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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6742

Internet Draft                                           RJ Atkinson
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-06.txt                            Consultant
Expires: 10 JAN 2013                                      SN Bhatti
Category: Experimental                                 U. St Andrews
                                                          Scott Rose
                                                             US NIST
                                                        10 July 2012


                     DNS Resource Records for ILNP
                     draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-06.txt


STATUS OF THIS MEMO

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
   without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or
   IETF Contributions published or made publicly available
   before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the
   IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material
   outside the IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an
   adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright
   in such materials, this document may not be modified outside
   the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not
   be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages
   other than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 1]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This document is not on the IETF standards-track and does not
   specify any level of standard.  This document merely provides
   information for the Internet community.

   This document is part of the ILNP document set, which has had
   extensive review within the IRTF Routing Research Group.  ILNP is
   one of the recommendations made by the RG Chairs.  Separately,
   various refereed research papers on ILNP have also been published
   during this decade.  So the ideas contained herein have had much
   broader review than the IRTF Routing RG.  The views in this
   document were considered controversial by the Routing RG, but the
   RG reached a consensus that the document still should be
   published.  The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on
   anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered
   controversial.

ABSTRACT

   This note describes additional optional Resource Records for use
   with the Domain Name System (DNS).  These optional resource
   records are for use with the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
   (ILNP).  This document is a product of the IRTF Routing RG.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

     1.  Introduction.............................2
     2.  New Resource Records.....................3
     2.1 NID  Resource Record.....................3
     2.2 L32 Resource Record......................5
     2.3 L64 Resource Record......................6
     2.4 LP Resource Record.......................7
     3.  Usage Example............................8
     4.  Security Considerations..................9



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 2]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


     5.  IANA Considerations......................9
     6.  References...............................9

1. INTRODUCTION

   At present, the Internet research and development community are
   exploring various approaches to evolving the Internet
   Architecture to solve a variety of issues including, but not
   limited to, scalability of inter-domain routing [RFC4984]. A wide
   range of other issues (e.g. site multi-homing, node multi-homing,
   site/subnet mobility, node mobility) are also active concerns at
   present. Several different classes of evolution are being
   considered by the Internet research & development community. One
   class is often called "Map and Encapsulate", where traffic would
   be mapped and then tunnelled through the inter-domain core of the
   Internet. Another class being considered is sometimes known as
   "Identifier/Locator Split". This document relates to a proposal
   that is in the latter class of evolutionary approaches.

   The Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) was developed to
   explore a possible evolutionary direction for the Internet
   Architecture.  An description of the ILNP architecture is
   available in a separate document [ILNP-ARCH].  Implementation and
   engineering details are largely isolated into a second document
   [ILNP-ENG].

   The Domain Name System (DNS) is the standard way that Internet
   nodes locate information about addresses, mail exchangers, and
   other data relating to remote Internet nodes [RFC1034] [RFC1035].

   More recently, the IETF have defined standards-track security
   extensions to the DNS [RFC4033]. These security extensions can
   be used to authenticate signed DNS data records and can also be
   used to store signed public keys in the DNS. Further, the IETF
   have defined a standards-track approach to enable secure dynamic
   update of DNS records over the network [RFC3007].

   This document defines several new optional data Resource
   Records.  This note specifies the syntax and other items
   required for independent implementations of these DNS resource
   records.  The reader is assumed to be familiar with the basics
   of DNS, including familiarity with [RFC1034] [RFC1035].

   The concept of using DNS for rendezvous with mobile nodes or
   mobile networks has been proposed earlier, more than once,
   independently, by several other researchers; for example,
   please see [SB00] [SBK01] and [PHG02].




Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 3]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


1.1 Document roadmap

   This document describes defines additional DNS resource records
   that support ILNP.

   The ILNP architecture can have more than one engineering
   instantiation. For example, one can imagine a "clean-slate"
   engineering design based on the ILNP architecture. In separate
   documents, we describe two specific engineering instances of
   ILNP. The term ILNPv6 refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that
   is based upon, and backwards compatible with, IPv6. The term ILNPv4
   refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is based upon, and
   backwards compatible with, IPv4.

   Many engineering aspects common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 are
   described in [ILNP-ENG]. A full engineering specification for
   either ILNPv6 or ILNPv4 is beyond the scope of this document.

   Readers are referred to other related ILNP documents for details
   not described here:

    a) [ILNP-ARCH] is the main architectural description of ILNP,
       including the concept of operations.

    b) [ILNP-ENG] describes engineering and implementation
       considerations that are common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6.

    c) [ILNP-ICMPv6] defines a new ICMPv6 Locator Update message
       used by an ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes
       of any changes to its set of valid Locators.

    d) [ILNP-NONCEv6] defines a new IPv6 Nonce Destination Option
       used by ILNPv6 nodes (1) to indicate to ILNP correspondent
       nodes (by inclusion within the initial packets of an ILNP
       session) that the node is operating in the ILNP mode and
       (2) to prevent off-path attacks against ILNP ICMP messages.
       This Nonce is used, for example, with all ILNP ICMPv6
       Locator Update messages that are exchanged among ILNP
       correspondent nodes.

    e) [ILNP-ICMPv4] defines a new ICMPv4 Locator Update message
       used by an ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes
       of any changes to its set of valid Locators.

    f) [ILNP-v4OPTS] defines a new IPv4 Nonce Option used by ILNPv4
       nodes to carry a security nonce to prevent off-path attacks
       against ILNP ICMP messages and also defines a new IPv4
       Identifier Option used by ILNPv4 nodes.



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 4]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


    g) [ILNP-ARP] describes extensions to ARP for use with ILNPv4.

    h) [ILNP-ADV] describes optional engineering and deployment
       functions for ILNP. These are not required for the operation
       or use of ILNP and are provided as additional options.


1.2 Terminology

   In this document, the term "ILNP-aware" applied to a DNS
   component (either authoritative server or cache) is used to
   indicate that the component attempts to include other ILNP
   RRTypes to the Additional section of a DNS response to
   increase performance and reduce the number of follow-up
   queries for other ILNP RRTypes.  These other RRsets MAY be added
   to the Additional section if space permits and only when the
   QTYPE equals NID, L64, L32, or LP.  There is no method for a
   server to signal that it is ILNP-aware.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
   in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. NEW RESOURCE RECORDS

   This document specifies several new and closely related DNS data
   Resource Records (RRs).  These new RR types have the mnemonics
   "NID", "L32", "L64", and "LP".  These resource record types are
   associated with a Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN), that is
   hereafter called the "owner name".  These are part of work on the
   Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [ILNP-ARCH].

   For clarity, throughout this section of this document, the
   "RDATA" subsections specify the on-the-wire format for these
   records, while the "Presentation Format" subsections specify the
   human-readable format used in a DNS configuration file
   (i.e. "master file" as defined by RFC-1035, Section 5.1).

2.1 The NID Resource Record

   The NID DNS Resource Record (RR) is used hold values for Node
   Identifiers that will be used for ILNP-capable nodes.

   NID records are present only for ILNP-capable nodes. This
   restriction is important; ILNP-capable nodes use the presence of
   NID records in the DNS to learn that a correspondent node is also
   ILNP-capable. While erroneous NID records in the DNS for an node



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 5]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   that is not ILNP-capable would not prevent communication, such
   erroneous DNS records could increase the delay at the start of an
   IP session.

   A given owner name may have zero or more NID records at a given
   time.  In normal operation, nodes that support the Identifier-
   Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) will have at least one valid NID
   record.

   The type value for the NID RR type is X-NID-X <to be assigned>.

   The NID RR is class independent.

   The NID RR has no special TTL requirements.

2.1.1 NID RDATA wire format

   The RDATA for an NID RR consists of:

   - a 16 bit Preference field
   - a 64 bit NodeID field

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Preference           |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
    |                             NodeID                            |
    +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.1.1.1 The Preference field

   The <Preference> field contains a 16-bit unsigned integer in
   network byte-order that indicates the owner name's relative
   preference for this NID record among other NID records associated
   with this owner name.  Lower Preference values are preferred over
   higher Preference values.


2.1.1.2 The NodeID field

   The NodeID field is an unsigned 64-bit value in network
   byte-order.  It complies with the syntactic rules of IPv6
   Interface Identifiers [RFC-4291, Section 2.5.1], but has slightly
   different semantics. Unlike IPv6 Interface Identifiers, which are
   bound to a specific *interface* of a specific node, NodeID values



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 6]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   are bound to a specific *node*, and MAY be used with *any
   interface* of that node.

2.1.2 NID RR Presentation Format

   The presentation of the format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

    - The Preference field MUST be represented as a 16-bit unsigned
      decimal integer.

    - The NodeID field MUST be represented using the same syntax
      (i.e. groups of 4 hexadecimal digits, with each group
      separated by a colon) that is already used for DNS AAAA
      records (and also used for IPv6 Interface IDs).

    - The NodeID value MUST NOT be in the 'compressed' format
      (e.g. using "::") that is defined in RFC-4291, Section 2.2
      (2).  This restriction exists to avoid confusion with 128-bit
      IPv6 addresses, because the NID is a 64-bit field.

2.1.3 NID RR Examples

   An NID record has the following logical components:
     <owner-name>  IN  NID  <Preference>   <NodeID>

   In the above, <owner-name> is the owner name string, <Preference>
   is an unsigned 16-bit value, and <NodeID> is an unsigned 64-bit
   value.

     host1.example.com. IN NID 10 0014:4fff:ff20:ee64
     host1.example.com. IN NID 20 0015:5fff:ff21:ee65
     host2.example.com. IN NID 10 0016:6fff:ff22:ee66

   As NodeID values use the same syntax as IPv6 interface
   identifiers, when displayed for human readership, the NodeID
   values are presented in the same hexadecimal format as IPv6
   interface identifiers.  This is shown in the example above.


2.1.4 Additional Section Processing

   To improve performance, ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS resolvers
   MAY attempt to return all L32, L64, and LP records for the same
   owner name of the NID RRset in the Additional section of the
   response, if space permits.






Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 7]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


2.2 The L32 Resource Record

   An L32 DNS Resource Record (RR) is used to hold 32-bit
   Locator values for ILNPv4-capable nodes.

   L32 records are present only for ILNPv4-capable nodes. This
   restriction is important; ILNP-capable nodes use the presence of
   L32 records in the DNS to learn that a correspondent node is also
   ILNPv4-capable.  While erroneous L32 records in the DNS for a
   node that is not ILNP-capable would not prevent communication,
   such erroneous DNS records could increase the delay at the start
   of an IP session.

   A given owner name might have zero or more L32 values at a given
   time. An ILNPv4-capable host SHOULD have at least 1 Locator
   (i.e., L32 or LP) DNS resource record while it is connected to
   the Internet. An ILNPv4-capable multi-homed host normally
   will have multiple Locator values while multi-homed.  An IP
   host that is NOT ILNPv4-capable MUST NOT have an L32 or LP record
   in its DNS entries.  A node that is not currently connected to
   the Internet might not have any L32 values in the DNS associated
   with its owner name.

   A DNS owner name that is naming a subnetwork, rather than naming
   a host, MAY have an L32 record as a wild-card entry, thereby
   applying to entries under that DNS owner name.  This deployment
   scenario probably is most common if the named subnetwork is, was,
   or might become, mobile.

   The type value for the L32 RR type is X-L32-X <to be assigned>.

   The L32 RR is class independent.

   The L32 RR has no special TTL requirements.

2.2.1 L32 RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for an L32 RR consists of:

   - a 16 bit Preference field
   - a 32 bit Locator32 field

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Preference           |      Locator32 (16 MSBs)      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Locator32 (16 LSBs)       |



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 8]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.2.1.1 The Preference field

   The <Preference> field is an unsigned 16-bit field in network
   byte-order that indicates the owner name's relative preference
   for this L32 record among other L32 records associated with this
   owner name.  Lower Preference values are preferred over higher
   Preference values.

2.2.1.2 The Locator32 field

   The <Locator32> field is an unsigned 32-bit integer in network
   byte-order that is identical on-the-wire to the ADDRESS field
   of the existing DNS A record.

2.2.2 L32 RR Presentation Format

   The presentation of the format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

    - The Preference field MUST be represented as a 16-bit unsigned
      decimal integer.

    - The Locator32 field MUST be represented using the same syntax
      used for existing DNS A records (i.e. 4 decimal numbers
      separated by periods without any embedded spaces).

2.2.3 L32 RR Examples

   An L32 record has the following logical components:
     <owner-name>  IN  L32  <Preference>   <Locator32>

   In the above <owner-name> is the owner name string, <Preference>
   is an unsigned 16-bit value, and <Locator32> is an unsigned 32-bit
   value.

     host1.example.com. IN L32 10 10.1.02.0
     host1.example.com. IN L32 20 10.1.04.0
     host2.example.com. IN L32 10 10.1.08.0

   As L32 values have the same syntax and semantics as IPv4 routing
   prefixes, when displayed for human readership, the values are
   presented in the same dotted-decimal format as IPv4 addresses.
   An example of this syntax is shown above.

   In the example above, the owner name is from a FQDN for an
   individual host. host1.example.com has two L32 values, so
   host1.example.com is multi-homed.



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                          [Page 9]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   Another example is when the owner name is that learned from an LP
   record (see below for details of LP records).

     l32-subnet1.example.com. IN L32 10 10.1.02.0
     l32-subnet2.example.com. IN L32 20 10.1.04.0
     l32-subnet3.example.com. IN L32 30 10.1.08.0

   In this example above, the owner name is for a subnetwork rather
   than an individual node.

2.2.4 Additional Section Processing

   To improve performance, ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS resolvers
   MAY attempt to return all NID, L64, and LP records for the same
   owner name of the L32 RRset in the Additional section of the
   response, if space permits.


2.3 The L64 Resource Record

   The L64 resource record (RR) is used to hold unsigned 64-bit
   Locator Values for ILNPv6-capable nodes.

   L64 records are present only for ILNPv6-capable nodes. This
   restriction is important; ILNP-capable nodes use the presence of
   L64 records in the DNS to learn that a correspondent node is also
   ILNPv6-capable.  While erroneous L64 records in the DNS for a
   node that is not ILNP-capable would not prevent communication,
   such erroneous DNS records could increase the delay at the start
   of an IP session.

   A given owner name might have zero or more L64 values at a given
   time. An ILNPv6-capable host SHOULD have at least 1 Locator
   (i.e., L64 or LP) DNS resource record while it is connected to
   the Internet. An ILNPv6-capable multi-homed host normally
   will have multiple Locator values while multi-homed.  An IP
   host that is NOT ILNPv6-capable MUST NOT have an L64 or LP record
   in its DNS entries.  A node that is not currently connected to
   the Internet might not have any L64 values in the DNS associated
   with its owner name.

   A DNS owner name that is naming a subnetwork, rather than naming
   a host, MAY have an L64 record as a wild-card entry, thereby
   applying to entries under that DNS owner name. This deployment
   scenario probably is most common if the named subnetwork is, was,
   or might become, mobile.

   The type value for the L64 RR type is X-L64-X <to be assigned>.



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 10]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   The L64 RR is class independent.

   The L64 RR has no special TTL requirements.

2.3.1 The L64 RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for an L64 RR consists of:

   - a 16 bit Preference field
   - a 64 bit Locator64 field

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Preference           |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
    |                          Locator64                            |
    +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.3.1.1 The Preference field

   The <Preference> field is an unsigned 16-bit integer in network
   byte-order that indicates the owner name's relative preference
   for this L64 record among other L64 records associated with this
   owner name.  Lower Preference values are preferred over higher
   Preference values.

2.3.1.2 The Locator64 field

   The <Locator64> field is an unsigned 64-bit integer in network
   byte-order that has the same syntax and semantics as a 64-bit
   IPv6 routing prefix.

2.3.2 L64 RR Presentation Format

   The presentation of the format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

    - The Preference field MUST be represented as a 16-bit unsigned
      decimal integer.

    - The Locator64 field MUST be represented using the same syntax
      used for AAAA records (i.e. groups of 4 hexadecimal digits
      separated by colons).  However, the 'compressed' display
      format (e.g. using "::") that is specified in RFC-4291,
      Section 2.2 (2), MUST NOT be used.  This is done to avoid
      confusion with a 128-bit IPv6 address, since the Locator64 is



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 11]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


      a 64-bit value, while the IPv6 address is a 128-bit value.


2.3.3 L64 RR Examples

   An L64 record has the following logical components:
        <owner-name>  IN  L64  <Preference>   <Locator64>

   In the above, <owner-name> is the owner name string, <Preference>
   is an unsigned 16-bit value, while <Locator64> is an unsigned
   64-bit value.


     host1.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:1140:1000
     host1.example.com. IN L64 20 2001:0DB8:2140:2000
     host2.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:4140:4000

   As L64 values have the same syntax and semantics as IPv6 routing
   prefixes, when displayed for human readership, the values might
   conveniently be presented in hexadecimal format, as above.

   In the example above, the owner name is from a FQDN for an
   individual host. host1.example.com has two L64 values, so it will
   be multi-homed.

   Another example is when the owner name is that learned from an LP
   record (see below for details of LP records).

     l64-subnet1.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:1140:1000
     l64-subnet2.example.com. IN L64 20 2001:0DB8:2140:2000
     l64-subnet3.example.com. IN L64 30 2001:0DB8:4140:4000

   Here, the owner name is for a subnetwork rather than an individual
   node.

2.3.4 Additional Section Processing

   To improve performance, ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS resolvers
   MAY attempt to return all NID, L32, and LP records for the same
   owner name of the L64 RRset in the Additional section of the
   response, if space permits.


2.4 The LP Resource Record

   The LP DNS resource record (RR) is used to hold the name of a
   subnetwork for ILNP. The name is an FQDN which can then be used
   to look up L32 or L64 records. LP is, effectively, a Locator



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 12]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   Pointer to L32 and/or L64 records.

   As described in [ILNP-ARCH], the LP RR provides one level of
   indirection within the DNS in naming a Locator value. This is
   useful in several deployment scenarios, such as for a multi-homed
   site where the multi-homing is handled entirely by the site's
   border routers (e.g. via Locator rewriting) or in some mobile
   network deployment scenarios [ILNP-ADV].

   LP records MUST NOT be present for owner name values that are not
   ILNP-capable nodes.  This restriction is important; ILNP-capable
   nodes use the presence of LP records in the DNS to infer that
   a correspondent node is also ILNP-capable. While erroneous LP
   records in the DNS for an owner name would not prevent
   communication, presence of such erroneous DNS records could
   increase the delay at the start of a IP session.

   The type value for the LP RR type is X-LP-X <to be assigned>.

   The LP RR is class independent.

   The LP RR has no special TTL requirements.


2.4.1 LP RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for an LPP RR consists of:

   - an unsigned 16 bit Preference field
   - a variable-length FQDN field

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Preference           |                               /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               /
    /                                                               /
    /                              FQDN                             /
    /                                                               /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.4.1.1 The Preference field

   The <Preference> field contains an unsigned 16-bit integer in
   network-byte order that indicates the owner name's relative
   preference for this LP record among other LP records associated
   with this owner name.  Lower Preference values are preferred over
   higher Preference values.



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 13]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


2.4.1.2 The FQDN field

   The variable-length FQDN field contains the DNS target name that
   is used to reference L32 and/or L64 records. This field MUST NOT
   have the same value as the owner name of the LP RR instance.


2.4.2 LP RR Presentation Format

   The presentation of the format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

    - The Preference field MUST be represented as a 16-bit unsigned
      decimal integer.

    - The FQDN field MUST be represented as a domain name.
      The domain name MUST NOT be compressed.


2.4.3 LP RR Examples

   An LP record has the following logical components:
        <owner-name>  IN  LP  <Preference>   <FQDN>

   In the above, <owner-name> is the owner name string, <Preference>
   is an unsigned 16-bit value, while <FQDN> is the domain name
   which should be resolved further.

     host1.example.com. IN LP 10 l64-subnet1.example.com.
     host1.example.com. IN LP 10 l64-subnet2.example.com.
     host1.example.com. IN LP 20 l32-subnet1.example.com.

   In the example above, host1.example.com is multi-homed on three
   subnets.  Resolving the FQDNs return in the LP records would
   allow the actual subnet prefixes to be resolved, e.g. as in the
   examples for the L32 and L64 RR descriptions, above. This level
   of indirection allows the same L32 and/or L64 records to be used
   by many hosts in the same subnetwork, easing management of the
   ILNP network and potentially reducing the number of DNS Update
   transactions, especially when that network is mobile [RAB09] or
   multi-homed [ABH09a].

2.4.4 Additional Section Processing

   To improve performance, ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS resolvers
   MAY attempt to return all L32 and L64 records for the same owner
   name of the LP RRset in the Additional section of the response,
   if space permits.




Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 14]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


3. DEPLOYMENT EXAMPLE

   Given a domain name, one can use the Domain Name System (DNS) to
   discover the set of NID records, the set of L32 records, the set
   of L64 records, and the set of LP records that are associated
   with that DNS owner name.

   For example:

     host1.example.com. IN NID 10 0014:4fff:ff20:ee64
     host1.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:1140:1000

   would be the minimum requirement for an ILNPv6 node that has
   owner name host1.example.com and is connected to the Internet at
   the subnetwork having routing prefix 2001:0DB8:1140:1000.

   If that host were multi-homed on two different IPv6 subnets:

     host1.example.com. IN NID 10 0014:4fff:ff20:ee64
     host1.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:1140:1000
     host1.example.com. IN L64 20 2001:0DB8:2140:2000

   would indicate the Identifier and two subnets that
   host1.example.com is attached to, along with the relative
   preference that a client would use in selecting the
   Locator value for use in initiating communication.

   If host1.example.com were part of a mobile network,
   a DNS query might return:

     host1.example.com. IN NID 10 0014:4fff:ff20:ee64
     host1.example.com. IN LP  10 mobile-net1.example.com.

   and then a DNS query to find the current Locator value(s)
   for the node named by the LP record:

     mobile-net1.example.com. IN L64 2001:0DB8:8140:8000

3.1 Use of ILNP records

   As these DNS records are only used with the Identifier-Locator
   Network Protocol (ILNP), these records MUST NOT be present for a
   node that does not support ILNP.  This lookup process is
   considered to be in the "forward" direction.

   The Preference fields associated with the NID, L32, L64, and LP
   records are used to indicate the owner name's preference for
   others to use one particular NID, L32, L64, or LP record, rather



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 15]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   than use another NID, L32, L64, or LP record also associated with
   that owner name.  Lower Preference field values are preferred
   over higher Preference field values.

   It is possible that a DNS stub resolver querying for one of these
   record types will not receive all NID, L32, L64, and LP RR's in a
   single response.  Credible anecdotal reports indicate at least
   one DNS recursive cache implementation actively drops all
   Additional Data records that were not expected by that DNS
   recursive cache. So even if the authoritative DNS server includes
   all the relevant records in the Additional Data section of the
   DNS response, the querying DNS stub resolver might not receive
   all of those Additional Data records. DNS resolvers also might
   purge some ILNP RRsets before others, for example if NID RRsets
   have a longer DNS TTL value than Locator-related (e.g. LP, L32,
   L64) RRsets. So a DNS stub resolver sending queries to a DNS
   resolver cannot be certain if they have obtained all available
   RRtypes for a given owner name. Therefore, the DNS stub resolver
   SHOULD send follow-up DNS queries for RRTYPE values that were
   missing and are desired, to ensure that the DNS stub resolver
   receives all the necessary information.

   Note nodes likely either to be mobile or to be multi-homed
   normally will have very low DNS TTL values for L32 and L64
   records, as those values might change frequently. However, the
   DNS TTL values for NID and LP records normally will be higher,
   as those values are not normally impacted by node location
   changes. Previous trace-driven DNS simulations from MIT [JSBM02]
   and more recent experimental validation of operational DNS from
   U. of St Andrews [BA11] both indicate deployment and use of very
   short DNS TTL values within 'stub' or 'leaf' DNS domains is not
   problematic.

   An ILNP node MAY use any NID value associated with its DNS owner
   name with any or all Locator (L32 or L64) values also associated
   with its DNS owner name.


3.2 Additional Section Processing

   For all the records above, Additional Section Processing MAY be
   used. This is intended to improve performance for both the DNS
   client and the DNS server. For example, a node sending DNS query
   for an NID owner name, such as host1.example.com, would benefit
   from receiving all ILNP DNS records related to that owner name
   being returned, as it is quite likely that the client will need
   that information to initiate an ILNP session.




Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 16]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   However, this is not always the case: a DNS query for L64 for a
   particular owner name might be made because the DNS TTL for a
   previously resolved L64 RR has expired, while the NID RR for that
   same owner name has a DNS TTL that has not expired.

4. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

   These new DNS resource record types do not create any new
   vulnerabilities in the Domain Name System.

   Existing mechanisms for DNS Security can be used unchanged with
   these record types [RFC4033] [RFC3007]. As of this writing, the
   DNS Security mechanisms are believed to be widely implemented
   in currently available DNS servers and DNS clients.  Deployment
   of DNS Security appears to be growing rapidly.

   In situations where authentication of DNS data is a concern,
   the DNS Security extensions SHOULD be used [RFC4033].

   If these DNS records are updated dynamically over the network,
   then the Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC3007] mechanism SHOULD be
   used to secure such transactions.

5. IANA CONSIDERATIONS

   IANA is requested to allocate each of these DNS Resource Records

     NID
     L32
     L64
     LP

   (described above in Section 2) a Data RRTYPE value according to
   the procedures of Section 3.1 and 3.1.1 on pages 7 through 9 of
   RFC 6195 [RFC6195].

6. REFERENCES


6.1 Normative References

   [RFC1034] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - Concepts and
           Facilities", RFC-1034, 1 November 1987

   [RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - Implementation and
           Specification", RFC-1035, 1 November 1987.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 17]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


              Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              March 1997.

   [RFC3007] B. Wellington, "Secure Domain Name System Dynamic
              Update", RFC 3007, RFC Editor, November 2000.

   [RFC3597]  A. Gustafsson, "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource
              Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

   [RFC4033] R. Arends, R. Austein, M. Larson, D. Massey, &
              S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction & Requirements",
              RFC 4033, RFC Editor, March 2005.

   [RFC6195] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Domain Name System IANA
             Considerations", RFC 6195, March 2011.


   [ILNP-ARCH]    R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti,
                  "ILNP Architectural Description",
                  draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch, 10 July 2012.

   [ILNP-ENG]     R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti,
                  "ILNP Engineering and Implementation Considerations",
                  draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng, 10 July 2012.


6.2 INFORMATIVE REFERENCES

   [ABH09a]    R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, & S. Hailes,
               "Site-Controlled Secure Multi-Homing and Traffic
               Engineering For IP", Procedings of IEEE Military
               Communications Conference, IEEE, Boston, MA, USA.
               Oct 2009.

   [BA11]      S. Bhatti & R. Atkinson, "Reducing DNS Caching",
               Procedings of IEEE Global Internet Symposium (GI2011),
               Shanghai, P.R. China. 15 Apr 2011.
               <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2011.5928919>

   [JSBM02]    J. Jung, E. Sit, H. Balakrishnan, and R. Morris,
               DNS performance and the effectiveness of caching.
               IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 10(5) (October 2002), 589-603.
               <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2002.803905>

   [PHG02]     Andreas Pappas, Stephen Hailes, Raffaele Giaffreda,
               "Mobile Host Location Tracking through DNS",
               IEEE London Communications Symposium, London,
            England, UK, September 2002.



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 18]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


               <http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/lcs/papers2002/LCS072.pdf>

   [RAB09]     D. Rehunthan, R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti,
               "Enabling Mobile Networks Through Secure Naming",
               Proceedings of IEEE Military Communications
               Conference (MILCOM), IEEE, Boston, MA, USA,
               Oct 2009.

   [SB00]      Alex C. Snoeren and Hari Balakrishnan. 2000.
               "An End-To-End Approach To Host Mobility",
               Proceedings of 6th Conference on Mobile Computing And
               Networking (MobiCom), ACM, Boston, MA, USA,
               August 2000.

   [SBK01]     Alex C. Snoeren, Hari Balakrishnan, & M. Frans
               Kaashoek, "Reconsidering Internet Mobility",
               Proceedings of 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in
               Operating Systems (HotOS), IEEE Computer Society,
               Elmau, Germany, May 2001.

   [ILNP-ADV]  R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti,
               "Optional Advanced Deployment Scenarios for ILNP",
               draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv, 10 July 2012.

   [ILNP-ARP]  R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ARP Extension for
               ILNPv4", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp, 10 July 2012.

   [ILNP-ICMPv4]  R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ICMPv4 Locator
                  Update message", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4,
                  10 July 2012.

   [ILNP-ICMPv6]  R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ICMPv6 Locator
                  Update message", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6,
                  10 July 2012.

   [ILNP-NONCEv6] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "IPv6 Nonce
                 Destination Option for ILNPv6",
                 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6, 10 July 2012.

   [ILNP-v4OPTS] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti,  "IPv4 Options for
                 ILNP",  draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts, 10 July 2012.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

   Steve Blake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Mohamed Boucadair, Noel
   Chiappa, Wes George, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley,
   Volker Hilt, Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter,
   Bruce Simpson, Robin Whittle and John Wroclawski (in alphabetical



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 19]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   order) provided review and feedback on earlier versions of this
   document. Steve Blake provided an especially thorough review of
   an early version of the entire ILNP document set, which was
   extremely helpful. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers
   of the various ILNP papers for their feedback.

   Roy Arends provided expert guidance on technical and procedural
   aspects of DNS issues, for which the authors are greatly obliged.


RFC EDITOR NOTE

   This section is to be removed prior to publication.

   Please note that this document is written in British English, so
   British English spelling is used throughout. This is consistent
   with existing practice in several other RFCs, for example
   RFC-5887.

   This document tries to be very careful with history, in the
   interest of correctly crediting ideas to their earliest
   identifiable author(s). So in several places the first published
   RFC about a topic is cited rather than the most recent published
   RFC about that topic.

Authors' Addresses:

   RJ Atkinson
   Consultant
   San Jose, CA
   95125 USA

   Email: rja.lists@gmail.com


   SN Bhatti
   School of Computer Science
   University of St Andrews
   North Haugh, St Andrews
   Fife, Scotland, UK
   KY16 9SX

   Email: saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk


   Scott Rose
   US National Institute for Standards & Technology
   100 Bureau Drive



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 20]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   Gaithersburg, MD
   20899 USA

   Email: scottr.nist@gmail.com















































Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 21]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   [NOTE:  Appendix A is to be removed by the
        RFC Editor prior to publication.]

   Appendix A:


          DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE

      When ready for formal consideration, this template is
      to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing the
      template to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.

      A.    Submission Date:  To be determined.

      B.    Submission Type:
            [X] New RRTYPE

      C.    Contact Information for submitter:
               Name:  R. Atkinson
               Email Address: rja.lists@gmail.com
               International telephone number: unlisted
               Other contact handles:

      D.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?

         Support for an experimental set of IP extensions
         that replace the concept of an "IP Address" with
         distinct "Locator" and "Identifier" values.

      E.    Description of the proposed RR type.

            Please see:

              http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-03.txt

            for a full description.

      F.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling
            that need and why are they unsatisfactory?

      There is no RRTYPE that fulfils the need due to the
      new semantics of Locator and Identifier values.

         The AAAA record combines both Locator and Identifier,
         so has significantly different semantics than having
         separate L64 and NID record values.  The AAAA record also
         lacks scalability and flexibility in the context of the
         experimental protocol extensions that will use the NID



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 22]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


         and L64 records, as any valid NID record value for a node
         can be used on the wire with any valid L64 record value
         for the same node.

         The CNAME record is closest conceptually to an LP
         record, but a CNAME is a node name referral scheme,
         while the LP record is indicating that the given node
         has the same routing prefix as some other domain name,
         but does not necessarily have any other values that are
         the same.

     Lastly, the AAAA and CNAME RR Types lack a Preference
     field to rank responses.  Such Preference information
     is required for ILNP in order to support the use of multiple
     instances of NID, L32, L64 and LP records.

      G.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?

         As described in this draft, "NID", "L32", "L64", and "LP".

      H.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
            Registry or require the creation of a new IANA
            sub-registry in DNS Parameters?

         Existing registry of DNS Resource Record (RR) data TYPE
         values should be used.

      I.    Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
            servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
            processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597]) ?

         No.

      J.    Comments:
           This document defines "ILNP-aware" DNS servers
           or DNS resolver as a DNS server (authoritative or recursive)
           that MAY include other ILNP RRTypes in the Additional
           section of a DNS response that match a QNAME (if
        size permits). This is to reduce the number of
        DNS stub resolver follow-up DNS queries. and only applies
        when the QTYPE is either NID, L32, L64, or LP.  There is no
           signalling mechanism for this Additional section
        processing, and this is believed to be compatible
        with existing non-ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS stub
        resolvers.

         No changes are required for existing deployed
         DNS servers or DNS resolvers.



Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 23]

Internet Draft     ILNP DNS           10 JUL 2012


   Expires: 10 JAN 2013


















































Atkinson et alia   Expires in 6 months                         [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/