[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 4701

DNSEXT                                                          M. Stapp
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: March 28, 2006                                         T. Lemon
                                                           A. Gustafsson
                                                           Nominum, Inc.
                                                      September 24, 2005


           A DNS RR for Encoding DHCP Information (DHCID RR)
                  <draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-10.txt>

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 March 28, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   It is possible for multiple DHCP clients to attempt to update the
   same DNS FQDN as they obtain DHCP leases.  Whether the DHCP server or
   the clients themselves perform the DNS updates, conflicts can arise.
   To resolve such conflicts, "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts" [1]
   proposes storing client identifiers in the DNS to unambiguously
   associate domain names with the DHCP clients to which they refer.



Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


   This memo defines a distinct RR type for this purpose for use by DHCP
   clients and servers, the "DHCID" RR.


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  The DHCID RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  DHCID RDATA format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  DHCID Presentation Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.3.  The DHCID RR Type Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.4.  Computation of the RDATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.5.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.5.1.  Example 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.5.2.  Example 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Use of the DHCID RR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Updater Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10

























Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


1.  Terminology

   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 [2].


2.  Introduction

   A set of procedures to allow DHCP [7] clients and servers to
   automatically update the DNS (RFC 1034 [3], RFC 1035 [4]) is proposed
   in "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts" [1].

   Conflicts can arise if multiple DHCP clients wish to use the same DNS
   name.  To resolve such conflicts, "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts"
   [1] proposes storing client identifiers in the DNS to unambiguously
   associate domain names with the DHCP clients using them.  In the
   interest of clarity, it is preferable for this DHCP information to
   use a distinct RR type.  This memo defines a distinct RR for this
   purpose for use by DHCP clients or servers, the "DHCID" RR.

   In order to avoid exposing potentially sensitive identifying
   information, the data stored is the result of a one-way MD5 [5] hash
   computation.  The hash includes information from the DHCP client's
   REQUEST message as well as the domain name itself, so that the data
   stored in the DHCID RR will be dependent on both the client
   identification used in the DHCP protocol interaction and the domain
   name.  This means that the DHCID RDATA will vary if a single client
   is associated over time with more than one name.  This makes it
   difficult to 'track' a client as it is associated with various domain
   names.

   The MD5 hash algorithm has been shown to be weaker than the SHA-1
   algorithm; it could therefore be argued that SHA-1 is a better
   choice.  However, SHA-1 is significantly slower than MD5.  A
   successful attack of MD5's weakness does not reveal the original data
   that was used to generate the signature, but rather provides a new
   set of input data that will produce the same signature.  Because we
   are using the MD5 hash to conceal the original data, the fact that an
   attacker could produce a different plaintext resulting in the same
   MD5 output is not significant concern.


3.  The DHCID RR

   The DHCID RR is defined with mnemonic DHCID and type code [TBD].  The
   DHCID RR is only defined in the IN class.  DHCID RRs cause no
   additional section processing.  The DHCID RR is not a singleton type.



Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


3.1.  DHCID RDATA format

   The RDATA section of a DHCID RR in transmission contains RDLENGTH
   bytes of binary data.  The format of this data and its interpretation
   by DHCP servers and clients are described below.

   DNS software should consider the RDATA section to be opaque.  DHCP
   clients or servers use the DHCID RR to associate a DHCP client's
   identity with a DNS name, so that multiple DHCP clients and servers
   may deterministically perform dynamic DNS updates to the same zone.
   From the updater's perspective, the DHCID resource record RDATA
   consists of a 16-bit identifier type, in network byte order, followed
   by one or more bytes representing the actual identifier:

           < 16 bits >     DHCP identifier used
           < n bytes >     MD5 digest

3.2.  DHCID Presentation Format

   In DNS master files, the RDATA is represented as a single block in
   base 64 encoding identical to that used for representing binary data
   in RFC 2535 [8].  The data may be divided up into any number of white
   space separated substrings, down to single base 64 digits, which are
   concatenated to form the complete RDATA.  These substrings can span
   lines using the standard parentheses.

3.3.  The DHCID RR Type Codes

   The DHCID RR Type Code specifies what data from the DHCP client's
   request was used as input into the hash function.  The type codes are
   defined in a registry maintained by IANA, as specified in Section 7.
   The initial list of assigned values for the type code is:

   0x0000 = htype, chaddr from a DHCPv4 client's DHCPREQUEST [7].
   0x0001 = The data portion from a DHCPv4 client's Client Identifier
      option [9].
   0x0002 = The client's DUID (i.e., the data portion of a DHCPv6
      client's Client Identifier option [10] or the DUID field from a
      DHCPv4 client's Client Identifier option [12]).

   0x0003 - 0xfffe = Available to be assigned by IANA.

   0xffff = RESERVED

3.4.  Computation of the RDATA

   The DHCID RDATA is formed by concatenating the two type bytes with
   some variable-length identifying data.



Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


       < type > < data >

   The RDATA for all type codes other than 0xffff, which is reserved for
   future expansion, is formed by concatenating the two type bytes and a
   16-byte MD5 hash value.  The input to the hash function is defined to
   be:

       data = MD5(< identifier > < FQDN >)

   The FQDN is represented in the buffer in unambiguous canonical form
   as described in RFC 2535 [8], section 8.1.  The type code and the
   identifier are related as specified in Section 3.3: the type code
   describes the source of the identifier.

   When the updater is using the client's link-layer address as the
   identifier, the first two bytes of the DHCID RDATA MUST be zero.  To
   generate the rest of the resource record, the updater computes a one-
   way hash using the MD5 algorithm across a buffer containing the
   client's network hardware type, link-layer address, and the FQDN
   data.  Specifically, the first byte of the buffer contains the
   network hardware type as it appeared in the DHCP 'htype' field of the
   client's DHCPREQUEST message.  All of the significant bytes of the
   chaddr field in the client's DHCPREQUEST message follow, in the same
   order in which the bytes appear in the DHCPREQUEST message.  The
   number of significant bytes in the 'chaddr' field is specified in the
   'hlen' field of the DHCPREQUEST message.  The FQDN data, as specified
   above, follows.

   When the updater is using the DHCPv4 Client Identifier option sent by
   the client in its DHCPREQUEST message, the first two bytes of the
   DHCID RR MUST be 0x0001, in network byte order.  The rest of the
   DHCID RR MUST contain the results of computing an MD5 hash across the
   payload of the option, followed by the FQDN.  The payload of the
   option consists of the bytes of the option following the option code
   and length.

   When the updater is using the DHCPv6 DUID sent by the client in its
   REQUEST message, the first two bytes of the DHCID RR MUST be 0x0002,
   in network byte order.  The rest of the DHCID RR MUST contain the
   results of computing an MD5 hash across the payload of the option,
   followed by the FQDN.  The payload of the option consists of the
   bytes of the option following the option code and length.

3.5.  Examples

3.5.1.  Example 1

   A DHCP server allocating the IPv4 address 10.0.0.1 to a client with



Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


   Ethernet MAC address 01:02:03:04:05:06 using domain name
   "client.example.com" uses the client's link-layer address to identify
   the client.  The DHCID RDATA is composed by setting the two type
   bytes to zero, and performing an MD5 hash computation across a buffer
   containing the Ethernet MAC type byte, 0x01, the six bytes of MAC
   address, and the domain name (represented as specified in
   Section 3.4).

     client.example.com.   A       10.0.0.1
     client.example.com.   DHCID   AAAUMru0ZM5OK/PdVAJgZ/HU

3.5.2.  Example 2

   A DHCP server allocates the IPv4 address 10.0.12.99 to a client which
   included the DHCP client-identifier option data 01:07:08:09:0a:0b:0c
   in its DHCP request.  The server updates the name "chi.example.com"
   on the client's behalf, and uses the DHCP client identifier option
   data as input in forming a DHCID RR.  The DHCID RDATA is formed by
   setting the two type bytes to the value 0x0001, and performing an MD5
   hash computation across a buffer containing the seven bytes from the
   client-id option and the FQDN (represented as specified in
   Section 3.4).

     chi.example.com.      A       10.0.12.99
     chi.example.com.      DHCID   AAHdd5jiQ3kEjANDm82cbObk\012


4.  Use of the DHCID RR

   This RR MUST NOT be used for any purpose other than that detailed in
   "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts" [1].  Although this RR contains
   data that is opaque to DNS servers, the data must be consistent
   across all entities that update and interpret this record.
   Therefore, new data formats may only be defined through actions of
   the DHC Working Group, as a result of revising [1].


5.  Updater Behavior

   The data in the DHCID RR allows updaters to determine whether more
   than one DHCP client desires to use a particular FQDN.  This allows
   site administrators to establish policy about DNS updates.  The DHCID
   RR does not establish any policy itself.

   Updaters use data from a DHCP client's request and the domain name
   that the client desires to use to compute a client identity hash, and
   then compare that hash to the data in any DHCID RRs on the name that
   they wish to associate with the client's IP address.  If an updater



Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


   discovers DHCID RRs whose RDATA does not match the client identity
   that they have computed, the updater SHOULD conclude that a different
   client is currently associated with the name in question.  The
   updater SHOULD then proceed according to the site's administrative
   policy.  That policy might dictate that a different name be selected,
   or it might permit the updater to continue.


6.  Security Considerations

   The DHCID record as such does not introduce any new security problems
   into the DNS.  In order to avoid exposing private information about
   DHCP clients to public scrutiny, a one-way hash is used to obscure
   all client information.  In order to make it difficult to 'track' a
   client by examining the names associated with a particular hash
   value, the FQDN is included in the hash computation.  Thus, the RDATA
   is dependent on both the DHCP client identification data and on each
   FQDN associated with the client.

   Administrators should be wary of permitting unsecured DNS updates to
   zones which are exposed to the global Internet.  Both DHCP clients
   and servers SHOULD use some form of update authentication (e.g., TSIG
   [11]) when performing DNS updates.


7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate an RR type number for the DHCID record
   type.

   This specification defines a new number-space for the 16-bit type
   codes associated with the DHCID RR.  IANA is requested to establish a
   registry of the values for this number-space.

   Three initial values are assigned in Section 3.3, and the value
   0xFFFF is reserved for future use.  New DHCID RR type codes are
   tentatively assigned after the specification for the associated type
   code, published as an Internet Draft, has received expert review by a
   designated expert.  The final assignment of DHCID RR type codes is
   through Standards Action, as defined in RFC 2434 [6].


8.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Josh Littlefield, Olafur Gudmundsson, Bernie Volz, and
   Ralph Droms for their review and suggestions.





Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Stapp, M. and B. Volz, "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts Among
        DHCP Clients (draft-ietf-dhc-dns-resolution-*)", September 2005.

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

   [3]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
        STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [4]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
        specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [5]  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
        April 1992.

   [6]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
        Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

9.2.  Informative References

   [7]   Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
         March 1997.

   [8]   Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
         RFC 2535, March 1999.

   [9]   Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
         Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.

   [10]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M.
         Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
         (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [11]  Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D., and B. Wellington,
         "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)",
         RFC 2845, May 2000.

   [12]  Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-Specific Client Identifiers
         for DHCPv4 (draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-*)", June 2005.








Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


Authors' Addresses

   Mark Stapp
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Ave.
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   Phone: 978.936.1535
   Email: mjs@cisco.com


   Ted Lemon
   Nominum, Inc.
   950 Charter St.
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Email: mellon@nominum.com


   Andreas Gustafsson
   Nominum, Inc.
   950 Charter St.
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Email: gson@nominum.com























Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                The DHCID RR                September 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Stapp, et al.            Expires March 28, 2006                [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/