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

Versions: (draft-aboba-dnsext-mdns) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 RFC 4795

DNSEXT Working Group                                        Levon Esibov
INTERNET-DRAFT                                             Bernard Aboba
Category: Standards Track                                    Dave Thaler
<draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-32.txt>                                Microsoft
25 June 2004


              Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3667.

   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 22, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Today, with the rise of home networking, there are an increasing
   number of ad-hoc networks operating without a Domain Name System
   (DNS) server.  The goal of Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution
   (LLMNR) is to enable name resolution in scenarios in which
   conventional DNS name resolution is not possible.  LLMNR supports all
   current and future DNS formats, types and classes, while operating on
   a separate port from DNS, and with a distinct resolver cache.  Since
   LLMNR only operates on the local link, it cannot be considered a
   substitute for DNS.





Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


Table of Contents

1.     Introduction ..........................................    3
   1.1       Requirements ....................................    4
   1.2       Terminology .....................................    4
2.     Name resolution using LLMNR ...........................    4
   2.1       LLMNR packet format .............................    6
   2.2       Sender behavior .................................    8
   2.3       Responder behavior ..............................    8
   2.4       Unicast queries .................................   11
   2.5       Off-link detection ..............................   11
   2.6       Responder responsibilities ......................   12
   2.7       Retransmission and jitter .......................   13
   2.8       DNS TTL .........................................   13
   2.9       Use of the authority and additional sections ....   14
3.     Usage model ...........................................   14
   3.1       LLMNR configuration .............................   15
4.     Conflict resolution ...................................   16
   4.1       Considerations for multiple interfaces ..........   18
   4.2       API issues ......................................   19
5.     Security considerations ...............................   20
   5.1       Scope restriction ...............................   20
   5.2       Usage restriction ...............................   21
   5.3       Cache and port separation .......................   22
   5.4       Authentication ..................................   22
6.     IANA considerations ...................................   22
7.     References ............................................   22
   7.1       Normative References ............................   22
   7.2       Informative References ..........................   23
Acknowledgments ..............................................   24
Authors' Addresses ...........................................   25
Intellectual Property Statement ..............................   25
Full Copyright Statement .....................................   26


















Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


1.  Introduction

   This document discusses Link Local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR),
   which utilizes the DNS packet format and supports all current and
   future DNS formats, types and classes.  LLMNR operates on a separate
   port from the Domain Name System (DNS), with a distinct resolver
   cache.

   The goal of LLMNR is to enable name resolution in scenarios in which
   conventional DNS name resolution is not possible.  These include
   scenarios in which hosts are not configured with the address of a DNS
   server, where configured DNS servers do not reply to a query, or
   where they respond with errors, as described in Section 2.  Since
   LLMNR only operates on the local link, it cannot be considered a
   substitute for DNS.

   Link-scope multicast addresses are used to prevent propagation of
   LLMNR traffic across routers, potentially flooding the network.
   LLMNR queries can also be sent to a unicast address, as described in
   Section 2.4.

   Propagation of LLMNR packets on the local link is considered
   sufficient to enable name resolution in small networks.  The
   assumption is that if a network has a gateway, then the network is
   able to provide DNS server configuration.   Configuration issues are
   discussed in Section 3.1.

   In the future, it may be desirable to consider use of multicast name
   resolution with multicast scopes beyond the link-scope.  This could
   occur if LLMNR deployment is successful, the need arises for
   multicast name resolution beyond the link-scope, or multicast routing
   becomes ubiquitous.  For example, expanded support for multicast name
   resolution might be required for mobile ad-hoc networking scenarios,
   or where no DNS server is available that is authoritative for the
   names of local hosts, and can support dynamic DNS, such as in
   wireless hotspots.

   Once we have experience in LLMNR deployment in terms of
   administrative issues, usability and impact on the network, it will
   be possible to reevaluate which multicast scopes are appropriate for
   use with multicast name resolution.

   Service discovery in general, as well as discovery of DNS servers
   using LLMNR in particular, is outside of the scope of this document,
   as is name resolution over non-multicast capable media.






Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


1.1.  Requirements

   In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
   of the specification.  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

1.2.  Terminology

   This document assumes familiarity with DNS terminology defined in
   [RFC1035].  Other terminology used in this document includes:

Positively Resolved
     Responses with RCODE set to zero are referred to in this document
     as "positively resolved".

Routable Address
     An address other than a Link-Local address.  This includes globally
     routable addresses, as well as private addresses.

Reachable
     An address is considered reachable over a link if either an ARP or
     neighbor discovery cache entry exists for the address on the link.

Responder
     A host that listens to LLMNR queries, and responds to those for
     which it is authoritative.

Sender
     A host that sends an LLMNR query.

2.  Name resolution using LLMNR

   LLMNR is a peer-to-peer name resolution protocol that is not intended
   as a replacement for DNS.  LLMNR queries are sent to and received on
   port 5355.  IPv4 administratively scoped multicast usage is specified
   in "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast" [RFC2365].  The IPv4 link-
   scope multicast address a given responder listens to, and to which a
   sender sends queries, is 224.0.0.252.  The IPv6 link-scope multicast
   address a given responder listens to, and to which a sender sends all
   queries, is FF02:0:0:0:0:0:1:3.

   Typically a host is configured as both an LLMNR sender and a
   responder.  A host MAY be configured as a sender, but not a
   responder.  However, a host configured as a responder MUST act as a
   sender to verify the uniqueness of names as described in Section 4.
   This document does not specify how names are chosen or configured.



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   This may occur via any mechanism, including DHCPv4 [RFC2131] or
   DHCPv6 [RFC3315].

   LLMNR usage MAY be configured manually or automatically on a per
   interface basis.  By default, LLMNR responders SHOULD be enabled on
   all interfaces, at all times.  Enabling LLMNR for use in situations
   where a DNS server has been configured will result in a change in
   default behavior without a simultaneous update to configuration
   information. Where this is considered undesirable, LLMNR SHOULD NOT
   be enabled by default, so that hosts will neither listen on the link-
   scope multicast address, nor will they send queries to that address.

   An LLMNR sender may send a request for any name.  However, by
   default, LLMNR requests SHOULD be sent only when one of the following
   conditions are met:

   [1] No manual or automatic DNS configuration has been
       performed.  If an interface has been configured with DNS
       server address(es),  then LLMNR SHOULD NOT be used as the
       primary name resolution mechanism on that interface, although
       it MAY be used as a name resolution mechanism of last resort.

   [2] DNS servers do not respond.

   [3] DNS servers respond to a DNS query with RCODE=3
       (Authoritative Name Error) or RCODE=0, and an empty
       answer section.

   A typical sequence of events for LLMNR usage is as follows:

   [a]  DNS servers are not configured or do not respond to a
        DNS query, or respond with RCODE=3, or RCODE=0 and an
        empty answer section.

   [b]  An LLMNR sender sends an LLMNR query to the link-scope
        multicast address(es) defined in Section 2, unless a
        unicast query is indicated.  A sender SHOULD send LLMNR
        queries for PTR RRs via unicast, as specified in Section 2.4.

   [c]  A responder responds to this query only if it is authoritative
        for the domain name in the query.  A responder responds to a
        multicast query by sending a unicast UDP response to the sender.
        Unicast queries are responded to as indicated in Section 2.4.

   [d]  Upon reception of the response, the sender processes it.

   Further details of sender and responder behavior are provided in the
   sections that follow.



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


2.1.  LLMNR packet format

   LLMNR utilizes the DNS packet format defined in [RFC1035] Section 4
   for both queries and responses.  LLMNR implementations SHOULD send
   UDP queries and responses only as large as are known to be
   permissible without causing fragmentation.  When in doubt a maximum
   packet size of 512 octets SHOULD be used.  LLMNR implementations MUST
   accept UDP queries and responses as large as permitted by the link
   MTU.

2.1.1.  LLMNR header format

   LLMNR queries and responses utilize the DNS header format defined in
   [RFC1035] with exceptions noted below:

                                   1  1  1  1  1  1
     0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |                      ID                       |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |QR|   Opcode  | Z|TC| Z| Z| Z| Z| Z|   RCODE   |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |                    QDCOUNT                    |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |                    ANCOUNT                    |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |                    NSCOUNT                    |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |                    ARCOUNT                    |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   where:

ID   A 16 bit identifier assigned by the program that generates any kind
     of query.  This identifier is copied from the query to the response
     and can be used by the sender to match responses to outstanding
     queries. The ID field in a query SHOULD be set to a pseudo-random
     value.

QR   A one bit field that specifies whether this message is an LLMNR
     query (0), or an LLMNR response (1).

OPCODE
     A four bit field that specifies the kind of query in this message.
     This value is set by the originator of a query and copied into the
     response.  This specification defines the behavior of standard
     queries and responses (opcode value of zero).  Future
     specifications may define the use of other opcodes with LLMNR.



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


     LLMNR senders and responders MUST support standard queries (opcode
     value of zero).  LLMNR queries with unsupported OPCODE values MUST
     be silently discarded by responders.

TC   TrunCation - specifies that this message was truncated due to
     length greater than that permitted on the transmission channel.
     The TC bit MUST NOT be set in an LLMNR query and if set is ignored
     by an LLMNR responder.  If the TC bit is set an LLMNR response,
     then the sender MAY use the response if it contains all necessary
     information, or the sender MAY discard the response and resend the
     LLMNR query over TCP using the unicast address of the responder as
     the destination address.  See  [RFC2181] and Section 2.4 of this
     specification for further discussion of the TC bit.

Z    Reserved for future use.  Implementations of this specification
     MUST set these bits to zero in both queries and responses.  If
     these bits are set in a LLMNR query or response, implementations of
     this specification MUST ignore them.  Since reserved bits could
     conceivably be used for different purposes than in DNS,
     implementors are advised not to enable processing of these bits in
     an LLMNR implementation starting from a DNS code base.

RCODE
     Response code -- this 4 bit field is set as part of LLMNR
     responses.  In an LLMNR query, the RCODE MUST be zero, and is
     ignored by the responder.  The response to a multicast LLMNR query
     MUST have RCODE set to zero.  A sender MUST silently discard an
     LLMNR response with a non-zero RCODE sent in response to a
     multicast query.

     If an LLMNR responder is authoritative for the name in a multicast
     query, but an error is encountered, the responder SHOULD send an
     LLMNR response with an RCODE of zero, no RRs in the answer section,
     and the TC bit set.  This will cause the query to be resent using
     TCP, and allow the inclusion of a non-zero RCODE in the response to
     the TCP query.  Responding with the TC bit set is preferrable to
     not sending a response, since it enables errors to be diagnosed.

     Since LLMNR responders only respond to LLMNR queries for names for
     which they are authoritative, LLMNR responders MUST NOT respond
     with an RCODE of 3; instead, they should not respond at all.

     LLMNR implementations MUST support EDNS0 [RFC2671] and extended
     RCODE values.

QDCOUNT
     An unsigned 16 bit integer specifying the number of entries in the
     question section. A sender MUST place only one question into the



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


     question section of an LLMNR query.  LLMNR responders MUST silently
     discard LLMNR queries with QDCOUNT not equal to one.  LLMNR senders
     MUST silently discard LLMNR responses with QDCOUNT not equal to
     one.

ANCOUNT
     An unsigned 16 bit integer specifying the number of resource
     records in the answer section.  LLMNR responders MUST silently
     discard LLMNR queries with ANCOUNT not equal to zero.

NSCOUNT
     An unsigned 16 bit integer specifying the number of name server
     resource records in the authority records section.  Authority
     record section processing is described in Section 2.9.

ARCOUNT
     An unsigned 16 bit integer specifying the number of resource
     records in the additional records section.  Additional record
     section processing is described in Section 2.9.

2.2.  Sender behavior

   A sender may send an LLMNR query for any legal resource record  type
   (e.g.  A, AAAA, SRV, etc.) to the link-scope multicast address.

   As described in Section 2.4, a sender may also send a unicast query.
   Sections 2 and 3 describe the circumstances in which LLMNR queries
   may be sent.

   The sender MUST anticipate receiving no replies to some LLMNR
   queries, in the event that no responders are available within the
   link-scope or in the event no positive non-null responses exist for
   the transmitted query.  If no positive response is received, a
   resolver treats it as a response that no records of the specified
   type and class exist for the specified name (it is treated the same
   as a response with RCODE=0 and an empty answer section).

   Since the responder may order the RRs in the response so as to
   indicate preference, the sender SHOULD preserve ordering in the
   response to the querying application.

2.3.  Responder behavior

   An LLMNR response MUST be sent to the sender via unicast.

   Upon configuring an IP address responders typically will synthesize
   corresponding A, AAAA and PTR RRs so as to be able to respond to
   LLMNR queries for these RRs.  An SOA RR is synthesized only when a



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   responder has another RR as well;  the SOA RR MUST NOT be the only RR
   that a responder has.  However, in general whether RRs are manually
   or automatically created is an implementation decision.

   For example, a host configured to have computer name "host1" and to
   be a member of the "example.com" domain, and with IPv4 address
   10.1.1.1 and IPv6 address 2001:0DB8::1:2:3:FF:FE:4:5:6 might be
   authoritative for the following records:

   host1. IN A 10.1.1.1
   IN AAAA 2001:0DB8::1:2:3:FF:FE:4:5:6

   host1.example.com. IN A 10.1.1.1
   IN AAAA 2001:0DB8::1:2:3:FF:FE:4:5:6

   1.1.1.10.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR host1.
   IN PTR host1.example.com.

   6.0.5.0.4.0.E.F.F.F.3.0.2.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
   IN PTR host1.
   IN PTR host1.example.com

   An LLMNR responder might be further manually configured with the name
   of a local mail server with an MX RR included in the "host1." and
   "host1.example.com." records.

   In responding to queries:

[a]  Responders MUST listen on UDP port 5355 on the link-scope multicast
     address(es) defined in Section 2, and on UDP and TCP port 5355 on
     the unicast address(es) that could be set as the source address(es)
     when the responder responds to the LLMNR query.

[b]  Responders MUST direct responses to the port from which the query
     was sent.  When queries are received via TCP this is an inherent
     part of the transport protocol.  For queries received by UDP the
     responder MUST take note of the source port and use that as the
     destination port in the response.  Responses SHOULD always be sent
     from the port to which they were directed.

[c]  Responders MUST respond to LLMNR queries for names and addresses
     they are authoritative for.  This applies to both forward and
     reverse lookups.

[d]  Responders MUST NOT respond to LLMNR queries for names they are not
     authoritative for.





Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                    [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


[e]  Responders MUST NOT respond using cached data.

[f]  If a DNS server is running on a host that supports LLMNR, the DNS
     server MUST respond to LLMNR queries only for the RRSets relating
     to the host on which the server is running, but MUST NOT respond
     for other records for which the server is authoritative.  DNS
     servers also MUST NOT send LLMNR queries in order to resolve DNS
     queries.

[g]  If a responder is authoritative for a name, it MAY respond with
     RCODE=0 and an empty answer section, if the type of query does not
     match a RR that the responder has.

   As an example, a host configured to respond to LLMNR queries for the
   name "foo.example.com."  is authoritative for the name
   "foo.example.com.".  On receiving an LLMNR query for an A RR with the
   name "foo.example.com." the host authoritatively responds with A
   RR(s) that contain IP address(es) in the RDATA of the resource
   record.  If the responder has a AAAA RR, but no A RR, and an A RR
   query is received, the responder would respond with RCODE=0 and an
   empty answer section.

   In conventional DNS terminology a DNS server authoritative for a zone
   is authoritative for all the domain names under the zone apex except
   for the branches delegated into separate zones.  Contrary to
   conventional DNS terminology, an LLMNR responder is authoritative
   only for the zone apex.

   For example the host "foo.example.com." is not authoritative for the
   name "child.foo.example.com." unless the host is configured with
   multiple names, including "foo.example.com."  and
   "child.foo.example.com.".  As a result, "foo.example.com." cannot
   reply to an LLMNR query for "child.foo.example.com." with RCODE=3
   (authoritative name error).  The purpose of limiting the name
   authority scope of a responder is to prevent complications that could
   be caused by coexistence of two or more hosts with the names
   representing child and parent (or grandparent) nodes in the DNS tree,
   for example, "foo.example.com." and "child.foo.example.com.".

   In this example (unless this limitation is introduced) an LLMNR query
   for an A resource record for the name "child.foo.example.com." would
   result in two authoritative responses: RCODE=3 (authoritative name
   error) received from "foo.example.com.", and a requested A record -
   from "child.foo.example.com.".  To prevent this ambiguity, LLMNR
   enabled hosts could perform a dynamic update of the parent (or
   grandparent) zone with a delegation to a child zone.  In this example
   a host "child.foo.example.com." would send a dynamic update for the
   NS and glue A record to "foo.example.com.", but this approach



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   significantly complicates implementation of LLMNR and would not be
   acceptable for lightweight hosts.

2.4.  Unicast queries and responses

   Unicast queries SHOULD be sent when:

   [a] A sender repeats a query after it received a response
       with the TC bit set to the previous LLMNR multicast query, or

   [b] The sender queries for a PTR RR of a fully formed IP address
       within the "in-addr.arpa" or "ip6.arpa" zones.

   Unicast LLMNR queries MUST be done using TCP and the responses MUST
   be sent using the same TCP connection as the query.  Senders MUST
   support sending TCP queries, and responders MUST support listening
   for TCP queries. If the sender of a TCP query receives a response to
   that query not using TCP, the response MUST be silently discarded.

   Unicast UDP queries MUST be silently discarded.

   If TCP connection setup cannot be completed in order to send a
   unicast TCP query, this is treated as a response that no records of
   the specified type and class exist for the specified name (it is
   treated the same as a response with RCODE=0 and an empty answer
   section).

2.5.  "Off link" detection

   For IPv4, an "on link" address is defined as a link-local address
   [IPv4Link] or an address whose prefix belongs to a subnet on the
   local link.  For IPv6 [RFC2460] an "on link" address is either a
   link-local address, defined in [RFC2373], or an address whose prefix
   belongs to a subnet on the local link.

   A sender MUST select a source address for LLMNR queries that is "on
   link".  The destination address of an LLMNR query MUST be a link-
   scope multicast address or an "on link" unicast address.

   A responder MUST select a source address for responses that is "on
   link". The destination address of an LLMNR response MUST be an "on
   link" unicast address.

   On receiving an LLMNR query, the responder MUST check whether it was
   sent to a LLMNR multicast addresses defined in Section 2.  If it was
   sent to another multicast address, then the query MUST be silently
   discarded.




Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   Section 2.4 discusses use of TCP for LLMNR queries and responses.  In
   composing an LLMNR query using TCP, the sender MUST set the Hop Limit
   field in the IPv6 header and the TTL field in the IPv4 header of the
   response to one (1).  The responder SHOULD set the TTL or Hop Limit
   settings on the TCP listen socket to one (1) so that SYN-ACK packets
   will have TTL (IPv4) or Hop Limit (IPv6) set to one (1). This
   prevents an incoming connection from off-link since the sender will
   not receive a SYN-ACK from the responder.

   For UDP queries and responses the Hop Limit field in the IPv6 header,
   and the TTL field in the IPV4 header MAY be set to any value.
   However, it is RECOMMENDED that the value 255 be used for
   compatibility with Apple Rendezvous.

   Implementation note:

      In the sockets API for IPv4 [POSIX], the IP_TTL and
      IP_MULTICAST_TTL socket options are used to set the TTL of
      outgoing unicast and multicast packets. The IP_RECVTTL socket
      option is available on some platforms to retrieve the IPv4 TTL of
      received packets with recvmsg().  [RFC2292] specifies similar
      options for setting and retrieving the IPv6 Hop Limit.

2.6.  Responder responsibilities

   It is the responsibility of the responder to ensure that RRs returned
   in LLMNR responses MUST only include values that are valid on the
   local interface, such as IPv4 or IPv6 addresses valid on the local
   link or names defended using the mechanism described in Section 4.
   In particular:

   [a] If a link-scope IPv6 address is returned in a AAAA RR,
       that address MUST be valid on the local link over which
       LLMNR is used.

   [b] If an IPv4 address is returned, it MUST be reachable
       through the link over which LLMNR is used.

   [c] If a name is returned (for example in a CNAME, MX
       or SRV RR), the name MUST be resolvable on the local
       link over which LLMNR is used.

   Routable addresses MUST be included first in the response, if
   available.  This encourages use of routable address(es) for
   establishment of new connections.






Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


2.7.  Retransmission and jitter

   An LLMNR sender uses the timeout interval LLMNR_TIMEOUT to determine
   when to retransmit an LLMNR query and how long to collect responses
   to an LLMNR query.

   If an LLMNR query sent over UDP is not resolved within LLMNR_TIMEOUT,
   then a sender MAY repeat the transmission of the query in order to
   assure that it was received by a host capable of responding to it.
   Retransmission of UDP queries SHOULD NOT be attempted more than 3
   times. Where LLMNR queries are sent using TCP, retransmission is
   handled by the transport layer.

   Because an LLMNR sender cannot know in advance if a query sent using
   multicast will receive no response, one response, or more than one
   response, the sender SHOULD wait for LLMNR_TIMEOUT in order to
   collect all possible responses, rather than considering the multicast
   query answered after the first response is received. A unicast query
   sender considers the query answered after the first response is
   received, so that it only waits for LLMNR_TIMEOUT if no response has
   been received.

   An LLMNR sender SHOULD dynamically compute the value of LLMNR_TIMEOUT
   for each transmission. It is suggested that the computation of
   LLMNR_TIMEOUT be based on the response times for earlier LLMNR
   queries sent on the same interface.

   For example, the algorithms described in RFC 2988 [RFC2988]
   (including exponential backoff) compute an RTO, which is used as the
   value of LLMNR_TIMEOUT.  Smaller values MAY be used for the initial
   RTO (discussed in Section 2 of [RFC2988], paragraph 2.1), the minimum
   RTO (discussed in Section 2 of [RFC2988], paragraph 2.4), and the
   maximum RTO (discussed in Section 2 of [RFC2988], paragraph 2.5).

   Recommended values are an initial RTO of 1 second, a minimum RTO of
   200ms, and a maximum RTO of 5 seconds.  In order to avoid
   synchronization, the transmission of each LLMNR query and response
   SHOULD delayed by a time randomly selected from the interval 0 to 100
   ms.  This delay MAY be avoided by responders responding with RRs
   which they have previously determined to be UNIQUE (see Section 4 for
   details).

2.8.  DNS TTL

   The responder should use a pre-configured TTL value in the records
   returned an LLMNR response.  A default value of 30 seconds is
   RECOMMENDED.  In highly dynamic environments (such as mobile ad-hoc
   networks), the TTL value may need to be reduced.



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   Due to the TTL minimalization necessary when caching an RRset, all
   TTLs in an RRset MUST be set to the same value.

2.9.  Use of the authority and additional sections

   Unlike the DNS, LLMNR is a peer-to-peer protocol and does not have a
   concept of delegation.  In LLMNR, the NS resource record type may be
   stored and queried for like any other type, but it has no special
   delegation semantics as it does in the DNS.  Responders MAY have NS
   records associated with the names for which they are authoritative,
   but they SHOULD NOT include these NS records in the authority
   sections of responses.

   Responders SHOULD insert an SOA record into the authority section of
   a negative response, to facilitate negative caching as specified in
   [RFC2308].  The owner name of this SOA record MUST be equal to the
   query name.

   Responders SHOULD NOT perform DNS additional section processing,
   except as required for EDNS0 and DNSSEC.

   Senders MUST NOT cache RRs from the authority or additional section
   of a response as answers, though they may be used for other purposes
   such as negative caching.

3.  Usage model

   Since LLMNR is a secondary name resolution mechanism, its usage is in
   part determined by the behavior of DNS implementations.  This
   document does not specify any changes to DNS resolver behavior, such
   as searchlist processing or retransmission/failover policy.  However,
   robust DNS resolver implementations are more likely to avoid
   unnecessary LLMNR queries.

   As noted in [DNSPerf], even when DNS servers are configured, a
   significant fraction of DNS queries do not receive a response, or
   result in negative responses due to missing inverse mappings or NS
   records that point to nonexistent or inappropriate hosts.  This has
   the potential to result in a large number of unnecessary LLMNR
   queries.

   [RFC1536] describes common DNS implementation errors and fixes.  If
   the proposed fixes are implemented, unnecessary LLMNR queries will be
   reduced substantially, and so implementation of [RFC1536] is
   recommended.

   For example, [RFC1536] Section 1 describes issues with retransmission
   and recommends implementation of a retransmission policy based on



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   round trip estimates, with exponential backoff.  [RFC1536] Section 4
   describes issues with failover, and recommends that resolvers try
   another server when they don't receive a response to a query.  These
   policies are likely to avoid unnecessary LLMNR queries.

   [RFC1536] Section 3 describes zero answer bugs, which if addressed
   will also reduce unnecessary LLMNR queries.

   [RFC1536] Section 6 describes name error bugs and recommended
   searchlist processing that will reduce unnecessary RCODE=3
   (authoritative name) errors, thereby also reducing unnecessary LLMNR
   queries.

3.1.  LLMNR configuration

   Since IPv4 and IPv6 utilize distinct configuration mechanisms, it is
   possible for a dual stack host to be configured with the address of a
   DNS server over IPv4, while remaining unconfigured with a DNS server
   suitable for use over IPv6.

   In these situations, a dual stack host will send AAAA queries to the
   configured DNS server over IPv4.  However, an IPv6-only host
   unconfigured with a DNS server suitable for use over IPv6 will be
   unable to resolve names using DNS.  Automatic IPv6 DNS configuration
   mechanisms (such as [RFC3315] and [DNSDisc]) are not yet widely
   deployed, and not all DNS servers support IPv6. Therefore lack of
   IPv6 DNS configuration may be a common problem in the short term, and
   LLMNR may prove useful in enabling linklocal name resolution over
   IPv6.

   Where a DHCPv4 server is available but not a DHCPv6 server [RFC3315],
   IPv6-only hosts may not be configured with a DNS server.  Where there
   is no DNS server authoritative for the name of a host or the
   authoritative DNS server does not support dynamic client update over
   IPv6 or DHCPv6-based dynamic update, then an IPv6-only host will not
   be able to do DNS dynamic update, and other hosts will not be able to
   resolve its name.

   For example, if the configured DNS server responds to AAAA RR queries
   sent over IPv4 or IPv6 with an authoritative name error (RCODE=3),
   then it will not be possible to resolve the names of IPv6-only hosts.
   In this situation, LLMNR over IPv6 can be used for local name
   resolution.

   Similarly, if a DHCPv4 server is available providing DNS server
   configuration, and DNS server(s) exist which are authoritative for
   the A RRs of local hosts and support either dynamic client update
   over IPv4 or DHCPv4-based dynamic update, then the names of local



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   IPv4 hosts can be resolved over IPv4 without LLMNR.  However,  if no
   DNS server is authoritative for the names of local hosts, or the
   authoritative DNS server(s) do not support dynamic update, then LLMNR
   enables linklocal name resolution over IPv4.

   Where DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 is implemented, DHCP options can be used to
   configure LLMNR on an interface.  The LLMNR Enable Option, described
   in [LLMNREnable], can be used to explicitly enable or disable use of
   LLMNR on an interface.  The LLMNR Enable Option does not determine
   whether or in which order DNS itself is used for name resolution.
   The order in which various name resolution mechanisms should be used
   can be specified using the Name Service Search Option (NSSO) for DHCP
   [RFC2937], using the LLMNR Enable Option code carried in the NSSO
   data.

   It is possible that DNS configuration mechanisms will go in and out
   of service.  In these circumstances, it is possible for hosts within
   an administrative domain to be inconsistent in their DNS
   configuration.

   For example, where DHCP is used for configuring DNS servers, one or
   more DHCP servers can fail.  As a result, hosts configured prior to
   the outage will be configured with a DNS server, while hosts
   configured after the outage will not.  Alternatively, it is possible
   for the DNS configuration mechanism to continue functioning while
   configured DNS servers fail.

   Unless unconfigured hosts periodically retry configuration, an outage
   in the DNS configuration mechanism will result in hosts continuing to
   use LLMNR even once the outage is repaired.  Since LLMNR only enables
   linklocal name resolution, this represents an unnecessary degradation
   in capabilities.  As a result, it is recommended that hosts without a
   configured DNS server periodically attempt to obtain DNS
   configuration.  For example, where DHCP is used for DNS
   configuration, [RFC2131] recommends a maximum retry interval of 64
   seconds.  In the absence of other guidance, a default retry interval
   of one (1) minute is RECOMMENDED.

4.  Conflict resolution

   The sender MUST anticipate receiving multiple replies to the same
   LLMNR query, in the event that several LLMNR enabled computers
   receive the query and respond with valid answers.  When this occurs,
   the responses may first be concatenated, and then treated in the same
   manner that multiple RRs received from the same DNS server would; the
   sender perceives no inherent conflict in the receipt of multiple
   responses.




Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   There are some scenarios when multiple responders MAY respond to the
   same query.  There are other scenarios when only one responder MAY
   respond to a query.  Resource records for which the latter queries
   are submitted are referred as UNIQUE throughout this document.  The
   uniqueness of a resource record depends on a nature of the name in
   the query and type of the query.  For example it is expected that:

      - multiple hosts may respond to a query for an SRV type record
      - multiple hosts may respond to a query for an A or AAAA type
        record for a cluster name (assigned to multiple hosts in
        the cluster)
      - only a single host may respond to a query for an A or AAAA
        type record for a name.

   Every responder that responds to an LLMNR query AND includes a UNIQUE
   record in the response:

   [1]  MUST verify that there is no other host within the
        scope of the LLMNR query propagation that can return
        a resource record for the same name, type and class.

   [2]  MUST NOT include a UNIQUE resource record in the
        response without having verified its uniqueness.

   Where a host is configured to issue LLMNR queries on more than one
   interface, each interface should have its own independent LLMNR
   cache.  For each UNIQUE resource record in a given interface's
   configuration, the host MUST verify resource record uniqueness on
   that interface.  To accomplish this, the host MUST send an LLMNR
   query for each UNIQUE resource record.

   By default, a host SHOULD be configured to behave as though all RRs
   are UNIQUE.  Uniqueness verification is carried out when the host:

     - starts up or is rebooted
     - wakes from sleep (if the network interface was inactive during sleep)
     - is configured to respond to the LLMNR queries on an interface
       enabled for transmission and reception of IP traffic
     - is configured to respond to the LLMNR queries using additional
       UNIQUE resource records
     - detects that an interface is connected and is usable
       (e.g. an IEEE 802 hardware link-state change indicating
       that a cable was attached or completion of authentication
       (and if needed, association) with a wireless base station
       or adhoc network

   When a host that has a UNIQUE record receives an LLMNR query for that
   record, the host MUST respond.  After the client receives a response,



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 17]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   it MUST check whether the response arrived on an interface different
   from the one on which the query was sent.  If the response arrives on
   a different interface, the client can use the UNIQUE resource record
   in response to LLMNR queries.  If not, then it MUST NOT use the
   UNIQUE resource record in response to LLMNR queries.

   The name conflict detection mechanism doesn't prevent name conflicts
   when previously partitioned segments are connected by a bridge. In
   order to minimize the chance of conflicts in such a situation, it is
   recommended that steps be taken to ensure name uniqueness. For
   example, the name could be chosen randomly from a large pool of
   potential names, or the name could be assigned via a process designed
   to guarantee uniqueness.

   When name conflicts are detected, they SHOULD be logged.  To detect
   duplicate use of a name, an administrator can use a name resolution
   utility which employs LLMNR and lists both responses and responders.
   This would allow an administrator to diagnose behavior and
   potentially to intervene and reconfigure LLMNR responders who should
   not be configured to respond to the same name.

4.1.  Considerations for Multiple Interfaces

   A multi-homed host may elect to configure LLMNR on only one of its
   active interfaces.  In many situations this will be adequate.
   However, should a host need to configure LLMNR on more than one of
   its active interfaces, there are some additional precautions it MUST
   take.  Implementers who are not planning to support LLMNR on multiple
   interfaces simultaneously may skip this section.

   A multi-homed host checks the uniqueness of UNIQUE records as
   described in Section 4.  The situation is illustrated in figure 1.

        ----------  ----------
         |      |    |      |
        [A]    [myhost]   [myhost]

      Figure 1.  Link-scope name conflict

   In this situation, the multi-homed myhost will probe for, and defend,
   its host name on both interfaces.  A conflict will be detected on one
   interface, but not the other.  The multi-homed myhost will not be
   able to respond with a host RR for "myhost" on the interface on the
   right (see Figure 1).  The multi-homed host may, however, be
   configured to use the "myhost" name on the interface on the left.

   Since names are only unique per-link, hosts on different links could
   be using the same name.  If an LLMNR client sends requests over



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 18]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   multiple interfaces, and receives replies from more than one, the
   result returned to the client is defined by the implementation.  The
   situation is illustrated in figure 2.

        ----------  ----------
         |      |    |     |
        [A]    [myhost]   [A]


      Figure 2.  Off-segment name conflict

   If host myhost is configured to use LLMNR on both interfaces, it will
   send LLMNR queries on both interfaces.  When host myhost sends a
   query for the host RR for name "A" it will receive a response from
   hosts on both interfaces.

   Host myhost cannot distinguish between the situation shown in Figure
   2, and that shown in Figure 3 where no conflict exists.

                [A]
               |   |
           -----   -----
               |   |
              [myhost]

      Figure 3.  Multiple paths to same host

   This illustrates that the proposed name conflict resolution mechanism
   does not support detection or resolution of conflicts between hosts
   on different links.  This problem can also occur with unicast DNS
   when a multi-homed host is connected to two different networks with
   separated name spaces.  It is not the intent of this document to
   address the issue of uniqueness of names within DNS.

4.2.  API issues

   [RFC2553] provides an API which can partially solve the name
   ambiguity problem for applications written to use this API, since the
   sockaddr_in6 structure exposes the scope within which each scoped
   address exists, and this structure can be used for both IPv4 (using
   v4-mapped IPv6 addresses) and IPv6 addresses.

   Following the example in Figure 2, an application on 'myhost' issues
   the request getaddrinfo("A", ...) with ai_family=AF_INET6 and
   ai_flags=AI_ALL|AI_V4MAPPED.  LLMNR requests will be sent from both
   interfaces and the resolver library will return a list containing
   multiple addrinfo structures, each with an associated sockaddr_in6
   structure.  This list will thus contain the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 19]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   of both hosts responding to the name 'A'.  Link-local addresses will
   have a sin6_scope_id value that disambiguates which interface is used
   to reach the address.  Of course, to the application, Figures 2 and 3
   are still indistinguishable, but this API allows the application to
   communicate successfully with any address in the list.

5.  Security Considerations

   LLMNR is by nature a peer-to-peer name resolution protocol. It is
   therefore inherently more vulnerable than DNS, since existing DNS
   security mechanisms are difficult to apply to LLMNR. While tools
   exist to alllow an attacker to spoof a response to a DNS query,
   spoofing a response to an LLMNR query is easier since the query is
   sent to a link-scope multicast address, where every host on the
   logical link will be made aware of it.

   In order to address the security vulnerabilities, the following
   mechanisms are contemplated:

      [1]  Scope restrictions.
      [2]  Usage restrictions.
      [3]  Cache and port separation.
      [4]  Authentication.

   These techniques are described in the following sections.

5.1.  Scope restriction

   With LLMNR it is possible that hosts will allocate conflicting names
   for a period of time, or that attackers will attempt to deny service
   to other hosts by allocating the same name. Such attacks also allow
   hosts to receive packets destined for other hosts.

   Since LLMNR is typically deployed in situations where no trust model
   can be assumed, it is likely that LLMNR queries and responses will be
   unauthenticated.  In the absence of authentication, LLMNR reduces the
   exposure to such threats by utilizing UDP queries sent to a link-
   scope multicast address, as well as setting the TTL (IPv4) or Hop
   Limit (IPv6) fields to one (1) on TCP queries and responses.

   Using a TTL of one (1) to set up a TCP connection in order to send a
   unicast LLMNR query reduces the likelihood of both denial of service
   attacks and spoofed responses.  Checking that an LLMNR query is sent
   to a link-scope multicast address should prevent spoofing of
   multicast queries by off-link attackers.

   While this limits the ability of off-link attackers to spoof LLMNR
   queries and responses, it does not eliminate it. For example, it is



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 20]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   possible for an attacker to spoof a response to a frequent query
   (such as an A or AAAA query for a popular Internet host), and by
   using a TTL or Hop Limit field larger than one (1), for the forged
   response to reach the LLMNR sender.

   When LLMNR queries are sent to a link-scope multicast address, it is
   possible that some routers may not properly implement link-scope
   multicast, or that link-scope multicast addresses may leak into the
   multicast routing system.

   Setting the IPv6 Hop Limit or IPv4 TTL field to a value larger than
   one in an LLMNR UDP response may enable denial of service attacks
   across the Internet.  However, since LLMNR responders only respond to
   queries for which they are authoritative, and LLMNR does not provide
   wildcard query support, it is believed that this threat is minimal.

   There also are scenarios such as public "hotspots" where attackers
   can be present on the same link.  These threats are most serious in
   wireless networks such as 802.11, since attackers on a wired network
   will require physical access to the home network, while wireless
   attackers may reside outside the home.  Link-layer security can be of
   assistance against these threats if it is available.

5.2.  Usage restriction

   As noted in Sections 2 and 3, LLMNR is intended for usage in a
   limited set of scenarios.

   If an LLMNR query is sent whenever a DNS server does not respond in a
   timely way, then an attacker can poison the LLMNR cache by responding
   to the query with incorrect information.  To some extent, these
   vulnerabilities exist today, since DNS response spoofing tools are
   available that can allow an attacker to respond to a query more
   quickly than a distant DNS server.

   Since LLMNR queries are sent and responded to on the local-link, an
   attacker will need to respond more quickly to provide its own
   response prior to arrival of the response from a legitimate
   responder. If an LLMNR query is sent for an off-link host, spoofing a
   response in a timely way is not difficult, since a legitimate
   response will never be received.

   The vulnerability is more serious if LLMNR is given higher priority
   than DNS among the enabled name resolution mechanisms. In such a
   configuration, a denial of service attack on the DNS server would not
   be necessary in order to poison the LLMNR cache, since LLMNR queries
   would be sent even when the DNS server is available. In addition, the
   LLMNR cache, once poisoned, would take precedence over the DNS cache,



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 21]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


   eliminating the benefits of cache separation. As a result, LLMNR is
   only used as a name resolution mechanism of last resort.

5.3.  Cache and port separation

   In order to prevent responses to LLMNR queries from polluting the DNS
   cache, LLMNR implementations MUST use a distinct, isolated cache for
   LLMNR on each interface. The use of separate caches is most effective
   when LLMNR is used as a name resolution mechanism of last resort,
   since this minimizes the opportunities for poisoning the LLMNR cache,
   and decreases reliance on it.

   LLMNR operates on a separate port from DNS, reducing the likelihood
   that a DNS server will unintentionally respond to an LLMNR query.

5.4.  Authentication

   LLMNR implementations may not support DNSSEC or TSIG, and as a
   result, responses to LLMNR queries may be unauthenticated.  If
   authentication is desired, and a pre-arranged security configuration
   is possible, then IPsec ESP with a null-transform MAY be used to
   authenticate LLMNR responses.  In a small network without a
   certificate authority, this can be most easily accomplished through
   configuration of a group pre-shared key for trusted hosts.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This specification creates one new name space:  the reserved bits in
   the LLMNR header.  These are allocated by IETF Consensus, in
   accordance with BCP 26 [RFC2434].

   LLMNR requires allocation of port 5355 for both TCP and UDP.

   LLMNR requires allocation of link-scope multicast IPv4 address
   224.0.0.252, as well as link-scope multicast IPv6 address
   FF02:0:0:0:0:0:1:3.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
          Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987.

[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
          April 1992.





Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 22]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
          Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
          Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

[RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)",
          RFC 2308, March 1998.

[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23, RFC
          2365, July 1998.

[RFC2373] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
          Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.

[RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
          Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
          1998.

[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
          (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

[RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
          2535, March 1999.

[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671,
          August 1999.

[RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
          Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.

7.2.  Informative References

[RFC1536] Kumar, A., et. al., "DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested
          Fixes", RFC 1536, October 1993.

[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
          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.

[RFC2292] Stevens, W. and M. Thomas, "Advanced Sockets API for IPv6",
          RFC 2292, February 1998.

[RFC2553] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic
          Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999.



Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 23]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


[RFC2937] Smith, C., "The Name Service Search Option for DHCP", RFC
          2937, September 2000.

[RFC3315] Droms, R., et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
          IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

[DNSPerf] Jung, J., et al., "DNS Performance and the Effectiveness of
          Caching", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Volume 10,
          Number 5, pp. 589, October 2002.

[DNSDisc] Durand, A., Hagino, I. and D. Thaler, "Well known site local
          unicast addresses to communicate with recursive DNS servers",
          Internet draft (work in progress), draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-
          discovery-07.txt, October 2002.

[IPV4Link]
          Cheshire, S., Aboba, B. and E. Guttman, "Dynamic Configuration
          of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", Internet draft (work in
          progress), draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-15.txt, May
          2004.

[POSIX]   IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information Technology --
          Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX). Open Group
          Technical Standard: Base Specifications, Issue 6, December
          2001.  ISO/IEC 9945:2002.  http://www.opengroup.org/austin

[LLMNREnable]
          Guttman, E., "DHCP LLMNR Enable Option", Internet draft (work
          in progress), draft-guttman-mdns-enable-02.txt, April 2002.

[NodeInfo]
          Crawford, M., "IPv6 Node Information Queries", Internet draft
          (work in progress), draft-ietf-ipn-gwg-icmp-name-
          lookups-09.txt, May 2002.

Acknowledgments

   This work builds upon original work done on multicast DNS by Bill
   Manning and Bill Woodcock. Bill Manning's work was funded under DARPA
   grant #F30602-99-1-0523. The authors gratefully acknowledge their
   contribution to the current specification.  Constructive input has
   also been received from Mark Andrews, Stuart Cheshire, Randy Bush,
   Robert Elz, Rob Austein, James Gilroy, Olafur Gudmundsson, Erik
   Guttman, Myron Hattig, Thomas Narten, Christian Huitema, Erik
   Nordmark, Sander Van-Valkenburg, Tomohide Nagashima, Brian Zill,
   Keith Moore and Markku Savela.





Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 24]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


Authors' Addresses

   Levon Esibov
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052

   EMail: levone@microsoft.com

   Bernard Aboba
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052

   Phone: +1 425 706 6605
   EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com

   Dave Thaler
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052

   Phone: +1 425 703 8835
   EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards- related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.





Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 25]

INTERNET-DRAFT                    LLMNR                     25 June 2004


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.  The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and
   will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
   assigns.  This document and the information contained herein is
   provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Open Issues

   Open issues with this specification are tracked on the following web
   site:

   http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNSEXT/llmnrissues.html

Expiration Date

   This memo is filed as <draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-32.txt>,  and  expires
   December 22, 2004.















Esibov, Aboba & Thaler       Standards Track                   [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/