Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS)
draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-04

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 May 3, 2009.

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
    1.1.  DHCP Discovery
    1.2.  U-NAPTR Discovery
    1.3.  Terminology
2.  LIS Discovery Using DHCP
    2.1.  DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Address
    2.2.  DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Address
3.  U-NAPTR for LIS Discovery
4.  Determining the Access Network Domain Name
    4.1.  DHCP Domain Name Option
    4.2.  Reverse DNS
        4.2.1.  Determining an External IP Address using STUN
        4.2.2.  Alternate Methods for External IP Addresses
5.  Overall Discovery Procedure
    5.1.  Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
6.  Access Network Guidance
7.  Security Considerations
8.  IANA Considerations
    8.1.  Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes
    8.2.  Registration of a Location Server Application Service Tag
    8.3.  Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol Tag for HELD
9.  Acknowledgements
10.  References
    10.1.  Normative References
    10.2.  Informative References
Appendix A.  Residential Broadband LIS Discovery Example
§  Authors' Addresses
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements

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 an http: or https: 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 (Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, “HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD),” August 2009.) [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] (Droms, R., “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,” March 1997.), [RFC3315] (Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” July 2003.)) 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) (Daigle, L., “Domain-Based Application Service Location Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS),” April 2007.) [RFC4848], a Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS) profile that supports URI results.

For the LIS discovery DDDS application, an Application Service tag 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 (Determining the Access Network Domain Name) 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] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).

This document also uses the term "host" to refer to an end host, consistent with its use in DHCP documents. In RFC3693 (Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J. Polk, “Geopriv Requirements,” February 2004.) [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] (Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, “GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and Requirements,” July 2009.) 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.

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                            ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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] (Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, “Encoding Long Options in the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4),” November 2002.). 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                            ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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.

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 (Registration of a Location Server Application Service Tag) 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 (Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol Tag for HELD), is used to identify a LIS that understands the HELD protocol (Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, “HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD),” August 2009.) [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
       )

Details for the LIS Application Service tag and the HELD Application Protocol tag are included in Section 8 (IANA Considerations).

4.  Determining the Access Network Domain Name

The U-NAPTR discovery method described in Section 3 (U-NAPTR for LIS Discovery) 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 (Determining an External IP Address using STUN).

4.1.  DHCP Domain Name Option

For IP version 4, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) option 15 [RFC2131] (Droms, R., “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,” March 1997.) 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] (Stapp, M., Volz, B., and Y. Rekhter, “The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) Option,” October 2006.) for DHCPv4, [RFC4704] (Volz, B., “The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) Option,” October 2006.) 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] (Mockapetris, P., “Domain names - concepts and facilities,” November 1987.) 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, for an address of 192.0.2.3, if the PTR record at 3.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa. refers to h3-2-0-192.example.com., this results in a U-NAPTR search for example.com.

The DNS hierarchy does not necessarily directly map onto a network topology (see [RFC4367] (Rosenberg, J. and IAB, “What's in a Name: False Assumptions about DNS Names,” February 2006.)); 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) (Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, “DNS Security Introduction and Requirements,” March 2005.) [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) (Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, “Session Traversal Utilities for (NAT) (STUN),” July 2008.) [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.

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 Forum, “Internet Gateway Device (IGD) Standardized Device Control Protocol V 1.0: WANIPConnection:1 Service Template Version 1.01 For UPnP Version 1.0,” Nov 2001.) [UPnP‑IGD‑WANIPConnection1] and NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP) (Cheshire, S., “NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP),” April 2008.) [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.

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.

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

3. Alternative methods, including 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] (Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, “HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD),” August 2009.)), 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 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.

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 (DHCP Domain Name Option)) 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. Alternative methods for determining the domain name MAY be used, providing they consider the guidance in Section 4.2.2 (Alternate Methods for External IP Addresses).

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.

The product of the LIS discovery process is an http: or https: URI. Nothing distinguishes this URI from other URIs with the same scheme, aside from the fact that it is the product of this process. Only URIs produced by the discovery process can be used for location configuration using HELD. URIs that are not a product of LIS discovery MUST NOT be used for location configuration.

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.

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] (Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, “GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and Requirements,” July 2009.) 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 Forum, “Internet Gateway Device (IGD) Standardized Device Control Protocol V 1.0: WANIPConnection:1 Service Template Version 1.01 For UPnP Version 1.0,” Nov 2001.) [UPnP‑IGD‑WANIPConnection1] or NAT-PMP (Cheshire, S., “NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP),” April 2008.) [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.

                                +-----+              +------+
                                | 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.

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 (Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, “Authentication for DHCP Messages,” June 2001.) [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] (Daigle, L., “Domain-Based Application Service Location Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS),” April 2007.).

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 (Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, “DNS Security Introduction and Requirements,” March 2005.) [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] (Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, “Session Traversal Utilities for (NAT) (STUN),” July 2008.) describes some means of mitigating this attack for STUN.

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 (DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Address) 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 (DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Address) 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] (Daigle, L. and A. Newton, “Domain-Based Application Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS),” January 2005.).

Application Service Tag:

LIS

Intended usage:

Identifies a service that provides a host with its location information.

Defining publication:

RFCXXXX

Related publications:

HELD (Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, “HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD),” August 2009.) [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 (Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, “HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD),” August 2009.) [I‑D.ietf‑geopriv‑http‑location‑delivery] protocol, as mandated by [RFC3958] (Daigle, L. and A. Newton, “Domain-Based Application Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS),” January 2005.).

Application Service Tag:

HELD

Intended Usage:

Identifies the HELD protocol.

Applicable Service Tag(s):

LIS

Terminal NAPTR Record Type(s):

U

Defining Publication:

RFCXXXX

Related Publications:

HELD (Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, “HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD),” August 2009.) [I‑D.ietf‑geopriv‑http‑location‑delivery]

Contact Information:

The authors of this document

Author/Change Controller:

The IESG

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.

10.  References

10.1. Normative References

10.2. Informative References

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 (Example Network Topology).

                                  +-----+
                                  | DNS |
             (DHCP Server)        +-----+
                   \                 |      ________
   +------+     +--------+           |    (/        \)
   | Host |-----| Router |-------+---+---(( Internet ))
   +------+     +--------+       |        (\________/)
 {192.168.0.55}  {192.0.2.75}    |               \
                              +-----+             \
                              | LIS |          +--------+
                         .    +-----+    .     |  STUN  |
                         :               :     | Server |
                         |    Access     |     +--------+
                         |<-- Network -->|
                            (my.isp.net)

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.

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 ----------->|           |
    |                  |            |           |           |
    .                  .            .           .           .

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.
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.

Authors' Addresses

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright © 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.