Storing Host Locators in HIP Resource Record
draft-ponomarev-hip-dns-locators-01

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and 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 January 15, 2010.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

There is a resource record (RR) in the Domain Name System (DNS) used for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). This document proposes to store the host locators in the HIP resource records as well.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  Storage Format
    2.1.  Locator or RVS Format
3.  IANA Considerations
4.  Security Considerations
5.  Normative References
§  Author's Address

1.  Introduction

The HIP RR allows a node to store its Host Identity (HI, the public component of the node public-private key pair), Host Identity Tag (HIT, a truncated hash of its public key), and the Domain Names of its rendezvous servers (RVSs) in the DNS [RFC5205] (Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, “Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions,” April 2008.). The host may have a set of IP address(es) in A [RFC1035] (Mockapetris, P., “Domain names - implementation and specification,” November 1987.) and AAAA [RFC3596] (Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, “DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6,” October 2003.) RR sets (RRSets [RFC2181] (Elz, R. and R. Bush, “Clarifications to the DNS Specification,” July 1997.)).

However there is no mechanism to specify custom UDP port for incoming UDP-encapsulated HIP control packets without using a third party as a rendezvous server (RVS)[RFC5204] (Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, “Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension,” April 2008.). Furthermore separate queries for the set of IP address cause extra delays and additional load to the nameservers. The situation can be changed by listing locators in HIP RR. The format of extended LOCATOR parameter [I‑D.ietf‑hip‑nat‑traversal] (Komu, M., Henderson, T., Tschofenig, H., Melen, J., and A. Keraenen, “Basic HIP Extensions for Traversal of Network Address Translators,” June 2009.) may be used.

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 RFC 2119[RFC2119] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).

2.  Storage Format

Let us reuse the existing format [RFC5205] (Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, “Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions,” April 2008.), but allow locators as well.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  HIT length   | PK algorithm  |          PK length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                           HIT                                 ~
   |                                                               |
   +                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     |                                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                         +
   |                           Public Key                          |
   ~                                                               ~
   |                                                               |
   +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   ~                           Locator or RVS                      ~
   |                                                               |
   +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               ~
   |                                                               |
   ~                                ...                            ~
   |                                                               |
   +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               ~
   |                                                               |
   ~                           Locator or RVS                      ~
   |                                                               |
   +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The HIT length, PK algorithm, PK length, HIT, and Public Key fields are the same as in RFC5205 (Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, “Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions,” April 2008.) [RFC5205], but the Public Key is OPTIONAL. This change may reduce the length of the record and thus the memory required for a huge (e.g. billions) number of HIP records. Also it would allow greater number of HIP RRs in a single 512-byte UDP packet.

2.1.  Locator or RVS Format

Various locators MAY be listed in the field using LOCATOR parameter format as in Section 5.7. of draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-08 (Komu, M., Henderson, T., Tschofenig, H., Melen, J., and A. Keraenen, “Basic HIP Extensions for Traversal of Network Address Translators,” June 2009.) [I‑D.ietf‑hip‑nat‑traversal] in addition to wire-encoded domain names of rendezvous server(s).

3.  IANA Considerations

This section will be added later on.

4.  Security Considerations

This section will be added later on.

5. Normative References

Author's Address