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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

dnsop                                                             L. Pan
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                                     Y. Fu
Expires: January 18, 2018                                          CNNIC
                                                           July 17, 2017


                      ISP Location in DNS Queries
                  draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-02

Abstract

   Nowadays, many Authoritative Nameservers support GeoIP feature, they
   guess the user's geolocation by the client subnet of EDNS Client
   Subnet (ECS) or by the source IP address of DNS query, return tailor
   DNS response based on the user's geolocation.  However, ECS raises
   some privacy concerns because it leaks client subnet information on
   the resolution path to the Authoritative Nameserver.

   This document is inspired by EDNS Client Subnet (ECS), describes an
   improved solution for GeoIP-enabled Authoritative Nameservers,
   defines an EDNS ISP Location (EIL) extension to address the privacy
   problem of ECS, tries to find the right balance between privacy
   improvement and user experience optimization.

   EIL is defined to convey isp location < COUNTRY, AREA, ISP >
   information that is relevant to the DNS message.  It will directly
   provide the same sufficient information for the GeoIP-enabled
   Authoritative Nameserver as ECS, to decide the response without
   guessing geolocation of the IP address.

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 January 18, 2018.




Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
     1.1.  Path Calculation and Tailored DNS Response  . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  The EIL EDNS0 option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Protocol Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Originating the Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.1.1.  P-Model: Public Recursive Resolver  . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.1.2.  I-Model: ISP Recursive Resolver . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.1.3.  L-Model: Local Forwarding Resolver  . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  Generating a Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.2.1.  Whitelist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.2.2.  Authoritative Nameserver  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.2.3.  Intermediate Nameserver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  Handling EIL Responses and Caching  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.3.1.  Caching the Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.3.2.  Answering from Cache  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.3.3.  Support ECS and EIL at the same time  . . . . . . . .  11
     6.4.  Delegations and Negative Answers  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.5.  Transitivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.6.  Response Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  DNSSEC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  Target Censorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.4.  Cache Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.5.  DDoS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Appendix A. GeoIP-enabled Nameservers Example . . . . . . . .  14



Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


     10.1.  BIND-GeoIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.2.  PowerDNS-GeoIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.3.  Amazon-Geolocation-Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.4.  DYN-Traffic-Director-ECS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.5.  gdnsd-GeoIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. Appendix B. EIL Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  P-Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.2.  I-Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.3.  L-Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   Nowadays, many Authoritative Nameservers support GeoIP feature, such
   as BIND-GeoIP [BIND-GeoIP], PowerDNS-GeoIP [PowerDNS-GeoIP], Amazon-
   Geolocation-Routing [Amazon-Geolocation-Routing], DYN-Traffic-
   Director-ECS [DYN-Traffic-Director-ECS], gdnsd-GeoIP [gdnsd-GeoIP]
   (More details are given in Appendix A).  These geographically aware
   Authoritative Nameservers guess the user's geolocation by the client
   subnet of ECS or by the source IP address of DNS query, return tailor
   DNS response based on the user's geolocation.

   ECS is an EDNS0 [RFC6891] option, described in [RFC7871], carries
   client subnet information in DNS queries for Authoritative
   Nameserver.  Compared to source IP address of DNS query, ECS will
   help Authoritative Nameserver to guess the client's location more
   precisely because of the DNS forwarding query structure.

   GeoIP-enabled Authoritative Nameservers use ECS for user geolocation
   detecting.  However, ECS raises some privacy concerns because it
   leaks client subnet information on the resolution path to the
   Authoritative Nameserver.

   This document describes an improved solution for GeoIP-enabled
   Authoritative Nameserver, defines an EDNS ISP Location (EIL)
   extension to address the privacy problem of ECS, tries to find the
   right balance between privacy improvement and user experience
   optimization.

   EIL is defined to convey isp location < COUNTRY, AREA, ISP >
   information that is relevant to the DNS message.  It will directly
   provide the same sufficient information for the GeoIP-enabled
   Authoritative Nameserver as ECS, to decide the response without
   guessing geolocation of the IP address.




Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


   EIL is intended for those Local Forwarding Resolvers, Recursive
   Resolvers and Authoritative Nameservers that would benefit from the
   extension and not for general purpose deployment.  It could be
   applied for tailor DNS response like ECS scenario.  EIL can safely be
   ignored by servers that choose not to implement or enable it.

1.1.  Path Calculation and Tailored DNS Response

   Separate the consideration of path calculation (Data Provider) and
   tailored DNS response (Authoritative Nameserver).

   Data Providers make path calculations to optimize content delivery on
   the Internet based on the network topology, considering many factors
   such as IP, RIPs, FIBs, AS Path hops, system load, content
   availability, path latency, etc.  Note that, Data Providers have the
   full details of the clients, they can make any complex path
   calculations without ECS and EIL.

   Authoritative Nameservers configure tailored DNS response based on
   the result of path calculations, allocate IP addresses to different
   datacenters.  Usually, users from the same < COUNTRY, AREA, ISP > isp
   location are allocated to the same datacenter, the same best "network
   topologically close" datacenter.  For example, client IP addresses
   from < China, Beijing, Telecom > are allocated to DataCenter-1,
   client IP addresses from < China, Beijing, Unicom > are allocated to
   DataCenter-2, etc.  Above is the GeoIP-based Tailored DNS Response.

   Therefore, if the GeoIP-enabled Authoritative Nameservers support
   ECS, they can use the client subnet information of ECS instead of
   resolver's address for geolocation detecting.  Alternative, the
   GeoIP-enabled Authoritative Nameservers can directly use the <
   COUNTRY, AREA, ISP > information of EIL without geolocation
   detecting.

   Again, we emphasize that tailored DNS response does not affect path
   calculation.  Data Providers can make path calculations based on
   network topology, decide network topological close datacenter for
   each IP address.  Authoritative Nameservers allocate tailored DNS
   response to each IP address based on the "network topological close"
   result of path calculations.  EIL tell Authoritative Nameserver like
   that, "I want to know what is best IP address for clients from <
   China, Beijing, Telecom > at network topology path calculations
   result", but not "I want to know what is the nearest IP address for
   clients from < China, Beijing, Telecom > at physical topology path
   calculations result".

   EIL is satisfied if Authoritative Nameservers aggregate the IP
   addresses from the same < COUNTRY, AREA, ISP > isp location to visit



Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


   the same datacenters, we call that GeoIP-based tailored DNS
   responses, and these tailored responses have the best "network
   topological close" distance to the users which are generated from
   network topology path calculations result.

   ECS is satisfied if Authoritative Nameservers make tailored DNS
   response down to subnet precise level.  For example, (subnet-1, ...,
   subnet-100) are from the same < COUNTRY, AREA, ISP > isp location,
   Data Provider applies (subnet-1, ..., subnet-50) visit DataCenter-1,
   (subnet-51, ..., subnet-100) visit DataCenter-2.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS.  When these words are not in
   ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual
   English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119]
   keywords.

3.  Terminology

   Basic terms used in this specification are defined in the documents
   [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC7719] and [RFC7871].

   EIL: EDNS ISP Location.

   ECS: EDNS Client Subnet, described in [RFC7871].

   Local Forwarding Resolver: Forwarding Resolver is described in
   [RFC7871].  It is the first Forwarding Resolver which receives DNS
   queries from Stub Resolver, usually deployed nearby the first-hop
   router such as public Wi-Fi hotspot routers and home routers.

   Recursive Resolver: described in [RFC7871].  It is the last-hop
   before Authoritative Nameserver in the DNS query path.

   Intermediate Nameserver: described in [RFC7871].  Any nameserver in
   between the Stub Resolver and the Authoritative Nameserver, such as a
   Recursive Resolver or a Forwarding Resolver.

   Intermediate Forwarding Resolver: Any Forwarding Resolver in between
   the Local Forwarding Resolver and Recursive Resolver.

   Authoritative Nameserver: described in [RFC7719] and [RFC2182].  It
   is a server that knows the content of a DNS zone from local




Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


   knowledge, and thus can answer queries about that zone without
   needing to query other servers.

4.  Overview

   EIL is an EDNS0 option to allow Local Forwarding Resolvers and
   Recursive Resolvers, if they are willing, to forward details about
   the isp location of client when talking to other nameservers.  EIL
   can be added in queries sent by Local Forwarding Resolvers or
   Recursive Resolvers in a way that is transparent to Stub Resolvers
   and end users.

   Like ECS, Authoritative Nameservers could provide a better answer by
   using precise isp location in EIL.  Intermediate Nameservers could
   send EIL query and cache the EIL response.  This document also
   provides a mechanism to signal Intermediate Nameservers that they do
   not want EIL treatment for specific queries.

   EIL is only defined for the Internet (IN) DNS class.

   The format of EIL option is described in Section 5.

   The security concerns for EIL are like ECS, such as cache growth,
   spoof EDNS0 option and privacy, etc.  Mitigation techniques are
   discussed in Section 6.

5.  The EIL EDNS0 option

   The EIL is an EDNS0 option to include the isp location of client in
   DNS messages.

   It is 14 octets which is structured as follows:



















Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


                 +0 (MSB)                            +1 (LSB)
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    0: |                         OPTION-CODE                           |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    2: |                         OPTION-LENGTH                         |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    4: |                         COUNTRY-CODE                          |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    6: |                         AREA-CODE                             |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   12: |                         ISP                                   |
       |                                                               |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

       Total: 14 octets.

   o  OPTION-CODE, 2 octets, defined in [RFC6891].  EDNS option code
      should be assigned by the IANA.

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

   o  COUNTRY-CODE, 2 octets, uppercase, defined in [ISO3166], indicates
      the country information of the client's IP.  For example, China's
      COUNTRY-CODE is CN.

   o  AREA-CODE, 6 octets, uppercase, defined in [ISO3166] country
      subdivision code, indicates the area information of the client's
      IP.  For example, The AREA-CODE of Fujian Province in China is 35.

   o  ISP, 4 octets, uppercase, indicates the ISP information of the
      client's IP, using shortcut names.  ISP shortcut names are unique
      within the context of the COUNTRY-CODE.  For example, the shortcut
      name of China Telecommunications Corporation is TEL, the shortcut
      name of China United Network Communications is UNI, the shortcut
      name of China Mobile is MOB, etc.

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

   The aim to use short names in the fields is to limit the data size of
   EIL, decrease the DDoS risk.

   The null value 0x20 signifies that the field is unknown.  If all
   fields in EIL are set to null value, it means that client doesn't
   want to use EIL.



Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


   Authoritative Nameservers can send EIL response with the * value 0x2A
   in AREA-CODE field or ISP field (not COUNTRY-CODE field), which
   signifies that the field is wildcard match.  For example, < CN, *,
   TEL > indicates "all area in China, Telecom ISP".

   Example code is in Github at: https://github.com/abbypan/dns_test_eil
   .

6.  Protocol Description

6.1.  Originating the Option

   The EIL can be initialized by Public Recursive Resolver, ISP
   Recursive Resolver, or Local Forwarding Resolver.

   Examples are given in Appendix B.

6.1.1.  P-Model: Public Recursive Resolver

   Public Recursive Resolvers are not close to many users because the
   service providers couldn't deploy servers in every country and every
   ISP's network, which will affect the response accuracy of
   Authoritative Nameservers.  To encounter this problem, ECS shifts the
   client subnet information to Authoritative Nameserver, but rises user
   privacy concerns.

   Therefore, to keep balance between precise and privacy, when a Public
   Recursive Resolver receives a DNS query, it can guess isp location of
   client's IP and generate the EIL OPT data, then send EIL query to the
   Authoritative Nameserver.  This will move the "guess location of
   client's IP" work from Authoritative Nameserver back to Public
   Recursive Resolver, lighten the burden of Authoritative Nameserver,
   but increase DDoS risk on Public Recursive Resolver.

   In order to improve the user's privacy, if a Recursive Resolver
   receives a DNS query with ECS, it can guess the isp location of
   SOURCE-PREFIX from the ECS OPT data, and make a new DNS query with
   EIL, then send the query to Authoritative Nameserver which supports
   EIL.

   P-model is the most recommended and close to the ECS.

6.1.2.  I-Model: ISP Recursive Resolver

   ISP Recursive Resolver only serves its customers, each of whom has a
   static isp location.  ISP Recursive Resolver can add EIL transparent
   to end user, and then Authoritative Nameserver doesn't need to "guess
   location of client's IP".



Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


   EIL will be benefit if the Authoritative Nameserver could not find
   the approximate isp location of ISP Recursive Resolver, which is
   crucial to DNS response accuracy in ECS.

6.1.3.  L-Model: Local Forwarding Resolver

   Local Forwarding Resolver is usually on the first-hop router, such as
   public Wi-Fi hotspot routers and Cisco/Linksys/Netgear/TP-LINK home
   routers.

   When a Local Forwarding Resolver that implements EIL receives a DNS
   query from an end user, it surely can know about the isp location of
   client's IP, and generate the EIL OPT data, then send the EIL query
   to the intermediate Recursive Resolver.  Intermediate Recursive
   Resolver sends the EIL query to the Authoritative Nameserver.

   In this scenario, both Public Recursive Resolver and Authoritative
   Nameserver don't need to "guess location of client's IP", because the
   Local Forwarding Resolver supplies the isp location precisely.  That
   is, EIL can reduce dependence on the IP geolocation database quality,
   which is crucial to DNS response accuracy in ECS.

   If a Local Forwarding Resolver had sent a query with EIL, and
   receives a REFUSE response, it MUST regenerate a query with no EIL.

6.2.  Generating a Response

6.2.1.  Whitelist

   EIL contains a whitelist for COUNTRY-CODE, AREA-CODE and ISP, which
   can be discussed and maintained by the DNSOP working group.
   Authoritative Nameservers that supporting EIL must only response the
   EIL queries matched the whitelist.  Recursive Resolver that
   supporting EIL must only cache the EIL responses matched the
   whitelist.

6.2.2.  Authoritative Nameserver

   Using the isp location specified in the EIL option of DNS query, an
   Authoritative Nameserver can generate a tailored response.

   Authoritative Nameservers that have not implemented or enabled
   support for the EIL ought to safely ignore it within incoming
   queries, response the query as a normal case without EDNS0 option.
   Such a server MUST NOT include an EIL option within replies to
   indicate lack of support for it.





Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


   An Authoritative Nameserver that has implemented this protocol and
   receives an EIL option MUST include an EIL option in its response to
   indicate that it SHOULD be cached accordingly.

   An Authoritative Nameserver will return a more appropriate tailored
   response for the query with an EIL option containing more precisely
   AREA-CODE.

6.2.3.  Intermediate Nameserver

   Like ECS, Intermediate Nameserver passes a DNS response with an EIL
   option to its client when the client indicates support EIL.

   If an Intermediate Nameserver receives a response that has a larger
   area than the AREA-CODE provided in its query, it SHOULD still
   provide the result as the answer to the triggering client request
   even if the client is in a smaller area.

6.3.  Handling EIL Responses and Caching

   If an Intermediate Nameserver had sent a query with EIL, and receives
   a NOERROR response without EIL option, it SHOULD treat this answer as
   suitable for all clients.

   Other handling considerations are similar with ECS [RFC7871], SECTION
   7.3.

6.3.1.  Caching the Response

   In the cache, all resource records in the Answer section MUST be tied
   to the isp location specified in the response.  The Answer section is
   valid for all areas which the EIL option covered.  For example, an
   EIL option < CN, 35, TEL > covers all 9 Cities in Fujian Province of
   China Telecommunications ISP.

   Same with ECS, The Additional and Authority sections are excluded.

   Enabling support for EIL in an Intermediate Nameserver will increase
   the size of the cache, and prevent "client subnet leak" privacy
   concern of ECS.

6.3.2.  Answering from Cache

   Cache lookups are first done as usual for a DNS query, using the
   query tuple of < name, type, class >.  Then, the appropriate RRset
   MUST be chosen based on the isp location matching.





Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


   If there was an EIL option, the Intermediate Nameserver will lookup
   for < same COUNTRY-CODE, same ISP, same AREA-CODE > of the same query
   tuple in the cache.  Otherwise, try to find < same COUNTRY-CODE, same
   ISP, same AREA-CODE > of the same query tuple in the cache.

   If no EIL option was provided, the safest choice of the Intermediate
   Nameserver is dealing the query as a normal case without EDNS0
   option.

   If no EIL option was provided, but the Intermediate Nameserver want
   to be more aggressive, it can guess the isp location from the source
   IP of the query, then respond as if there was an EIL option with the
   guessed information.  Users can be benefit when the Intermediate
   Nameserver has a more precise IP location database than the
   Authoritative Nameserver, especially in global public DNS service
   like GoogleDNS(8.8.8.8).

   If no matching is found, the Intermediate Nameserver MUST perform
   resolution as usual.

6.3.3.  Support ECS and EIL at the same time

   Name servers can support ECS and EIL at the same time.  ECS and EIL
   can't be both initiated at the same DNS packet.  It is better for
   user privacy if name servers initiate the EIL query prior to the ECS
   query.

   If Authoritative Nameservers support both ECS and EIL, Recursive
   resolvers can cache both ECS response and EIL response, there are
   some choices for Recursive Resolvers when they receive DNS queries.





















Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


 Receive EIL query:
     Search in EIL cache.
     If cache is matched, return EIL response.
     Otherwise, send EIL query to Authoritative Nameserver.

 Receive ECS query:
     Search in ECS cache.
     If cache is matched, return ECS response.
     Otherwise, send ECS query to Authoritative Nameserver.

 Receive DNS query without EDNS option:
     Search in ECS cache.
     If cache is matched, return ECS response.
     Otherwise,
         Guess the isp location information of the client's IP,
         build EIL option for the query packet.
         Search in EIL cache.
         If cache is matched, return EIL response.
         Otherwise, send EIL query to Authoritative Nameserver.

 Receive DNS query with not-ECS/not-EIL option:
     Search in not-EDNS cache.
     If cache is matched, return response.
     Otherwise, send the DNS query to Authoritative Nameserver.

 Receive ECS query, improve user privacy:
     Guess the isp location information of the client's IP,
     build EIL option for the query packet.
     Search in EIL cache.
     If cache is matched, return EIL response RR with origin ECS option.
     Otherwise, send EIL query to Authoritative Nameserver.

6.4.  Delegations and Negative Answers

   EIL's delegation case is similar with ECS, Additional and Authority
   Sections SHOULD ignore EIL.

   For negative answers, Authoritative Nameservers return traditional
   negative answers without EIL.

6.5.  Transitivity

   EIL's transitivity concerns are similar with ECS.

   Name servers should only enable EIL where it is expected to benefit
   the end users, such as dealing with some latency-sensitive CDN domain
   queries in a complex network environment.




Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


6.6.  Response Accuracy

   GeoIP-enabled Authoritative Nameservers that support ECS can support
   EIL smoothly.

   Compared to ECS, EIL can reduce dependence on the IP geolocation
   database quality.  EIL will rise the response accuracy of
   Authoritative Nameserver if its database can not find approximate isp
   location of ECS client subnet, ensure user latency.  EIL will help
   Authoritative Nameservers to avoid cross-isp visit if its database
   can not find approximate isp location of ECS client subnet, save IP
   transit cost.

7.  Security Considerations

7.1.  DNSSEC

   EIL is not signed.

7.2.  Privacy

   As mentioned in [RFC7871]'s abstract section, since ECS has some
   known operational and privacy shortcomings, a revision will be worked
   through the IETF for improvement.  The biggest privacy concern on ECS
   is that client subnet information is personally identifiable.  The
   more domains publish their zones on a third-party Authoritative
   Nameserver, the more end user privacy information can be gathered by
   the Authoritative Nameserver according to the ECS queries.

   EIL is to improve user privacy which is inspired by ECS, prevented
   leaks in the client subnet information.

   Like ECS, EIL will leak the global zonefile configurations of the
   Authoritative Nameservers more easily than normal case.

7.3.  Target Censorship

   DNS traffic is plain text by default.  It is easily to be blocked or
   poisoned by internet target censorship.  To bypass the censorship, it
   is better to encrypt the DNS traffic or use some proxy tunnel.

   EIL's isp location information covers bigger area than ECS's client
   subnet information.  Therefore, compared to ECS in plain text
   condition, EIL is weaker at blocking record attack, but stronger at
   targeted DNS poisoning attack.






Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


7.4.  Cache Size

   Like ECS, cache size will raise if a Public Recursive Resolver
   supports EIL.  The cache size of ECS grows up with the number of
   client subnets.  The cache size of EIL is related to the row count in
   the < COUNTRY-CODE, AREA-CODE, ISP > isp location whitelist.
   Therefore, under IPv6 environment, the cache size of EIL will be
   smaller than ECS.

7.5.  DDoS

   To migrate the DDoS problem:

   o  If an Authority Server receives a DNS query with unknown data in
      EIL option, it SHOULD return the default response whose EIL option
      with null value.

   o  Nameservers OPTIONAL only implement EIL when the query is from a
      TCP connection.

   More migration techniques described in [RFC7871], Section 11.3.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines EIL, need request IANA to assign a new EDNS0
   option code to EIL.

9.  Acknowledgements

   EIL is inspired by ECS, the authors especially thanks to C.
   Contavalli, W. van der Gaast, D.  Lawrence, and W.  Kumari.

   Thanks comments for Barry Raveendran Greene, Paul Vixie, Petr
   &#352;pa&#269;ek, Brian Hartvigsen, Ask Bjoern Hansen.

   Thanks a lot to all in the DNSOP, DNSPRIV and DNSEXT mailing list.

10.  Appendix A.  GeoIP-enabled Nameservers Example

10.1.  BIND-GeoIP

   As described in BIND-GeoIP [BIND-GeoIP], BIND 9.10 is able to use
   data from MaxMind GeoIP databases to achieve restrictions based on
   the (presumed) geographic location of that address.  The ACL itself
   is still address-based, but the GeoIP-based specification mechanisms
   can easily populate an ACL with addresses in a certain geographic
   location.




Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


acl "example" {
  geoip country US;
  geoip region CA;
  geoip city "Redwood City"; /* names, etc., must be quoted if they contain spaces */
};

10.2.  PowerDNS-GeoIP

   As described in PowerDNS-GeoIP [PowerDNS-GeoIP], PowerDNS supports
   many geolocation placeholders, such as %co = 3-letter country, %cn =
   continent, %re = region, %ci = city.

domains:
- domain: geo.example.com
  ttl: 30
  records:
    geo.example.com:
      - soa: ns1.example.com hostmaster.example.com 2014090125 7200 3600 1209600 3600
      - ns:
           content: ns1.example.com
           ttl: 600
      - ns: ns2.example.com
      - mx: 10 mx.example.com
    fin.eu.service.geo.example.com:
      - a: 192.0.2.2
      - txt: hello world
      - aaaa: 2001:DB8::12:34DE:3
    # this will result first record being handed out 30% of time
    swe.eu.service.geo.example.com:
      - a:
           content: 192.0.2.3
           weight: 50
      - a: 192.0.2.4
  services:
    # syntax 1
    service.geo.example.com: '%co.%cn.service.geo.example.com'
    # syntax 2
    service.geo.example.com: [ '%co.%cn.service.geo.example.com', '%cn.service.geo.example.com']
    # alternative syntax
  services:
    service.geo.example.com:
      default: [ '%co.%cn.service.geo.example.com', '%cn.service.geo.example.com' ]
      10.0.0.0/8: 'internal.service.geo.example.com'








Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


10.3.  Amazon-Geolocation-Routing

   As described in Amazon-Geolocation-Routing
   [Amazon-Geolocation-Routing], Amazon Route 53 lets you choose the
   resources that serve your traffic based on the geographic location of
   your users, meaning the location that DNS queries originate from.  It
   allows you to route some queries for a continent to one resource and
   to route queries for selected countries on that continent to a
   different resource.

   When a browser or other viewer uses a DNS resolver that does support
   edns-client-subnet, the DNS resolver sends Amazon Route 53 a
   truncated version of the user's IP address.  Amazon Route 53
   determines the location of the user based on the truncated IP address
   rather than the source IP address of the DNS resolver; this typically
   provides a more accurate estimate of the user's location.  Amazon
   Route 53 then responds to geolocation queries with the DNS record for
   the user's location.

10.4.  DYN-Traffic-Director-ECS

   As described in DYN-Traffic-Director-Geographic-Groups and DYN-
   Traffic-Director-ECS [DYN-Traffic-Director-ECS], Dyn provides the
   ability to control DNS responses on a granular/customized
   geographical rule set.  Part of the rulesets will be the
   identification of the global regions, countries, or states and
   provinces that use a specific DNS server group.  DYN uses the ECS
   information for the geolocation lookup.  Once a geolocation is found
   and a response is selected, it will provide a DNS response back to
   the source IP address.

10.5.  gdnsd-GeoIP

   As described in gdnsd-GeoIP [gdnsd-GeoIP], gdnsd uses MaxMind's GeoIP
   binary databases to map address and CNAME results based on geography
   and monitored service availability. gdnsd supports geolocation codes,
   such as continent, country, region/subdivision, city.

11.  Appendix B.  EIL Example

   Authoritative Nameserver of www.example.com has enabled EIL.

   Stub DNS query A resource record of www.example.com .








Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


11.1.  P-Model

   Stub DNS
   -> Local Forwarding Resolver (61.48.7.2)
   -> Public Forwarding Resolver(AliDNS, 223.5.5.5)
   -> Public Recursive Resolver(AliDNS, 202.108.250.231)
   -> Authoritative Nameserver

   Public Forwarding Resolver 223.5.5.5 could enable EIL and generate
   the EIL OPT data < CN, 11, UNI > based on 61.48.7.2.

   P-Model will not leak client subnet to Authoritative Nameserver.

11.2.  I-Model

   Stub DNS
   -> Local Forwarding Resolver
   -> ISP Forwarding Resolver(202.106.196.115)
   -> ISP Recursive Resolver(61.135.23.92)
   -> Authoritative Nameserver

   ISP Recursive Resolver 61.135.23.92 could enable EIL and generate the
   EIL OPT data < CN, 11, UNI > based on 61.135.23.92.

   If Authoritative Nameserver doesn't know much about 61.135.23.92, EIL
   will be helpful.

11.3.  L-Model

   Stub DNS
   -> Local Fowarding Resolver(58.60.109.234)
   -> ...
   -> Authoritative Nameserver

   Local Fowarding Resolver 58.60.109.234 could enable EIL and generate
   the option data is < CN, 44, TEL > based on 58.60.109.234.

   L-Model can give the most precisely isp location information for DNS
   resolution.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

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





Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


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

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

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

   [RFC2182]  ELZ, R., Bush, R., Bradner, S., and M. Patton, "Selection
              and Operation of Secondary DNS Servers", RFC 2182, July
              1997.

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

   [RFC7719]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", RFC 7719, December 2015.

   [RFC7871]  Contavalli, C., van der Gasst, W., Lawrence, D., and W.
              Kumari, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries", RFC 7871, May
              2016.

12.2.  Informative References

   [Amazon-Geolocation-Routing]
              Amazon, "Amazon Route 53: Geolocation Routing",
              <http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/
              routing-policy.html#routing-policy-geo>.

   [BIND-GeoIP]
              ISC BIND, "Using the GeoIP Features in BIND 9.10",
              <https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-01149/0>.

   [DYN-Traffic-Director-ECS]
              DYN, "What happens when a DNS query for a Traffic Director
              instance is received with ECS information",
              <https://help.dyn.com/edns-client-subnet-faq-info/#q6>.

   [DYN-Traffic-Director-Geographic-Groups]
              DYN, "Predefined Geographic Groups of Traffic Director",
              <https://help.dyn.com/traffic-director-predefined-
              geographic-regions/>.

   [gdnsd-GeoIP]
              gdnsd, "GdnsdPluginGeoip",
              <https://github.com/gdnsd/gdnsd/wiki/GdnsdPluginGeoip>.




Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         ISP Location in DNS Queries             July 2017


   [ISO3166]  ISO 3166, "Country Codes",
              <http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes>.

   [PowerDNS-GeoIP]
              PowerDNS, "PowerDNS GeoIP backend",
              <https://doc.powerdns.com/md/authoritative/backend-
              geoip/>.

Authors' Addresses

   Lanlan Pan
   Beijing
   China

   Email: abbypan@gmail.com
   URI:   https://github.com/abbypan


   Yu Fu
   CNNIC
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing
   China

   Email: fuyu@cnnic.cn


























Pan & Fu                Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/