path: root/doc/rfc/rfc6742.txt

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                          RJ Atkinson
Request for Comments: 6742                                    Consultant
Category: Experimental                                         SN Bhatti
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            U. St Andrews
                                                                 S. Rose
                                                                 US NIST
                                                           November 2012


                      DNS Resource Records for the
               Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)

Abstract

   This note describes additional optional resource records for use with
   the Domain Name System (DNS).  These optional resource records are
   for use with the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP).  This
   document is a product of the IRTF Routing Research Group.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Research Task
   Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related
   research and development activities.  These results might not be
   suitable for deployment.  This RFC represents the individual
   opinion(s) of one or more members of the Routing Research Group of
   the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for
   publication by the IRSG are not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6742.













Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://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.

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
   be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Document Roadmap ...........................................4
      1.2. Terminology ................................................5
   2. New Resource Records ............................................5
      2.1. The NID Resource Record ....................................5
      2.2. The L32 Resource Record ....................................7
      2.3. The L64 Resource Record ...................................10
      2.4. The LP Resource Record ....................................12
   3. Deployment Example .............................................15
      3.1. Use of ILNP Records .......................................15
      3.2. Additional Section Processing .............................16
   4. Security Considerations ........................................17
   5. IANA Considerations ............................................17
   6. References .....................................................17
      6.1. Normative References ......................................17
      6.2. Informative References ....................................18
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................20

1.  Introduction

   This document is part of the ILNP document set, which has had
   extensive review within the IRTF Routing RG.  ILNP is one of the
   recommendations made by the RG Chairs.  Separately, various refereed
   research papers on ILNP have also been published during this decade.
   So, the ideas contained herein have had much broader review than the
   IRTF Routing RG.  The views in this document were considered
   controversial by the Routing RG, but the RG reached a consensus that
   the document still should be published.  The Routing RG has had
   remarkably little consensus on anything, so virtually all Routing RG
   outputs are considered controversial.



Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   At present, the Internet research and development community is
   exploring various approaches to evolving the Internet Architecture to
   solve a variety of issues including, but not limited to, scalability
   of inter-domain routing [RFC4984].  A wide range of other issues
   (e.g., site multihoming, node multihoming, site/subnet mobility, node
   mobility) are also active concerns at present.  Several different
   classes of evolution are being considered by the Internet research
   and development community.  One class is often called "Map and
   Encapsulate", where traffic would be mapped and then tunnelled
   through the inter-domain core of the Internet.  Another class being
   considered is sometimes known as "Identifier/Locator Split".  This
   document relates to a proposal that is in the latter class of
   evolutionary approaches.

   The Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) was developed to
   explore a possible evolutionary direction for the Internet
   Architecture.  A description of the ILNP architecture is available in
   a separate document [RFC6740].  Implementation and engineering
   details are largely isolated into a second document [RFC6741].

   The Domain Name System (DNS) is the standard way that Internet nodes
   locate information about addresses, mail exchangers, and other data
   relating to remote Internet nodes [RFC1034] [RFC1035].

   More recently, the IETF has defined standards-track security
   extensions to the DNS [RFC4033].  These security extensions can be
   used to authenticate signed DNS data records and can be used to store
   signed public keys in the DNS.  Further, the IETF has defined a
   standards-track approach to enable secure dynamic update of DNS
   records over the network [RFC3007].

   This document defines several new optional data resource records.
   This note specifies the syntax and other items required for
   independent implementations of these DNS resource records.  The
   reader is assumed to be familiar with the basics of DNS, including
   familiarity with [RFC1034] [RFC1035].

   The concept of using DNS for rendezvous with mobile nodes or mobile
   networks has been proposed earlier, more than once, independently, by
   several other researchers; for example, please see [SB00], [SBK01],
   and [PHG02].










Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


1.1.  Document Roadmap

   This document describes defines additional DNS resource records that
   support ILNP.

   The ILNP architecture can have more than one engineering
   instantiation.  For example, one can imagine a "clean-slate"
   engineering design based on the ILNP architecture.  In separate
   documents, we describe two specific engineering instances of ILNP.
   The term "ILNPv6" refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is
   based upon, and backwards compatible with, IPv6.  The term "ILNPv4"
   refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is based upon, and
   backwards compatible with, IPv4.

   Many engineering aspects common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 are
   described in [RFC6741].  A full engineering specification for either
   ILNPv6 or ILNPv4 is beyond the scope of this document.

   Readers are referred to other related ILNP documents for details not
   described here:

   a) [RFC6740] is the main architectural description of ILNP, including
      the concept of operations.

   b) [RFC6741] describes engineering and implementation considerations
      that are common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6.

   c) [RFC6743] defines a new ICMPv6 Locator Update message used by an
      ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes of any changes to its
      set of valid Locators.

   d) [RFC6744] defines a new IPv6 Nonce Destination Option used by
      ILNPv6 nodes (1) to indicate to ILNP correspondent nodes (by
      inclusion within the initial packets of an ILNP session) that the
      node is operating in the ILNP mode and (2) to prevent off-path
      attacks against ILNP ICMP messages.  This Nonce is used, for
      example, with all ILNP ICMPv6 Locator Update messages that are
      exchanged among ILNP correspondent nodes.

   e) [RFC6745] defines a new ICMPv4 Locator Update message used by an
      ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes of any changes to its
      set of valid Locators.

   f) [RFC6746] defines a new IPv4 Nonce Option used by ILNPv4 nodes to
      carry a security nonce to prevent off-path attacks against ILNP
      ICMP messages and also defines a new IPv4 Identifier Option used
      by ILNPv4 nodes.




Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   g) [RFC6747] describes extensions to Address Resolution Protocol
      (ARP) for use with ILNPv4.

   h) [RFC6748] describes optional engineering and deployment functions
      for ILNP.  These are not required for the operation or use of ILNP
      and are provided as additional options.

1.2.  Terminology

   In this document, the term "ILNP-aware" applied to a DNS component
   (either authoritative server or cache) is used to indicate that the
   component attempts to include other ILNP RRTypes to the Additional
   section of a DNS response to increase performance and reduce the
   number of follow-up queries for other ILNP RRTypes.  These other
   RRsets MAY be added to the Additional section if space permits and
   only when the QTYPE equals NID, L64, L32, or LP.  There is no method
   for a server to signal that it is ILNP-aware.

   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].

2.  New Resource Records

   This document specifies several new and closely related DNS data
   resource records (RRs).  These new RR types have the mnemonics "NID",
   "L32", "L64", and "LP".  These RR types are associated with a Fully
   Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) that is hereafter called the "owner
   name".  These are part of work on the Identifier-Locator Network
   Protocol (ILNP) [RFC6740].

   For clarity, throughout this section of this document, the "RDATA"
   subsections specify the on-the-wire format for these records, while
   the "Presentation Format" subsections specify the human-readable
   format used in a DNS configuration file (i.e., "master file" as
   defined by RFC 1035, Section 5.1).

2.1.  The NID Resource Record

   The Node Identifier (NID) DNS resource record (RR) is used hold
   values for Node Identifiers that will be used for ILNP-capable nodes.

   NID records are present only for ILNP-capable nodes.  This
   restriction is important; ILNP-capable nodes use the presence of NID
   records in the DNS to learn that a correspondent node is also ILNP-
   capable.  While erroneous NID records in the DNS for a node that is
   not ILNP-capable would not prevent communication, such erroneous DNS
   records could increase the delay at the start of an IP session.



Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   A given owner name may have zero or more NID records at a given time.
   In normal operation, nodes that support the Identifier-Locator
   Network Protocol (ILNP) will have at least one valid NID record.

   The type value for the NID RR type is 104.

   The NID RR is class independent.

   The NID RR has no special Time to Live (TTL) requirements.

2.1.1.  NID RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for an NID RR consists of:

   - a 16-bit Preference field
   - a 64-bit NodeID field

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Preference           |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
    |                             NodeID                            |
    +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.1.1.1.  The Preference Field

   The <Preference> field contains a 16-bit unsigned integer in network
   byte order that indicates the owner name's relative preference for
   this NID record among other NID records associated with this owner
   name.  Lower Preference values are preferred over higher Preference
   values.

2.1.1.2.  The NodeID Field

   The NodeID field is an unsigned 64-bit value in network byte order.
   It complies with the syntactic rules of IPv6 interface identifiers
   [RFC4291], Section 2.5.1, but has slightly different semantics.
   Unlike IPv6 interface identifiers, which are bound to a specific
   *interface* of a specific node, NodeID values are bound to a specific
   *node*, and they MAY be used with *any interface* of that node.








Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


2.1.2.  NID RR Presentation Format

   The presentation of the format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

   - The Preference field MUST be represented as a 16-bit unsigned
     decimal integer.

   - The NodeID field MUST be represented using the same syntax (i.e.,
     groups of 4 hexadecimal digits, with each group separated by a
     colon) that is already used for DNS AAAA records (and also used for
     IPv6 interface IDs).

   - The NodeID value MUST NOT be in the 'compressed' format (e.g.,
     using "::") that is defined in RFC 4291, Section 2.2 (2).  This
     restriction exists to avoid confusion with 128-bit IPv6 addresses,
     because the NID is a 64-bit field.

2.1.3.  NID RR Examples

   An NID record has the following logical components:

     <owner-name>  IN  NID  <Preference>   <NodeID>

   In the above, <owner-name> is the owner name string, <Preference> is
   an unsigned 16-bit value, and <NodeID> is an unsigned 64-bit value.

     host1.example.com. IN NID 10 0014:4fff:ff20:ee64
     host1.example.com. IN NID 20 0015:5fff:ff21:ee65
     host2.example.com. IN NID 10 0016:6fff:ff22:ee66

   As NodeID values use the same syntax as IPv6 interface identifiers,
   when displayed for human readership, the NodeID values are presented
   in the same hexadecimal format as IPv6 interface identifiers.  This
   is shown in the example above.

2.1.4.  Additional Section Processing

   To improve performance, ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS resolvers MAY
   attempt to return all L32, L64, and LP records for the same owner
   name of the NID RRset in the Additional section of the response, if
   space permits.

2.2.  The L32 Resource Record

   An L32 DNS RR is used to hold 32-bit Locator values for
   ILNPv4-capable nodes.





Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   L32 records are present only for ILNPv4-capable nodes.  This
   restriction is important; ILNP-capable nodes use the presence of L32
   records in the DNS to learn that a correspondent node is also
   ILNPv4-capable.  While erroneous L32 records in the DNS for a node
   that is not ILNP-capable would not prevent communication, such
   erroneous DNS records could increase the delay at the start of an IP
   session.

   A given owner name might have zero or more L32 values at a given
   time.  An ILNPv4-capable host SHOULD have at least 1 Locator (i.e.,
   L32 or LP) DNS resource record while it is connected to the Internet.
   An ILNPv4-capable multihomed host normally will have multiple Locator
   values while multihomed.  An IP host that is NOT ILNPv4-capable MUST
   NOT have an L32 or LP record in its DNS entries.  A node that is not
   currently connected to the Internet might not have any L32 values in
   the DNS associated with its owner name.

   A DNS owner name that is naming a subnetwork, rather than naming a
   host, MAY have an L32 record as a wild-card entry, thereby applying
   to entries under that DNS owner name.  This deployment scenario
   probably is most common if the named subnetwork is, was, or might
   become, mobile.

   The type value for the L32 RR type is 105.

   The L32 RR is class independent.

   The L32 RR has no special TTL requirements.

2.2.1.  L32 RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for an L32 RR consists of:

   - a 16-bit Preference field
   - a 32-bit Locator32 field

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Preference           |      Locator32 (16 MSBs)      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Locator32 (16 LSBs)       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   MSB = most significant bit
   LSB = least significant bit





Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


2.2.1.1.  The Preference Field

   The <Preference> field is an unsigned 16-bit field in network byte
   order that indicates the owner name's relative preference for this
   L32 record among other L32 records associated with this owner name.
   Lower Preference values are preferred over higher Preference values.

2.2.1.2.  The Locator32 Field

   The <Locator32> field is an unsigned 32-bit integer in network byte
   order that is identical on-the-wire to the ADDRESS field of the
   existing DNS A record.

2.2.2.  L32 RR Presentation Format

   The presentation of the format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

   - The Preference field MUST be represented as a 16-bit unsigned
     decimal integer.

   - The Locator32 field MUST be represented using the same syntax used
     for existing DNS A records (i.e., 4 decimal numbers separated by
     periods without any embedded spaces).

2.2.3.  L32 RR Examples

   An L32 record has the following logical components:

     <owner-name>  IN  L32  <Preference>   <Locator32>

   In the above <owner-name> is the owner name string, <Preference> is
   an unsigned 16-bit value, and <Locator32> is an unsigned 32-bit
   value.

     host1.example.com. IN L32 10 10.1.02.0
     host1.example.com. IN L32 20 10.1.04.0
     host2.example.com. IN L32 10 10.1.08.0

   As L32 values have the same syntax and semantics as IPv4 routing
   prefixes, when displayed for human readership, the values are
   presented in the same dotted-decimal format as IPv4 addresses.  An
   example of this syntax is shown above.

   In the example above, the owner name is from an FQDN for an
   individual host. host1.example.com has two L32 values, so
   host1.example.com is multihomed.





Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 9]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   Another example is when the owner name is that learned from an LP
   record (see below for details of LP records).

     l32-subnet1.example.com. IN L32 10 10.1.02.0
     l32-subnet2.example.com. IN L32 20 10.1.04.0
     l32-subnet3.example.com. IN L32 30 10.1.08.0

   In this example above, the owner name is for a subnetwork rather than
   an individual node.

2.2.4.  Additional Section Processing

   To improve performance, ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS resolvers MAY
   attempt to return all NID, L64, and LP records for the same owner
   name of the L32 RRset in the Additional section of the response, if
   space permits.

2.3.  The L64 Resource Record

   The L64 resource record (RR) is used to hold unsigned 64-bit Locator
   values for ILNPv6-capable nodes.

   L64 records are present only for ILNPv6-capable nodes.  This
   restriction is important; ILNP-capable nodes use the presence of L64
   records in the DNS to learn that a correspondent node is also
   ILNPv6-capable.  While erroneous L64 records in the DNS for a node
   that is not ILNP-capable would not prevent communication, such
   erroneous DNS records could increase the delay at the start of an IP
   session.

   A given owner name might have zero or more L64 values at a given
   time.  An ILNPv6-capable host SHOULD have at least 1 Locator (i.e.,
   L64 or LP) DNS resource record while it is connected to the Internet.
   An ILNPv6-capable multihomed host normally will have multiple Locator
   values while multihomed.  An IP host that is NOT ILNPv6-capable MUST
   NOT have an L64 or LP record in its DNS entries.  A node that is not
   currently connected to the Internet might not have any L64 values in
   the DNS associated with its owner name.

   A DNS owner name that is naming a subnetwork, rather than naming a
   host, MAY have an L64 record as a wild-card entry, thereby applying
   to entries under that DNS owner name.  This deployment scenario
   probably is most common if the named subnetwork is, was, or might
   become, mobile.

   The type value for the L64 RR type is 106.





Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 10]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   The L64 RR is class independent.

   The L64 RR has no special TTL requirements.

2.3.1.  The L64 RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for an L64 RR consists of:

   - a 16-bit Preference field
   - a 64-bit Locator64 field

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Preference           |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
    |                          Locator64                            |
    +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.3.1.1.  The Preference Field

   The <Preference> field is an unsigned 16-bit integer in network byte
   order that indicates the owner name's relative preference for this
   L64 record among other L64 records associated with this owner name.
   Lower Preference values are preferred over higher Preference values.

2.3.1.2.  The Locator64 Field

   The <Locator64> field is an unsigned 64-bit integer in network byte
   order that has the same syntax and semantics as a 64-bit IPv6 routing
   prefix.

2.3.2.  L64 RR Presentation Format

   The presentation of the format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

   - The Preference field MUST be represented as a 16-bit unsigned
     decimal integer.

   - The Locator64 field MUST be represented using the same syntax used
     for AAAA records (i.e., groups of 4 hexadecimal digits separated by
     colons).  However, the 'compressed' display format (e.g., using
     "::") that is specified in RFC 4291, Section 2.2 (2), MUST NOT be
     used.  This is done to avoid confusion with a 128-bit IPv6 address,
     since the Locator64 is a 64-bit value, while the IPv6 address is a
     128-bit value.



Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 11]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


2.3.3.  L64 RR Examples

   An L64 record has the following logical components:

        <owner-name>  IN  L64  <Preference>   <Locator64>

   In the above, <owner-name> is the owner name string, <Preference> is
   an unsigned 16-bit value, while <Locator64> is an unsigned 64-bit
   value.

     host1.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:1140:1000
     host1.example.com. IN L64 20 2001:0DB8:2140:2000
     host2.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:4140:4000

   As L64 values have the same syntax and semantics as IPv6 routing
   prefixes, when displayed for human readership, the values might
   conveniently be presented in hexadecimal format, as above.

   In the example above, the owner name is from an FQDN for an
   individual host. host1.example.com has two L64 values, so it will be
   multihomed.

   Another example is when the owner name is that learned from an LP
   record (see below for details of LP records).

     l64-subnet1.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:1140:1000
     l64-subnet2.example.com. IN L64 20 2001:0DB8:2140:2000
     l64-subnet3.example.com. IN L64 30 2001:0DB8:4140:4000

   Here, the owner name is for a subnetwork rather than an individual
   node.

2.3.4.  Additional Section Processing

   To improve performance, ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS resolvers MAY
   attempt to return all NID, L32, and LP records for the same owner
   name of the L64 RRset in the Additional section of the response, if
   space permits.

2.4.  The LP Resource Record

   The LP DNS resource record (RR) is used to hold the name of a
   subnetwork for ILNP.  The name is an FQDN which can then be used to
   look up L32 or L64 records.  LP is, effectively, a Locator Pointer to
   L32 and/or L64 records.






Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 12]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   As described in [RFC6740], the LP RR provides one level of
   indirection within the DNS in naming a Locator value.  This is useful
   in several deployment scenarios, such as for a multihomed site where
   the multihoming is handled entirely by the site's border routers
   (e.g., via Locator rewriting) or in some mobile network deployment
   scenarios [RFC6748].

   LP records MUST NOT be present for owner name values that are not
   ILNP-capable nodes.  This restriction is important; ILNP-capable
   nodes use the presence of LP records in the DNS to infer that a
   correspondent node is also ILNP-capable.  While erroneous LP records
   in the DNS for an owner name would not prevent communication,
   presence of such erroneous DNS records could increase the delay at
   the start of an IP session.

   The type value for the LP RR type is 107.

   The LP RR is class independent.

   The LP RR has no special TTL requirements.

2.4.1.  LP RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for an LP RR consists of:

   - an unsigned 16-bit Preference field
   - a variable-length FQDN field

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Preference           |                               /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               /
    /                                                               /
    /                              FQDN                             /
    /                                                               /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.4.1.1.  The Preference Field

   The <Preference> field contains an unsigned 16-bit integer in network
   byte order that indicates the owner name's relative preference for
   this LP record among other LP records associated with this owner
   name.  Lower Preference values are preferred over higher Preference
   values.






Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 13]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


2.4.1.2.  The FQDN Field

   The variable-length FQDN field contains the DNS target name that is
   used to reference L32 and/or L64 records.  This field MUST NOT have
   the same value as the owner name of the LP RR instance.

   A sender MUST NOT use DNS name compression on the FQDN field when
   transmitting an LP RR.

2.4.2.  LP RR Presentation Format

   The presentation of the format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

   - The Preference field MUST be represented as a 16-bit unsigned
     decimal integer.

   - The FQDN field MUST be represented as a domain name.

2.4.3.  LP RR Examples

   An LP record has the following logical components:

        <owner-name>  IN  LP  <Preference>   <FQDN>

   In the above, <owner-name> is the owner name string, <Preference> is
   an unsigned 16-bit value, while <FQDN> is the domain name which
   should be resolved further.

     host1.example.com. IN LP 10 l64-subnet1.example.com.
     host1.example.com. IN LP 10 l64-subnet2.example.com.
     host1.example.com. IN LP 20 l32-subnet1.example.com.

   In the example above, host1.example.com is multihomed on three
   subnets.  Resolving the FQDNs return in the LP records would allow
   the actual subnet prefixes to be resolved, e.g., as in the examples
   for the L32 and L64 RR descriptions, above.  This level of
   indirection allows the same L32 and/or L64 records to be used by many
   hosts in the same subnetwork, easing management of the ILNP network
   and potentially reducing the number of DNS Update transactions,
   especially when that network is mobile [RAB09] or multihomed
   [ABH09a].

2.4.4.  Additional Section Processing

   To improve performance, ILNP-aware DNS servers and DNS resolvers MAY
   attempt to return all L32 and L64 records for the same owner name of
   the LP RRset in the Additional section of the response, if space
   permits.



Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 14]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


3.  Deployment Example

   Given a domain name, one can use the Domain Name System (DNS) to
   discover the set of NID records, the set of L32 records, the set of
   L64 records, and the set of LP records that are associated with that
   DNS owner name.

   For example:

     host1.example.com. IN NID 10 0014:4fff:ff20:ee64
     host1.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:1140:1000

   would be the minimum requirement for an ILNPv6 node that has owner
   name host1.example.com and is connected to the Internet at the
   subnetwork having routing prefix 2001:0DB8:1140:1000.

   If that host were multihomed on two different IPv6 subnets:

     host1.example.com. IN NID 10 0014:4fff:ff20:ee64
     host1.example.com. IN L64 10 2001:0DB8:1140:1000
     host1.example.com. IN L64 20 2001:0DB8:2140:2000

   would indicate the Identifier and two subnets that host1.example.com
   is attached to, along with the relative preference that a client
   would use in selecting the Locator value for use in initiating
   communication.

   If host1.example.com were part of a mobile network, a DNS query might
   return:

     host1.example.com. IN NID 10 0014:4fff:ff20:ee64
     host1.example.com. IN LP  10 mobile-net1.example.com.

   and then a DNS query to find the current Locator value(s) for the
   node named by the LP record:

     mobile-net1.example.com. IN L64 2001:0DB8:8140:8000

3.1.  Use of ILNP Records

   As these DNS records are only used with the Identifier-Locator
   Network Protocol (ILNP), these records MUST NOT be present for a node
   that does not support ILNP.  This lookup process is considered to be
   in the "forward" direction.

   The Preference fields associated with the NID, L32, L64, and LP
   records are used to indicate the owner name's preference for others
   to use one particular NID, L32, L64, or LP record, rather than use



Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 15]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   another NID, L32, L64, or LP record also associated with that owner
   name.  Lower Preference field values are preferred over higher
   Preference field values.

   It is possible that a DNS stub resolver querying for one of these
   record types will not receive all NID, L32, L64, and LP RR's in a
   single response.  Credible anecdotal reports indicate at least one
   DNS recursive cache implementation actively drops all Additional Data
   records that were not expected by that DNS recursive cache.  So even
   if the authoritative DNS server includes all the relevant records in
   the Additional Data section of the DNS response, the querying DNS
   stub resolver might not receive all of those Additional Data records.
   DNS resolvers also might purge some ILNP RRsets before others, for
   example, if NID RRsets have a longer DNS TTL value than Locator-
   related (e.g., LP, L32, L64) RRsets.  So a DNS stub resolver sending
   queries to a DNS resolver cannot be certain if they have obtained all
   available RRtypes for a given owner name.  Therefore, the DNS stub
   resolver SHOULD send follow-up DNS queries for RRTYPE values that
   were missing and are desired, to ensure that the DNS stub resolver
   receives all the necessary information.

   Note nodes likely either to be mobile or to be multihomed normally
   will have very low DNS TTL values for L32 and L64 records, as those
   values might change frequently.  However, the DNS TTL values for NID
   and LP records normally will be higher, as those values are not
   normally impacted by node location changes.  Previous trace-driven
   DNS simulations from MIT [JSBM02] and more recent experimental
   validation of operational DNS from U. of St Andrews [BA11] both
   indicate deployment and use of very short DNS TTL values within
   'stub' or 'leaf' DNS domains is not problematic.

   An ILNP node MAY use any NID value associated with its DNS owner name
   with any or all Locator (L32 or L64) values also associated with its
   DNS owner name.

   Existing DNS servers that do not explicitly support the new DNS RRs
   defined in this specification are expected to follow existing
   standards for handling unknown DNS RRs [RFC3597].

3.2.  Additional Section Processing

   For all the records above, Additional Section Processing MAY be used.
   This is intended to improve performance for both the DNS client and
   the DNS server.  For example, a node sending DNS query for an NID
   owner name, such as host1.example.com, would benefit from receiving
   all ILNP DNS records related to that owner name being returned, as it
   is quite likely that the client will need that information to
   initiate an ILNP session.



Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 16]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   However, this is not always the case: a DNS query for L64 for a
   particular owner name might be made because the DNS TTL for a
   previously resolved L64 RR has expired, while the NID RR for that
   same owner name has a DNS TTL that has not expired.

4.  Security Considerations

   These new DNS resource record types do not create any new
   vulnerabilities in the Domain Name System.

   Existing mechanisms for DNS Security can be used unchanged with these
   record types [RFC4033] [RFC3007].  As of this writing, the DNS
   Security mechanisms are believed to be widely implemented in
   currently available DNS servers and DNS clients.  Deployment of DNS
   Security appears to be growing rapidly.

   In situations where authentication of DNS data is a concern, the DNS
   Security extensions SHOULD be used [RFC4033].

   If these DNS records are updated dynamically over the network, then
   the Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC3007] mechanism SHOULD be used to
   secure such transactions.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has allocated each of the following DNS resource records
   (described above in Section 2) a Data RRTYPE value according to the
   procedures of Sections 3.1 and 3.1.1 of [RFC6195].

     Type  Value
     ----  -----
     NID   104
     L32   105
     L64   106
     LP    107

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and
               facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
               specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.



Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 17]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   [RFC3007]   Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
               Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.

   [RFC3597]   Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
               (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

   [RFC4033]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
               Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
               4033, March 2005.

   [RFC4291]   Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
               Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC6195]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
               Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6195, March 2011.

   [RFC6740]   Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
               Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740,
               November 2012.

   [RFC6741]   Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
               Protocol (ILNP) Engineering and Implementation
               Considerations", RFC 6741, November 2012.

6.2.  Informative References

   [ABH09a]    Atkinson, R., Bhatti, S. and S. Hailes, "Site-Controlled
               Secure Multi-Homing and Traffic Engineering For IP",
               Proceedings of IEEE Military Communications Conference,
               IEEE, Boston, MA, USA, October 2009.

   [BA11]      Bhatti, S. and R. Atkinson, "Reducing DNS Caching",
               Proceedings of IEEE Global Internet Symposium (GI2011),
               Shanghai, P.R. China. 15 April 2011.
               <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2011.5928919>

   [JSBM02]    Jung, J., Sit, E., Balakrishnan, H., and R. Morris, "DNS
               performance and the effectiveness of caching", IEEE/ACM
               Trans. Netw. 10(5) (October 2002), pp 589-603.
               <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2002.803905>

   [PHG02]     Pappas, A., Hailes, S. and R. Giaffreda, "Mobile Host
               Location Tracking through DNS", IEEE London
               Communications Symposium, London, England, UK, September
               2002.
               <http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/lcs/previous/LCS2002/LCS072.pdf>





Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 18]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


   [RAB09]     Rehunathan, D., Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Enabling
               Mobile Networks Through Secure Naming", Proceedings of
               IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), IEEE,
               Boston, MA, USA, October 2009.

   [SB00]      Snoeren, A. and H. Balakrishnan, "An End-To-End Approach
               To Host Mobility", Proceedings of 6th Conference on
               Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), ACM, Boston,
               MA, USA, August 2000.

   [SBK01]     Snoeren, A., Balakrishnan, H., and  M. Frans Kaashoek,
               "Reconsidering Internet Mobility", Proceedings of 8th
               Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), IEEE
               Computer Society, Elmau, Germany, May 2001.

   [RFC4984]   Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
               from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC
               4984, September 2007.

   [RFC6743]   Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "ICMPv6 Locator Update
               Message", RFC 6743, November 2012.

   [RFC6744]   Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "IPv6 Nonce Destination
               Option for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for
               IPv6 (ILNPv6)", RFC 6744, November 2012.

   [RFC6745]   Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti,  "ICMP Locator Update Message
               for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for IPv4
               (ILNPv4)", RFC 6745, November 2012.

   [RFC6746]   Atkinson, R. and S.Bhatti, "IPv4 Options for the
               Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)", RFC 6746,
               November 2012.

   [RFC6747]   Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Address Resolution Protocol
               (ARP) Extension for the Identifier-Locator Network
               Protocol for IPv4 (ILNPv4)", RFC 6747, November 2012.

   [RFC6748]   Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Optional Advanced Deployment
               Scenarios for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
               (ILNP)", RFC 6748, November 2012.










Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 19]
^L
RFC 6742                        ILNP DNS                   November 2012


7.  Acknowledgements

   Steve Blake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Mohamed Boucadair, Noel Chiappa,
   Wes George, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley, Volker Hilt,
   Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter, Bruce Simpson,
   Robin Whittle, and John Wroclawski (in alphabetical order) provided
   review and feedback on earlier versions of this document.  Steve
   Blake provided an especially thorough review of an early version of
   the entire ILNP document set, which was extremely helpful.  We also
   wish to thank the anonymous reviewers of the various ILNP papers for
   their feedback.

   Roy Arends provided expert guidance on technical and procedural
   aspects of DNS issues, for which the authors are greatly obliged.

Authors' Addresses

   RJ Atkinson
   Consultant
   San Jose, CA 95125
   USA

   EMail: rja.lists@gmail.com


   SN Bhatti
   School of Computer Science
   University of St Andrews
   North Haugh, St Andrews
   Fife, Scotland
   KY16 9SX, UK

   EMail: saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk


   Scott Rose
   US National Institute for Standards & Technology
   100 Bureau Drive
   Gaithersburg, MD 20899
   USA

   EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com









Atkinson, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 20]
^L