💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc3646.txt captured on 2021-12-04 at 18:04:22.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group R. Droms, Ed.
Request for Comments: 3646 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track December 2003
DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) options for passing a list of available DNS recursive name
servers and a domain search list to a client.
1. Introduction
This document describes two options for passing configuration
information related to Domain Name Service (DNS) (RFC 1034 [6] and
RFC 1035 [1]) in DHCPv6 (RFC 3315 [2]).
2. 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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [3].
Throughout this document, unless otherwise specified, the acronym
DHCP refers to DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6) as specified in RFC 3315.
This document uses terminology specific to IPv6 and DHCP as defined
in section "Terminology" of RFC 3315.
Droms Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3646 DNS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 December 2003
3. DNS Recursive Name Server option
The DNS Recursive Name Server option provides a list of one or more
IPv6 addresses of DNS recursive name servers to which a client's DNS
resolver MAY send DNS queries [1]. The DNS servers are listed in the
order of preference for use by the client resolver.
The format of the DNS Recursive Name Server option is:
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_DNS_SERVERS | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| DNS-recursive-name-server (IPv6 address) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| DNS-recursive-name-server (IPv6 address) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
option-code: OPTION_DNS_SERVERS (23)
option-len: Length of the list of DNS recursive name
servers in octets; must be a multiple of
16
DNS-recursive-name-server: IPv6 address of DNS recursive name server
4. Domain Search List option
The Domain Search List option specifies the domain search list the
client is to use when resolving hostnames with DNS. This option does
not apply to other name resolution mechanisms.
Droms Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3646 DNS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 December 2003
The format of the Domain Search List option is:
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_DOMAIN_LIST | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| searchlist |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
option-code: OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST (24)
option-len: Length of the 'searchlist' field in octets
searchlist: The specification of the list of domain names in the
Domain Search List
The list of domain names in the 'searchlist' MUST be encoded as
specified in section "Representation and use of domain names" of RFC
3315.
5. Appearance of these options
The DNS Recursive Name Server option MUST NOT appear in any other
than the following messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew,
Rebind, Information-Request, and Reply.
The Domain Search List option MUST NOT appear in any other than the
following messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew, Rebind,
Information-Request, and Reply.
6. Security Considerations
The DNS Recursive Name Server option may be used by an intruder DHCP
server to cause DHCP clients to send DNS queries to an intruder DNS
recursive name server. The results of these misdirected DNS queries
may be used to spoof DNS names.
To avoid attacks through the DNS Recursive Name Server option, the
DHCP client SHOULD require DHCP authentication (see section
"Authentication of DHCP messages" in RFC 3315) before installing a
list of DNS recursive name servers obtained through authenticated
DHCP.
The Domain Search List option may be used by an intruder DHCP server
to cause DHCP clients to search through invalid domains for
incompletely specified domain names. The results of these
Droms Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3646 DNS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 December 2003
misdirected searches may be used to spoof DNS names. Note that
support for DNSSEC [4] will not avert this attack, because the
resource records in the invalid domains may be legitimately signed.
The degree to which a host is vulnerable to attack via an invalid
domain search option is determined in part by DNS resolver behavior.
RFC1535 [7] contains a discussion of security weaknesses related to
implicit as well as explicit domain searchlists, and provides
recommendations relating to resolver searchlist processing. Section
6 of RFC1536 [5] also addresses this vulnerability, and recommends
that resolvers:
1. Use searchlists only when explicitly specified; no implicit
searchlists should be used.
2. Resolve a name that contains any dots by first trying it as an
FQDN and if that fails, with the names in the searchlist appended.
3. Resolve a name containing no dots by appending with the searchlist
right away, but once again, no implicit searchlists should be
used.
In order to minimize potential vulnerabilities it is recommended
that:
1. Hosts implementing the domain search option SHOULD also implement
the searchlist recommendations of RFC1536, section 6.
2. Where DNS parameters such as the domain searchlist or DNS servers
have been manually configured, these parameters SHOULD NOT be
overridden by DHCP.
3. A host SHOULD require the use of DHCP authentication (see section
"Authentication of DHCP messages" in RFC 3315) prior to accepting
a domain search option.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned an option code to the DNS Recursive Name Server
option (23) and to the Domain Search List option (24) from the DHCP
option code space defined in section "IANA Considerations" of RFC
3315.
8. Acknowledgements
This option was originally part of the DHCPv6 specification, written
by Jim Bound, Mike Carney, Charlie Perkins, Ted Lemon, Bernie Volz
and Ralph Droms.
Droms Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3646 DNS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 December 2003
The analysis of the potential attack through the domain search list
is taken from the specification of the DHCPv4 Domain Search option,
RFC3397 [8].
Thanks to Rob Austein, Alain Durand, Peter Koch, Tony Lindstrom and
Pekka Savola for their contributions to this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[2] Bound, J., Carney, M., Perkins, C., Lemon, T., Volz, B. and R.
Droms (ed.), "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, May 2003.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
2535, March 1999.
[5] Kumar, A., Postel, J., Neuman, C., Danzig, P. and S. Miller,
"Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested Fixes", RFC
1536, October 1993.
9.2. Informative References
[6] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[7] Gavron, E., "A Security Problem and Proposed Correction With
Widely Deployed DNS Software", RFC 1535, October 1993.
[8] Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Domain Search Option", RFC 3397, November 2002.
Droms Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3646 DNS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 December 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Author's Address
Ralph Droms, Editor
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxboro, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978 936 1674
EMail: rdroms@cisco.com
Droms Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3646 DNS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 December 2003
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Droms Standards Track [Page 7]