| Internet-Draft | Split-Horizon DNS Configuration | September 2021 |
| Reddy, et al. | Expires 15 March 2022 | [Page] |
When split-horizon DNS is deployed by a network, certain domains are only resolvable by querying the network-designated DNS server rather than a public DNS server. DNS clients which use DNS servers not provided by the network need to route those DNS domain queries to the network-designated DNS server. This document informs DNS clients of split-horizon DNS, their DNS domains, and is compatible with encrypted DNS.¶
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 https://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 15 March 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://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.¶
Historically, an endpoint would utilize network-designated DNS servers upon joining a network (e.g., DHCP OFFER, IPv6 Router Advertisement). While it has long been possible to configure endpoints to ignore the network's suggestions and use a (public) DNS server on the Internet, this was seldom used because some networks block UDP/53 (in order to enforce their own DNS policies). Also, there has been an increase in the availability of "public resolvers" [RFC8499] which DNS clients may be pre-configured to use instead of the default network resolver for a variety of reasons (e.g., offer a good reachability, support an encrypted transport, provide a claimed privacy policy, (lack of) filtering). With the advent of DoT and DoH, such network blocking is more difficult, but the endpoint is unable to (properly) resolve split-horizon DNS domains which must query the network-designated DNS server.¶
This document specifies a mechanism to indicate which DNS zones are used for split-horizon DNS. DNS clients can discover and authenticate DNS servers provided by the network, for example using the techniques proposed in [I-D.ietf-add-dnr] and [I-D.ietf-add-ddr].¶
Provisioning Domains (PvDs) are defined in [RFC7556] as sets of network configuration information that clients can use to access networks, including rules for DNS resolution and proxy configuration. [RFC8801] defines a mechanism for discovering multiple Explicit PvDs on a single network and their Additional Information by means of an HTTP-over-TLS query using a URI derived from the PvD ID. This set of additional configuration information is referred to as a Web Provisioning Domain (Web PvD). The network lists its claims of authority for DNS domains using the "dnsZones" PvD key (defined in [RFC8801]).¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8499]. The terms "Private DNS", "Global DNS" and "Split DNS" are defined in [RFC8499].¶
'Encrypted DNS' refers to a DNS protocol that provides an encrypted channel between a DNS client and server (e.g., DoT, DoH, or DoQ).¶
The term "enterprise network" in this document extends to a wide variety of deployment scenarios. For example, an "enterprise" can be a Small Office, Home Office or Corporation.¶
[RFC2826] "does not preclude private networks from operating their own private name spaces" but notes that if private networks "wish to make use of names uniquely defined for the global Internet, they have to fetch that information from the global DNS naming hierarchy".¶
There are various DNS deployments outside of the global DNS, including "split horizon" deployments and DNS usages on private (or virtual private) networks. In a split horizon, an authoritative server gives different responses to queries from the Internet than they do to network-designated DNS servers; while some deployments differentiate internal queries from public queries by the source IP address, the concerns in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC6950] relating to trusting source IP addresses apply to such deployments.¶
When the internal address space range is private [RFC1918], this makes it both easier for the server to discriminate public from private and harder for public entities to impersonate nodes in the private network. The use cases that motivate split-horizon DNS typically involve restricting access to some network services -- intranet resources such as internal web sites, development servers, or directories, for example -- while preserving the ease of use offered by domain names for internal users.¶
A typical use case is an Enterprise network that requires one or more DNS domains to be resolved via network-designated DNS servers. This can be a special domain, such as "corp.example.com" for an enterprise that is publicly known to use "example.com". In this case, the endpoint needs to be informed what the private domain names are and what the IP addresses of the network-designated DNS servers are. An Enterprise can also run a different version of its global domain on its internal network. In that case, the client is instructed to send DNS queries for the enterprise public domain (e.g., "example.com") to the network-designated DNS servers. A configuration for this deployment scenario is referred to as a Split DNS configuration. Another use case for split-horizon DNS is Cellular and Fixed-access networks (ISPs) typically offer private domains, including account status/controls, and free education initiatives [INS].¶
The PvD RA option defined in [RFC8801] SHOULD set the H-flag to indicate that Additional Information is available. This Additional Information JSON object SHOULD include the "dnsZones" key to define the DNS domains for which the network claims authority.¶
As discussed in Section 3, internal resources in a network tend to have private DNS names. A network can also run a different version of its global domain on its internal network, and require the use of network-designated DNS servers to get resolved.¶
The PvD Key dnsZones is defined in [RFC8801]. The PvD Key dnsZones adds support for DNS domains for which the network claims authority. The private domains specified in the dnsZones key are intended to be resolved using network-designated DNS servers. The private domains in dnsZones are only reachable by devices authenticated or attached to the network. The global domains specified in the dnsZones key have a different version in the internal network. DNS resolution for other domains remains unchanged.¶
The dnsZones PvD Key conveys the specified DNS domains that need to be resolved using a network-designated DNS server. The DNS root zone (".") MUST be ignored if it appears in dnsZones. Other generic or global domains, such as Top-Level Domains (TLDs), similarly MUST be ignored if they appear in dnsZones.¶
For each dnsZones entry, the client can use the network-designated DNS servers to resolve the listed domains and its subdomains. Other domain names may be resolved using some other DNS servers that are configured independently. For example, if the dnsZones key specifies "example.test", then "example.test", "www.example.test", and "mail.eng.example.test" can be resolved using the network-designated DNS resolver(s), but "otherexample.test" and "ple.test" can be resolved using the system's public resolver(s).¶
To comply with [RFC2826] the split-horizon DNS zone must either not exist in the global DNS hierarchy or must be authoritatively delegated to the split-horizon DNS server to answer. The client can use the mechanism described in [I-D.ietf-add-dnr] to discover the network-designated resolvers. To determine if the network-designated encrypted resolvers are authoritative over the domains in DnsZones, the client performs the following steps for each domain in DnsZones:¶
The client checks that the NS RRset matches, or is a subdomain of, any one of the ADN of the discovered network-designated encrypted DNS resolvers.¶
If the match succeeds, the client can then establish a secure connection to that network-designated resolver and validates its certificate.¶
For example, if in a network the private domain names are defined under "internal.corp1.example.com". The DnsZones PvD Key would indicate that "*.internal.corp1.example.com" are private domain names. The client can trigger a NS query of "internal.corp1.example.com" and the NS RRset returns that the nameserver is "ns1.corp2.example.com". The client would then connect to the network-designated encrypted resolver whose name is "ns1.corp2.example.com", authenticate it using server certificate validation in TLS handshake, and use it for resolving the domains in the subtree of "*.internal.corp1.example.com".¶
The following example shows how the JSON keys defined in this document can be used:¶
{
"identifier": "cafe.example.com.",
"expires": "2020-05-23T06:00:00Z",
"prefixes": ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"],
"dnsZones:": ["city.other.test", "example.com"]
}¶
The JSON keys "identifier", "expires", and "prefixes" are defined in [RFC8801].¶
The split-tunnel Virtual Private Network (VPN) configuration allows the endpoint to access resources that reside in the VPN [RFC8598] via the tunnel; other traffic not destined to the VPN does not traverse the tunnel. In contrast, a non-split- tunnel VPN configuration causes all traffic to traverse the tunnel into the VPN.¶
When the VPN tunnel is IPsec, the encrypted DNS resolver hosted by the VPN service provider can be securely discovered by the endpoint using the ENCDNS_IP*_* IKEv2 Configuration Payload Attribute Types defined in [I-D.btw-add-ipsecme-ike]. For split-tunnel VPN configurations, the endpoint uses the discovered encrypted DNS server to resolve domain names for which the VPN provider claims authority. For non-split-tunnel VPN configurations, the endpoint uses the discovered encrypted DNS server to resolve both global and private domain names. For split-tunnel VPN configurations, the IKE client can use the steps discussed in Section 4.1 to determine if the VPN service provider is authoritative over the INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN domains.¶
Other VPN tunnel types have similar configuration capabilities, not detailed here.¶
The content of dnsZones may be passed to another (DNS) program for processing. As with any network input, the content SHOULD be considered untrusted and handled accordingly. The client must perform the steps discussed in Section 4.1 to determine if the network-designated encrypted resolvers are authoritative over the domains in DnsZones. If the network is lying, the client can take appropriate action like disconnecting from the network.¶
As an additional precaution, clients may want to preconfigure global domains for TLDs and Second-Level Domains (SLDs) to prevent malicious DNS redirections for well-known domains. This prevents users from unknowingly giving DNS queries to third parties. This is even more important if those well-known domains are not deploying DNSSEC, as the attached network could then even modify the DNS answers without detection. It is similar to the mechanism discussed in Section 8 of [RFC8598].¶
This document has no IANA actions..¶
Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair, Jim Reid, Ben Schwartz, Tommy Pauly, Paul Vixie and Vinny Parla for the discussion and comments. The authors would like to give special thanks to Ben Schwartz for his help.¶