One document matched: draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-03.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-02.txt
GEOPRIV M. Thomson
Internet-Draft J. Winterbottom
Intended status: Standards Track Andrew
Expires: March 14, 2009 September 10, 2008
Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS)
draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-03
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2009.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
Abstract
A method is described for the discovery of a Location Information
Server. The method uses a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
option. DHCP options are defined for both IPv4 and IPv6 DHCP. A
URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR) method is described for use where the
DHCP option is unsuccessful. This document defines a U-NAPTR
Application Service for a LIS, with a specific Application Protocol
for the HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) protocol.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. DHCP Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. U-NAPTR Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. LIS Discovery Using DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. U-NAPTR for LIS Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Determining the Access Network Domain Name . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. DHCP Domain Name Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Reverse DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Determining an External IP Address using STUN . . . . 9
4.2.2. Alternate Methods for External IP Addresses . . . . . 10
5. Overall Discovery Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Access Network Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes . . . . . . 17
8.2. Registration of a Location Server Application Service
Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.3. Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol
Tag for HELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Residential Broadband LIS Discovery Example . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 26
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
1. Introduction and Overview
Discovering a Location Information Server (LIS) is an important part
of the location acquisition process. The LIS is an access network
service that needs to be discovered before it can be used. This
document describes a method that a host can use to discover a URI for
a LIS.
The product of a discovery process, such as the one described in this
document, is the address of the service. In this document, the
result is a URI, which identifies a LIS.
The URI result from the discovery process is suitable for location
configuration only; that is, the client MUST dereference the URI
using the process described in HELD
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]. URIs discovered in this
way are not "location by reference" URIs; dereferencing one of them
provides the location of the requester only. Clients MUST NOT embed
these URIs in fields in other protocols designed to carry the
location of the client.
The discovery process requires that the host first attempt LIS
discovery using Dynamic Host Configuration protocol (DHCP). If DHCP
is not available, or the option is not supported by the network, the
host attempts to discover the LIS using the DNS and URI-enabled
Naming Authority Pointer (U-NAPTR). Finally, the host can rely on
proprietary methods for determining the address of the LIS, including
static configuration.
1.1. DHCP Discovery
DHCP ([RFC2131], [RFC3315]) is a commonly used mechanism for
providing bootstrap configuration information allowing a host to
operate in a specific network environment. The bulk of DHCP
information is largely static; consisting of configuration
information that does not change over the period that the host is
attached to the network. Physical location information might change
over this time, however the address of the LIS does not. Thus, DHCP
is suitable for configuring a host with the address of a LIS.
1.2. U-NAPTR Discovery
Where DHCP is not available, the DNS might be able to provide a URI.
This document describes a method that uses URI-enabled NAPTR
(U-NAPTR) [RFC4848], a Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS)
profile that supports URI results.
For the LIS discovery DDDS application, an Application Service tag
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
"LIS" and an Application Protocol tag "HELD" are created and
registered with the IANA. Taking a domain name, this U-NAPTR
application uses the two tags to determine the LIS URI.
A domain name is the crucial input to the U-NAPTR resolution process.
Section 4 of this document describes several methods for deriving an
appropriate domain name.
1.3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document also uses the term "host" to refer to an end host,
consistent with its use in DHCP documents. In RFC3693 [RFC3693]
parlance, the host is the Device, which might also be the Target.
The terms "access network" refers to the network that a host connects
to for Internet access. The "access network provider" is the entity
that operates the access network. This is consistent with the
definition in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] which combines the
Internet Access Provider (IAP) and Internet Service Provider (ISP).
The access network provider is responsible for allocating the host a
public IP address and for directly or indirectly providing a LIS
service.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
2. LIS Discovery Using DHCP
DHCP allows the access network provider to specify the address of a
LIS as part of network configuration. If the host is able to acquire
a LIS URI using DHCP then this URI is used directly; the U-NAPTR
process is not necessary if this option is provided.
This document registers DHCP options for a LIS address for both IPv4
and IPv6.
2.1. DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Address
This section defines a DHCP for IPv4 (DHCPv4) option for the address
of a LIS.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LIS_URI | Length | URI ... .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| URI ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DHCPv4 LIS URI Option
LIS_URI: The IANA assigned option number (TBD).
Length: The length of the URI in octets.
URI: The address of the LIS. This URI SHOULD NOT be more than 253
bytes in length, but MAY be extended by concatenating multiple
option values, as described in [RFC3396]. The URI MUST NOT be
NULL terminated.
2.2. DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Address
This section defines a DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6) option for the address
of a LIS. The DHCPv6 option for this parameter is similarly
formatted to the DHCPv4 option.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_LIS_URI | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| URI ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
Figure 2: DHCPv6 LIS URI Option
OPTION_LIS_URI: The IANA assigned option number (TBD).
Length: The length of the URI in octets.
URI: The address of the LIS. The URI MUST NOT be NULL terminated.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
3. U-NAPTR for LIS Discovery
U-NAPTR resolution for a LIS takes a domain name as input and
produces a URI that identifies the LIS. This process also requires
an Application Service tag and an Application Protocol tag, which
differentiate LIS-related NAPTR records from other records for that
domain.
Section 8.2 defines an Application Service tag of "LIS", which is
used to identify the location service for a particular domain. The
Application Protocol tag "HELD", defined in Section 8.3, is used to
identify a LIS that understands the HELD protocol
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery].
The NAPTR records in the following example demonstrate the use of the
Application Service and Protocol tags. Iterative NAPTR resolution is
used to delegate responsibility for the LIS service from
"zonea.example.com." and "zoneb.example.com." to
"outsource.example.com.".
zonea.example.com.
;; order pref flags
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service
"" ; regex
outsource.example.com. ; replacement
)
zoneb.example.com.
;; order pref flags
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service
"" ; regex
outsource.example.com. ; replacement
)
outsource.example.com.
;; order pref flags
IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service
"!*.!https://lis.outsource.example.com/!" ; regex
. ; replacement
)
Figure 3: Sample LIS:HELD Service NAPTR Records
Details for the "LIS" Application Service tag and the "HELD"
Application Protocol tag are included in Section 8.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
4. Determining the Access Network Domain Name
The U-NAPTR discovery method described in Section 3 requires that the
domain name applicable to the access network is known. An
unconfigured host might not have this information, therefore it must
determine this value before the U-NAPTR method can be attempted.
This section describes several methods for discovering a domain name
for the local access network. Each method is attempted where
applicable until a domain name is derived. If a domain name is
successfully derived but that domain name does not produce any
U-NAPTR records, alternative methods can be attempted to determine
additional domain names. Reattempting with different methods is
particularly applicable when NAT is used, as is shown in
Section 4.2.1.
4.1. DHCP Domain Name Option
For IP version 4, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) option
15 [RFC2131] includes the domain name suffix for the host. If DHCP
and option 15 are available, this value should be used as input the
U-NAPTR procedure.
Alternatively, a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) for the host
might be provided by the server ([RFC4702] for DHCPv4, [RFC4704] for
DHCPv6). The domain part of the FQDN can be used as input to the
U-NAPTR resolution and is obtained by removing the first label. If
the host has provided a fully qualified domain name using this
option, it SHOULD NOT be used - the domain known to the host might
not be the same as that of the access network.
Note that these options should only be used if the LIS address option
is not available; they SHOULD be used if DHCP is available.
4.2. Reverse DNS
DNS "PTR" records in the "in-addr.arpa." domain can be used to
determine the domain name of a host, and therefore, the name of the
domain for that host. The use of the "in-addr.arpa." domain is
described in [RFC1034] and results in the domain name of the host.
Likewise, IPv6 hosts use the "ip6.arpa." domain. In the majority of
cases, the domain part of this name (everything excluding the first
label) is also the domain name for the access network. Assuming that
this is true, this domain name can be used as input to the U-NAPTR
process.
For example, if the for "10.1.2.3" address, if the "PTR" record at
"3.2.1.10.in-addr.arpa." refers to "h3-2-1-10.example.com", this
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
results in a U-NAPTR search for "example.com".
The DNS hierarchy does not necessarily directly map onto a network
topology (see [RFC4367]); therefore, this method MUST only be used
for the domain name determined by removing the first label only.
This method assumes that the access network provider also provides
the reverse DNS record and they control the domain that is indicated
in the "PTR" record.
Furthermore, this method might not apply where a host is given a
domain name that is different from the domain name of the access
network. This might occur in some hosting configurations, such as
where a number of web server hosts, with widely varying domain names,
are co-located. From the above example, the access network provider
allocated "10.1.2.3" to the host; therefore, they also need to
control the DNS domain "example.com" and the associated NAPTR
records. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033] provides a
cryptographic means of validating this association, through data
origin authentication.
4.2.1. Determining an External IP Address using STUN
Reverse DNS relies on knowing the IP address of a host within the
access domain. Initially, this SHOULD be attempted using the IP
address that is assigned to a local interface on the host. However,
when a NAT device exists between the device and the Internet, the
public IP address of the NAT device is substituted for the source IP
address. The IP address of the NAT device and the corresponding
domain name can be used to discover the LIS.
In order to use reverse DNS in this configuration, the hosts need to
know the IP address that the NAT device uses. A host can use the
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
[I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis] to determine a public IP address. The
host uses the "Binding Request" message and the resulting
"XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS" parameter that is returned in the response.
These methods are particularly useful in residential broadband
configurations. A large proportion of residential broadband services
employ a NAT device so that several hosts can share the same Internet
access. Since the network behind the NAT device are generally very
small, both in numbers and geographical area, it isn't necessary for
a LIS to operate within that network; the hosts are able to access a
LIS in the access network outside of the NAT device.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
The following figure shows a typical home broadband deployment
scenario. In this scenario, the public address of the Router/NAT can
be used to discover the LIS in the access network.
+-----+
| LIS |
+--+--+
/ ________
+------+ +------------+ / (/ \) +------+
| Host |-----| Router/NAT |----+----(( Internet ))----| STUN |
+------+ ^ +------------+ ^ (\________/) +------+
| |
Home Network Access Network
(Private)
Using STUN requires cooperation from a publicly accessible STUN
server. The host also requires configuration information that
identifies the STUN server, or a domain name that can be used for
STUN server discovery. To be selected for this purpose, the STUN
server needs to provide the public reflexive transport address of the
host; STUN servers that provide private addresses for any reason are
not appropriate for LIS discovery.
4.2.2. Alternate Methods for External IP Addresses
Alternative methods for determining other IP addresses MAY be used by
the host. Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) [UPnP-IGD-WANIPConnection1]
and NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP) [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] are
both able to provide the external address of a routing device.
Proprietary methods for determining other addresses might also be
available. Because there is no assurance that these methods will be
supported by any access network these methods are not mandated.
The source IP address in any IP packet can be used to determine the
public IP address of a host. While the STUN method uses a small part
of a more sophisticated protocol, this principle can be applied using
any other protocol. Like STUN, this method requires prior knowledge
of the publicly accessible server and the method that it supports.
For instance, a publicly accessible host could be configured to
respond to a UDP packet on a predefined port; the data of the
response could contain the source IP address that was in the request.
Alternatively, a HTTP server at a particular URL could be configured
to respond to a GET request with a "text/plain" body containing the
IP address of the requester. HTTP proxies render this method
unusable; in particular, transparent HTTP proxies might affect the
results of this method without the knowledge of the host. Such
services already exist on the public Internet.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
The discovery procedure assumes that the correct LIS is in a network
segment that is closer to the host. Each network segment between the
host and LIS decreases the chance that the LIS is able to correctly
determine a location for the host.
Discovery methods follow an order of precedence. The exception is
for alternative methods of determining the hosts IP address in each
network segment; precedence is given to addresses in the network
segments closer to the host. Therefore, the host attempts to use the
IP address assigned to its local network interface before attempting
to determine alternative IP addresses. Precedence is given to
methods that provide an IP address in network segments closer to the
host, since these networks are more likely to have knowledge of the
physical network access. Methods for determining addresses on the
public Internet are given lower precedence.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
5. Overall Discovery Procedure
To claim compliance with this document, a host MUST support both DHCP
discovery and U-NAPTR discovery. Further, the host MUST support
retrieval of domain name from DHCP and reverse DNS, using a local
interface address and the reflexive transport address provided by
STUN. Additional methods for determining the IP address of the host
in different network segments are optional.
These individual components of discovery are combined into a single
discovery procedure. Some networks maintain a topology analogous to
an onion and are comprised of layers, or segments, separating hosts
from the Internet through intermediate networks. Applying the
individual discovery methods in the following order provides a higher
probability that a host discovers the LIS physically closest to it:
1. DHCP LIS URI Option
2. DNS U-NAPTR Discovery, using the domain name from:
A. DHCP Domain Name Option
B. Reverse DNS, using the IP address from:
1. the local network interface and immediate network segment
2. the public reflexive transport address, as revealed by
STUN
+ any network segment, as revealed by an alternative method
3. Static configuration
A host that has multiple network interfaces could potentially be
served by a different access network on each interface, each with a
different LIS. The host SHOULD attempt to discover the LIS
applicable to each network interface, stopping when a LIS is
successfully discovered on any interface.
A host that discovers a LIS URI MUST attempt to verify that the LIS
is able to provide location information. For the HELD protocol, the
host MUST make a location request to the LIS. If the LIS responds to
this request with the "notLocatable" error code (see Section 4.3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]), the host MUST continue
the discovery process and not make further requests to that LIS on
that network interface.
DHCP discovery MUST be attempted before DNS discovery. This allows
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
the network access provider a direct and explicit means of
configuring a LIS address. DNS discovery is used as a failsafe,
providing a means to discover a LIS where the DHCP infrastructure
does not support the LIS URI option.
Static host configuration MAY be used to provide a LIS address if
both DHCP and DNS methods fail. Note however, that if a host has
moved from its customary location, static configuration might
indicate a LIS that is unable to provide a location.
If the discovery process fails, user interaction is NOT RECOMMENDED.
The discovery process is not easily diagnosed by a user.
LIS discovery through DNS requires the host to determine the domain
name of the local access network. Where DHCP is available, the DHCP
domain name option (Section 4.1) can be used to provide this
information. If the domain name cannot be determined from DHCP, or
the resulting domain name fails to yield a valid LIS address then
reverse DNS is used.
5.1. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
LIS discovery over a VPN network interface SHOULD NOT be performed
since such a LIS does not have the physical presence generally
necessary to determine location. However, since not all interfaces
connected to a VPN can be detected by hosts, a LIS SHOULD NOT provide
location information in response to requests originating from a VPN
pool. This ensures that even if a host discovers a LIS over the VPN,
it does not rely on a LIS that is unable to provide accurate location
information. The exception to this is where the LIS and host are
able to determine a location without access network support.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
6. Access Network Guidance
In order to successfully discover a LIS, a host relies on information
provided by the access network. DHCP and DNS servers need to be able
to provide the data that the device depends on. This section
provides guidance on what information needs to be made available to a
host for it to successfully discover a LIS.
Access networks that provide both a LIS and a DHCP server must
provide the DHCP option for the LIS address. Since DHCP must be
attempted first, if it can be guaranteed that DHCP can be used by all
hosts in the network, no further configuration is necessary.
Unless DHCP can be relied upon for all hosts in the network (see
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] for common scenarios where this isn't
the case), DNS discovery methods must also be supported. To support
the DNS discovery methods, the access network must provide two sets
of DNS records: the (U-)NAPTR records that enable the discovery of a
LIS URI from a domain name; and the reverse DNS records that enable
the discovery of a domain name based on the IP address of the host.
Access networks that provide a LIS should also provide reverse DNS
records for all IP addresses they administer. For each domain that
is referenced in reverse DNS records, a NAPTR record in that domain
must be provided for the "LIS:HELD" service that can be used to
resolve the address of a LIS.
The requirement for PTR and NAPTR records extends to both public and
private addresses used by access networks. A host that discovers the
external address of a router by proprietary means must be able to use
the resulting private address as input to a reverse DNS lookup and
U-NAPTR discovery. Similarly, a host that discovers a public
reflexive transport address using STUN must be able to use the public
address.
The following figure shows the addresses that could be revealed by a
first hop method, like UPnP [UPnP-IGD-WANIPConnection1] or NAT-PMP
[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] (the private address marked with '{N}') and
STUN (the public address marked with '{S}'). The access network
provider should provide the necessary DNS records for both of these
addresses.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
+-----+ +------+
| LIS | | STUN |
+--+--+ +---+--+
{N} / {S} _____/__
+------+ +------------+ / / +-----+ / (/ \)
| Host |-----| Router/NAT |----+----| NAT |----(( Internet ))
+------+ ^ +------------+ ^ +-----+ (\________/)
| |
Home Network Access Network
(Private) (Private)
Note: The DHCP domain name option is notably absent from this
guidance. The domain name option provides a quicker and more
reliable means to discover the domain name in the case where a
DHCP server does not support the LIS URI option. If DHCP is
available, it is expected that access network providers use the
LIS URI option.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
7. Security Considerations
The primary attack against the methods described in this document is
one that would lead to impersonation of a LIS. The LIS is
responsible for providing location information and this information
is critical to a number of network services; furthermore, a host does
not necessarily have a prior relationship with a LIS. Several
methods are described here that can limit the probablity of, or
provide some protection against, such an attack.
The address of a LIS is usually well-known within an access network;
therefore, interception of messages does not introduce any specific
concerns.
If DHCP is used, the integrity of DHCP options is limited by the
security of the channel over which they are provided. Physical
security and separation of DHCP messages from other packets are
commonplace methods that can reduce the possibility of attack within
an access network; alternatively, DHCP authentication [RFC3118] can
provide a degree of protection against modification.
An attacker could attempt to compromise the U-NAPTR resolution. A
description of the security considerations for U-NAPTR applications
is included in [RFC4848].
In addition to considerations related to U-NAPTR, it is important to
recognize that the output of this is entirely dependent on its input.
An attacker who can control the domain name can also control the
final URI. Because a number of methods are provided for determining
the domain name, a host implementation needs to consider attacks
against each of the methods that are used.
Reverse DNS is subject to the maintenance of the "in-addr.arpa." or
"ip6.arpa." domain and the integrity of the results that it provides.
DNSSEC [RFC4033] provides some measures that can improve the
reliability of DNS results. In particular, DNSSEC SHOULD be applied
to ensure that the reverse DNS record and the resulting domain are
provided by the same entity before this method is used. Without this
assurance, the host cannot be certain that the access network
provider has provided the NAPTR record for the domain name that is
provided.
Hosts behind NAT devices are also subject to attacks when retrieving
their public IP address. [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis] describes some
means of mitigating this attack for STUN.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes
The IANA is requested to assign an option code for the DHCPv4 option
for a LIS address, as described in Section 2.1 of this document.
The IANA is requested to assign an option code for the DHCPv6 option
for a LIS address, as described in Section 2.2 of this document.
8.2. Registration of a Location Server Application Service Tag
This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Service tag
for a LIS, as mandated by [RFC3958].
Application Service Tag: LIS
Intended usage: Identifies a service that provides a host with its
location information.
Defining publication: RFCXXXX
Related publications: HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]
Contact information: The authors of this document
Author/Change controller: The IESG
8.3. Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol Tag for
HELD
This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Protocol tag
for the HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] protocol, as
mandated by [RFC3958].
Application Service Tag: HELD
Intended Usage: Identifies the HELD protocol.
Applicable Service Tag(s): LIS
Terminal NAPTR Record Type(s): U
Defining Publication: RFCXXXX
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
Related Publications: HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]
Contact Information: The authors of this document
Author/Change Controller: The IESG
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Leslie Daigle for her work on
U-NAPTR; Peter Koch for his feedback on the DNS aspects of this
document; Andy Newton for constructive suggestions with regards to
document direction; Hannes Tschofenig and Richard Barnes for input
and reviews; Dean Willis for constructive feedback.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3396] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
November 2002.
[RFC4702] Stapp, M., Volz, B., and Y. Rekhter, "The Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Client Fully Qualified
Domain Name (FQDN) Option", RFC 4702, October 2006.
[RFC4704] Volz, B., "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
Option", RFC 4704, October 2006.
[RFC4848] Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
(DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.
[I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis]
Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for (NAT) (STUN)",
draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-18 (work in progress),
July 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3118] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP
Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.
[RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and
J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.
[RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4367] Rosenberg, J. and IAB, "What's in a Name: False
Assumptions about DNS Names", RFC 4367, February 2006.
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]
Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and
Requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-08 (work in
progress), June 2008.
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]
Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark,
"HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-09 (work in
progress), September 2008.
[UPnP-IGD-WANIPConnection1]
UPnP Forum, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) Standardized
Device Control Protocol V 1.0: WANIPConnection:1 Service
Template Version 1.01 For UPnP Version 1.0", DCP 05-001,
Nov 2001.
[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]
Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
Appendix A. Residential Broadband LIS Discovery Example
This example shows how LIS discovery using U-NAPTR and DNS might be
performed in a residential broadband scenario. The assumed network
topology for this network is shown in Figure 4.
+-----+
| DNS |
(DHCP Server) +-----+
\ | ________
+------+ +--------+ | (/ \)
| Host |-----| Router |-------+---+---(( Internet ))
+------+ +--------+ | (\________/)
{192.168.0.55} {192.0.2.75} | \
+-----+ \
| LIS | +--------+
. +-----+ . | STUN |
: : | Server |
| Access | +--------+
|<-- Network -->|
(my.isp.net)
Figure 4: Example Network Topology
In this example, the host sits behind a home router that includes a
NAT function. The host is assigned an address from the private
192.168.x.x address range, in this case 192.168.0.55. The outbound
IP address provided to the home router is public and and belongs to
the my.isp.net domain; in this example the home router is assigned
192.0.2.75, which is also given the domain name 192-0-2-
75.my.isp.net.
In this example, several methods are not possible due to the
configuration of the devices and network. The DHCP server on the
home router does not support the LIS URI option, and a domain name is
not configured on the router. In addition to this, the UPnP service
on home router is disabled. Therefore, the host attempts these
methods and is unsuccessful.
The example first covers the unsuccessful attempts to discover the
LIS, followed by a successful application of DNS discovery based on
an address provided by a STUN server. In this situation, the STUN
server is provided by a Voice Service Provider (VSP) that the owner
of the host purchases a voice service from. The address of the STUN
server is configured on the host. The VSP is a separate entity on
the public Internet with no relation to the access network provider.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
The sequence diagram below shows each of the failed attempts to
discover the LIS, followed by the successful discovery using the STUN
server, reverse DNS and the DNS discovery method.
+-------+ +--------+ +-----+ +-----+ +--------+
| Host | | Router | | DNS | | LIS | | STUN |
+---+---+ +----+---+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +---+----+
| | | | |
1 +--- DHCPINFORM -->| | | |
| | | | |
2 |<---- DHCPACK ----+ | | |
| | | | |
3 +------- DNS: PTR ------------->| | |
| 55.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa. | | |
| | | | |
4 |<------ DNS: no domain --------+ | |
| | | | |
5 +---------------- STUN: Binding Request --------------->|
| | | | |
6 |<-------- STUN: XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS (192.0.2.75) -------+
| | | | |
7 +------- DNS: PTR ------------->| | |
| 75.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. | | |
| | | | |
8 |<--- 192-0-2-205.my.isp.net ---+ | |
| | | | |
9 +--- DNS: NAPTR my.isp.net ---->| | |
| | | | |
10 |<--- https://lis.my.isp.net/ --+ | |
| | | | |
11 +-------- HELD: locationRequest ----------->| |
| | | | |
. . . . .
Figure 5: LIS Discovery Sequence
1. The host makes a DHCP request for the LIS URI option. To reduce
the overall time required in case the LIS URI option is not
available, the host also requests the domain name option.
2. The DHCP server (in the home router) responds but cannot provide
either option. Therefore, the host is unable to use the DHCP
method, or use the domain name to perform U-NAPTR discovery.
3. The host then attempts reverse DNS based on its IP address
(192.168.0.55). The host makes a DNS PTR request for
"55.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa."
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
4. The DNS has no knowledge of the private network segment and so
indicates that there is no such domain.
5. The host contacts a STUN server, which is configured on the
host. It sends a Binding Request to the STUN server.
6. The STUN server responds to the Binding Request, including the
XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS parameter, which reveals the IP address of
the home router: "192.0.2.75".
7. The host requests the domain name assigned to 192.0.2.75. It
makes a DNS PTR request to "75.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa."
8. The DNS server indicates that 192.0.2.75 is assigned the name
"192-0-2-75.my.isp.net."
9. The host removes the host part of the domain name and makes a
DNS NAPTR request for the domain "my.isp.net."
10. The DNS server provides all NAPTR records for the "my.isp.net."
domain. The host finds the record with a service tag of
"LIS:HELD" and retrieves the URI from the regexp field. The URI
of the LIS is found to be "https://lis.my.isp.net/".
11. The host sends a HELD "locationRequest" to the LIS.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
Authors' Addresses
Martin Thomson
Andrew
PO Box U40
Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 2 4221 2915
Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com
URI: http://www.andrew.com/
James Winterbottom
Andrew
PO Box U40
Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 2 4221 2938
Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com
URI: http://www.andrew.com/
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery September 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires March 14, 2009 [Page 26]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 08:16:18 |