[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01
INTERNET DRAFT M. Ohta
draft-ietf-dnsop-shared-root-server-01.txt Tokyo Institute of Technology
June 1999
Distributing Root Name Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
Abstract
This memo describes an operational guideline for root name servers to
share unicast addresses.
1. Motivation
For the stability of the Internet, it is critical that there are
sufficiently many DNS root servers operating at various places of the
Internet.
For the stability of the domestic Internet, it is critical for each
country that there are sufficiently many DNS root servers operating
at various places of the Internet in the country.
However, the number of unicast IP addresses of root servers is
limited. Thus, for the internationally fair operation of DNS, the
number of root servers in each country (including US) must be equal
to the number of unicast IP addresses of root servers divided by the
M. Ohta, E. Hardie Expires on December 25, 1999 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT Distributed Root Name Servers June 1999
number of countries (some weight may be given according to the number
of Internet hosts in each country).
Given the current number of countries and IP addresses of root
servers, each country (again, including US) will be able to have 1/20
root servers, which definitely is not sufficiently many.
Thus, it is necessary to somehow increase the number of root servers.
This memo proposes administrative scoping of the routing ranges of
unicast addresses of root servers.
With administratively scoped unicast addresses, any entity, including
a country, can use the addresses for its local root servers and set
the scope of the routing ranges of the addresses appropriately.
Note that operations similar to that described in this memo are
possible today locally without global coordination by any operator
who may be irritated by the lack of his control on (sufficiently
many) root servers, which may be a source of some operational
problems. This memo is an attempt to document the way to solve the
problem in a least harmful manner.
Similar operation described in this memo may be applicable to gTLD
servers but it is outside the scope of this memo.
2. Suggested Operation
As is demonstrated by the proliferated private use addresses, it is
easy to set up routers to let unicast addresses have local scopes. It
is also easy to let the unicast addresses have nested local scopes.
The important difference between the addresses for privae use and
root servers is in their semantics that the root servers sharing an
address share the globally unique semantics of the address. The root
servers may share a globally unique DNS host name, too.
A possible problem of such addresses is that the shared addresses can
not be used for global communication. So, it is suggested that the
root name servers with the administratively scoped shared unicast
addresses have additional globally unique unicast addresses, which
may be used for global communication such as zone transfer.
The other possible problem of such addresses is that the shared
addresses are not managed by a single entity that the mapping from
the shared address of a root server to some operational entity is
impossible. However, if the routers near the root server has a global
addresses, it is possible to map from the global address to an
operational entity, which is expected to be operating the root
server. That is, tools like traceroute works to find the operational
M. Ohta, E. Hardie Expires on December 25, 1999 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT Distributed Root Name Servers June 1999
entity of the root servers.
To be compatible with the current practice that a single address
belong to a single AS, each administratively scoped shared unicast
address is assigned its own AS number. There will be multiple ASes of
the AS number containing the same address ranges.
ASes, still, can be identified by adjacent ASes. For example,
network operators may choose their favorite root server based on the
AS numbers of the next hop ASes with, for example, AS path and BGP
policy.
It is required that operators of an AS adjacent to the root servers'
AS be fully responsible to the operation of the root servers. If a
root server's AS is adjacent to multiple ASes, operators of all the
ASes must be fully responsible to the operation of the root server.
Thus, if there is a routing problem related a root server, operators
of the next hop AS(es) should be contacted.
3. Assignment
Considering that each country is likely to need a considerable number
of root servers, it is reasonable to make most, if not all, of the IP
addresses of the root servers administratively scoped and shared.
Note that given the large number of root servers in the Internet, it
is impossible that all the servers use a single server as the primary
source of zone transfer. That is, the name and the IP address of the
current primary server may also be shared.
Considering the huge effort to change the file containing the IP
addresses of the root servers all around the Internet, the IP
addresses of the root servers should better stay same as that of
today. Organizations running the current root servers are requested
to release the current class B or C address blocks containing the
current IP addresses of the root server for the public use.
The AS numbers assigned to root server addresses are:
Name IP Address/Mask AS Number
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 198.41.0.4/8 (to be assigned by IANA)
B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 128.9.0.107/16 (to be assigned by IANA)
C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 192.33.4.12/8 (to be assigned by IANA)
D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 128.8.10.90/16 (to be assigned by IANA)
E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 192.203.230.10/8 (to be assigned by IANA)
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 192.5.5.241/8 (to be assigned by IANA)
G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 192.112.36.4/8 (to be assigned by IANA)
M. Ohta, E. Hardie Expires on December 25, 1999 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT Distributed Root Name Servers June 1999
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 128.63.2.53/16 (to be assigned by IANA)
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 192.36.148.17/8 (to be assigned by IANA)
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 198.41.0.10/24 (to be assigned by IANA)
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 193.0.14.129/24 (to be assigned by IANA)
L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 198.32.64.12/24 (to be assigned by IANA)
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 202.12.27.33/24 (to be assigned by IANA)
4. Security Considerations
This memo describes just an operational guideline with no protocol
change. As such, the guideline does not introduce any security issues
of the protocol level.
As the route forgery to the root servers can be implemented today
without this memo by anyone including local intruders, the guideline
does not introduce any security issues of the operational level,
either.
A guideline to track down and verify valid or forged route or AS path
to the root servers is described in section 2.
5. Authors' Addresses
Masataka Ohta
Computer Center
Tokyo Institute of Technology
2-12-1, O-okayama, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 152-8550, JAPAN
Phone: +81-3-5734-3299
Fax: +81-3-5734-3415
EMail: mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
M. Ohta, E. Hardie Expires on December 25, 1999 [Page 4]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/