draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.txt   rfc6303.txt 
Network Working Group M. Andrews Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Andrews
Internet-Draft ISC Request for Comments: 6303 ISC
Intended status: BCP March 14, 2011 BCP: 163 July 2011
Expires: September 15, 2011 Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Locally-served DNS Zones Locally Served DNS Zones
draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15
Abstract Abstract
Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS) has shown that there are Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS) has shown that there are
a number of DNS zones all iterative resolvers and recursive a number of DNS zones that all iterative resolvers and recursive
nameservers should automatically serve, unless configured otherwise. nameservers should automatically serve, unless configured otherwise.
RFC 4193 specifies that this should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This RFC 4193 specifies that this should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This
document extends the practice to cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC document extends the practice to cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC
1918 address space and other well known zones with similar 1918 address space and other well-known zones with similar
characteristics. characteristics.
Status of this Memo 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 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2011. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6303.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 19
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Reserved Words .............................................3
2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses. . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Effects on Sites Using RFC 1918 Addresses .......................3
3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour .........................4
4. Lists Of Zones Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Lists Of Zones Covered ..........................................5
4.1. RFC1918 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. RFC 1918 Zones .............................................5
4.2. RFC5735 and RFC5737 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. RFC 5735 and RFC 5737 Zones ................................5
4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses ...............................6
4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses ......................6
4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.5. IPv6 Link-Local Addresses ..................................7
4.6. IPv6 Example Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.6. IPv6 Example Prefix ........................................7
5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Zones That Are Out of Scope .....................................7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations .............................................8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations .........................................8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgements ................................................9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References ......................................................9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Normative References .......................................9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References ....................................10
Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication] . . . . 11
A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-14.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.3. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-13.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.4. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-12.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.5. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-11.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.6. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-10.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.7. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-09.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.8. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-08.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.9. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-07.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.10. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-06.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.11. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-05.txt . . . . . . . 12
A.12. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-04.txt . . . . . . . 13
A.13. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-03.txt . . . . . . . 13
A.14. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-02.txt . . . . . . . 13
A.15. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt . . . . . . . 13
A.16. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt . . . . . . . 13
A.17. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt . . . . . . . 13
A.18. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS, [RFC1034] and [RFC1035]) Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS, [RFC1034] and [RFC1035])
has shown that there are a number of DNS zones that all iterative has shown that there are a number of DNS zones that all iterative
resolvers and recursive nameservers SHOULD automatically serve, resolvers and recursive nameservers SHOULD automatically serve,
unless intentionally configured otherwise. These zones include, but unless intentionally configured otherwise. These zones include, but
are not limited to, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for the address space are not limited to, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for the address space
allocated by [RFC1918] and the IP6.ARPA zones for locally assigned allocated by [RFC1918] and the IP6.ARPA zones for locally assigned
unique local IPv6 addresses defined in [RFC4193]. unique local IPv6 addresses defined in [RFC4193].
This recommendation is made because data has shown that significant This recommendation is made because data has shown that significant
leakage of queries for these name spaces is occurring, despite leakage of queries for these namespaces is occurring, despite
instructions to restrict them, and because it has therefore become instructions to restrict them, and because it has therefore become
necessary to deploy sacrificial name servers to protect the immediate necessary to deploy sacrificial nameservers to protect the immediate
parent name servers for these zones from excessive, unintentional, parent nameservers for these zones from excessive, unintentional
query load [AS112] [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops] query load [AS112] [RFC6304] [RFC6305]. There is every expectation
[I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help]. There is every that the query load will continue to increase unless steps are taken
expectation that the query load will continue to increase unless as outlined here.
steps are taken as outlined here.
Additionally, queries from clients behind badly configured firewalls Additionally, queries from clients behind badly configured firewalls
that allow outgoing queries for these name spaces but drop the that allow outgoing queries for these namespaces, but drop the
responses, put a significant load on the root servers (forward but no responses, put a significant load on the root servers (forward zones
reverse zones configured). They also cause operational load for the but not reverse zones are configured). They also cause operational
root server operators as they have to reply to enquiries about why load for the root server operators, as they have to reply to
the root servers are "attacking" these clients. Changing the default enquiries about why the root servers are "attacking" these clients.
configuration will address all these issues for the zones listed in Changing the default configuration will address all these issues for
Section 4. the zones listed in Section 4.
[RFC4193] recommends that queries for D.F.IP6.ARPA be handled [RFC4193] recommends that queries for D.F.IP6.ARPA be handled
locally. This document extends the recommendation to cover the IN- locally. This document extends the recommendation to cover the
ADDR.ARPA zones for [RFC1918] and other well known IN-ADDR.ARPA and IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for [RFC1918] and other well-known IN-ADDR.ARPA
IP6.ARPA zones for which queries should not appear on the public and IP6.ARPA zones for which queries should not appear on the public
Internet. Internet.
It is hoped that by doing this the number of sacrificial servers It is hoped that by doing this the number of sacrificial servers
[AS112] will not have to be increased, and may in time be reduced. [AS112] will not have to be increased, and may in time be reduced.
This recommendation should also help DNS responsiveness for sites This recommendation should also help DNS responsiveness for sites
which are using [RFC1918] addresses but do not follow the last that are using [RFC1918] addresses but do not follow the last
paragraph in Section 3 of [RFC1918]. paragraph in Section 3 of [RFC1918].
1.1. Reserved Words 1.1. Reserved Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses. 2. Effects on Sites Using RFC 1918 Addresses
For most sites using [RFC1918] addresses, the changes here will have For most sites using [RFC1918] addresses, the changes here will have
little or no detrimental effect. If the site does not already have little or no detrimental effect. If the site does not already have
the reverse tree populated the only effect will be that the name the reverse tree populated, the only effect will be that the name
error responses will be generated locally rather than remotely. error responses will be generated locally rather than remotely.
For sites that do have the reverse tree populated, most will either For sites that do have the reverse tree populated, most will either
have a local copy of the zones or will be forwarding the queries to have a local copy of the zones or will be forwarding the queries to
servers which have local copies of the zone. Therefore this servers that have local copies of the zone. Therefore, this
recommendation will not be relevant. recommendation will not be relevant.
The most significant impact will be felt at sites that make use of The most significant impact will be felt at sites that make use of
delegations for [RFC1918] addresses and have populated these zones. delegations for [RFC1918] addresses and have populated these zones.
These sites will need to override the default configuration expressed These sites will need to override the default configuration expressed
in this document to allow resolution to continue. Typically, such in this document to allow resolution to continue. Typically, such
sites will be fully disconnected from the Internet and have their own sites will be fully disconnected from the Internet and have their own
root servers for their own non-Internet DNS tree. root servers for their own non-Internet DNS tree.
3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour. 3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour
Unless configured otherwise, an iterative resolver will now return Unless configured otherwise, an iterative resolver will now return
authoritatively (aa=1) name errors (RCODE=3) for queries within the authoritatively (AA=1) name errors (RCODE=3) for queries within the
zones in Section 4, with the obvious exception of queries for the zones in Section 4, with the obvious exception of queries for the
zone name itself where SOA, NS and "no data" responses will be zone name itself where SOA, NS, and "no data" responses will be
returned as appropriate to the query type. One common way to do this returned as appropriate to the query type. One common way to do this
all at once is to serve empty (SOA and NS only) zones. all at once is to serve empty (SOA and NS only) zones.
An implementation of this recommendation MUST provide a mechanism to An implementation of this recommendation MUST provide a mechanism to
disable this new behaviour, and SHOULD allow this decision on a zone disable this new behaviour, and SHOULD allow this decision on a zone-
by zone basis. by-zone basis.
If using empty zones one SHOULD NOT use the same NS and SOA records If using empty zones one SHOULD NOT use the same NS and SOA records
as used on the public Internet servers as that will make it harder to as used on the public Internet servers, as that will make it harder
detect the origin of the responses and thus any leakage to the public to detect the origin of the responses and thus any leakage to the
Internet servers. This document recommends that the NS record public Internet servers. It is RECOMMENDED that the NS record
defaults to the name of the zone and the SOA MNAME defaults to the defaults to the name of the zone and the SOA MNAME defaults to the
name of the only NS RR's target. The SOA RNAME should default to name of the only NS RR's (Resource Record's) target. The SOA RNAME
"nobody.invalid." [RFC2606]. Implementations SHOULD provide a SHOULD default to "nobody.invalid." [RFC2606]. Implementations
mechanism to set these values. No address records need to be SHOULD provide a mechanism to set these values. No address records
provided for the name server. need to be provided for the nameserver.
Below is an example of a generic empty zone in master file format. Below is an example of a generic empty zone in master file format.
It will produce a negative cache TTL of 3 hours. It will produce a negative cache Time to Live (TTL) of 3 hours.
@ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800 @ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800
@ 10800 IN NS @ @ 10800 IN NS @
The SOA RR is needed to support negative caching [RFC2308] of name The SOA RR is needed to support negative caching [RFC2308] of name
error responses and to point clients to the primary master for DNS error responses and to point clients to the primary master for DNS
dynamic updates. dynamic updates.
SOA values of particular importance are the MNAME, the SOA RR's TTL SOA values of particular importance are the MNAME, the SOA RR's TTL,
and the negTTL value. Both TTL values SHOULD match. The rest of the and the negTTL value. Both TTL values SHOULD match. The rest of the
SOA timer values MAY be chosen arbitrarily since they are not SOA timer values MAY be chosen arbitrarily since they are not
intended to control any zone transfer activity. intended to control any zone transfer activity.
The NS RR is needed as some UPDATE [RFC2136] clients use NS queries The NS RR is needed as some UPDATE [RFC2136] clients use NS queries
to discover the zone to be updated. Having no address records for to discover the zone to be updated. Having no address records for
the name server is expected to abort UPDATE processing in the client. the nameserver is expected to abort UPDATE processing in the client.
4. Lists Of Zones Covered 4. Lists Of Zones Covered
The following subsections are intended to seed the IANA registry as The following subsections are the initial contents of the IANA
requested in the IANA Considerations Section. Following the caveat registry as described in the IANA Considerations section. Following
in that section, the list contains only reverse zones corresponding the caveat in that section, the list contains only reverse zones
to permanently assigned address space. The zone name is the entity corresponding to permanently assigned address space. The zone name
to be registered. is the entity to be registered.
4.1. RFC1918 Zones 4.1. RFC 1918 Zones
The following zones correspond to the IPv4 address space reserved in The following zones correspond to the IPv4 address space reserved in
[RFC1918]. [RFC1918].
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| Zone | | Zone |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 16.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 16.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 17.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 17.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
skipping to change at page 7, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
| 25.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 25.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 26.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 26.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 27.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 27.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 28.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 28.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 29.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 29.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 30.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 30.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 31.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 31.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
| 168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA | | 168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
4.2. RFC5735 and RFC5737 Zones 4.2. RFC 5735 and RFC 5737 Zones
The following zones correspond to those address ranges from [RFC5735] The following zones correspond to those address ranges from [RFC5735]
and [RFC5737] that are not expected to appear as source or and [RFC5737] that are not expected to appear as source or
destination addresses on the public Internet and to not have a unique destination addresses on the public Internet; as such, there are no
name to associate with. globally unique names associated with the addresses in these ranges.
The recommendation to serve an empty zone 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA is not a The recommendation to serve an empty zone 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA is not an
attempt to discourage any practice to provide a PTR RR for attempt to discourage any practice to provide a PTR RR for
1.0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA locally. In fact, a meaningful reverse 1.0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA locally. In fact, a meaningful reverse
mapping should exist, but the exact setup is out of the scope of this mapping should exist, but the exact setup is out of the scope of this
document. Similar logic applies to the reverse mapping for ::1 document. Similar logic applies to the reverse mapping for ::1
(Section 4.3). The recommendations made here simply assume no other (Section 4.3). The recommendations made here simply assume that no
coverage for these domains exists. other coverage for these domains exists.
+------------------------------+------------------------+ +------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Zone | Description | | Zone | Description |
+------------------------------+------------------------+ +------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK | | 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK |
| 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK | | 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 Loopback NETWORK |
| 254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 LINK LOCAL | | 254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 LINK LOCAL |
| 2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 1 | | 2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST-NET-1 |
| 100.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 2 | | 100.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST-NET-2 |
| 113.0.203.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 3 | | 113.0.203.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST-NET-3 |
| 255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 BROADCAST | | 255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 BROADCAST |
+------------------------------+------------------------+ +------------------------------+-----------------------+
4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses 4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
The reverse mappings ([RFC3596], Section 2.5 IP6.ARPA Domain) for the The reverse mappings ([RFC3596], Section 2.5 ("IP6.ARPA Domain")) for
IPv6 Unspecified (::) and Loopback (::1) addresses ([RFC4291], the IPv6 Unspecified (::) and Loopback (::1) addresses ([RFC4291],
Sections 2.4, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) are covered by these two zones: Sections 2.4, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3) are covered by these two zones:
+-------------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
| Zone | | Zone |
+-------------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
| 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.\ | | 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.\ |
| 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA | | 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA |
| 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.\ | | 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.\ |
| 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA | | 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA |
+-------------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
Note: Line breaks and a escapes '\' have been inserted above for Note: Line breaks and escapes ('\') have been inserted above for
readability and to adhere to line width constraints. They are not readability and to adhere to line width constraints. They are not
parts of the zone names. parts of the zone names.
4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses 4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses
Section 4.4 of [RFC4193] already required special treatment of: Section 4.4 of [RFC4193] already required special treatment of:
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Zone | | Zone |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| D.F.IP6.ARPA | | D.F.IP6.ARPA |
+--------------+ +--------------+
4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses 4.5. IPv6 Link-Local Addresses
IPv6 Link-Local Addresses as of [RFC4291], Section 2.5.6 are covered IPv6 Link-Local Addresses as described in [RFC4291], Section 2.5.6
by four distinct reverse DNS zones: are covered by four distinct reverse DNS zones:
+----------------+ +----------------+
| Zone | | Zone |
+----------------+ +----------------+
| 8.E.F.IP6.ARPA | | 8.E.F.IP6.ARPA |
| 9.E.F.IP6.ARPA | | 9.E.F.IP6.ARPA |
| A.E.F.IP6.ARPA | | A.E.F.IP6.ARPA |
| B.E.F.IP6.ARPA | | B.E.F.IP6.ARPA |
+----------------+ +----------------+
skipping to change at page 8, line 41 skipping to change at page 7, line 31
IPv6 example prefix [RFC3849]. IPv6 example prefix [RFC3849].
+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+
| Zone | | Zone |
+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+
| 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA | | 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA |
+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+
Note: 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA is not being used as an example here. Note: 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA is not being used as an example here.
5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope 5. Zones That Are Out of Scope
IPv6 site-local addresses (deprecated, see [RFC4291] Sections 2.4 and IPv6 site-local addresses (deprecated, see [RFC4291] Sections 2.4 and
2.5.7), and IPv6 Non-Locally Assigned Local addresses ([RFC4193]) are 2.5.7), and IPv6 non-locally assigned local addresses ([RFC4193]) are
not covered here. not covered here.
It is expected that IPv6 site-local addresses will be self correcting It is expected that IPv6 site-local addresses will be self correcting
as IPv6 implementations remove support for site-local addresses. as IPv6 implementations remove support for site-local addresses.
However, sacrificial servers for the zones C.E.F.IP6.ARPA through However, sacrificial servers for the zones C.E.F.IP6.ARPA through
F.E.F.IP6.ARPA may still need to be deployed in the short term if the F.E.F.IP6.ARPA may still need to be deployed in the short term if the
traffic becomes excessive. traffic becomes excessive.
For IPv6 Non-Locally Assigned Local addresses (L = 0) [RFC4193], For IPv6 non-locally assigned local addresses (L = 0) [RFC4193],
there has been no decision made about whether the Regional Internet there has been no decision made about whether the Regional Internet
Registries (RIRs) will provide delegations in this space or not. If Registries (RIRs) will provide delegations in this space or not. If
they don't, then C.F.IP6.ARPA will need to be added to the list in they don't, then C.F.IP6.ARPA will need to be added to the list in
Section 4.4. If they do, then registries will need to take steps to Section 4.4. If they do, then registries will need to take steps to
ensure that name servers are provided for these addresses. ensure that nameservers are provided for these addresses.
IP6.INT was once used to provide reverse mapping for IPv6. IP6.INT IP6.INT was once used to provide reverse mapping for IPv6. IP6.INT
was deprecated in [RFC4159] and the delegation removed from the INT was deprecated in [RFC4159] and the delegation removed from the INT
zone in June 2006. While it is possible that legacy software zone in June 2006. While it is possible that legacy software
continues to send queries for names under the IP6.INT domain, this continues to send queries for names under the IP6.INT domain, this
document does not specify that IP6.INT be considered a local zone. document does not specify that IP6.INT be considered a local zone.
This document has also deliberately ignored names immediately under This document has also deliberately ignored names immediately under
the root domain. While there is a subset of queries to the root name the root domain. While there is a subset of queries to the root
servers which could be addressed using the techniques described here nameservers that could be addressed using the techniques described
(e.g. .local, .workgroup and IPv4 addresses), there is also a vast here (e.g., .local, .workgroup, and IPv4 addresses), there is also a
amount of traffic that requires a different strategy (e.g. lookups vast amount of traffic that requires a different strategy (e.g.,
for unqualified hostnames, IPv6 addresses). lookups for unqualified hostnames, IPv6 addresses).
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA establish a registry of zones which IANA has established a registry of zones that require this default
require this default behaviour. The initial contents of this behaviour. The initial contents of this registry are defined in
registry are defined in Section 4. Implementors are encouraged to Section 4. Implementors are encouraged to periodically check this
periodically check this registry and adjust their implementations to registry and adjust their implementations to reflect changes therein.
reflect changes therein.
This registry can be amended through "IETF Review" as per [RFC5226]. This registry can be amended through "IETF Review" as per [RFC5226].
As part of this review process it should be noted that once a zone is As part of this review process, it should be noted that once a zone
added it is effectively added permanently; once an address range is added it is effectively added permanently; once an address range
starts being configured as a local zone in systems on the Internet, starts being configured as a local zone in systems on the Internet,
it will be impossible to reverse those changes. it will be impossible to reverse those changes.
IANA should co-ordinate with the RIRs to ensure that, as DNSSEC is IANA should coordinate with the RIRs to ensure that, as DNS Security
deployed in the reverse tree, delegations for these zones are made in (DNSSEC) is deployed in the reverse tree, delegations for these zones
the manner described in Section 7. are made in the manner described in Section 7.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
During the initial deployment phase, particularly where [RFC1918] During the initial deployment phase, particularly where [RFC1918]
addresses are in use, there may be some clients that unexpectedly addresses are in use, there may be some clients that unexpectedly
receive a name error rather than a PTR record. This may cause some receive a name error rather than a PTR record. This may cause some
service disruption until their recursive name server(s) have been re- service disruption until their recursive nameserver(s) have been
configured. re-configured.
As DNSSEC is deployed within the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA As DNSSEC is deployed within the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA
namespaces, the zones listed above will need to be delegated as namespaces, the zones listed above will need to be delegated as
insecure delegations, or be within insecure zones. This will allow insecure delegations, or be within insecure zones. This will allow
DNSSEC validation to succeed for queries in these spaces despite not DNSSEC validation to succeed for queries in these spaces despite not
being answered from the delegated servers. being answered from the delegated servers.
It is recommended that sites actively using these namespaces secure It is recommended that sites actively using these namespaces secure
them using DNSSEC [RFC4035] by publishing and using DNSSEC trust them using DNSSEC [RFC4035] by publishing and using DNSSEC trust
anchors. This will protect the clients from accidental import of anchors. This will protect the clients from accidental import of
skipping to change at page 10, line 38 skipping to change at page 9, line 27
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND
SPECIFICATION", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. SPECIFICATION", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, A., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, April 1997. RFC 2136, April 1997.
[RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS [RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998. NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998.
[RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS [RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IPv6", RFC 3596, October 2003. "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
October 2003.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC4159] Huston, G., "Deprecation of "ip6.int"", BCP 109, RFC 4159, [RFC4159] Huston, G., "Deprecation of "ip6.int"", BCP 109, RFC 4159,
August 2005. August 2005.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
October 2008. May 2008.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[AS112] "AS112 Project", <http://www.as112.net/>. [AS112] "AS112 Project", <http://www.as112.net/>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops]
Abley, J. and W. Maton, "AS112 Nameserver Operations",
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-04 (work in progress),
July 2010.
[I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help]
Abley, J. and W. Maton, "I'm Being Attacked by
PRISONER.IANA.ORG!",
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-04 (work in
progress), July 2010.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix [RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC5735] Cotton, M. and L. Vergoda, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", [RFC5735] Cotton, M. and L. Vegoda, "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",
RFC 5735, January 2010. BCP 153, RFC 5735, January 2010.
[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vergoda, "IPv4 Address
Blocks Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737,
January 2010.
Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication]
A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.txt
refresh awaiting writeup
A.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-14.txt
Removed ORCHID prefix.
A.3. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-13.txt
Inclusion of ORCHID prefix.
reference updates.
A.4. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-12.txt
Update IP6.INT's non inclusion rational.
Removed Appendix B, which requested BCP status, as it was redundant.
A.5. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-11.txt
Change RFC 3330 to RFC 5735
A.6. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-10.txt
added RFC 5737 zones
A.7. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-09.txt
refresh awaiting writeup
A.8. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-08.txt
editorial, reference updates
A.9. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-07.txt
none, expiry prevention
A.10. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-06.txt
add IPv6 example prefix
A.11. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-05.txt
none, expiry prevention
A.12. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-04.txt
Centrally Assigned Local addresses -> Non-Locally Assigned Local
address
A.13. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-03.txt
expanded section 4 descriptions
Added references [RFC2136], [RFC3596],
[I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops] and
[I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help].
Revised language.
A.14. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-02.txt
RNAME now "nobody.invalid."
Revised language.
A.15. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt
Revised impact description.
Updated to reflect change in IP6.INT status.
A.16. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt
Adopted by DNSOP.
"Author's Note" re-titled "Zones that are Out-Of-Scope"
Add note that these zone are expected to seed the IANA registry.
Title changed.
A.17. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt
Added "Proposed Status". [RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.
A.18. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt [RFC6304] Abley, J. and W. Maton, "AS112 Nameserver Operations",
RFC 6304, July 2011.
Added 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA. [RFC6305] Abley, J. and W. Maton, "I'm Being Attacked by
PRISONER.IANA.ORG!", RFC 6305, July 2011.
Author's Address Author's Address
Mark P. Andrews Mark P. Andrews
Internet Systems Consortium Internet Systems Consortium
950 Charter Street 950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94063 Redwood City, CA 94063
US US
Email: marka@isc.org EMail: marka@isc.org
 End of changes. 57 change blocks. 
258 lines changed or deleted 135 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/