[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut)
00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 8020
Domain Name System Operations (dnsop) Working Group S. Bortzmeyer
Internet-Draft AFNIC
Updates: 1034,2308 (if approved) S. Huque
Intended status: Standards Track Verisign labs
Expires: June 29, 2016 December 27, 2015
NXDOMAIN really means there is nothing underneath
draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00
Abstract
This document states clearly that when a DNS resolver receives a
response with response code of NXDOMAIN, it means that the domain
name which is thus denied AND ALL THE NAMES UNDER IT do not exist.
REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION: this document should be discussed in the
IETF DNSOP (DNS Operations) group, through its mailing list. The
source of the document, as well as a list of open issues, is
currently kept at Github [1].
This documents clarifies RFC 1034 and modifies a bit RFC 2308 so it
updates both of them.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 29, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NXDOMAIN cut December 2015
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Possible issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 5
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Why can't we just use the owner name of the returned
SOA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix B. Related approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction and background
The DNS protocol [RFC1035] defines response code 3 as "Name Error",
or "NXDOMAIN", i.e. the queried domain name does not exist in the
DNS. Since domain names are represented as a tree of labels
([RFC1034], Section 3.1), non-existence of a node implies non-
existence of the entire sub-tree rooted at this node.
The DNS iterative resolution algorithm precisely interprets the
NXDOMAIN signal in this manner. If it encounters an NXDOMAIN
response code from an authoritative server, it immediately stops
iteration and returns the NXDOMAIN response to the querier.
However, in virtually all existing resolvers, a cached NXDOMAIN is
not considered "proof" that there can be no child domains underneath.
This is due to an ambiguity in [RFC1034] that failed to distinguish
Empty Non-Terminal names (ENT) ([RFC7719]) from nonexistent names.
For DNSSEC, the IETF had to distinguish this case ([RFC4035], section
3.1.3.2), but the implication on non-DNSSEC resolvers wasn't fully
realized.
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NXDOMAIN cut December 2015
This document specifies that an NXDOMAIN response for a domain name
means that no child domains underneath the queried name exist either.
And furthermore, that DNS resolvers should interpret cached NXDOMAIN
responses in this manner. Since the domain names are organized in a
tree, it is a simple consequence of the tree structure: non-existence
of a node implies non-existence of the entire sub-tree rooted at this
node.
1.1. 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].
"Denied name": the domain name whose existence has been denied by a
response of rcode NXDOMAIN. In most cases, it is the QNAME but,
because of [RFC6604], it is not always the case.
2. Rules
When searching downward in its cache, an iterative caching DNS
resolver SHOULD stop searching if it encounters a cached NXDOMAIN.
The response to the triggering query should be NXDOMAIN.
When an iterative caching DNS resolver stores an NXDOMAIN in its
cache, all names and RRsets at or below that node SHOULD be
considered to be unreachable, and subsequent queries for such names
SHOULD elicit an NXDOMAIN response. A resolver, depending on its
implementation, MAY prune the subtree of positive cache entries at
that node, or delete all individual cache entries for names below
that node. [TODO: currently under discussion, some people find it
dangerous. Only if the NXDOMAIN is DNSSEC-validated? Perhaps the
resolver could be configured to not "bulk delete" TLDs (or root).
See Section 6.]
By implication, a stream of queries foo.example, then
bar.foo.example, where foo.example does not exist would normally
cause both queries to be forwarded to example's nameservers.
Following this recommended practice of "NXDOMAIN cut", the second
query and indeed any other query for names at or below foo.example
would not be forwarded.
These rules replace the second paragraph of section 5 of [RFC2308].
Otherwise, [RFC2308] applies unchanged, and the fact that a subtree
does not exist is not forever: the NXDOMAIN is cached only for the
duration of the "negative TTL" (section 3 of [RFC2308]).
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NXDOMAIN cut December 2015
If the cached NXDOMAIN response is from a DNSSEC signed zone, then it
will have accompanying NSEC or NSEC3 records that authenticate the
non-existence of the name. For a descendant name of the original
NXDOMAIN name, the same set of NSEC or NSEC3 records proves the non-
existence of the descendant name. The iterative, caching resolver
MUST return these NSEC or NSEC3 records in the response to the
triggering query.
Warning: if there is a chain of CNAME (or DNAME), the name which does
not exist is the last of the chain ([RFC6604]) and not the QNAME.
The NXDOMAIN stored in the cache is for the denied name, not always
for the QNAME.
3. Benefits
The main benefit is a better efficiency of the caches. In the
example above, we send only one query instead of two, the second one
being answered from the cache.
The correct behavior (in [RFC1034] and made clearer in this document)
is specially useful when combined with QNAME minimisation
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation] since it will allow a resolver to
stop searching as soon as an NXDOMAIN is encountered.
NXDOMAIN cut may also help mitigate certain types of random QNAME
attacks [joost-dnsterror] [balakrichenan-dafa888], where there is a
fixed suffix which does not exist. In these attacks against the
authoritative name server, queries are sent to resolvers for a QNAME
composed of a fixed suffix ("dafa888.wf" in one of the articles
above), which is typically nonexistent, and a random prefix,
different for each request. A resolver receiving these requests have
to forward them to the authoritative servers. With NXDOMAIN cut, we
would just have to send to the resolver a query for the fixed suffix,
the resolver would get a NXDOMAIN and then would stop forwarding the
queries. (It would be better if the SOA record in the NXDOMAIN
response were sufficient to find the non-existing domain but it is
not the case, see Appendix A.)
Since the principles set in this document are so great, why are the
rules of Section 2 SHOULD and not MUST? This is because some
resolver may have a cache which is NOT organized as a tree (but, for
instance, as a dictionary) and therefore have a good reason to ignore
this.
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NXDOMAIN cut December 2015
4. Possible issues
Let's assume the TLD example exists but foobar.example is not
delegated (so the example's name servers will reply NXDOMAIN for a
query about anything.foobar.example). A system administrator decides
to name the internal machines of his organization under
office.foobar.example and use a trick of his resolver to forward
requests about this zone to his local authoritative name servers.
NXDOMAIN cut would create problems here, since, depending on the
order of requests to the resolver, it may have cached the NXDOMAIN
from example and therefore "deleted" everything under. This document
assumes that such setup is rare and does not need to be supported.
Another issue that may happen: today, we see broken authoritative
name servers which reply to ENT ([RFC7719], section 6) with NXDOMAIN
instead of the normal NODATA ([RFC7719], section 3).
RFC-EDITOR: REMOVE THE PARAGRAPH BEFORE PUBLICATION. An example
today is mta2._domainkey.cbs.nl (which exists) where querying
_domainkey.cbs.nl yields NXDOMAIN. Another example is www.upenn.edu,
redirected to www.upenn.edu-dscg.edgesuite.net while a query for edu-
dscg.edgesuite.net returns NXDOMAIN.
Such name servers are definitely wrong and have always been. Given
the advantages of NXDOMAIN cuts, there is little reason to support
this behavior.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
6. Security Considerations
The technique described here may help against a denial-of-service
attack named "random qnames" and described in Section 3. Apart from
that, it is believed to have no security consequences.
If a resolver does not validate the answers with DNSSEC, it can of
course be poisoned with a false NXDOMAIN, thus "deleting" a part of
the domain name tree. This denial-of-service attack is already
possible without the rules of this document (but "NXDOMAIN cut" may
increase its effects). The only solution is to use DNSSEC.
7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NXDOMAIN cut December 2015
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
As of today, practically all existing DNS resolvers are conservative:
they consider a NXDOMAIN as only significant for the name itself, not
for the names under. Almost all the current recursive servers will
send upstream a query for out-of-cache sub.example.com even if their
cache contains an NXDOMAIN for example.com.
There are a few exceptions. The Unbound resolver has a configuration
parameter called "harden-below-nxdomain" [2], which if set to "yes"
turns on NXDOMAIN cut behavior ("only DNSSEC-secure nxdomains are
used", see Section 6). The PowerDNS recursor has optional partial
support for NXDOMAIN cut, for the root domain only, with its "root-
nx-trust" setting, described as [3] "If set, an NXDOMAIN from the
root-servers will serve as a blanket NXDOMAIN for the entire TLD the
query belonged to. The effect of this is far fewer queries to the
root-servers.".
8. Acknowledgments
The main idea is in this document is taken from
[I-D.vixie-dnsext-resimprove], section 3, "Stopping Downward Cache
Search on NXDOMAIN". Thanks to its authors, Paul Vixie, Rodney
Joffe, and Frederico Neves. Additionally Tony Finch, John Levine,
Jinmei Tatuya, and Duane Wessels provided valuable feedback and
suggestions.
9. References
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NXDOMAIN cut December 2015
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
NCACHE)", RFC 2308, DOI 10.17487/RFC2308, March 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2308>.
[RFC6604] Eastlake 3rd, D., "xNAME RCODE and Status Bits
Clarification", RFC 6604, DOI 10.17487/RFC6604, April
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6604>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.
[RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>.
[I-D.vixie-dnsext-resimprove]
Vixie, P., Joffe, R., and F. Neves, "Improvements to DNS
Resolvers for Resiliency, Robustness, and Responsiveness",
draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00 (work in progress), June
2010.
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NXDOMAIN cut December 2015
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation]
Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS query name minimisation to improve
privacy", draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-08 (work in
progress), November 2015.
[I-D.fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse]
Fujiwara, K. and A. Kato, "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3",
draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-02 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[joost-dnsterror]
Joost, M., "About DNS Attacks and ICMP Destination
Unreachable Reports", December 2014,
<http://www.michael-joost.de/dnsterror.html>.
[balakrichenan-dafa888]
Balakrichenan, S., "Disturbance in the DNS - "Random
qnames", the dafa888 DoS attack"", October 2014,
<https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/20/session/3/
contribution/37>.
9.3. URIs
[1] https://github.com/bortzmeyer/ietf-dnsop-nxdomain
[2] https://www.unbound.net/documentation/unbound.conf.html
[3] https://doc.powerdns.com/md/recursor/settings/#root-nx-trust
Appendix A. Why can't we just use the owner name of the returned SOA?
In this document, we deduce the non-existence of a domain only for
NXDOMAIN answers where the denied name was this exact domain. If a
resolver sends a query to the name servers of the TLD example, and
asks the MX record for www.foobar.example, and receives a NXDOMAIN,
it can only register the fact that www.foobar.example (and everything
underneath) does not exist. Even if the accompanying SOA record is
for example only, one cannot infer that foobar.example is
nonexistent. The accompanying SOA indicates the apex of the zone,
not the closest existing domain name.
RFC-EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION: to use a real example today,
ask the authoritative name servers of the TLD fr about
anything.which.does.not.exist.gouv.fr. The SOA will indicate fr (the
apex) even while gouv.fr does exist (there is no zone cut between
gouv.fr and fr).
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NXDOMAIN cut December 2015
Deducing the non-existence of a node from the SOA in the NXDOMAIN
reply may certainly help with random qnames attacks but this is out-
of-scope for this document. It would require to address the problems
mentioned in the first paragraph of this section. A possible
solution would be, when receiving a NXDOMAIN with a SOA which is more
than one label up in the tree, to send requests for the domains which
are between the QNAME and the owner name of the SOA. (A resolver
which does DNSSEC validation or QNAME minimisation will need to do
it, anyway.)
Appendix B. Related approaches
The document [I-D.fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse] describes
another way to address some of the same concerns (decreasing the
traffic for non-existing domain names). Unlike NXDOMAIN cut, it
requires DNSSEC but it is more powerful since it can synthetize
NXDOMAINs for domains that were not queried.
Authors' Addresses
Stephane Bortzmeyer
AFNIC
1, rue Stephenson
Montigny-le-Bretonneux 78180
France
Phone: +33 1 39 30 83 46
Email: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr
URI: http://www.afnic.fr/
Shumon Huque
Verisign labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston 20190
USA
Email: shuque@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Bortzmeyer & Huque Expires June 29, 2016 [Page 9]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/