| Internet-Draft | Split-Horizon DNS Configuration | March 2022 |
| Reddy, et al. | Expires 3 September 2022 | [Page] |
When split-horizon DNS is deployed by a network, certain domains can be resolved authoritatively by the network-provided DNS resolver. DNS clients that don't always use this resolver might wish to do so for these domains. This specification enables networks to inform DNS clients about domains that are inside the split-horizon DNS, and describes how clients can confirm the local resolver's authority over these domains.¶
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 3 September 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
To resolve a DNS query, there are three essential behaviors that an implementation can apply: (1) answer from a local database, (2) query the relevant authorities and their parents, or (3) ask a server to query those authorities and return the final answer. Implementations that use these behaviors are called "authoritative nameservers", "full resolvers", and "forwarders" (or "stub resolvers"). However, an implementation can also implement a mixture of these behaviors, depending on a local policy, for each query. We term such an implementation a "hybrid resolver".¶
Most DNS resolvers are hybrids of some kind. For example, stub resolvers frequently support a local "hosts file" that preempts query forwarding, and most DNS forwarders and full resolvers can also serve responses from a local zone file. Other standardized hybrid resolution behaviors include Local Root [RFC8806], mDNS [RFC6762], and NXDOMAIN synthesis for .onion [RFC7686].¶
In many network environments, the network offers clients a DNS server (e.g. DHCP OFFER, IPv6 Router Advertisement). Although this server is formally specified as a recursive resolver (e.g. Section 5.1 of [RFC6106]), some networks provide a hybrid resolver instead. If this resolver acts as an authoritative server for some names, we say that the network has "split-horizon DNS", because those names resolve in this way only from inside the network.¶
Network clients that use pure stub resolution, sending all queries to the network-provided resolver, will always receive the split-horizon results. Conversely, clients that send all queries to a different resolver or implement pure full resolution locally will never receive them. Clients with either pure resolution behavior are out of scope for this specification. Instead, this specification enables hybrid clients to access split-horizon results from a network-provided hybrid resolver, while using a different resolution method for some or all other names.¶
To achieve the required security properties, clients must be able to authenticate the DNS servers provided by the network, for example using the techniques proposed in [I-D.ietf-add-dnr] and [I-D.ietf-add-ddr], and prove that they are authorized to serve the offered split-horizon DNS names. As a result, use of this specification is limited to servers that support authenticated encryption and split-horizon DNS names that are properly rooted in the global DNS.¶
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 terms 'Authorized Split Horizon' and 'Domain Camping' are also defined.¶
A split horizon configuration for some name is considered "authorized" if any parent of that name has given the local network permission to serve its own responses for that name. Such authorizations generally extend to the entire subtree of names below the authorization point.¶
Domain Camping refers to operating a nameserver which claims to be authoritative for a zone, but actually isn't. For example, a domain called example.com on the Internet and an internal DNS server also claims to be authoritative for example.com, but has no delegation from example.com on the Internet. Someone might domain camp on a popular domain name providing the ability to monitor queries and modify answers for that domain.¶
A common variation on domain camping is "NXDOMAIN camping", in which a nameserver claims a zone that does not exist in the global DNS. This is a form of domain camping because it seizes a portion of the parent zone without permission. The use of nonexistent TLDs for local services is a form of NXDOMAIN camping on the root zone.¶
Any form of domain camping likely violates the IAB's guidance regarding "the Unique DNS Root" [RFC2826].¶
The protocol in this document allows the domain owner to create a split-horizon DNS. Other entities which do not own the domain are detected by the client. Thus, DNS filtering is not enabled by this protocol.¶
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. The PvD Key dnsZones is defined in [RFC8801]. The PvD Key dnsZones notifies clients of names for which one of the network-provided resolvers is authoritative. Attempting to resolve these names via another resolver might fail or return results that are not correct for this network.¶
Each dnsZones entry indicates a claim of authority over a domain and its subdomains. For example, if the dnsZones entry is "example.test", this covers "example.test", "www.example.test", and "mail.eng.example.test", but not "otherexample.test" or "example.test.net".¶
[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 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.¶
To comply with [RFC2826], each dnsZones entry must be authorized in the global DNS hierarchy. To prevent domain camping, clients must confirm this authorization before making use of the entry.¶
To enable confirmation, the client must discover and validate the Authentication Domain Names (ADNs) of the network-designated resolvers using a method such as DNR [I-D.ietf-add-dnr]. The client must also perform an NS query for each dnsZones entry and confirm that at least one of the ADNs appears in each NS RRSet. This NS query must be conducted in a manner that is not vulnerable to tampering by the local network. Suitable tamperproof resolution strategies are described in Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.1.2.¶
Note that each dnsZones entry is authorized only for the specific resolvers whose ADNs appear in its NS RRSet. If a network offers multiple encrypted resolvers via DNR, each dnsZones entry may be authorized for a distinct subset of the network-provided resolvers.¶
The client sends an NS query for the domain in dnsZones to a pre-configured resolver that is external to the network, over a secure transport. Clients SHOULD apply whatever acceptance rules they would otherwise apply when using this resolver (e.g. checking the AD bit, validating RRSIGs).¶
The client resolves the NS record using any resolution method of its choice (e.g. querying one of the network-provided resolvers, performing iterative resolution locally), and performs full DNSSEC validation locally [RFC6698]. The result is processed based on its DNSSEC validation state (Section 4.3 of [RFC4035]):¶
Consider an organization that operates "example.com", and runs a different version of its global domain on its internal network. Today, on the Internet it publishes two NS records, "ns1.example.com" and "ns2.example.com".¶
To add support for the mechanism described in this document, the network and endpoints first need to support [I-D.ietf-add-dnr] and [RFC8801]. Then, for each site, the administrator would add DNS servers named "ns1.example.com" or "ns2.example.com" (the names published on the Internet). Those names would be advertised to the endpoints as described in [I-D.ietf-add-dnr].¶
The endpoints compliant with this specification can then determine the network's internal nameservers are owned and managed by the same entity that has published the NS records on the Internet as shown in Figure 1:¶
The client establishes an encrypted DNS connection with "ns1.example.com", validates its TLS certificate, and queries it for "pvd.example.com" to retrieve the PvD JSON object. Note that [RFC8801] in Section 4.1 mandates the PvD FQDN MUST be resolved using the DNS servers indicated by the associated PvD. The PvD contains:¶
{
"identifier": "pvd.example.com",
"expires": "2020-05-23T06:00:00Z",
"prefixes": ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"],
"dnsZones:": ["example.com"]
}¶
The JSON keys "identifier", "expires", and "prefixes" are defined in [RFC8801].¶
+---------+ +---------------------+ +------------+ +---------+ +---------+
| client | | Network | | Network | | Router | | public |
| | | encrypted resolvr | | PvD server | | | | resolvr |
+---------+ +---------------------+ +------------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | | | |
| Router Solicitation (1) | | | |
|-------------------------------------------------------------->| |
| | | | |
| Router Advertisement with DNR hostnames & PvD FQDN (2) | |
|<--------------------------------------------------------------| |
| -------------------------------------\ | | | |
|-| now knows DNR hostnames & PvD FQDN | | | | |
| |------------------------------------| | | | |
| | | | |
| TLS connection to ns1.example.com (3) | | | |
|----------------------------------------->| | | |
| ---------------------------\ | | | |
|-| validate TLS certificate | | | | |
| |--------------------------| | | | |
| | | | |
| resolve pvd.example.com (4) | | | |
|----------------------------------------->| | | |
| | | | |
| AAAA records (5) | | | |
|<-----------------------------------------| | | |
| | | | |
| https://pvd.example.com/.well-known/pvd (6) | | |
|--------------------------------------------------->| | |
| | | | |
| 200 OK (JSON Additional Information) (7) | | |
|<---------------------------------------------------| | |
| -----------------------\ | | | |
|-| dnsZones=example.com | | | | |
| |----------------------| | | | |
| | | | |
| TLS connection | | | |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------->|
| ---------------------------\ | | | |
|-| validate TLS certificate | | | | |
| |--------------------------| | | | |
| | | | |
| NS? example.com (8) | | | |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------->|
| | | | |
| NS=ns1.example.com, ns2.example.com (9) |
|<--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| -------------------------------\ | | | |
|-| both DNR ADNs are authorized | | | | |
| ----------------------\--------| | | | |
|-| finished validation | | | | |
| |---------------------| | | | |
| | | | |
| use network-designated resolver | | | |
| for example.com (10) | | | |
|----------------------------------------->| | | |
| | | | |
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.ietf-ipsecme-add-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 any one of the mechanisms discussed in Section 4.1 to determine if the VPN service provider is authoritative over the Split Horizon DNS 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 mechanisms discussed in Section 4.1 to determine if the network-designated encrypted resolvers are authoritative over the domains in dnsZones. If they are not, the client must ignore those dnsZones.¶
This specification does not alter DNSSEC validation behaviour. To ensure compatibility with validating clients, network operators MUST ensure that names under the split horizon are correctly signed or place them in an unsigned zone.¶
This document has no IANA actions.¶
Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair, Jim Reid, Tommy Pauly, Paul Vixie, Paul Wouters and Vinny Parla for the discussion and comments.¶