[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Network Working Group                                        S. Cheshire
Internet-Draft                                               M. Krochmal
Intended status: Informational                                Apple Inc.
Expires: February 17, 2020                               August 16, 2019


                         DNS Long-Lived Queries
                         draft-sekar-dns-llq-05

Abstract

   DNS Long-Lived Queries (LLQ) is a protocol for extending the DNS
   protocol to support change notification, thus allowing clients to
   learn about changes to DNS data without polling the server.  From
   2005 onwards, LLQ was implemented in Apple products including Mac OS
   X, Bonjour for Windows, and AirPort wireless base stations.  In 2019,
   the LLQ protocol was superseded by the IETF Standards Track RFC "DNS
   Push Notifications", which builds on experience gained with the LLQ
   protocol to create a superior replacement.

   The existing deployed LLQ protocol is documented here to give
   background regarding the operational experience that informed the
   development of DNS Push Notifications, and to help facilitate a
   smooth transition from LLQ to DNS Push Notifications.

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 https://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 February 17, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Transition to DNS Push Notifications  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Conventions and Terminology Used in this Document . . . . . .   4
   3.  Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  New Assigned Numbers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Opt-RR Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  LLQ Address and Port Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  LLQ Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Setup Message Retransmission  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  LLQ Setup Four-Way Handshake  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.1.  Setup Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2.2.  Setup Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.3.  Challenge Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.2.4.  ACK + Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.3.  Resource Record TTLs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Event Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.1.  Add Events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.2.  Remove Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.3.  Gratuitous Response Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  LLQ Lease-Life Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.1.  Refresh Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.2.  LLQ Refresh Acknowledgment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.1.  Server DOS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.2.  Client Packet Storms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.3.  Spoofing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  Problems with the LLQ Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25









Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


1.  Introduction

   In dynamic environments, DNS Service Discovery [RFC6763] benefits
   significantly from clients being able to learn about changes to DNS
   information via a mechanism that is both more timely and more
   efficient than simple polling.  Such a mechanism enables "live
   browses" that learn when a new instance of a service appears, or when
   an existing service disappears from the network, and allows clients
   to monitor changes to a service.  Multicast DNS [RFC6762] supports
   this natively.  When a host on the network publishes or deletes DNS
   records, these changes are multicast to other hosts on the network.
   These hosts deliver the change notifications to interested clients
   (applications running on the host).  Hosts also send occasional
   queries to the network in case gratuitous announcements are not
   received due to packet loss, and to detect records lost due to their
   publishers crashing or having become disconnected from the network.

   This document defines an extension to DNS that enables a client to
   issue long-lived queries that allow a DNS server to notify clients
   about changes to DNS data.  This is a more scalable and practical
   solution than can be achieved by polling of the name server because a
   low polling rate could leave the client with stale information while
   a high polling rate would have an adverse impact on the network and
   server.

   The mechanism defined in this document is now being replaced by DNS
   Push Notifications [Push] as explained below in Section 1.1.
























Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


1.1.  Transition to DNS Push Notifications

   The LLQ protocol enjoyed over a decade of useful operation, enabling
   timely live updates for the service discovery user interface in
   Apple's Back to My Mac [RFC6281] service.

   However, some problems were discovered, as described in Section 9.
   This operational experience with LLQ informed the design of its IETF
   Standards Track successor, DNS Push Notifications [Push].  Since no
   further work is being done on the LLQ protocol, this LLQ
   specification will not be updated to remedy these problems.

   All existing LLQ implementations are RECOMMENDED to migrate to using
   DNS Push Notifications instead.

   For existing LLQ servers, they are RECOMMENDED to implement and
   support DNS Push Notifications, so that clients can begin migrating
   to the newer protocol.

   For existing LLQ clients, they are RECOMMENDED to query for the
   "_dns-push-tls._tcp.<zone>" SRV record first, and only if DNS Push
   fails, then fall back to query for "_dns-llq._udp.<zone>" instead.

   This will cause clients to prefer the newer protocol when possible.
   It is RECOMMENDED that clients always attempt DNS Push Notifications
   first for every new request, and only if that fails, then back to
   using LLQ.  Clients SHOULD NOT record that a given server only speaks
   LLQ and subsequently default to LLQ for that server, since server
   software gets updated, and even a server that speaks only LLQ today,
   may be updated to support DNS Push Notifications tomorrow.

   New client and server implementations are RECOMMENDED to support only
   DNS Push Notifications.

2.  Conventions and Terminology Used in this Document

   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
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.










Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


3.  Mechanisms

   DNS Long-Lived Queries (DNS-LLQ) is implemented using the standard
   DNS message format [RFC1035] in conjunction with an EDNS(0) OPT
   pseudo-RR [RFC6891] with a new OPT and RDATA format specified here.
   Encoding the LLQ request in an OPT RR allows for implementation of
   LLQ with minimal modification to a name server's front-end.  If a DNS
   query containing an LLQ option is sent to a server that does not
   implement LLQ, a server that complies with the EDNS(0) specification
   [RFC6891] will silently ignore the unrecognized option and answer the
   request as a normal DNS query, without establishing any long-lived
   state, and without returning an LLQ option in its response.  If a DNS
   query containing an LLQ option is sent to a server that does not
   implement EDNS(0) at all, the server may silently ignore the EDNS(0)
   OPT pseudo-RR, or it may return a nonzero RCODE.  However, in
   practice this issue is mostly theoretical, since having a zone's
   _dns-llq._udp.<zone> SRV record target a host that does not implement
   LLQ is a configuration error.

   Note that this protocol is designed for data set sizes of a few dozen
   resource records at most, and change rates no more than one every ten
   seconds on average.  Data sets in response to queries that frequently
   exceed a single packet, or that experience a rapid change rate, may
   have undesirable performance implications.

3.1.  New Assigned Numbers

   This section describes constants uses in this document.

   EDNS(0) Option Code (recorded with IANA):
        LLQ 1

   LLQ-PORT 5352 (recorded with IANA)

   LLQ Error Codes (specific to this LLQ EDNS(0) Option):
         NO-ERROR    0
         SERV-FULL   1
         STATIC      2
         FORMAT-ERR  3
         NO-SUCH-LLQ 4
         BAD-VERS    5
         UNKNOWN-ERR 6

   LLQ Opcodes (specific to this LLQ EDNS(0) Option):
        LLQ-SETUP    1
        LLQ-REFRESH  2
        LLQ-EVENT    3




Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


3.2.  Opt-RR Format

   All OPT-RRs used in LLQs are formatted as follows:

   Field Name        Field Type     Description
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   NAME              domain name    empty (root domain)
   TYPE              u_int16_t      OPT
   CLASS             u_int16_t      0*
   TTL               u_int32_t      0
   RDLEN             u_int16_t      describes RDATA
   RDATA             octet stream   (see below)

   * The CLASS field indicates, as per the EDNS(0) specification
   [RFC6891], the sender's UDP payload size.  However, clients and
   servers need not be required to determine their reassembly buffer
   size, path MTU, etc. to support LLQ.  Thus, the sender of an LLQ
   Request or Response MAY set the CLASS field to 0.  The recipient MUST
   ignore the class field if it is set to 0.

   RDATA Format:

   Field Name        Field Type     Description
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   OPTION-CODE       u_int16_t      LLQ
   OPTION-LENGTH     u_int16_t      Length of following fields, as
                                    appropriate
   VERSION           u_int16_t      Version of LLQ protocol implemented
   LLQ-OPCODE        u_int16_t      Identifies LLQ operation
   ERROR-CODE        u_int16_t      Identifies LLQ errors
   LLQ-ID            u_int64_t      Identifier for an LLQ
   LEASE-LIFE        u_int32_t      Requested or granted life of LLQ, in
                                    seconds

   This data format, consisting of (OPTION-CODE, OPTION-LEN,
   LLQ-Metadata) tuples, may be repeated an arbitrary number of times in
   the RDATA section, with the RDLEN field set accordingly.














Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


4.  LLQ Address and Port Identification

   The client requires a mechanism to determine to which server it
   should send LLQ operations.

   Additionally, some firewalls block direct communication with a name
   server on port 53 to avoid spoof responses.  However, this direct
   communication is necessary for LLQs.  Thus, servers MAY listen for
   LLQs on a different port (typically 5352).  Clients also therefore
   need a mechanism to determine to which port to send LLQ operations.

   The client determines the server responsible for a given LLQ much as
   a client determines to which server to send a dynamic update.  The
   client begins by sending a standard DNS query for the name of the
   LLQ, with type SOA.  The server MUST answer with that SOA record in
   the Answer section, if the record exists.  The server SHOULD include
   an SOA record for that name's zone in the Authority section, if the
   LLQ name (type SOA) does not exist.  For example, a query for
   "_ftp._tcp.example.com." may return an SOA record named
   "example.com." in the Authority section if there is no SOA record
   named "_ftp._tcp.example.com."  If, in this case, the server does not
   include the SOA record in the Authority section, the client strips
   the leading label from the name and tries again, repeating until an
   answer is received.

   This iterative zone apex discovery algorithm is described in more
   detail in the DNS Push Notifications specification [Push].

   Upon learning the zone (SOA), the client then constructs and sends an
   SRV query for the name _dns-llq._udp.<zone>,
   e.g., _dns-llq._udp.example.com.

   A server implementing LLQ MUST answer with an SRV record [RFC2782]
   for this name.  The SRV RDATA is as follows:

   PRIORITY   typically 0
   WEIGHT     typically 0
   PORT       typically 53 or 5352
   TARGET     name of server providing LLQs for the requested zone

   The server SHOULD include its address record(s) in the Additional
   section of the response.

   If the server does not include its address record in the Additional
   section, the client SHOULD query explicitly for the address record
   with the name of the SRV target.





Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


   The client MUST send all LLQ requests, refreshes, and acknowledgments
   to the name server specified in the SRV target, at the address
   contained in the address record for that target.  Note that the
   queries described in this section (including those for SOA and SRV
   records) MAY be sent to an intermediate DNS recursive resolver --
   they need not be sent directly to the name server.

   If, on issuing the SRV query, the client receives an NXDOMAIN
   response indicating that the SRV record does not exist, the client
   SHOULD conclude that the server does not support an LLQ in the
   requested zone.  The client then SHOULD NOT send an LLQ request for
   the desired name, instead utilizing the behavior for LLQ-unaware
   servers described in Section 5 "LLQ Setup".

   Servers should send all messages to the source address and port of
   the LLQ setup message received from the client.



































Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


5.  LLQ Setup

   An LLQ is initiated by a client, and is completed via a four-way
   handshake.  This handshake provides resilience to packet loss,
   demonstrates client reachability, and reduces denial of service
   attack opportunities (see Section 8 "Security Considerations").

5.1.  Setup Message Retransmission

   LLQ Setup Requests and Responses sent by the client SHOULD be
   retransmitted if no acknowledgments are received.  The client SHOULD
   re-try up to two more times (for a total of 3 attempts) before
   considering the server down or unreachable.  The client MUST wait at
   least 2 seconds before the first retransmission and 4 seconds between
   the first and second retransmissions.  The client SHOULD listen for a
   response for at least 8 seconds after the 3rd attempt before
   considering the server down or unreachable.  Upon determining a
   server to be down, a client MAY periodically attempt to re-initiate
   an LLQ setup, at a rate of not more than once per hour.

   Servers MUST NOT re-transmit acknowledgments that do not generate
   responses from the client.  Retransmission in setup is client-driven,
   freeing servers from maintaining timers for incomplete LLQ setups.
   If servers receive duplicate messages from clients (perhaps due to
   the loss of the server's responses mid-flight), the server MUST
   re-send its reply (possibly modifying the LEASE-LIFE as described in
   Section 5.2.4 "ACK + Answers").

   Servers MUST NOT garbage collect LLQs that fail to complete the four-
   way handshake until the initially granted LEASE-LIFE has elapsed.

5.2.  LLQ Setup Four-Way Handshake

   The four phases of the handshake include:

   1) Initial Request      client to server, identifies LLQ(s) requested

   2) Challenge            server to client, provides error(s) for
                           requested LLQs, and unique identifiers for
                           the successful requests

   3) Challenge Response   client to server, echoes identifier(s),
                           demonstrating client's reachability and
                           willingness to participate

   4) ACK + Answers        server to client, confirms setup and
                           provides initial answers




Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


5.2.1.  Setup Request

   A request for an LLQ is formatted like a standard DNS query, but with
   an OPT RR containing LLQ metadata in its Additional section.  LLQ
   setup requests are identified by the LLQ-SETUP opcode and a
   zero-valued LLQ-ID.

   The request MAY contain multiple questions to set up multiple LLQs.
   A request consisting of multiple questions MUST contain multiple LLQ
   metadata sections, one per question, with metadata sections in the
   same order as the questions they correspond to (i.e., the first
   metadata section corresponds to the first question, the second
   metadata section corresponds to the second question, etc.)  If
   requesting multiple LLQs, clients SHOULD request the same LEASE-LIFE
   for each LLQ.  Requests over UDP MUST NOT contain multiple questions
   if doing so would cause the message to not fit in a single packet.

   A client MUST NOT request multiple identical LLQs (i.e., containing
   the same qname/type/class) from a single source IP address and port.
   This requirement is to avoid unnecessary load on servers.

   The query MUST NOT be for record type ANY (255), class ANY (255), or
   class NONE (0).

   Setup Request OPT-RR LLQ Metadata Format:

   Field Name        Field Type     Description
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   OPTION-CODE       u_int16_t      LLQ (1)
   OPTION-LENGTH     u_int16_t      Length of following fields (18)
   VERSION           u_int16_t      Version of LLQ protocol implemented
                                    by requester (1)
   LLQ-OPCODE        u_int16_t      LLQ-SETUP (1)
   ERROR-CODE        u_int16_t      NOERROR (0)
   LLQ-ID            u_int64_t      0
   LEASE-LIFE        u_int32_t      Desired life of LLQ request

   These fields MUST be repeated once for each additional query in the
   Question section.












Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


5.2.2.  Setup Challenge

   Upon receiving an LLQ Setup Request, a server implementing LLQs will
   send a Setup Challenge to the requester (client).  An LLQ Setup
   Challenge is a DNS Response, with the DNS message ID matching that of
   the request, and with all questions contained in the request present
   in the Question section of the response.  Additionally, the challenge
   contains a single OPT-RR with an LLQ metadata section for each LLQ
   request, indicating the success or failure of each request.  Metadata
   sections MUST be in the same order as the questions they correspond
   to.  Note that in a request containing multiple questions some LLQs
   may succeed, while others may fail.

   Setup Challenge OPT-RR RDATA Format:

   Field Name        Field Type     Description
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   OPTION-CODE       u_int16_t      LLQ (1)
   OPTION-LENGTH     u_int16_t      Length of following fields (18)
   VERSION           u_int16_t      Version of LLQ protocol implemented
                                    in server (1)
   LLQ-OPCODE        u_int16_t      LLQ-SETUP (1)
   ERROR-CODE        u_int16_t      [As Appropriate]
   LLQ-ID            u_int64_t      [As Appropriate]
   LEASE-LIFE        u_int32_t      [As Appropriate]

   These fields MUST be repeated once for each query in the Questions
   section of the Setup Request.























Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


   LLQ Metadata field descriptions:

   ERROR-CODE:     Possible values include:

      NO-ERROR:    The LLQ Setup Request was successful.

      FORMAT-ERR:  The LLQ was improperly formatted.  Note that if the
                   rest of the DNS message is properly formatted, the
                   DNS header error code MUST NOT include a format error
                   code, as this would cause confusion between a server
                   that does not understand the LLQ format, and a client
                   that sends malformed LLQs.

      SERV-FULL:   The server cannot grant the LLQ request because it is
                   overloaded, or the request exceeds the server's rate
                   limit (see Section 8 "Security Considerations").
                   Upon returning this error, the server MUST include
                   in the LEASE-LIFE field a time interval, in seconds,
                   after which the client may re-try the LLQ Setup.

      STATIC:      The data for this name and type is not expected to
                   change frequently, and the server therefore does not
                   support the requested LLQ.  The client MUST NOT poll
                   for this name and type, nor should it re-try the LLQ
                   Setup, and should instead honor the normal resource
                   record TTLs returned.

      BAD-VERS:    The protocol version specified in the client's
                   request is not supported by the server.

      UNKNOWN-ERR: The LLQ was not granted for an unknown reason




















Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


   LLQ-ID: On success, a random number generated by the server that is
   unique for the requested name/type/class.  The LLQ-ID SHOULD be an
   unpredictable random number.  A possible method of allocating LLQ-IDs
   with minimal bookkeeping would be to store the time, in seconds since
   the Epoch, in the high 32 bits of the field, and a cryptographically
   generated 32-bit random integer in the low 32 bits.

   On error, the LLQ-ID is set to 0.

   LEASE-LIFE: On success, the actual life of the LLQ, in seconds.
   Value may be greater than, less than, or equal to the value requested
   by the client, as per the server administrator's policy.  The server
   MAY discard the LLQ after this LEASE-LIFE expires unless the LLQ has
   been renewed by the client (see Section 7 "LLQ Lease-Life
   Expiration").  The server MUST NOT generate events (see Section 6
   "Event Responses") for expired LLQs.

   On SERV-FULL error, LEASE-LIFE MUST be set to a time interval, in
   seconds, after which the client may re-try the LLQ Setup.

   On other errors, the LEASE-LIFE MUST be set to 0.






























Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


5.2.3.  Challenge Response

   Upon issuing a Setup Request, a client listens for a Setup Challenge
   (5.2.2), re-transmitting the request as necessary (5.1).  After
   receiving a successful Challenge, the client SHOULD send a Challenge
   Response to the server.  This Challenge Response is a DNS request
   with questions from the request and challenge, and a single OPT-RR in
   the Additional section, with the OPT-RR RDATA identical to the OPT-RR
   RDATA contained in the Setup Challenge (i.e., echoing, for each set
   of fields, the random LLQ-ID and the granted lease life).  If the
   challenge response contains multiple questions, the first question
   MUST correspond to the first OPT-RR RDATA tuple, etc.

   If the Setup Request fails with a STATIC error, the client MUST NOT
   poll the server.  The client SHOULD honor the resource record TTLs
   contained in the response.

   If the Setup Request fails with a SERV-FULL error, the client MAY
   re-try the LLQ Setup Request (5.2.1) after the time indicated in the
   LEASE-LIFE field.

   If the Setup Request fails with an error other than STATIC or
   SERV-FULL, or the server is determined not to support LLQ (i.e., the
   client receives a DNS response with a nonzero RCODE, or a DNS
   response containing no LLQ option), the client MAY poll the server
   periodically with standard DNS queries, inferring Add and Remove
   events (see Section 6 "Event Responses") by comparing answers to
   these queries.  The client SHOULD NOT poll more than once every 15
   minutes for a given query.  The client MUST NOT poll if it receives a
   STATIC error code in the acknowledgment.





















Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


5.2.4.  ACK + Answers

   Upon receiving a correct Challenge Response, a server MUST return an
   acknowledgment, completing the LLQ setup, and provide all current
   answers to the question(s).

   To acknowledge a successful Challenge Response, i.e., a Challenge
   Response in which the LLQ-ID and LEASE-LIFE echoed by the client
   match the values issued by the server, the server MUST send a DNS
   response containing all available answers to the question(s)
   contained in the original Setup Request, along with all additional
   resource records appropriate for those answers in the Additional
   section.  The Additional section also contains an OPT-RR formatted as
   follows:

   Successful ACK + Answers OPT-RR RDATA Format:

   Field Name        Field Type     Description
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   OPTION-CODE       u_int16_t      LLQ
   OPTION-LENGTH     u_int16_t      Length of following fields, as
                                    appropriate
   VERSION           u_int16_t      Version of LLQ protocol implemented
                                    in server
   LLQ-OPCODE        u_int16_t      LLQ-SETUP (1)
   ERROR-CODE        u_int16_t      NO-ERROR
   LLQ-ID            u_int64_t      Originally granted ID, echoed in
                                    client's Response
   LEASE-LIFE        u_int32_t      Remaining life of LLQ, in seconds

   If there is a significant delay in receiving a Challenge Response, or
   multiple Challenge Responses are issued (possibly because they were
   lost en route to the client, causing the client to re-send the
   Challenge Response), the server MAY decrement the LEASE-LIFE by the
   time elapsed since the Setup Challenge was initially issued.

   If the setup is completed over UDP and all initially available
   answers to the question(s), additional records, and the OPT-RR do not
   fit in a single packet, some or all additional records (excluding the
   OPT-RR) MUST be omitted.  If, after omission of all additional
   records, the answers still do not fit in a single message, answers
   MUST be removed until the message fits in a single packet.  These
   answers not delivered in the ACK + Answers MUST be delivered without
   undue delay to the client via Add Events (Section 6 "Event
   Responses").






Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


5.3.  Resource Record TTLs

   The TTLs of resource records contained in answers to successful LLQs
   SHOULD be ignored by the client.  The client MAY cache LLQ answers
   until the client receives a gratuitous announcement (see Section 6
   "Event Responses") indicating that the answer to the LLQ has changed.
   The client MUST NOT cache answers after the LLQs LEASE-LIFE expires
   without being refreshed (see Section 7 "LLQ Lease-Life Expiration").
   If an LLQ request fails, the client SHOULD NOT cache answers for a
   period longer than the client's polling interval.

   Note that resource records intended specifically to be transmitted
   via LLQs (e.g., DNS Service Discovery resource records) may have
   unusually short TTLs.  This is because it is assumed that the records
   may change frequently, and that a client's cache coherence will be
   maintained via the LLQ and gratuitous responses.  Short TTLs prevent
   stale information from residing in intermediate DNS recursive
   resolvers that are not LLQ-aware.

   TTLs of resource records included in the Additional section of an LLQ
   response (which do not directly answer the LLQ) SHOULD be honored by
   the client.





























Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


6.  Event Responses

   When a change ("event") occurs to a name server's zone, the server
   MUST check if the new or deleted resource records answer any LLQs.
   If so, the changes MUST be communicated to the LLQ requesters in the
   form of a gratuitous DNS response sent to the client, with the
   question(s) being answered in the Question section, and answers to
   these questions in the Answer section.  The response also includes an
   OPT RR in the Additional section.  This OPT RR contains, in its
   RDATA, an entry for each LLQ being answered in the message.  Entries
   must include the LLQ-ID.  This reduces the potential for spoof events
   being sent to a client.

   Event Response OPT-RR RDATA Format:

   Field Name        Field Type     Description
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   OPTION-CODE       u_int16_t      LLQ (1)
   OPTION-LENGTH     u_int16_t      Length of following fields (18)
   VERSION           u_int16_t      Version of LLQ protocol implemented
                                    in server (1)
   LLQ-OPCODE        u_int16_t      LLQ-EVENT (3)
   ERROR-CODE        u_int16_t      0
   LLQ-ID            u_int64_t      [As Appropriate]
   LEASE-LIFE        u_int32_t      0

   Gratuitous responses for a single LLQ MAY be batched, such that
   multiple changes are communicated in a single message.  Responses
   MUST NOT be batched if this would cause a message that would
   otherwise fit in a single packet to be truncated.  While responses
   MAY be deferred to provide opportunities for batching, responses
   SHOULD NOT be delayed, for purposes of batching, for more than 30
   seconds, as this would cause an unacceptable latency for the client.

   After sending a gratuitous response, the server MUST listen for an
   acknowledgment from the client.  If the client does not respond, the
   server MUST re-send the response.  The server MUST re-send 2 times
   (for a total of 3 transmissions), after which the server MUST
   consider the client to be unreachable and delete its LLQ.  The server
   MUST listen for 2 seconds before re-sending the response, 4 more
   seconds before re-sending again, and must wait an additional 8
   seconds after the 3rd transmission before terminating the LLQ.

   The DNS message header of the response SHOULD include an
   unpredictable random number in the DNS message ID field, which is to
   be echoed in the client's acknowledgement.





Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


6.1.  Add Events

   Add events occur when a new resource record appears, usually as the
   result of a dynamic update [RFC2136], that answers an LLQ.  This
   record must be sent in the Answer section of the event to the client.
   Records that normally accompany this record in responses MAY be
   included in the Additional section, as per truncation restrictions
   described above.

6.2.  Remove Events

   Remove events occur when a resource record previously sent to a
   client, either in an initial response, or in an Add Event, becomes
   invalid (normally as a result of being removed via a dynamic update).
   The deleted resource record is sent in the Answer section of the
   event to the client.  The resource record TTL is set to -1,
   indicating that the record has been removed.

6.3.  Gratuitous Response Acknowledgments

   Upon receiving a gratuitous response ("event"), the client MUST send
   an acknowledgment to the server.  This acknowledgment is a DNS
   response echoing the OPT-RR contained in the event, with the message
   ID of the gratuitous response echoed in the message header.  The
   acknowledgment MUST be sent to the source IP address and port from
   which the event originated.

























Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


7.  LLQ Lease-Life Expiration

7.1.  Refresh Request

   If the client desires to maintain the LLQ beyond the duration
   specified in the LEASE-LIFE field of the Ack + Answers (5.2), the
   client MUST send a Refresh Request.  A Refresh Request is identical
   to an LLQ Challenge Response (5.3), but with the LLQ-OPCODE set to
   LLQ-REFRESH.  Unlike a Challenge Response, a Refresh Request returns
   no answers.

   The client SHOULD refresh an LLQ when 80% of its lease life has
   elapsed.

   As a means of reducing network traffic, when constructing refresh
   messages the client SHOULD include all LLQs established with a given
   server, even those not yet close to expiration.  However, at least
   one LLQ MUST have elapsed at least 80% of its original LEASE-LIFE.
   The client MUST NOT include additional LLQs if doing so would cause
   the message to no longer fit in a single packet.  In this case, the
   LLQs furthest from expiration should be omitted such that the message
   fits in a single packet.  (These LLQs SHOULD be refreshed in a
   separate message when 80% of one or more of their lease lives have
   elapsed.)  When refreshing multiple LLQs simultaneously, the message
   contains multiple questions, and a single OPT-RR with multiple LLQ
   metadata sections, one per question, with the metadata sections in
   the same order as the questions they correspond to.

   The client SHOULD specify the original lease life granted in the LLQ
   response as the desired LEASE-LIFE in the refresh request.  If
   refreshing multiple LLQs simultaneously, the client SHOULD request
   the same lease life for all LLQs being refreshed (with the exception
   of termination requests, see below).

   To terminate an LLQ prior to its scheduled expiration (for instance,
   when the client terminates a DNS Service Discovery browse operation,
   or a client is about to go to sleep or shut down) the client
   specifies a lease life of 0.

   The client MUST listen for an acknowledgment from the server.  The
   client MAY re-try up to two more times (for a total of 3 attempts)
   before considering the server down or unreachable.  The client MUST
   NOT re-try a first time before 90% of the lease life has expired, and
   MUST NOT re-try again before 95% of the lease life has expired.  If
   the server is determined to be down, the client MAY periodically
   attempt to re-establish the LLQ via an LLQ Setup Request message.
   The client MUST NOT attempt the LLQ Setup Request more than once per
   hour.



Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


7.2.  LLQ Refresh Acknowledgment

   Upon receiving an LLQ Refresh message, a server MUST send an
   acknowledgment of the Refresh.  This acknowledgment is formatted like
   the Setup ACK described in 5.2.3, but with the following variations:

   The LLQ-OPCODE is set to LLQ-REFRESH.

   NO-SUCH-LLQ MUST be returned as an error code if the client attempts
   to refresh an expired or non-existent LLQ (as determined by the
   LLQ-ID in the request).

   The LLQ-ID in the acknowledgment is set to the LLQ-ID in the request.






































Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


8.  Security Considerations

   Without care taken in the design of protocols such as this, servers
   may be susceptible to denial of service (DOS) attacks, and clients
   may be subjected to packet storms.  Mechanisms have been added to the
   protocol to limit potential for these attacks.

   Note: This section contains no new protocol elements -- it serves
   only to explain the rationale behind protocol elements described
   above, as they relate to security.

8.1.  Server DOS

   LLQs require that servers be stateful, maintaining entries for each
   LLQ over a potentially long period of time.  If unbounded in
   quantity, these entries may overload the server.  By returning
   SERV-FULL in Setup Challenges, the sever may limit the maximum number
   of LLQs it maintains.  Additionally, the server may return SERV-FULL
   to limit the number of LLQs requested for a single name and type, or
   by a single client.  This throttling may be in the form of a hard
   limit, or, preferably, by token-bucket rate limiting.  Such rate
   limiting should occur rarely in normal use and is intended to prevent
   DOS attacks -- thus it is not built into the protocol explicitly, but
   is instead implemented at the discretion of an administrator via the
   SERV-FULL error and the LEASE-LIFE field to indicate a retry time to
   the client.

8.2.  Client Packet Storms

   In addition to protecting the server from DOS attacks, the protocol
   limits the ability of a malicious host to cause the server to flood a
   client with packets.  This is achieved via the four-way handshake
   upon setup, demonstrating reachability and willingness of the client
   to participate, and by requiring that gratuitous responses be ACK'd
   by the client.

   Additionally, rate-limiting by LLQ client address, as described in
   (8.1) serves to limit the number of packets that can be delivered to
   an unsuspecting client.

8.3.  Spoofing

   A large random ID greatly reduces the risk of an off-path attacker
   sending spoof packets to the client (containing spoof events) or to
   the server (containing phony requests or refreshes).






Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


9.  Problems with the LLQ Protocol

   In the course of using LLQ since 2005, some problems were discovered.
   Since no further work is being done on the LLQ protocol, this LLQ
   specification will not be updated to remedy these problems.

   LLQ's IETF Standards Track successor, DNS Push Notifications [Push],
   does not suffer from these problems, so all existing LLQ
   implementations are RECOMMENDED to migrate to using DNS Push
   Notifications, and all new implementations are RECOMMENDED to
   implement DNS Push Notifications instead of LLQ.

   Known problems with LLQ are documented here for the record.

   An LLQ "Setup Challenge" message from server to client is identical
   to an LLQ "ACK + Answers" message from server to client when there
   are no current answers for the query.  If there is packet loss,
   retransmission, and duplication in the network, then a duplicated
   "Setup Challenge" message arriving late at the client would look like
   an "ACK + Answers" message with no answers, causing the client to
   clear its cache of any records matching the query.

   This LLQ specification states: "Servers MUST NOT garbage collect LLQs
   that fail to complete the four-way handshake until the initially
   granted LEASE-LIFE has elapsed."  This is probably a mistake, since
   it exposes LLQ servers to an easy resource-exhaustion denial-of-
   service attack.  DNS Push Notifications is built using DNS Stateful
   Operations [RFC8490], which uses TLS over TCP, and a benefit of
   building on TCP is that there are already established industry best
   practices to guard against SYN flooding and similar attacks [SYN]
   [RFC4953]

   LLQ is built using UDP, and because the UDP protocol has no
   standardized way of indicating the start and end of a session,
   firewalls and NAT gateways tend to be fairly agressive about
   recycling UDP mappings that they believe to be disused [RFC4787]
   [RFC5382] [RFC7857].  Using a high keepalive traffic rate to maintain
   firewall or NAT mapping state could remedy this, but would largely
   defeat the purpose of using LLQ in the first place, which is to
   provide efficient change notification without wasteful polling.
   Because of this, existing LLQ clients use NAT Port Mapping Protocol
   (NAT-PMP) [RFC6886] and/or Port Control Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887] to
   establish longer port mapping lifetimes.  This solves the problem,
   but adds extra complexity, and doesn't work with firewalls and NAT
   gateways that don't support NAT-PMP or PCP.  By using TCP instead of
   UDP, the DNS Push Notifications protocol benefits from better
   longevity of sessions through firewalls and NAT gateways that don't
   support NAT-PMP or PCP.



Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


10.  IANA Considerations

   The EDNS(0) OPTION CODE 1 has already been assigned for this DNS
   extension.  IANA is requested to update the record in the DNS EDNS(0)
   Option Codes registry from "On-hold" to "Optional", and to set the
   reference to indicate the RFC number under which this document is
   published.

   TCP and UDP ports 5352 have already been assigned for LLQ.  IANA is
   requested to add a reference to indicate the RFC number under which
   this document is published.

   No additional IANA services are required by this document.

11.  Acknowledgments

   The concepts described in this document were originally explored,
   developed and implemented with help from Chris Sharp and Roger
   Pantos.

   In 2005 and 2006 Kiren Sekar made significant contributions to the
   first two drafts of this document, and he wrote much of the code for
   the implementation of LLQ that shipped in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger in
   2005.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [Push]     Pusateri, T. and S. Cheshire, "DNS Push Notifications",
              draft-ietf-dnssd-push-15 (work in progress), September
              2018.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.





Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


   [RFC6891]  Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
              for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2136]  Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
              "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
              RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F., Ed. and C. Jennings, "Network Address
              Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
              UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787, January
              2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787>.

   [RFC4953]  Touch, J., "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks",
              RFC 4953, DOI 10.17487/RFC4953, July 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4953>.

   [RFC5382]  Guha, S., Ed., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
              Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
              RFC 5382, DOI 10.17487/RFC5382, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5382>.

   [RFC6281]  Cheshire, S., Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang,
              "Understanding Apple's Back to My Mac (BTMM) Service",
              RFC 6281, DOI 10.17487/RFC6281, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6281>.

   [RFC6762]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.

   [RFC6886]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "NAT Port Mapping Protocol
              (NAT-PMP)", RFC 6886, DOI 10.17487/RFC6886, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6886>.





Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           DNS Long-Lived Queries              August 2019


   [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
              P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.

   [RFC7857]  Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar,
              S., and K. Naito, "Updates to Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements", BCP 127, RFC 7857,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7857, April 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857>.

   [RFC8490]  Bellis, R., Cheshire, S., Dickinson, J., Dickinson, S.,
              Lemon, T., and T. Pusateri, "DNS Stateful Operations",
              BCP 14, RFC 8490, DOI 10.17487/RFC8490, October 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8490>.

   [SYN]      Eddy, W., "Defenses Against TCP SYN Flooding Attacks", The
              Internet Protocol Journal, Cisco Systems, Volume 9,
              Number 4, December 2006.

Authors' Addresses

   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple Inc.
   One Apple Park Way
   Cupertino, CA  95014
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 (408) 996-1010
   Email: cheshire@apple.com


   Marc Krochmal
   Apple Inc.
   One Apple Park Way
   Cupertino, California  95014
   USA

   Email: marc@apple.com












Cheshire & Krochmal     Expires February 17, 2020              [Page 25]


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