller,
"Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested Fixes", RFC "Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested Fixes", RFC
1536, October 1993. 1536, October 1993.
Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[6] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD [6] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[7] Gavron, E., "A Security Problem and Proposed Correction With [7] Gavron, E., "A Security Problem and Proposed Correction With
Widely Deployed DNS Software", RFC 1535, October 1993. Widely Deployed DNS Software", RFC 1535, October 1993.
[8] Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [8] Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Domain Search Option", RFC 3397, November 2002. (DHCP) Domain Search Option", RFC 3397, November 2002.
Author's Address
Ralph Droms (ed.)
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxboro, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978 936 1674
EMail: rdroms@cisco.com
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
skipping to change at page 7, line 27 skipping to change at page 6, line 27
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director. Director.
Author's Address
Ralph Droms, Editor
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxboro, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978 936 1674
EMail: rdroms@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
skipping to change at page 8, line 7 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/