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

Versions: (draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 7871

dnsop                                                      C. Contavalli
Internet-Draft                                          W. van der Gaast
Intended status: Informational                                    Google
Expires: May 19, 2015                                        D. Lawrence
                                                     Akamai Technologies
                                                               W. Kumari
                                                                  Google
                                                       November 15, 2014


                     Client Subnet in DNS Requests
                 draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-00

Abstract

   This draft defines an EDNS0 extension to carry information about the
   network that originated a DNS query, and the network for which the
   subsequent reply can be cached.

IESG Note

   [RFC Editor: Please remove this note prior to publication ]

   This informational document describes an existing, implemented and
   deployed system.  A subset of the operators using this is at
   http://www.afasterinternet.com/participants.htm . The authors believe
   that it is better to document this system (even if not everyone
   agrees with the concept) than leave it undocumented and proprietary.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 19, 2015.






Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Protocol Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Originating the Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Generating a Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.3.  Handling edns-client-subnet Replies and Caching . . . . .   9
     6.4.  Transitivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  DNSSEC Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  NAT Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.1.  Privacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.2.  Birthday Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.3.  Cache Pollution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   11. Sending the Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Probing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.2.  Whitelist  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   12. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   13. Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     15.3.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.1.  -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.2.  -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.3.  -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


     A.4.  -03*  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

1.  Introduction

   Many Authoritative Nameservers today return different replies based
   on the perceived topological location of the user.  These servers use
   the IP address of the incoming query to identify that location.
   Since most queries come from intermediate Recursive Resolvers, the
   source address is that of the Recursive Resolver rather than of the
   query originator.

   Traditionally, and probably still in the majority of instances,
   Recursive Resolvers are reasonably close in the network topology to
   the Stub Resolvers or Forwarders that are the source of queries.  For
   these resolvers, using their own IP address is sufficient for
   authority servers that tailor responses based upon location of the
   querier.

   Increasingly, though, a class of Recursive Resolvers has arisen that
   handle query sources that are often not topologically close.  The
   motivation for a user to configure such a Centralized Resolver varies
   but is usually because of some enhanced experience, such as greater
   cache security or applying policies regarding where users may
   connect.  (Although political censorship usually comes to mind here,
   the same actions may be used by a parent when setting controls on
   where a minor may connect.)  Similarly, many ISPs and other
   organizations use a Centralized Resolver infrastructure that can be
   distant from the clients the resolvers serve.  The cases all lead to
   less than optimal replies from topology-sensitive Authoritative
   Nameservers.

   This draft defines an EDNS0 [RFC6891] option to convey network
   information that is relevant to the DNS message.  It will carry
   sufficient network information about the originator for the
   Authoritative Nameserver to tailor responses.  It will also provide
   for the Authoritative Nameserver to indicate the scope of network
   addresses for which the tailored answer is intended.  This EDNS0
   option is intended for those recursive and authority servers that
   would benefit from the extension and not for general purpose
   deployment.  It is completely optional and can safely be ignored by
   servers that choose not to implement it or enable it.

   This draft also includes guidelines on how to best cache those
   results and provides recommendations on when this protocol extension
   should be used.





Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


2.  Requirements Notation

   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].

3.  Terminology

   Stub Resolver:  A simple DNS protocol implementation on the client
      side as described in [RFC1034] section 5.3.1.

   Authoritative Nameserver:  A nameserver that has authority over one
      or more DNS zones.  These are normally not contacted by clients
      directly but by Recursive Resolvers.  Described in [RFC1035]
      chapter 6.

   Recursive Resolver:  A nameserver that is responsible for resolving
      domain names for clients by following the domain's delegation
      chain.  Recursive Resolvers frequently use caches to be able to
      respond to client queries quickly.  Described in [RFC1035] chapter
      7.

   Intermediate Nameserver:  Any nameserver (possibly a Recursive
      Resolver) in between the Stub Resolver and the Authoritative
      Nameserver.

   Centralized Resolvers:  Recursive Resolvers that serve a
      topologically diverse network address space.

   Optimized Reply:  A reply from a nameserver that is optimized for the
      node that sent the request, normally based on performance (i.e.
      lowest latency, least number of hops, topological distance, ...).

   Topologically Close:  Refers to two hosts being close in terms of
      number of hops or time it takes for a packet to travel from one
      host to the other.  The concept of topological distance is only
      loosely related to the concept of geographical distance: two
      geographically close hosts can still be very distant from a
      topological perspective, and two geographically distant hosts can
      be quite close on the network.

4.  Overview

   The general idea of this document is to provide an EDNS0 option to
   allow Recursive Resolvers, if they are willing, to forward details
   about the origin network from which a query is coming when talking to
   Authoritative Nameservers.




Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   The format of this option is described in Section 5, and is meant to
   be added in queries sent by Intermediate Nameservers in a way
   transparent to Stub Resolvers and end users, as described in
   Section 6.1.

   As described in Section 6.2, an Authoritative Nameserver could use
   this EDNS0 option as a hint to better locate the network of the end
   user and provide a better answer.

   Its reply would also contain an edns-client-subnet option, clearly
   indicating that the server made use of this information, and that the
   answer is tied to the network of the client.

   As described in Section 6.3, Intermediate Nameservers would use this
   information to cache the reply.

   Some Intermediate Nameservers may also have to be able to forward
   edns-client-subnet queries they receive.  This is described in
   Section 6.4.

   The mechanisms provided by edns-client-subnet raise various security
   related concerns, related to cache growth, the ability to spoof EDNS0
   options, and privacy.  Section 10 explores various mitigation
   techniques.

   The expectation, however, is that this option will only be used by
   Recursive Resolvers and Authoritative Nameservers that incur
   geolocation issues.

   Most Recursive Resolvers, Authoritative Nameservers and Stub
   Resolvers will never know about this option, and will continue
   working as they had been.

   Failure to support this option or its improper handling will, at
   worst, cause suboptimal identification of client location, which is a
   common occurrence in current content delivery network (CDN) setups
   and not a cause of concern.

   Section 6.1 also provides a mechanism for Stub Resolvers to signal
   Recursive Resolvers that they do not want edns-client-subnet
   treatment for specific requests.

   Additionally, operators of Intermediate Nameservers with edns-client-
   subnet enabled are allowed to choose how many bits of the address of
   received queries to forward, or to reduce the number of bits
   forwarded for queries already including an edns-client-subnet option.





Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


5.  Option Format

   This draft uses an EDNS0 [RFC6891]) option to include client address
   information in DNS messages.  The option is structured as follows:

                +0 (MSB)                            +1 (LSB)
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   0: |                          OPTION-CODE                          |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   2: |                         OPTION-LENGTH                         |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   4: |                            FAMILY                             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   6: |          SOURCE NETMASK       |        SCOPE NETMASK          |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   7: |                           ADDRESS...                          /
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   o  (Defined in [RFC6891]) OPTION-CODE, 2 octets, for edns-client-
      subnet is 8 (0x00 0x08).

   o  (Defined in [RFC6891]) OPTION-LENGTH, 2 octets, contains the
      length of the payload (everything after OPTION-LENGTH) in octets.

   o  FAMILY, 2 octets, indicates the family of the address contained in
      the option, using address family codes as assigned by IANA in
      IANA-AFI [2].

   The format of the address part depends on the value of FAMILY.  This
   document only defines the format for FAMILY 1 (IP version 4) and 2
   (IP version 6), which are as follows:

   o  SOURCE NETMASK, unsigned octet representing the length of the
      netmask pertaining to the query.  In replies, it mirrors the same
      value as in the requests.  It can be set to 0 to disable client-
      based lookups, in which case the ADDRESS field MUST be absent.

   o  SCOPE NETMASK, unsigned octet representing the length of the
      netmask pertaining to the reply.  In requests, it SHOULD be set to
      the longest cacheable length supported by the Intermediate
      Nameserver.  For backwards compatibiilty with draft versions of
      this specification, in requests it MAY be set to 0 to have the
      Authoritative Nameserver treat the longest cacheable length as the
      SOURCE NETMASK length.  In responses, this field is set by the
      Authoritative Nameserver to indicate the coverage of the response.
      It might or might not match SOURCE NETMASK; it could be shorter or
      longer.




Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   o  ADDRESS, variable number of octets, contains either an IPv4 or
      IPv6 address, depending on FAMILY, truncated in the request to the
      number of bits indicated by the SOURCE NETMASK field, with bits
      set to 0 to pad up to the end of the last octet used.  (This need
      not be as many octets as a complete address would take.)  In the
      reply, if the SCOPE NETMASK of the request was 0 then ADDRESS must
      contain the same octets as in the request.  Otherwise, the bits
      for ADDRESS will be significant through the maximum of the SOURCE
      NETMASK or SCOPE NETMASK, and 0 filled to the end of an octet.

   All fields are in network byte order ("big-endian", per [RFC1700],
   Data Notation).

6.  Protocol Description

6.1.  Originating the Option

   The edns-client-subnet option should generally be added by Recursive
   Resolvers when querying other servers, as described in Section 11.

   In this option, the server should include the IP address of the
   client that caused the query to be generated, truncated to the number
   of bits specified in the SOURCE NETMASK field.

   A Stub Resolver MAY generate DNS queries with an edns-client-subnet
   option with SOURCE NETMASK set to 0 (i.e. 0.0.0.0/0) to indicate that
   the Recursive Resolver MUST NOT add address information of the client
   to its queries.  The subsequent Recursive Resolver query to the
   Authoritative Nameserver will then either not include an edns-client-
   subnet option or MAY optionally include its own address information,
   which is what the Authoritative Nameserver will use anyway to
   generate the reply in lieu of no option.  This allows the answer to
   be handled by the same caching mechanism as other requests, with an
   explicit indicator of the applicable scope.  Subsequent Stub Resolver
   requests for /0 can then be answered from this cached response.

   The Stub Resolver may also add non-empty edns-client-subnet options
   to its queries, but Recursive Resolvers are not required to use this
   information.

   For privacy reasons, and because the whole IP address is rarely
   required to determine an optimized reply, the ADDRESS field in the
   option SHOULD be truncated to a certain number of bits, chosen by the
   administrators of the Intermediate Nameserver, as described in
   Section 10.

   If the Stub Resolver requests additional privacy via a SOURCE NETMASK
   that is shorter than the maximum cacheable SCOPE NETMASK that the



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   Recursive Resolver allows, the Recursive Resolver SHOULD issue the
   query with its longer SCOPE NETMASK.

6.2.  Generating a Response

   When a query containing an edns-client-subnet option is received, an
   Authoritative Nameserver supporting edns-client-subnet MAY use the
   address information specified in the option in order to generate an
   optimized reply.

   Authoritative Nameservers that have not implemented or enabled
   support for the edns-client-subnet option may safely ignore it within
   incoming queries.  Per [RFC6891] section 6.1.2, such a server MUST
   NOT include an edns-client-subnet option within replies, to indicate
   lack of support for the option.

   Requests with wrongly formatted options (e.g., wrong size) MUST be
   rejected and a FORMERR response MUST be returned to the sender, as
   described by [RFC6891], Transport Considerations.

   If the Authoritative Nameserver decides to use information from the
   edns-client-subnet option to calculate a response, it MUST include
   the option in the response to indicate that the information was used
   and SHOULD be cached accordingly.  If the option was not included in
   a query, it MUST NOT be included in the response.

   The FAMILY and SOURCE NETMASK in the response MUST match those in the
   request.  The first SOURCE NETMASK bits of the ADDRESS in the
   response MUST match those in the request, even if fewer bits were
   used to form the response.  Echoing back the address and netmask
   helps to mitigate certain attack vectors, as described in Section 10.

   The SCOPE NETMASK in the reply indicates the netmask of the network
   for which the answer is intended.

   A SCOPE NETMASK value longer than the SOURCE NETMASK indicates that
   the address and netmask provided in the query was not specific enough
   to select a single, best response.  The ADDRESS MUST be extended to
   SCOPE NETMASK significant bits to indicate the network for which it
   is optimal, but the Recursive Resolver SHOULD still provide the
   result as the answer to the triggering client request even if the
   client is in a different address range.

   Conversely, a shorter SCOPE NETMASK indicates that more bits than
   necessary were provided, and the answer is suitable for a broader
   range of addresses.





Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   If a non-zero SCOPE NETMASK was supplied in the request, the SCOPE
   NETMASK of the response MUST be no longer than the SCOPE NETMASK of
   the request.

   As not all netblocks are the same size, an Authoritative Nameserver
   may return different values of SCOPE NETMASK for different networks.

   In both cases, the value of the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply has strong
   implications with regard to how the reply will be cached by
   Intermediate Nameservers, as described in Section 6.3.

   If the edns-client-subnet option in the request is not used at all, a
   server supporting edns-client-subnet MUST indicate that no bits of
   the ADDRESS in the request have been used by specifying a SCOPE
   NETMASK of 0, equivalent to the networks 0.0.0.0/0 or ::/0.  This
   could happen, for example, because the reply is invariant across the
   network space.  The answer is suitable for all clients for the
   duration of its TTL.

   The specific logic that an Authoritative Nameserver uses to choose an
   optimized reply is not in the scope of this document.  Implementers
   are encouraged, however, to consider carefully their selection of
   SCOPE NETMASK for the reply in the event that an optimal reply cannot
   be determined.

6.3.  Handling edns-client-subnet Replies and Caching

   When an Intermediate Nameserver receives a reply containing an edns-
   client-subnet option, it will return a reply to its client and SHOULD
   cache the result.

   If the FAMILY, SOURCE NETMASK, and SOURCE NETMASK bits of ADDRESS in
   the reply don't match the fields in the corresponding request, the
   full reply MUST be dropped, as described in Section 10.

   In the cache, any resource record in the answer section will be tied
   to the network specified by the FAMILY, ADDRESS and SCOPE NETMASK
   fields, as detailed below.  Note that the additional and authority
   sections from a DNS response message are specifically excluded here.
   Any information cached from these sections MUST NOT be tied to a
   network.

   If another query is received matching the name and type of an entry
   in the cache, the resolver will check whether the FAMILY and ADDRESS
   of the client matches one of the networks in the cache for that
   entry.





Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   If the address of the client is within any of the networks in the
   cache, then the cached response MUST be returned as usual.  If the
   address of the client matches multiple networks in the cache, the
   entry with the longest SCOPE NETMASK value MUST be returned, as with
   most route-matching algorithms.

   If the address of the client does not match any network in the cache,
   then the Recursive Resolver MUST behave as if no match was found and
   perform resolution as usual.  This is necessary to avoid suboptimal
   replies in the cache from being returned to the wrong clients, and to
   avoid a single request coming from a client on a different network
   from polluting the cache with a suboptimal reply for all the users of
   that resolver.

   Note that every time a Recursive Resolver queries an Authoritative
   Nameserver by forwarding the edns-client-subnet option that it
   received from another client, a short SOURCE NETMASK in the original
   request could cause a suboptimal reply to be returned by the
   Authoritative Nameserver.

   When the request includes a longer SCOPE NETMASK, the reply returned
   may still be cached as optimal for the ADDRESS and SCOPE NETMASK of
   the reply.  This might still be suboptimal for the original client.

   To avoid this suboptimal reply from being served from cache for other
   clients for which a better reply would be available, the Recursive
   Resolver MUST check the SCOPE NETMASK that was returned by the
   Authoritative Nameserver:

   o  If the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply is longer than the SOURCE
      NETMASK, it means that the reply might be suboptimal.  A Recursive
      Resolver MUST return this entry from cache only to queries that do
      not contain or allow a longer SOURCE NETMASK to be forwarded, or
      to queries originating from the network covered by the ADDRESS and
      SCOPE NETMASK..

   o  If the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply is shorter than or equal to the
      SOURCE NETMASK, the reply is optimal, and SHOULD be returned from
      cache to any client within the network indicated by ADDRESS and
      SCOPE NETMASK.

   As another reply is received, the reply will be tied to a different
   network.  The server SHOULD keep in cache both replies, and return
   the most appropriate one depending on the address of the client.  Per
   standard DNS caching behavior, all records SHOULD be retained until
   their TTL expires.  Subsequent queries to refresh the data should
   always specify the longest SCOPE NETMASK that the Recursive Resolver




Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   is willing to cache, even if previous responses indicated that a
   shorter netmask was the optimal response.

   Although omitting network-specific caching will significantly
   simplify an implementation, the resulting drop in cache hits is very
   likely to defeat most latency benefits provided by edns-client-
   subnet.  Therefore, when implementing this option for latency
   purposes, implementing full caching support as described in this
   section is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED.

   Any reply containing an edns-client-subnet option considered invalid
   should be treated as if no edns-client-subnet option was specified at
   all.

   Replies coming from servers not supporting edns-client-subnet or
   otherwise not containing an edns-client-subnet option SHOULD be
   considered as containing a SCOPE NETMASK of 0 (e.g., cache the result
   for 0.0.0.0/0 or ::/0) for all the supported families.

   In any case, the response from the resolver to the client MUST NOT
   contain the edns-client-subnet option if none was present in the
   client's original request.  If the original client request contained
   a valid edns-client-subnet option that was used during recursion, the
   Recursive Resolver MUST include the edns-client-subnet option from
   the Authoritative Nameserver response in the response to the client.

   Enabling support for edns-client-subnet in a recursive resolver will
   significantly increase the size of the cache, reduce the number of
   results that can be served from cache, and increase the load on the
   server.  Implementing the mitigation techniques described in
   Section 10 is strongly recommended.

6.4.  Transitivity

   Generally, edns-client-subnet options will only be present in DNS
   messages between a Recursive Resolver and an Authoritative
   Nameserver, i.e., one hop.  In certain configurations however, for
   example multi-tier nameserver setups, it may be necessary to
   implement transitive behaviour on Intermediate Nameservers.

   It is important that any Intermediate Nameserver that forwards edns-
   client-subnet options received from their clients MUST fully
   implement the caching behaviour described in Section 6.3.

   Intermediate Nameservers, including Recursive Resolvers, supporting
   edns-client-subnet MUST forward options with SOURCE NETMASK set to 0
   (i.e., completely anonymized), such an option MUST NOT be replaced
   with an option with more accurate address information.



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   An Intermediate Nameserver MAY also forward edns-client-subnet
   options with actual address information.  This information MAY match
   the source IP address of the incoming query, and MAY have more or
   less address bits than the Nameserver would normally include in a
   locally originated edns-client-subnet option.

   If for any reason the Intermediate Nameserver does not want to use
   the information in an edns-client-subnet option it receives (too
   little address information, network address from a range not
   authorized to use the server, private/unroutable address space, etc),
   it SHOULD drop the query and return a REFUSED response.  Note again
   that an edns-client-subnet option with 0 address bits MUST NOT be
   refused.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has already assigned option code 8 in the "DNS EDNS0 Option
   Codes (OPT)" registry to edns-client-subnet.

   The IANA is requested to update the reference ("draft-vandergaast-
   edns-client-subnet") to refer to this RFC when published.

8.  DNSSEC Considerations

   The presence or absence of an [RFC6891] EDNS0 OPT resource record
   containing an edns-client-subnet option in a DNS query does not
   change the usage of the resource records and mechanisms used to
   provide data origin authentication and data integrity to the DNS, as
   described in [RFC4033], [RFC4034] and [RFC4035].  OPT records are not
   signed.

9.  NAT Considerations

   Special awareness of edns-client-subnet in devices that perform
   Network Address Translation (NAT) as described in [RFC2663] is not
   required; queries can be passed through as-is.  The client's network
   address SHOULD NOT be added, and existing edns-client-subnet options,
   if present, SHOULD NOT be modified by NAT devices.

   In large-scale global networks behind NAT (but, for example, with a
   Centralized Resolver infrastructure), an internal Intermediate
   Nameserver might have detailed network layout information, and might
   know which external subnets are used for egress traffic by each
   internal network.  In such cases, the Intermediate Nameserver MAY use
   that information when originating edns-client-subnet options.

   In other cases, Recursive Resolvers sited behind a NAT device SHOULD
   NOT originate edns-client-subnet options with their IP address, and



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   instead rely on downstream Intermediate Nameservers doing so.  They
   MAY, however, choose to include the option with their internal
   address for the purposes of signaling a shorter, more anonymous
   SOURCE NETMASK.

   If an Authoritative Nameserver on the publicly routed Internet
   receives a request that specifies an ADDRESS in [RFC1918] or
   [RFC4193] private address space, it SHOULD ignore ADDRESS and look up
   its answer based on the address of the Recursive Resolver.  In the
   reply it SHOULD set SCOPE NETMASK to cover all of the relevant
   private space.  For example, a request for ADDRESS 10.1.2.0 with a
   SOURCE NETMASK of 24 would get a returned SCOPE NETMASK of 8.  The
   Intermediate Nameserver MAY elect to cache the answer under one entry
   for special-purpose addresses [RFC6890]; see Section 10.3.

10.  Security Considerations

10.1.  Privacy

   With the edns-client-subnet option, the network address of the client
   that initiated the resolution becomes visible to all servers involved
   in the resolution process.  Additionally, it will be visible from any
   network traversed by the DNS packets.

   To protect users' privacy, Recursive Resolvers are strongly
   encouraged to conceal part of the IP address of the user by
   truncating IPv4 addresses to 24 bits.  No recommendation is provided
   for IPv6 at this time, but IPv6 addresses should be similarly
   truncated in order to not allow unique identification of the client.

   When a non-zero SCOPE NETMASK is provided by the Recursive Resolver
   that is longer than SOURCE NETMASK, users can often obtain more
   optimal mapping if the resolver is well-used.  Replies will have
   answers optimized up to SCOPE NETMASK bits for a subset of the SOURCE
   NETMASK.  Subsequent requests within the TTL from clients within the
   cached range will be served the optimal answer, while still
   preserving privacy of the user.

   ISPs will often have more detailed knowledge of their own networks.
   That is, they will know if all 24-bit prefixes in a /20 are in the
   same area.  In those cases, for optimal cache utilization and
   improved privacy, the ISP's Recursive Resolver SHOULD truncate IP
   addresses in this /20 to just 20 bits, instead of 24 as recommended
   above.

   Users who wish their full IP address to be hidden can include an
   edns-client-subnet option specifying the wildcard address 0.0.0.0/0
   (i.e.  FAMILY set to 1 (IPv4), SOURCE NETMASK to 0 and no ADDRESS).



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   As described in previous sections, this option will be forwarded
   across all the Recursive Resolvers supporting edns-client-subnet,
   which MUST NOT modify it to include the network address of the
   client.

   Note that even without an edns-client-subnet option, any server
   queried directly by the user will be able to see the full client IP
   address.  Recursive Resolvers or Authoritative Nameservers MAY use
   the source IP address of requests to return a cached entry or to
   generate an optimized reply that best matches the request.

10.2.  Birthday Attacks

   edns-client-subnet adds information to the DNS question tuple
   (q-tuple).  This allows an attacker to send a caching Intermediate
   Nameserver multiple queries with spoofed IP addresses either in the
   edns-client-subnet option or as the source IP.  These queries will
   trigger multiple outgoing queries with the same name, type and class,
   just different address information in the edns-client-subnet option.

   With multiple queries for the same name in flight, the attacker has a
   higher chance of success in sending a matching response (with the
   address 0.0.0.0/0 to get it cached for many hosts).

   To counter this, every edns-client-subnet option in a response packet
   MUST contain the FAMILY and SOURCE NETMASK fields from the
   corresponding request, along with identical ADDRESS bits for SOURCE
   NETMASK length.  Intermediate Nameservers processing a response MUST
   verify that these match, and MUST discard the entire reply if they do
   not.

10.3.  Cache Pollution

   It is simple for an arbitrary resolver or client to provide false
   information in the edns-client-subnet option, or to send UDP packets
   with forged source IP addresses.

   This could be used to:

   o  pollute the cache of intermediate resolvers, by filling it with
      results that will rarely (if ever) be used.

   o  reverse engineer the algorithms (or data) used by the
      Authoritative Nameserver to calculate the optimized answer.

   o  mount a denial-of-service attack against an Intermediate
      Nameserver, by forcing it to perform many more recursive queries




Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


      than it would normally do, due to how caching is handled for
      queries containing the edns-client-subnet option.

   Even without malicious intent, Centralized Resolvers providing
   answers to clients in multiple networks will need to cache different
   replies for different networks, putting more memory pressure on the
   cache.

   To mitigate those problems:

   o  Recursive Resolvers implementing edns-client-subnet should only
      enable it in deployments where it is expected to bring clear
      advantages to the end users.  For example, when expecting clients
      from a variety of networks or from a wide geographical area.  Due
      to the high cache pressure introduced by edns-client-subnet, the
      feature SHOULD be disabled in all default configurations.

   o  Recursive Resolvers SHOULD limit the number of networks and
      answers they keep in the cache for a given query.

   o  Recursive Resolvers SHOULD limit the number of total different
      networks that they keep in cache.

   o  Recursive Resolvers should never send edns-client-subnet options
      with a SCOPE NETMASK that is longer than they are willing to
      cache.  Similarly, if using the backwards-compatible SCOPE NETMASK
      of 0, the request should not set a SOURCE NETMASK of more bits
      than they are willing to cache.

   o  Recursive Resolvers should implement algorithms to improve the
      cache hit rate, given the size constraints indicated above.
      Recursive Resolvers MAY, for example, decide to discard more
      specific cache entries first.

   o  Authoritative Nameservers and Recursive Resolvers should discard
      edns-client-subnet options that are either obviously forged or
      otherwise known to be wrong.  They SHOULD at least treat
      unroutable addresses, such as some of the address blocks defined
      in [RFC6890], as equivalent to the Recursive Resolver's own
      identity.  They SHOULD ignore and never forward edns-client-subnet
      options specifying other routable addresses that are known not to
      be served by the query source.

   o  Authoritative Nameservers consider the edns-client-subnet option
      just as a hint to provide better results.  They can decide to
      ignore the content of the edns-client-subnet option based on black
      or white lists, rate limiting mechanisms, or any other logic
      implemented in the software.



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


11.  Sending the Option

   When implementing a Recursive Resolver, there are two strategies on
   deciding when to include an edns-client-subnet option in a query.  At
   this stage, it's not clear which strategy is best.

11.1.  Probing

   A Recursive Resolver can send the edns-client-subnet option with
   every outgoing query.  However, it is RECOMMENDED that Resolvers
   remember which Authoritative Nameservers did not return the option
   with their response, and omit client address information from
   subsequent queries to those Nameservers.

   Additionally, Recursive Resolvers MAY be configured to never send the
   option when querying root, top-level, and effective top-level domain
   servers.  These domains are delegation-centric and are very unlikely
   to generate different replies based on the address of the client.

   When probing, it is important that several things are probed: support
   for edns-client-subnet, support for EDNS0, support for EDNS0 options,
   or possibly an unreachable Nameserver.  Various implementations are
   known to drop DNS packets with OPT RRs (with or without options),
   thus several probes are required to discover what is supported.

   Probing, if implemented, MUST be repeated periodically (i.e.  daily).
   If an Authoritative Nameserver indicates edns-client-subnet support
   for one zone, it is to be expected that the Nameserver supports edns-
   client-subnet for all its zones.  Likewise, an Authoritative
   Nameserver that uses edns-client-subnet information for one of its
   zones, MUST indicate support for the option in all its responses.  If
   the option is supported but not actually used for generating a
   response, its SCOPE NETMASK value SHOULD be set to 0.

11.2.  Whitelist

   As described previously, it is expected that only a few Recursive
   Resolvers will need to use edns-client-subnet, and that it will
   generally be enabled only if it offers a clear benefit to the users.

   To avoid the complexity of implementing a probing and detection
   mechanism (and the possible query loss/delay that may come with it),
   an implementation could decide to use a statically configured
   whitelist of Authoritative Namesevers to send the option to.
   Implementations MAY also allow additionally configuring this based on
   other criteria, such as zone or query type.





Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   An additional advantage of using a whitelist is that partial client
   address information is only disclosed to Nameservers that are known
   to use the information, improving privacy.

   A major drawback is scalability.  The operator needs to track which
   Authoritative Nameservers support edns-client-subnet, making it
   harder for new Authoritative Nameservers to start using the option.

12.  Example

   1.   A stub resolver SR with IP address 192.0.2.37 tries to resolve
        www.example.com, by forwarding the query to the Recursive
        Resolver R from IP address IP, asking for recursion.

   2.   RNS, supporting edns-client-subnet, looks up www.example.com in
        its cache.  An entry is found neither for www.example.com, nor
        for example.com.

   3.   RNS builds a query to send to the root and .com servers.  The
        implementation of R provides facilities so an administrator can
        configure RNS not to forward edns-client-subnet in certain
        cases.  In particular, RNS is configured to not include an edns-
        client-subnet option when talking to delegation-centric
        nameservers, as described in Section 6.1.  Thus, no edns-client-
        subnet option is added, and resolution is performed as usual.

   4.   RNS now knows the next server to query, Authoritative Nameserver
        ANS, responsible for example.com.

   5.   RNS prepares a new query for www.example.com, including an edns-
        client-subnet option with:

        *  OPTION-CODE, set to 0x00 0x08.

        *  OPTION-LENGTH, set to 0x00 0x07 for the following fixed 4
           octets plus the 3 octets that will be used for ADDRESS.

        *  FAMILY, set to 0x00 0x01 as IP is an IPv4 address.

        *  SOURCE NETMASK, set to 0x18, as RNS is configured to conceal
           the last 8 bits of every IPv4 address.

        *  SCOPE NETMASK, set to 0x1B, as RNS is willing to cache
           answers up to a /27.

        *  ADDRESS, set to 0xC0 0x00 0x02, providing only the first 24
           bits of the IPv4 address.




Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   6.   The query is sent.  Server ANS understands and uses edns-client-
        subnet.  It parses the edns-client-subnet option, and generates
        an optimized reply.

   7.   Due to the internal implementation of ANS, it finds an answer
        that is optimal for several /27 ranges within the ADDRESS/SOURCE
        NETMASK of the request.  It chooses one randomly.  (Note well,
        this is just one example of how ANS could pick a suitable
        answer.  Other selection methods are possible.)

   8.   The Authoritative Nameserver ANS adds an edns-client-subnet
        option in the reply, containing:

        *  OPTION-CODE, set to 0x00 0x08.

        *  OPTION-LENGTH, set to 0x00 0x08 for the following fixed 4
           octets plus the 4 octets that will be used for ADDRESS .

        *  FAMILY, set to 0x00 0x01, the same as the request.

        *  SOURCE NETMASK, set to 0x18, copied from the request.

        *  SCOPE NETMASK, set to 0x1B, indicating a /27 network.

        *  ADDRESS, set to 0xC0 0x00 0x02 0xE0, copied from the request.

   9.   RNS receives the reply containing an edns-client-subnet option.
        The resolver verifies that FAMILY, SOURCE NETMASK, and the
        SOURCE NETMASK bits of ADDRESS match the request.  If not, the
        message is discarded.

   10.  The reply is interpreted as usual.  Since the reply contains an
        edns-client-subnet option, the ADDRESS, SCOPE NETMASK, and
        FAMILY in the response are used to cache the entry.

   11.  RNS sends a response to stub resolver SR, without including an
        edns-client-subnet option.

   12.  RNS receives another request to resolve www.example.com.  This
        time, a reply is cached.  The reply, however, is tied to a
        particular network.  If the address of the client matches any
        network in the cache, then the reply is returned from the cache.
        Otherwise, another query is performed.  If multiple results
        match, the one with the longest SCOPE NETMASK is chosen, as per
        common best-network match algorithms.






Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


13.  Contributing Authors

   The below individuals contributed significantly to the draft.  The
   RFC Editor prefers a maximum of 5 names on the front page, and so we
   have listed additional authors in this section

   Edward Lewis
   ICANN
   12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA
   Email: edward.lewis@icann.org

   Sean Leach
   Fastly
   POBox 78266
   San Francisco, CA 94107

14.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Darryl Rodden for his work as a co-author
   on previous versions, and the following people for reviewing early
   drafts of this document and for providing useful feedback: Paul S.
   R.  Chisholm, B.  Narendran, Leonidas Kontothanassis, David Presotto,
   Philip Rowlands, Chris Morrow, Kara Moscoe, Alex Nizhner, Warren
   Kumari, Richard Rabbat from Google, Terry Farmer, Mark Teodoro,
   Edward Lewis, Eric Burger from Neustar, David Ulevitch, Matthew
   Dempsky from OpenDNS, Patrick W.  Gilmore and Jason Moreau from
   Akamai, Colm MacCarthaigh, Richard Sheehan and all the other people
   that replied to our emails on various mailing lists.

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC1700]  Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
              October 1994.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
              5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

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



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


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

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, March 2005.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

   [RFC6890]  Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
              "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC
              6890, April 2013.

   [RFC6891]  Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
              for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, April 2013.

15.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2663]  Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
              Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC
              2663, August 1999.

15.3.  URIs

   [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/

Appendix A.  Document History

   [RFC Editor: Please delete this section before publication.]

A.1.  -00

   o  Document moved to experimental track, added experiment description
      in header with details in a new section.

   o  Specifically note that edns-client-subnet applies to the answer
      section only.

   o  Warn that caching based on edns-client-subnet is optional but very
      important for performance reasons.

   o  Updated NAT section.



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   o  Added recommendation to not use the default /24 recommendation for
      the source netmask field if more detailed information about the
      network is available.

   o  Rewritten problem statement to be more clear about the goal of
      edns-client-subnet and the fact that it's entirely optional.

   o  Wire format changed to include the original address and netmask in
      responses in defence against birthday attacks.

   o  Security considerations now includes a section about birthday
      attacks.

   o  Renamed edns-client-ip in edns-client-subnet, following
      suggestions on the mailing list.

   o  Clarified behavior of resolvers when presented with an invalid
      edns-client-subnet option.

   o  Fully take multi-tier DNS setups in mind and be more clear about
      where the option should be originated.

   o  Added a few definitions in the Terminology section, and a few more
      aesthetic changes in the rest of the document.

A.2.  -01

   o  Document version number reset from -02 to -00 due to the rename to
      edns-client-subnet.

   o  Clarified example (dealing with TLDs, and various minor errors).

   o  Referencing RFC5035 instead of RFC1918.

   o  Added a section on probing (and how it should be done) vs.
      whitelisting.

   o  Moved description on how to forward edns-client-subnet option in
      dedicated section.

   o  Queries with wrongly formatted edns-client-subnet options should
      now be rejected with FORMERR.

   o  Added an "Overview" section, providing an introduction to the
      document.

   o  Intermediate Nameservers can now remove an edns-client-subnet
      option, or reduce the SOURCE NETMASK to increase privacy.



Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   o  Added a reference to DoS attacks in the Security section.

   o  Don't use "network range", as it seems to have different meaning
      in other contexts, and turned out to be confusing.

   o  Use shorter and longer netmasks, rather than higher or lower.  Add
      a better explanation in the format section.

   o  Minor corrections in various other sections.

A.3.  -02

   o  Added IANA-assigned option code.

A.4.  -03*

   o  [*] There was no -03 version of the draft; these changes, however,
      were made after -02.

   o  Allow non-zero SCOPE NETMASK for Recursive Resolvers to indicate
      their maximum cacheable mask length, and updated the example
      accordingly.

   o  A note on Authoritative Nameservers receiving requests that
      specify private address space.

   o  A note to always ask for the longest acceptable SCOPE NETMASK,
      even if a prior answer indicated that a shorter netmask was
      optimal.

   o  Marked up a couple of references.

   o  Minor grammatical consistency edits.

Authors' Addresses

   Carlo Contavalli
   Google
   1600 Amphitheater Parkway
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   Email: ccontavalli@google.com








Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        Client Subnet in DNS Requests        November 2014


   Wilmer van der Gaast
   Google
   Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road
   London  SW1W 9TQ
   UK

   Email: wilmer@google.com


   David C Lawrence
   Akamai Technologies
   8 Cambridge Center
   Cambridge, MA  02142
   US

   Email: tale@akamai.com


   Warren Kumari
   Google
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   Email: warren@kumari.net


























Contavalli, et al.        Expires May 19, 2015                 [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/