Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential Networks
draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9526.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel Migault , Ralf Weber , Michael Richardson , Ray Hunter | ||
| Last updated | 2021-05-04 (Latest revision 2021-04-28) | ||
| Replaces | draft-mglt-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
DNSDIR Last Call review
(of
-26)
by Anthony Somerset
Ready w/issues
DNSDIR Telechat review
(of
-25)
by Geoff Huston
Ready w/issues
INTDIR Telechat review
(of
-25)
by Tim Chown
Almost ready
DNSDIR Telechat review
(of
-25)
by Geoff Huston
Ready w/issues
ARTART Last Call review
(of
-22)
by Darrel Miller
Ready w/issues
DNSDIR Telechat review
(of
-18)
by Anthony Somerset
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9526 (Experimental) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Éric Vyncke | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14
Homenet D. Migault
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track R. Weber
Expires: October 30, 2021 Nominum
M. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
R. Hunter
Globis Consulting BV
April 28, 2021
Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential Networks
draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-14
Abstract
Home owners often have IPv6 devices that they wish to access over the
Internet using names. It has been possible to register and populate
a DNS Zone with names since DNS became a thing, but it has been an
activity typically reserved for experts. This document automates the
process through creation of a Homenet Naming Authority (HNA), whose
responsibility is to select, sign and publish names to a set of
publicly visible servers.
The use of an outsourced primary DNS server deals with possible
renumbering of the home network, and with possible denial of service
attacks against the DNS infrastructure.
This document describes the mechanism that enables the HNA to
outsource the naming service to the DNS Outsourcing Infrastructure
(DOI) via a Distribution Master (DM).
In addition, this document deals with publication of a corresponding
reverse zone.
Status of This Memo
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
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
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 October 30, 2021.
Copyright Notice
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Selecting Names to Publish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Alternative solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Architecture Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Distribution Master Communication Channels . . . . . . . 11
4. Control Channel between Homenet Naming Authority (HNA) and
Distribution Master (DM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Information to build the Public Homenet Zone . . . . . . 13
4.2. Information to build the DNSSEC chain of trust . . . . . 13
4.3. Information to set the Synchronization Channel . . . . . 14
4.4. Deleting the delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5. Messages Exchange Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5.1. Retrieving information for the Public Homenet Zone. . 15
4.5.2. Providing information for the DNSSEC chain of trust . 16
4.5.3. Providing information for the Synchronization Channel 16
4.5.4. HNA instructing deleting the delegation . . . . . . . 17
4.6. Securing the Control Channel between Homenet Naming
Authority (HNA) and Distribution Master (DM) . . . . . . 17
4.7. Implementation Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. DM Synchronization Channel between HNA and DM . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. Securing the Synchronization Channel between HNA and DM . 20
6. DM Distribution Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. HNA Security Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. DNSSEC compliant Homenet Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
9. Homenet Reverse Zone Channels Configuration . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Homenet Public Zone Channel Configurations . . . . . . . . . 23
11. Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1. Hidden Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13.1. HNA DM channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13.2. Names are less secure than IP addresses . . . . . . . . 27
13.3. Names are less volatile than IP addresses . . . . . . . 27
14. Information Model for Outsourced information . . . . . . . . 27
14.1. Outsourced Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
16. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
17. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix A. Envisioned deployment scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.1. CPE Vendor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.2. Agnostic CPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B. Example: A manufacturer provisioned HNA product flow 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1. Introduction
The Homenet Naming Authority (HNA) is responsible for making devices
within the home network accessible by name within the home network as
well as from outside the home network (e.g. the Internet). IPv6
connectivity provides the possibility of global end to end IP
connectivity. End users will be able to transparently make use of
this connectivity if they can use names to access the services they
want from their home network.
The use of a DNS zone for each home network is a reasonable and
scalable way to make the set of public names visible. There are a
number of ways to populate such a zone. This specification proposes
a way based on a number of assumptions about typical home networks.
1. The names of the devices accessible from the Internet are stored
in the Public Homenet Zone, served by a DNS authoritative server.
2. It is unlikely that home networks will contain sufficiently
robust platforms designed to host a service such as the DNS on
the Internet and as such would expose the home network to DDoS
attacks.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
3. [RFC7368] emphasizes that the home network is subject to
connectivity disruptions with the ISP. But, names used within
the home MUST be resilient against such disruption.
This specification makes the public names resolvable within both the
home network and on the Internet, even when there are disruptions.
This is achieved by having a device inside the home network that
builds, signs, publishes, and manages a Public Homenet Zone, thus
providing bindings between public names, IP addresses, and other RR
types.
The management of the names can be a role that the Customer Premises
Equipment (CPE) does. Other devices in the home network could
fulfill this role e.g. a NAS server, but for simplicity, this
document assumes the function is located on one of the CPE devices.
The homenet architecture [RFC7368] makes it clear that a home network
may have multiple CPEs. The management of the Public Homenet Zone
involves DNS specific mechanisms that cannot be distributed over
multiple servers (primary server), when multiple nodes can
potentially manage the Public Homenet Zone, a single node needs to be
selected per outsourced zone. This selected node is designated as
providing the HNA function.
The process by which a single HNA is selected per zone is not in
scope for this document. It is envisioned that a future document
will describe an HNCP mechanism to elect the single HNA.
CPEs, which may host the HNA function, as well as home network
devices, are usually low powered devices not designed for terminating
heavy traffic. As a result, hosting an authoritative DNS service
visible to the Internet may expose the home network to resource
exhaustion and other attacks. On the other hand, if the only copy of
the public zone is on the Internet, then Internet connectivity
disruptions would make the names unavailable inside the homenet.
In order to avoid resource exhaustion and other attacks, this
document describes an architecture that outsources the authoritative
naming service of the home network. More specifically, the HNA
builds the Public Homenet Zone and outsources it to an DNS
Outsourcing Infrastructure (DOI) via a Distribution Master (DM). The
DOI is in charge of publishing the corresponding Public Homenet Zone
on the Internet. The transfer of DNS zone information is achieved
using standard DNS mechanisms involving primary and secondary DNS
servers, with the HNA hosted primary being a stealth primary, and the
DM a secondary.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
Section 3.1 provides an architecture description that describes the
relation between the HNA and the DOI. In order to keep the Public
Homenet Zone up-to-date Section 5 describes how the HNA and the DOI
synchronizes the Pubic Homenet Zone.
The proposed architecture is explicitly designed to enable fully
functional DNSSEC, and the Public Homenet Zone is expected to be
signed with a secure delegation. DNSSEC key management and zone
signing is handled by the HNA.
Section 10 discusses management and configuration of the Public
Homenet Zone. It shows that the HNA configuration of the DOI can
involve no or little interaction with the end user. More
specifically, it shows that the existence of an account in the DOI is
sufficient for the DOI to push the necessary configuration. In
addition, when the DOI and CPE are both managed by an ISP, the
configuration can be entirely automated - see Section 9.
Section 9 discusses management of one or more reverse zones. It
shows that management of the reverse zones can be entirely automated
and benefit from a pre-established relation between the ISP and the
home network. Note that such scenarios may also be met for the
Public Homenet Zone, but not necessarily.
Section 11 discusses how renumbering should be handled. Finally,
Section 12 and Section 13 respectively discuss privacy and security
considerations when outsourcing the Public Homenet Zone.
The Public Homenet Zone is expected to contain public information
only in a single universal view. This document does not define how
the information required to construct this view is derived.
It is also not in the scope of this document to define names for
exclusive use within the boundaries of the local home network.
Instead, local scope information is expected to be provided to the
home network using local scope naming services. mDNS [RFC6762] DNS-SD
[RFC6763] are two examples of these services. Currently mDNS is
limited to a single link network. However, future protocols and
architectures [I-D.ietf-homenet-simple-naming] are expected to
leverage this constraint as pointed out in [RFC7558].
1.1. Selecting Names to Publish
While this document does not create any normative mechanism by which
the selection of names to publish, this document anticipates that the
home network administrator (a humuan), will be presented with a list
of current names and addresses present on the inside of the home
network.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
The administrator would mark which devices (by name), are to be
published. The HNA would then collect the IPv6 address(es)
associated with that device, and put the name into the Public Homenet
Zone. The address of the device can be collected from a number of
places: mDNS [RFC6762], DHCP [RFC6644], UPnP, PCP [RFC6887], or
manual configuration.
A device may have a Global Unicast Address (GUA), a Unique Local IPv6
Address (ULA), as as well IPv6-Link-Local addresses, IPv4-Link-Local
Addresses, and RFC1918 addresses. Of these the link-local are never
useful for the Public Zone, and should be omitted. The IPv6 ULA and
the RFC1918 addresses may be useful to publish, if the home network
environment features a VPN that would allow the home owner to reach
the network.
The IPv6 ULA addressees are significantly safer to publish, as the
RFC1918 addressees are likely to be confusing to any other entity.
In general, one expects the GUA to be the default address to be
published. However, during periods when the home network has
connectivity problems, the ULA and RFC1918 addressees can be used
inside the home, and the mapping from public name to locally useful
location address would permit many services secured with HTTPS to
continue to operate.
1.2. Alternative solutions
An alternative existing solution in IPv4 is to have a single zone,
where a host uses a RESTful HTTP service to register a single name
into a common public zone. This is often called "Dynamic DNS", and
there are a number of commercial providers, including Dyn, Gandi etc.
These solutions were typically used by a host behind the CPE to make
it's CPE IPv4 address visible, usually in order to enable incoming
connections.
For a small number (one to three) of hosts, use of such a system
provides an alternative to the architecture described in this
document.
The alternative does suffer from some severe limitations:
o the CPE/HNA router is unaware of the process, and cannot respond
to queries for these names when there are disruptions in
connectivity. This makes the home user or application dependent
on having to resolve different names in the event of outages or
disruptions.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
o the CPE/HNA router cannot control the process. Any host can do
this regardless of whether or not the home network administrator
wants the name published or not. There is therefore no possible
audit trail.
o the credentials for the dynamic DNS server need to be securely
transferred to all hosts that wish to use it. This is not a
problem for a technical user to do with one or two hosts, but it
does not scale to multiple hosts and becomes a problem for non-
technical users.
o "all the good names are taken" - current services put everyone's
names into some small set of zones, and there are often conflicts.
Distinguishing similar names by delegation of zones was among the
primary design goals of the DNS system.
o The RESTful services do not always support all RR types. The
homenet user is dependent on the service provider supporting new
types. By providing full DNS delegation, this document enables
all RR types and also future extensions.
There is no technical reason why a RESTful cloud service could not
provide solutions to many of these problems, but this document
describes a DNS based solution.
2. Terminology
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.
Customer Premises Equipment: (CPE) is a router providing
connectivity to the home network.
Homenet Zone: is the DNS zone for use within the boundaries of the
home network: home.arpa, see [RFC8375]). This zone is not
considered public and is out of scope for this document.
Registered Homenet Domain: is the Domain Name associated with the
home network.
Public Homenet Zone: contains the names in the home network that are
expected to be publicly resolvable on the Internet.
Homenet Naming Authority: (HNA) is a function responsible for
managing the Public Homenet Zone. This includes populating the
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
Public Homenet Zone, signing the zone for DNSSEC, as well as
managing the distribution of that Homenet Zone to the DNS
Outsourcing Infrastructure (DOI).
DNS Outsourcing Infrastructure (DOI): is the infrastructure
responsible for receiving the Public Homenet Zone and publishing
it on the Internet. It is mainly composed of a Distribution
Master and Public Authoritative Servers.
Public Authoritative Servers: are the authoritative name servers for
the Public Homenet Zone. Name resolution requests for the Homenet
Domain are sent to these servers. For resiliency the Public
Homenet Zone SHOULD be hosted on multiple servers.
Homenet Authoritative Servers: are authoritative name servers within
the Homenet network.
Distribution Master (DM): is the (set of) server(s) to which the HNA
synchronizes the Public Homenet Zone, and which then distributes
the relevant information to the Public Authoritative Servers.
Homenet Reverse Zone: The reverse zone file associated with the
Public Homenet Zone.
Reverse Public Authoritative Servers: equivalent to Public
Authoritative Servers specifically for reverse resolution.
Reverse Distribution Master: equivalent to Distribution Master
specifically for reverse resolution.
Homenet DNSSEC Resolver: a resolver that performs a DNSSEC
resolution on the home network for the Public Homenet Zone. The
resolution is performed requesting the Homenet Authoritative
Servers.
DNSSEC Resolver: a resolver that performs a DNSSEC resolution on the
Internet for the Public Homenet Zone. The resolution is performed
requesting the Public Authoritative Servers.
3. Architecture Description
This section provides an overview of the architecture for outsourcing
the authoritative naming service from the HNA to the DOI in
Section 3.1. Section 14 defines necessary parameter to configure the
HNA.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
3.1. Architecture Overview
Figure 1 illustrates the architecture where the HNA outsources the
publication of the Public Homenet Zone to the DOI.
The Public Homenet Zone is identified by the Registered Homenet
Domain Name - myhome.example. The ".local" as well as ".home.arpa"
are explicitly not considered as Public Homenet zones and represented
as Homenet Zone in Figure 1.
The HNA SHOULD build the Public Homenet Zone in a single view
populated with all resource records that are expected to be published
on the Internet. As explained in Section 1.1, how the Public Homenet
Zone is populated is out of the scope of this document. The HNA also
signs the Public Homenet Zone. The HNA handles all operations and
keying material required for DNSSEC, so there is no provision made in
this architecture for transferring private DNSSEC related keying
material between the HNA and the DM.
Once the Public Homenet Zone has been built, the HNA outsources it to
the DOI as described in Figure 1. The HNA acts as a hidden primary
while the DM behaves as a secondary responsible to distribute the
Public Homenet Zone to the multiple Public Authoritative Servers that
DOI is responsible for. The DM has 3 communication channels:
o a DM Control Channel (see section Section 4) to configure the HNA
and the DOI,
o a DM Synchronization Channel (see section Section 5 to synchronize
the Public Homenet Zone on the HNA and on the DM.
o one or more Distribution Channels (see section Section 6 that
distributes the Public Homenet Zone from the DM to the Public
Authoritative Server serving the Public Homenet Zone on the
Internet.
There MAY be multiple DM's, and multiple servers per DM. This text
assumes a single DM server for simplicity, but there is no reason why
each channel needs to be implemented on the same server, or indeed
use the same code base.
It is important to note that while the HNA is configured as an
authoritative server, it is not expected to answer to DNS requests
from the public Internet for the Public Homenet Zone. More
specifically, the addresses associated with the HNA SHOULD NOT be
mentioned in the NS records of the Public Homenet zone, unless
additional security provisions necessary to protect the HNA from
external attack have been taken.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
The DOI is also responsible for ensuring the DS record has been
updated in the parent zone.
Resolution is performed by the DNSSEC resolvers. When the resolution
is performed outside the home network, the DNSSEC Resolver resolves
the DS record on the Global DNS and the name associated to the Public
Homenet Zone (myhome.example) on the Public Authoritative Servers.
When the resolution is performed from within the home network, the
Homenet DNSSEC Resolver may proceed similarly. On the other hand, to
provide resilience to the Public Homenet Zone in case of disruption,
the Homenet DNSSEC Resolver SHOULD be able to perform the resolution
on the Homenet Authoritative Servers. These servers are not expected
to be mentioned in the Public Homenet Zone, nor to be accessible from
the Internet. As such their information as well as the corresponding
signed DS record MAY be provided by the HNA to the Homenet DNSSEC
Resolvers, e.g., using HNCP [RFC7788]. Such configuration is outside
the scope of this document. Since the scope of the Homenet
Authoritative Servers is limited to the home network, these servers
are expected to serve the Homenet Zone as represented in Figure 1.
How the Homenet Authoritative Servers are provisioned is also out of
scope of this specification. It could be implemented using primary
secondaries servers, or via rsync. In some cases, the HNA and
Homenet Authoritative Servers may be combined together which would
result in a common instantiation of an authoritative server on the
WAN and inner interface. Other mechanisms may also be used.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
Home network | Internet
|
| +----------------------------+
| | DOI |
Control | | |
+-----------------------+ Channel | | +-----------------------+ |
| HNA |<-------------->| Distribution Master | |
|+---------------------+| | | |+---------------------+| |
|| Public Homenet Zone ||Synchronization || Public Homenet Zone || |
|| (myhome.example) || Channel | | || (myhome.example) || |
|+---------------------+|<-------------->|+---------------------+| |
+-----------^-----------+ | | +-----------------------+ |
. | | ^ Distribution |
. | | | Channel |
+-----------v-----------+ | | v |
| Homenet Authoritative | | | +-----------------------+ |
| Server(s) | | | | Public Authoritative | |
|+---------------------+| | | | Server(s) | |
||Public Homenet Zone || | | |+---------------------+| |
|| (myhome.example) || | | || Public Homenet Zone || |
|+---------------------+| | | || (myhome.example) || |
|| Homenet Zone || | | |+---------------------+| |
|| (home.arpa) || | | +-----------------------+ |
|+---------------------+| | +----------^---|-------------+
+----------^---|--------+ | | |
| | name resolution | |
| v | | v
+----------------------+ | +-----------------------+
| Homenet | | | Internet |
| DNSSEC Resolver | | | DNSSEC Resolver |
+----------------------+ | +-----------------------+
Figure 1: Homenet Naming Architecture
3.2. Distribution Master Communication Channels
This section details the interfaces and channels of the DM, that is
the Control Channel, the Synchronization Channel and the Distribution
Channel.
The Control Channel and the Synchronization Channel are the
interfaces used between the HNA and the DOI. The entity within the
DOI responsible to handle these communications is the DM and
communications between the HNA and the DM SHOULD be protected and
mutually authenticated. While section Section 4.6 discusses in more
depth the different security protocols that could be used to secure,
this specification RECOMMENDS the use of TLS with mutually
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
authentication based on certificates to secure the channel between
the HNA and the DM.
The Control Channel is used to set up the Synchronization Channel.
We assume that the HNA initiates the Control Channel connection with
the DM and as such has a prior knowledge of the DM identity (X509
certificate), the IP address and port to use and protocol to set
secure session. We also assume the DM has knowledge of the identity
of the HNA (X509 certificate) as well as the Registered Homenet
Domain. For more detail to see how this can be achieved, please see
section Section 10.
The information exchanged between the HNA and the DM is using DNS
messages protected by DNS over TLS (DoT) [RFC7858]. Further
specifications may consider protecting DNS messages with other
transport layers, among others, DNS over DTLS [RFC8094], or DNS over
HTTPs (DoH) [RFC8484] or DNS over QUIC [I-D.ietf-dprive-dnsoquic].
There was consideration to using a standard TSIG [RFC2845] or SIG(0)
[RFC2931] to perform a dynamic DNS update to the DM. There are a
number of issues with this. The first one is that TSIG or SIG(0)
make scenarios where the end user needs to interact via its web
browser more complex. More precisely, authorization and access
control granted via OAUTH would be unnecessarily complex with TSIG or
SIG(0).
The main one is that the Dynamic DNS update would also update the
parent zone's (NS, DS and associated A or AAAA records) while the
goal is to update the DM configuration files. The visible NS records
SHOULD remain pointing at the cloud provider's anycast addresses.
Revealing the address of the HNA in the DNS is not desirable. Please
see section Section 4.2 for more details.
This specification assumes:
o the DM serves both the Control Channel and Synchronization Channel
on a single IP address, single port and with a single transport
protocol.
o By default, the HNA uses a single IP address for both the Control
and Synchronization channel. However, the HNA MAY use distinct IP
addresses for the Control Channel and the Synchronization Channel
- see section Section 5 and section Section 4.3 for more details.
The Distribution Channel is internal to the DOI and as such is not
the primary concern of this specification.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
4. Control Channel between Homenet Naming Authority (HNA) and
Distribution Master (DM)
The DM Control Channel is used by the HNA and the DOI to exchange
information related to the configuration of the delegation which
includes information to build the Public Homenet Zone (see
Section 4.1), information to build the DNSSEC chain of trust (see
Section 4.2) and information to set the Synchronization Channel (see
Section 4.3).
4.1. Information to build the Public Homenet Zone
When the HNA builds the Public Homenet Zone, it must include
information that it retrieves from the DM relating to how the zone is
to be published.
The information includes at least names and IP addresses of the
Public Authoritative Name Servers. In term of RRset information this
includes:
o the MNAME of the SOA,
o the NS and associated A and AAA RRsets of the name servers.
Optionally the DOI MAY also provide operational parameters such as
other fields of SOA (SERIAL, RNAME, REFRESH, RETRY, EXPIRE and
MINIMUM). As the information is necessary for the HNA to proceed and
the information is associated to the DOI, this information exchange
is mandatory.
4.2. Information to build the DNSSEC chain of trust
The HNA SHOULD provide the hash of the KSK (DS RRset), so the that
DOI provides this value to the parent zone. A common deployment use
case is that the DOI is the registrar of the Registered Homenet
Domain, and as such, its relationship with the registry of the parent
zone enables it to update the parent zone. When such relation
exists, the HNA should be able to request the DOI to update the DS
RRset in the parent zone. A direct update is especially necessary to
initialize the chain of trust.
Though the HNA may also later directly update the values of the DS
via the Control Channel, it is RECOMMENDED to use other mechanisms
such as CDS and CDNSKEY [RFC7344] for transparent updates during key
roll overs.
As some deployment may not provide a DOI that will be able to update
the DS in the parent zone, this information exchange is OPTIONAL.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
By accepting the DS RR, the DM commits in taking care of advertising
the DS to the parent zone. Upon refusal, the DM clearly indicates it
does not have the capacity to proceed to the update.
4.3. Information to set the Synchronization Channel
The HNA works as a primary authoritative DNS server, while the DM
works like a secondary. As a result, the HNA MUST provide the IP
address the DM is using to reach the HNA. The synchronization
Channel will be set between that IP address and the IP address of the
DM. By default, the IP address used by the HNA in the Control
Channel is considered by the DM and the specification of the IP by
the HNA is only OPTIONAL. The transport channel (including port) is
the same as the one used between the HNA and the DM for the Control
Channel.
4.4. Deleting the delegation
The purpose of the previous sections were to exchange information in
order to set a delegation. The HNA MUST also be able to delete a
delegation with a specific DM. Upon an instruction of deleting the
delegation, the DM MUST stop serving the Public Homenet Zone.
4.5. Messages Exchange Description
There are multiple ways these information could be exchanged between
the HNA and the DM. This specification defines a mechanism that re-
use the DNS exchanges format. The intention is to reuse standard
libraries especially to check the format of the exchanged fields as
well as to minimize the additional libraries needed for the HNA. The
re-use of DNS exchanges achieves these goals. Note that while
information is provided using DNS exchanges, the exchanged
information is not expected to be set in any zone file, instead this
information is expected to be processed appropriately.
The Control Channel is not expected to be a long term session. After
a predefined timer the Control Channel is expected to be terminated.
The Control Channel MAY Be re-opened at any time later.
The provisioning process SHOULD provide a method of securing the
Control Channel, so that the content of messages can be
authenticated. This authentication MAY be based on certificates for
both the DM and each HNA. The DM may also create the initial
configuration for the delegation zone in the parent zone during the
provisioning process.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
4.5.1. Retrieving information for the Public Homenet Zone.
The information provided by the DM to the HNA is retrieved by the HNA
with an AXFR exchange. The AXFR message enables the response to
contain any type of RRsets. The response might be extended in the
future if additional information will be needed. Alternatively, the
information provided by the HNA to the DM is pushed by the HNA via a
DNS update exchange [RFC2136].
To retrieve the necessary information to build the Public Homenet
Zone, the HNA MUST send an DNS request of type AXFR associated to the
Registered Homenet Domain. The DM MUST respond with a zone template.
The zone template MUST contain a RRset of type SOA, one or multiple
RRset of type NS and zero or more RRset of type A or AAAA.
o The SOA RR is used to indicate to the HNA the value of the MNAME
of the Public Homenet Zone.
o The NAME of the SOA RR MUST be the Registered Homenet Domain.
o The MNAME value of the SOA RDATA is the value provided by the DOI
to the HNA.
o Other RDATA values (RNAME, REFRESH, RETRY, EXPIRE and MINIMUM) are
provided by the DOI as suggestions.
The NS RRsets are used to carry the Public Authoritative Servers of
the DOI. Their associated NAME MUST be the Registered Homenet
Domain.
The TTL and RDATA are those expected to be published on the Public
Homenet Zone. The RRsets of Type A and AAAA MUST have their NAME
matching the NSDNAME of one of the NS RRsets.
Upon receiving the response, the HNA MUST validate format and
properties of the SOA, NS and A or AAAA RRsets. If an error occurs,
the HNA MUST stop proceeding and MUST report an error. Otherwise,
the HNA builds the Public Homenet Zone by setting the MNAME value of
the SOA as indicated by the SOA provided by the AXFR response. The
HNA SHOULD set the value of NAME, REFRESH, RETRY, EXPIRE and MINIMUM
of the SOA to those provided by the AXFR response. The HNA MUST
insert the NS and corresponding A or AAAA RRset in its Public Homenet
Zone. The HNA MUST ignore other RRsets. If an error message is
returned by the DM, the HNA MUST proceed as a regular DNS resolution.
Error messages SHOULD be logged for further analysis. If the
resolution does not succeed, the outsourcing operation is aborted and
the HNA MUST close the Control Channel.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
4.5.2. Providing information for the DNSSEC chain of trust
To provide the DS RRset to initialize the DNSSEC chain of trust the
HNA MAY send a DNS update [RFC2136] message.
The DNS update message is composed of a Header section, a Zone
section, a Pre-requisite section, and Update section and an
additional section. The Zone section MUST set the ZNAME to the
parent zone of the Registered Homenet Domain - that is where the DS
records should be inserted. As described [RFC2136], ZTYPE is set to
SOA and ZCLASS is set to the zone's class. The Pre-requisite section
MUST be empty. The Update section is a DS RRset with its NAME set to
the Registered Homenet Domain and the associated RDATA corresponds to
the value of the DS. The Additional Data section MUST be empty.
Though the pre-requisite section MAY be ignored by the DM, this value
is fixed to remain coherent with a standard DNS update.
Upon receiving the DNS update request, the DM reads the DS RRset in
the Update section. The DM checks ZNAME corresponds to the parent
zone. The DM SHOULD ignore non empty the Pre-requisite and
Additional Data section. The DM MAY update the TTL value before
updating the DS RRset in the parent zone. Upon a successful update,
the DM should return a NOERROR response as a commitment to update the
parent zone with the provided DS. An error indicates the MD does not
update the DS, and other method should be used by the HNA.
The regular DNS error message SHOULD be returned to the HNA when an
error occurs. In particular a FORMERR is returned when a format
error is found, this includes when unexpected RRSets are added or
when RRsets are missing. A SERVFAIL error is returned when a
internal error is encountered. A NOTZONE error is returned when
update and Zone sections are not coherent, a NOTAUTH error is
returned when the DM is not authoritative for the Zone section. A
REFUSED error is returned when the DM refuses to proceed to the
configuration and the requested action.
4.5.3. Providing information for the Synchronization Channel
To provide a non default IP address used by the HNA for the
Synchronization Channel, the HNA MAY send a DNS Update message. Such
exchange is OPTIONAL.
Similarly to the Section 4.5.2, the HNA MAY optionally specify the IP
address using a DNS update message. The Zone section sets its ZNAME
to the parent zone of the Registered Homenet Domain, ZTYPE is set to
SOA and ZCLASS is set to the zone's type. Pre-requisite is empty.
The Update section is a RRset of type NS. The Additional Data
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
section contains the RRsets of type A or AAAA that designates the IP
addresses associated to the primary (or the HNA).
The reason to provide these IP addresses is that it is NOT
RECOMMENDED to publish these IP addresses. As a result, it is not
expected to resolve them.
Upon receiving the DNS update request, the DM reads the IP addresses
and checks the ZNAME corresponds to the parent zone. The DM SHOULD
ignore a non empty Pre-requisite section. The DM configures the
secondary with the IP addresses and returns a NOERROR response to
indicate it is committed to serve as a secondary.
Similarly to Section 4.5.2, DNS errors are used and an error
indicates the DM is not configured as a secondary.
4.5.4. HNA instructing deleting the delegation
To instruct to delete the delegation the HNA SHOULD send a DNS UPDATE
Delete message.
The Zone section sets its ZNAME to the Registered Homenet Domain, the
ZTYPE to SOA and the ZCLASS to zone's type. The Pre-requisite
section is empty. The Update section is a RRset of type NS with the
NAME set to the Registered Domain Name. As indicated by [RFC2136]
section 2.5.2 the delete instruction is set by setting the TTL to 0,
the Class to ANY, the RDLENGTH to 0 and the RDATA MUST be empty. The
Additional Data section is empty.
Upon receiving the DNS update request, the DM checks the request and
removes the delegation. The DM returns a NOERROR response to
indicate the delegation has been deleted. Similarly to
Section 4.5.2, DNS errors are used and an error indicates the
delegation has not been deleted.
4.6. Securing the Control Channel between Homenet Naming Authority
(HNA) and Distribution Master (DM)
The control channel between the HNA and the DM MUST be secured at
both the HNA and the DM.
Secure protocols (like TLS [RFC8446] SHOULD be used to secure the
transactions between the DM and the HNA.
The advantage of TLS is that this technology is widely deployed, and
most of the devices already embed TLS libraries, possibly also taking
advantage of hardware acceleration. Further, TLS provides
authentication facilities and can use certificates to mutually
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
authenticate the DM and HNA at the application layer, including
available API. On the other hand, using TLS requires implementing
DNS exchanges over TLS, as well as a new service port.
The HNA SHOULD authenticate inbound connections from the DM using
standard mechanisms, such as a public certificate with baked-in root
certificates on the HNA, or via DANE [RFC6698]. The HNA is expected
to be provisioned with a connection to the DM by the manufacturer, or
during some user-initiated onboarding process, see Section 10.
The DM SHOULD authenticate the HNA and check that inbound messages
are from the appropriate client. The DM MAY use a self-signed CA
certificate mechanism per HNA, or public certificates for this
purpose.
IPsec [RFC4301] and IKEv2 [RFC7296] were considered. They would need
to operate in transport mode, and the authenticated end points would
need to be visible to the applications, and this is not commonly
available at the time of this writing.
A pure DNS solution using TSIG and/or SIG(0) to authenticate message
was also considered. Section 10 envisions one mechanism would
involve the end user, with a browser, signing up to a service
provider, with a resulting OAUTH2 token to be provided to the HNA. A
way to translate this OAUTH2 token from HTTPS web space to DNS SIG(0)
space seems overly problematic, and so the enrollment protocol using
web APIs was determined to be easier to implement at scale.
Note also that authentication of message exchanges between the HNA
and the DM SHOULD NOT use the external IP address of the HNA to index
the appropriate keys. As detailed in Section 11, the IP addresses of
the DM and the Hidden Primary are subject to change, for example
while the network is being renumbered. This means that the necessary
keys to authenticate transaction SHOULD NOT be indexed using the IP
address, and SHOULD be resilient to IP address changes.
4.7. Implementation Concerns
The Hidden Primary Server on the HNA differs from a regular
authoritative server for the home network due to:
Interface Binding: the Hidden Primary Server will almost certainly
listen on the WAN Interface, whereas a regular Homenet
Authoritative Servers would listen on the internal home network
interface.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
Limited exchanges: the purpose of the Hidden Primary Server is to
synchronize with the DM, not to serve any zones to end users, or
the public Internet.
As a result, exchanges are performed with specific nodes (the DM).
Further, exchange types are limited. The only legitimate exchanges
are: NOTIFY initiated by the Hidden Primary and IXFR or AXFR
exchanges initiated by the DM.
On the other hand, regular authoritative servers would respond to any
hosts, and any DNS query would be processed. The HNA SHOULD filter
IXFR/AXFR traffic and drop traffic not initiated by the DM. The HNA
MUST MUST at least allow SOA lookups of the Homenet Zone.
5. DM Synchronization Channel between HNA and DM
The DM Synchronization Channel is used for communication between the
HNA and the DM for synchronizing the Public Homenet Zone. Note that
the Control Channel and the Synchronization Channel are by
construction different channels even though there they MAY use the
same IP addresse. In fact the Control Channel is set between the HNA
working as a client using port YYYY (a high range port) toward a
service provided by the DM at port XX (well known port).
On the other hand, the Synchronization Channel is set between the DM
working as a client using port ZZZZ ( a high range port) toward a
service a service provided by the HNA at port XX.
As a result, even though the same couple of IP addresses may be
involved the Control Channel and the Synchronization Channel are
always distinct channels.
Uploading and dynamically updating the zone file on the DM can be
seen as zone provisioning between the HNA (Hidden Primary) and the DM
(Secondary Server). This can be handled via AXFR + DNS Update.
This document RECOMMENDS use of a primary / secondary mechanism
instead of the use of DNS Update. The primary / secondary mechanism
is RECOMMENDED as it scales better and avoids DoS attacks. Note that
even when UPDATE messages are used, these messages are using a
distinct channel as those used to set the configuration.
Note that there is no standard way to distribute a DNS primary
between multiple devices. As a result, if multiple devices are
candidate for hosting the Hidden Primary, some specific mechanisms
should be designed so the home network only selects a single HNA for
the Hidden Primary. Selection mechanisms based on HNCP [RFC7788] are
good candidates.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
The HNA acts as a Hidden Primary Server, which is a regular
authoritative DNS Server listening on the WAN interface.
The DM is configured as a secondary for the Registered Homenet Domain
Name. This secondary configuration has been previously agreed
between the end user and the provider of the DOI as part of either
the provisioning or due to receipt of DNS Update messages on the DM
Control Channel.
The Homenet Reverse Zone MAY also be updated either with DNS UPDATE
[RFC2136] or using a primary / secondary synchronization.
5.1. Securing the Synchronization Channel between HNA and DM
The Synchronization Channel used standard DNS request.
First the primary notifies the secondary that the zone must be
updated and eaves the secondary to proceed with the update when
possible/convenient.
Then, a NOTIFY message is sent by the primary, which is a small
packet that is less likely to load the secondary.
Finally, the AXFR [RFC1034] or IXFR [RFC1995] query performed by the
secondary is a small packet sent over TCP (section 4.2 [RFC5936]),
which mitigates reflection attacks using a forged NOTIFY.
The AXFR request from the DM to the HNA SHOULD be secured and the use
of TLS is RECOMMENDED [I-D.ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls]
When using TLS, the HNA MAY authenticate inbound connections from the
DM using standard mechanisms, such as a public certificate with
baked-in root certificates on the HNA, or via DANE [RFC6698]. In
addition, to guarantee the DM remains the same across multiple TLS
session, the HNA and DM MAY implement [RFC8672].
The HNA MAY apply a simple IP filter on inbound AXFR requests to
ensure they only arrive from the DM Synchronization Channel. In this
case, the HNA SHOULD regularly check (via DNS resolution) that the
address of the DM in the filter is still valid.
6. DM Distribution Channel
The DM Distribution Channel is used for communication between the DM
and the Public Authoritative Servers. The architecture and
communication used for the DM Distribution Channels is outside the
scope of this document, and there are many existing solutions
available e.g. rsynch, DNS AXFR, REST, DB copy.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
7. HNA Security Policies
This section details security policies related to the Hidden Primary
/ Secondary synchronization.
The HNA, as Hidden Primary SHOULD drop any queries from the home
network. This could be implemented via port binding and/or firewall
rules. The precise mechanism deployed is out of scope of this
document. The Hidden Primary SHOULD drop any DNS queries arriving on
the WAN interface that are not issued from the DM. The Hidden
Primary SHOULD drop any outgoing packets other than DNS NOTIFY query,
SOA response, IXFR response or AXFR responses. The Hidden Primary
SHOULD drop any incoming packets other than DNS NOTIFY response, SOA
query, IXFR query or AXFR query. The Hidden Primary SHOULD drop any
non protected IXFR or AXFR exchange,depending on how the
synchronization is secured.
8. DNSSEC compliant Homenet Architecture
[RFC7368] in Section 3.7.3 recommends DNSSEC to be deployed on both
the authoritative server and the resolver. The resolver side is out
of scope of this document, and only the authoritative part of the
server is considered.
This document assumes the HNA signs the Public Homenet Zone.
Secure delegation is achieved only if the DS RRset is properly set in
the parent zone. Secure delegation is performed by the HNA or the
DOIs.
The DS RRset can be updated manually with nsupdate for example. This
requires the HNA or the DOI to be authenticated by the DNS server
hosting the parent of the Public Homenet Zone. Such a trust channel
between the HNA and the parent DNS server may be hard to maintain
with HNAs, and thus may be easier to establish with the DOI. In
fact, the Public Authoritative Server(s) may use Automating DNSSEC
Delegation Trust Maintenance [RFC7344].
9. Homenet Reverse Zone Channels Configuration
The Public Homenet Zone is associated to a Registered Homenet Domain
and the ownership of that domain requires a specific registration
from the end user as well as the HNA being provisioned with some
authentication credentials. Such steps are mandatory unless the DOI
has some other means to authenticate the HNA. Such situation may
occur, for example, when the ISP provides the Homenet Domain as well
as the DOI.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
In this case, the HNA may be authenticated by the physical link
layer, in which case the authentication of the HNA may be performed
without additional provisioning of the HNA. While this may not be so
common for the Public Homenet Zone, this situation is expected to be
quite common for the Reverse Homenet Zone.
More specifically, a common case is that the upstream ISP provides
the IPv6 prefix to the Homenet with a IA_PD [RFC8415] option and
manages the DOI of the associated reverse zone.
This leave place for setting up automatically the relation between
HNA and the DNS Outsourcing infrastructure as described in
[I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options].
In the case of the reverse zone, the DOI authenticates the source of
the updates by IPv6 Access Control Lists. In the case of the reverse
zone, the ISP knows exactly what addresses have been delegated. The
HNA SHOULD therefore always originate Synchronization Channel updates
from an IP address within the zone that is being updated.
For example, if the ISP has assigned 2001:db8:f00d::2/64 to the WAN
interface (by DHCPv6, or PPP/RA), then the HNA should originate
Synchronization Channel updates from 2001:db8:f00d::2.
An ISP that has delegated 2001:db8:babe::/56 to the HNA via
DHCPv6-PD, then HNA should originate Synchronization Channel updates
an IP within that subnet, such as 2001:db8:babe:0001::2.
With this relation automatically configured, the synchronization
between the Home network and the DOI happens similarly as for the
Public Homenet Zone described earlier in this document.
Note that for home networks hosted by multiple ISPs, each ISP
provides only the DOI of the reverse zones associated to the
delegated prefix. It is also likely that the DNS exchanges will need
to be performed on dedicated interfaces as to be accepted by the ISP.
More specifically, the reverse zone associated to prefix 1 will not
be possible to be performs by the HNA using an IP address that
belongs to prefix 2. Such constraints does not raise major concerns
either for hot standby or load sharing configuration.
With IPv6, the domain space for IP addresses is so large that reverse
zone may be confronted with scalability issues. How the reverse zone
is generated is out of scope of this document.
[I-D.howard-dnsop-ip6rdns] provides guidance on how to address
scalability issues.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
10. Homenet Public Zone Channel Configurations
This document does not deal with how the HNA is provisioned with a
trusted relationship to the Distribution Master for the forward zone.
This section details what needs to be provisioned into the HNA and
serves as a requirements statement for mechanisms.
The HNA needs to be provisioned with:
o the Registered Domain (e.g., myhome.isp.example )
o the contact info for the Distribution Master (DM), including the
DNS name (FQDN), possibly including the IP literal, and a
certificate (or anchor) to be used to authenticate the service
o the DM transport protocol and port (the default is DNS over TLS,
on port 853)
o the HNA credentials used by the DM for its authentication.
The HNA will need to select an IP address for communication for the
Synchronization Channel. This is typically the outside WAN address
of the router, but could be an IPv6 LAN address in the case of a home
with multiple ISPs (and multiple border routers). This is
communicated in section Section 4.5.3 when the NS and A or AAAA
RRsets are communicated.
The above parameters MUST be be provisioned for ISP-specific reverse
zones, as per [I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options].
ISP-specific forward zones MAY also be provisioned using
[I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options], but zones which
are not related to a specific ISP zone (such as with a DNS provider)
must be provisioned through other means.
Similarly, if the HNA is provided by a registrar, the HNA may be
given configured to end user.
In the absence of specific pre-established relation, these pieces of
information may be entered manually by the end user. In order to
ease the configuration from the end user the following scheme may be
implemented.
The HNA may present the end user a web interface where it provides
the end user the ability to indicate the Registered Homenet Domain or
the registrar for example a preselected list. Once the registrar has
been selected, the HNA redirects the end user to that registrar in
order to receive a access token. The access token will enable the
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
HNA to retrieve the DM parameters associated to the Registered
Domain. These parameters will include the credentials used by the
HNA to establish the Control and Synchronization Channels.
Such architecture limits the necessary steps to configure the HNA
from the end user.
11. Renumbering
This section details how renumbering is handled by the Hidden Primary
server or the DM. Both types of renumbering are discussed i.e.
"make-before-break" and "break-before-make" (aka flash renumbering).
In the make-before-break renumbering scenario, the new prefix is
advertised, the network is configured to prepare the transition to
the new prefix. During a period of time, the two prefixes old and
new coexist, before the old prefix is completely removed.
In the break-before-make renumbering scenario, the new prefix is
advertised making the old prefix obsolete.
Renumbering has been extensively described in [RFC4192] and analyzed
in [RFC7010] and the reader is expected to be familiar with them
before reading this section.
11.1. Hidden Primary
In a renumbering scenario, the HNA or Hidden Primary is informed it
is being renumbered. In most cases, this occurs because the whole
home network is being renumbered. As a result, the Public Homenet
Zone will also be updated. Although the new and old IP addresses may
be stored in the Public Homenet Zone, we recommend that only the
newly reachable IP addresses be published.
To avoid reachability disruption, IP connectivity information
provided by the DNS SHOULD be coherent with the IP plane. In our
case, this means the old IP address SHOULD NOT be provided via the
DNS when it is not reachable anymore. Let for example TTL be the TTL
associated with a RRset of the Public Homenet Zone, it may be cached
for TTL seconds. Let T_NEW be the time the new IP address replaces
the old IP address in the Homenet Zone, and T_OLD_UNREACHABLE the
time the old IP is not reachable anymore.
In the case of the make-before-break, seamless reachability is
provided as long as T_OLD_UNREACHABLE - T_NEW > 2 * TTL. If this is
not satisfied, then devices associated with the old IP address in the
home network may become unreachable for 2 * TTL - (T_OLD_UNREACHABLE
- T_NEW). In the case of a break-before-make, T_OLD_UNREACHABLE =
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
T_NEW, and the device may become unreachable up to 2 * TTL. Of
course if T_NEW >= T_OLD_UNREACHABLE, the disruption is increased.
Once the Public Homenet Zone file has been updated on the Hidden
Primary, the Hidden Primary needs to inform the DOI that the Public
Homenet Zone has been updated and that the IP address to use to
retrieve the updated zone has also been updated. Both notifications
are performed using regular DNS exchanges. Mechanisms to update an
IP address provided by lower layers with protocols like SCTP
[RFC4960], MOBIKE [RFC4555] are not considered in this document.
Instead the IP address of the HNA is updated using the
Synchronization Channel as described in Section 4.3.
12. Privacy Considerations
Outsourcing the DNS Authoritative service from the HNA to a third
party raises a few privacy related concerns.
The Public Homenet Zone lists the names of services hosted in the
home network. Combined with blocking of AXFR queries, the use of
NSEC3 [RFC5155] (vs NSEC [RFC4034]) prevents an attacker from being
able to walk the zone, to discover all the names. However, the
attacker may be able to walk the reverse DNS zone, or use other
reconnaissance techniques to learn this information as described in
[RFC7707].
In general a home network owner is expected to publish only names for
which there is some need to be able to reference externally.
Publication of the name does not imply that the service is
necessarily reachable from any or all parts of the Internet.
[RFC7084] mandates that the outgoing-only policy [RFC6092] be
available, and in many cases it is configured by default. A well
designed User Interface would combine a policy for making a service
public by a name with a policy on who may access it.
In many cases, the home network owner wishes to publish names for
services that only they will be able to access. The access control
may consist of an IP source address range, or access may be
restricted via some VPN functionality. The purpose of publishing the
name is so that the service may be access by the same name both
within the home, and outside the home. Sending traffic to the
relevant IPv6 address causes the relevant VPN policy to be enacted
upon.
While the problem of getting access to internal names has been solved
in Enterprise configurations with a split-DNS, and such a thing could
be done in the home, many recent improvements to VPN user interfaces
make it more likely that an individual might have multiple
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
connections configured. For instance, an adult child checking on the
state of a home automation system for a parent.
In addition to the Public Homenet Zone, pervasive DNS monitoring can
also monitor the traffic associated with the Public Homenet Zone.
This traffic may provide an indication of the services an end user
accesses, plus how and when they use these services. Although,
caching may obfuscate this information inside the home network, it is
likely that outside your home network this information will not be
cached.
13. Security Considerations
This document exposes a mechanism that prevents the HNA from being
exposed to the Internet and served DNS request from the Internet.
These requests are instead served by the DOI. While this limits the
level of exposure of the HNA, the HNA remains exposed to the Internet
with communications with the DOI. This section analyses the attack
surface associated to these communications. In addition, the DOI
exposes data that are related to the home network. This section also
analyses the implication of such exposure.
13.1. HNA DM channels
The channels between HNA and DM are mutually authenticated and
encrypted with TLS [RFC8446] and its associated security
considerations apply. To ensure the multiple TLS session are are
continuously authenticating the same entity, TLS may take advantage
of second factor authentication as described in [RFC8672].
At the time of writing TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3 can be used and TLS 1.3 (or
newer) SHOULD be supported.
The DNS protocol is subject to reflection attacks, however, these
attacks are largely applicable when DNS is carried over UDP. The
interfaces between the HNA and DM are using TLS over TCP, which
prevents such reflection attacks. Note that Public Authoritative
servers hosted by the DOI are subject to such attacks, but that is
out of scope of our document.
Note that in the case of the Reverse Homenet Zone, the data is less
subject to attacks than in the Public Homenet Zone. In addition, the
DM and RDM may be provided by the ISP - as described in
[I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options], in which case DM
and RDM might be less exposed to attacks - as communications within a
network.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
13.2. Names are less secure than IP addresses
This document describes how an end user can make their services and
devices from his home network reachable on the Internet by using
names rather than IP addresses. This exposes the home network to
attackers, since names are expected to include less entropy than IP
addresses. In fact, with IP addresses, the Interface Identifier is
64 bits long leading to up to 2^64 possibilities for a given
subnetwork. This is not to mention that the subnet prefix is also of
64 bits long, thus providing up to 2^64 possibilities. On the other
hand, names used either for the home network domain or for the
devices present less entropy (livebox, router, printer, nicolas,
jennifer, ...) and thus potentially exposes the devices to dictionary
attacks.
13.3. Names are less volatile than IP addresses
IP addresses may be used to locate a device, a host or a service.
However, home networks are not expected to be assigned a time
invariant prefix by ISPs. As a result, observing IP addresses only
provides some ephemeral information about who is accessing the
service. On the other hand, names are not expected to be as volatile
as IP addresses. As a result, logging names over time may be more
valuable than logging IP addresses, especially to profile an end
user's characteristics.
PTR provides a way to bind an IP address to a name. In that sense,
responding to PTR DNS queries may affect the end user's privacy. For
that reason end users may choose not to respond to PTR DNS queries
and MAY instead return a NXDOMAIN response.
14. Information Model for Outsourced information
This section is non-normative for the front-end protocol. It
specifies an optional format for the set of parameters required by
the HNA to configure the naming architecture of this document.
In cases where a home router has not been provisioned by the
manufacturer (when forward zones are provided by the manufacturer),
or by the ISP (when the ISP provides this service), then a home user/
owner will need to configure these settings via an administrative
interface.
By defining a standard format (in JSON) for this configuration
information, the user/owner may be able to just copy and paste a
configuration blob from the service provider into the administrative
interface of the HNA.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
This format may also provide the basis for a future OAUTH2 [RFC6749]
flow that could do the setup automatically.
The HNA needs to be configured with the following parameters as
described by this CDDL [RFC8610]. These are the parameters are
necessary to establish a secure channel between the HNA and the DM as
well as to specify the DNS zone that is in the scope of the
communication.
hna-configuration = {
"registered_domain" : tstr,
"dm" : tstr,
? "dm_transport" : "DoT"
? "dm_port" : uint,
? "dm_acl" : hna-acl / [ +hna-acl ]
? "hna_auth_method": hna-auth-method
? "hna_certificate": tstr
}
hna-acl = tstr
hna-auth-method /= "certificate"
For example:
{
"registered_domain" : "n8d234f.r.example.net",
"dm" : "2001:db8:1234:111:222::2",
"dm_transport" : "DoT",
"dm_port" : 4433,
"dm_acl" : "2001:db8:1f15:62e:21c::/64"
or [ "2001:db8:1f15:62e:21c::/64", ... ]
"hna_auth_method" : "certificate",
"hna_certificate" : "-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----\nMIIDTjCCFGy....",
}
14.1. Outsourced Information Model
Registered Homenet Domain (zone) The Domain Name of the zone.
Multiple Registered Homenet Domains may be provided. This will
generate the creation of multiple Public Homenet Zones. This
parameter is MANDATORY.
Distribution Master notification address (dm) The associated FQDNs
or IP addresses of the DM to which DNS notifies should be sent.
This parameter is MANDATORY. IP addresses are optional and the
FQDN is sufficient and preferred. If there are concerns about the
security of the name to IP translation, then DNSSEC should be
employed.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
As the session between the HNA and the DM is authenticated with TLS,
the use of names is easier.
As certificates are more commonly emitted for FQDN than for IP
addresses, it is preferred to use names and authenticate the name of
the DM during the TLS session establishment.
Supported Transport (dm_transport) The transport that carries the
DNS exchanges between the HNA and the DM. Typical value is "DoT"
but it may be extended in the future with "DoH", "DoQ" for
example. This parameter is OPTIONAL and by default the HNA uses
DoT.
Distribution Master Port (dm_port) Indicates the port used by the
DM. This parameter is OPTIONAL and the default value is provided
by the Supported Transport. In the future, additional transport
may not have default port, in which case either a default port
needs to be defined or this parameter become MANDATORY.
Note that HNA does not defines ports for the Synchronization Channel.
In any case, this is not expected to part of the configuration, but
instead negotiated through the Configuration Channel. Currently the
Configuration Channel does not provide this, and limits its agility
to a dedicated IP address. If such agility is needed in the future,
additional exchanges will need to be defined.
Authentication Method ("hna_auth_method"): How the HNA authenticates
itself to the DM within the TLS connection(s). The authentication
meth of can typically be "certificate", "psk" or "none". This
Parameter is OPTIONAL and by default the Authentication Method is
"certificate".
Authentication data ("hna_certificate", "hna_key"): : The certificate
chain used to authenticate the HNA. This parameter is OPTIONAL and
when not specified, a self-signed certificate is used.
Distribution Master AXFR permission netmask (dm_acl): The subnet
from which the CPE should accept SOA queries and AXFR requests. A
subnet is used in the case where the DNS Outsourced Infrastructure
consists of a number of different systems. An array of addresses
is permitted. This parameter is OPTIONAL and if unspecified, the
CPE the IP addresses specified in the dm_notify parameters or the
IP addresses that result from the DNS(SEC) resolution when
dm_notify specifies a FQDN.
For forward zones, the relationship between the HNA and the forward
zone provider may be the result of a number of transactions:
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
1. The forward zone outsourcing may be provided by the maker of the
Homenet router. In this case, the identity and authorization
could be built in the device at manufacturer provisioning time.
The device would need to be provisioned with a device-unique
credential, and it is likely that the Registered Homenet Domain
would be derived from a public attribute of the device, such as a
serial number (see Appendix B or
[I-D.richardson-homerouter-provisioning] for more details ).
2. The forward zone outsourcing may be provided by the Internet
Service Provider. In this case, the use of
[I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options] to provide the
credentials is appropriate.
3. The forward zone may be outsourced to a third party, such as a
domain registrar. In this case, the use of the JSON-serialized
YANG data model described in this section is appropriate, as it
can easily be copy and pasted by the user, or downloaded as part
of a web transaction.
For reverse zones, the relationship is always with the upstream ISP
(although there may be more than one), and so
[I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options] is always the
appropriate interface.
The following is an abbridged example of a set of data that
represents the needed configuration parameters for outsourcing.
15. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
16. Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Philippe Lemordant for its contributions on
the early versions of the draft; Ole Troan for pointing out issues
with the IPv6 routed home concept and placing the scope of this
document in a wider picture; Mark Townsley for encouragement and
injecting a healthy debate on the merits of the idea; Ulrik de Bie
for providing alternative solutions; Paul Mockapetris, Christian
Jacquenet, Francis Dupont and Ludovic Eschard for their remarks on
HNA and low power devices; Olafur Gudmundsson for clarifying DNSSEC
capabilities of small devices; Simon Kelley for its feedback as
dnsmasq implementer; Andrew Sullivan, Mark Andrew, Ted Lemon, Mikael
Abrahamson, and Ray Bellis for their feedback on handling different
views as well as clarifying the impact of outsourcing the zone
signing operation outside the HNA; Mark Andrew and Peter Koch for
clarifying the renumbering.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
17. Contributors
The co-authors would like to thank Chris Griffiths and Wouter
Cloetens that provided a significant contribution in the early
versions of the document.
18. References
18.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls]
Toorop, W., Dickinson, S., Sahib, S., Aras, P., and A.
Mankin, "DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS", draft-ietf-dprive-
xfr-over-tls-11 (work in progress), April 2021.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1995] Ohta, M., "Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS", RFC 1995,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1995, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1995>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
[RFC4555] Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
(MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, DOI 10.17487/RFC4555, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4555>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>.
[RFC5936] Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, Ed., "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol
(AXFR)", RFC 5936, DOI 10.17487/RFC5936, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5936>.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.
[RFC6644] Evans, D., Droms, R., and S. Jiang, "Rebind Capability in
DHCPv6 Reconfigure Messages", RFC 6644,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6644, July 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6644>.
[RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
[RFC7010] Liu, B., Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., Venaas, S., and W.
George, "IPv6 Site Renumbering Gap Analysis", RFC 7010,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7010, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7010>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7344] Kumari, W., Gudmundsson, O., and G. Barwood, "Automating
DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance", RFC 7344,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7344, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7344>.
[RFC7368] Chown, T., Ed., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J.
Weil, "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles",
RFC 7368, DOI 10.17487/RFC7368, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368>.
[RFC7558] Lynn, K., Cheshire, S., Blanchet, M., and D. Migault,
"Requirements for Scalable DNS-Based Service Discovery
(DNS-SD) / Multicast DNS (mDNS) Extensions", RFC 7558,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7558, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7558>.
[RFC7707] Gont, F. and T. Chown, "Network Reconnaissance in IPv6
Networks", RFC 7707, DOI 10.17487/RFC7707, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7707>.
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
[RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
[RFC8375] Pfister, P. and T. Lemon, "Special-Use Domain
'home.arpa.'", RFC 8375, DOI 10.17487/RFC8375, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8375>.
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8555] Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J.
Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment
(ACME)", RFC 8555, DOI 10.17487/RFC8555, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8555>.
18.2. Informative References
[I-D.howard-dnsop-ip6rdns]
Howard, L., "Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service
Providers", draft-howard-dnsop-ip6rdns-00 (work in
progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-dprive-dnsoquic]
Huitema, C., Mankin, A., and S. Dickinson, "Specification
of DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections", draft-ietf-
dprive-dnsoquic-02 (work in progress), February 2021.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options]
Migault, D., Weber, R., Mrugalski, T., Griffiths, C., and
W. Cloetens, "DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming
Authority", draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-
options-11 (work in progress), April 2021.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-simple-naming]
Lemon, T., Migault, D., and S. Cheshire, "Homenet Naming
and Service Discovery Architecture", draft-ietf-homenet-
simple-naming-03 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.richardson-homerouter-provisioning]
Richardson, M., "Provisioning Initial Device Identifiers
into Home Routers", draft-richardson-homerouter-
provisioning-00 (work in progress), November 2020.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
[RFC2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS
(TSIG)", RFC 2845, DOI 10.17487/RFC2845, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2845>.
[RFC2931] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, DOI 10.17487/RFC2931, September
2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2931>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC8094] Reddy, T., Wing, D., and P. Patil, "DNS over Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 8094,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8094, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8094>.
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8672] Sheffer, Y. and D. Migault, "TLS Server Identity Pinning
with Tickets", RFC 8672, DOI 10.17487/RFC8672, October
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8672>.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
Appendix A. Envisioned deployment scenarios
A number of deployment have been envisioned, this section aims at
providing a brief description. The use cases are not limitations and
this section is not normative.
A.1. CPE Vendor
A specific vendor with specific relations with a registrar or a
registry may sell a CPE that is provisioned with provisioned domain
name. Such domain name does not need to be necessary human readable.
One possible way is that the vendor also provisions the HNA with a
private and public keys as well as a certificate. Note that these
keys are not expected to be used for DNSSEC signing. Instead these
keys are solely used by the HNA to proceed to the authentication.
Normally the keys should be necessary and sufficient to proceed to
the authentication. The reason to combine the domain name and the
key is that DOI are likely handle names better than keys and that
domain names might be used as a login which enables the key to be
regenerated.
When the home network owner plugs the CPE at home, the relation
between HNA and DM is expected to work out-of-the-box.
A.2. Agnostic CPE
An CPE that is not preconfigured may also take advantage to the
protocol defined in this document but some configuration steps will
be needed.
1. The owner of the home network buys a domain name to a registrar,
and as such creates an account on that registrar
2. Either the registrar is also providing the outsourcing
infrastructure or the home network needs to create a specific
account on the outsourcing infrastructure. * If the DOI is the
registrar, it has by design a proof of ownership of the domain
name by the homenet owner. In this case, it is expected the DOI
provides the necessary parameters to the home network owner to
configure the HNA. A good way to provide the parameters would be
the home network be able to copy/paste a JSON object - see
Section 14. What matters at that point is the DOI being able to
generate authentication credentials for the HNA to authenticate
itself to the DOI. This obviously requires the home network to
provide the public key generated by the HNA in a CSR.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
o If the DOI is not the registrar, then the proof of ownership needs
to be established using protocols like ACME [RFC8555] for example
that will end in the generation of a certificate. ACME is used
here to the purpose of automating the generation of the
certificate, the CA may be a specific CA or the DOI. With that
being done, the DOI has a roof of ownership and can proceed as
above.
Appendix B. Example: A manufacturer provisioned HNA product flow
This scenario is one where a homenet router device manufacturer
decides to offer DNS hosting as a value add.
[I-D.richardson-homerouter-provisioning] describes a process for a
home router credential provisioning system. The outline of it is
that near the end of the manufacturing process, as part of the
firmware loading, the manufacturer provisions a private key and
certificate into the device.
In addition to having a assymmetric credential known to the
manufacturer, the device also has been provisioned with an agreed
upon name. In the example in the above document, the name
"n8d234f.r.example.net" has already been allocated and confirmed with
the manufacturer.
The HNA can use the above domain for itself. It is not very pretty
or personal, but if the owner wishes a better name, they can arrange
for it.
The configuration would look like:
{
"dm_notify" : "2001:db8:1234:111:222::2",
"dm_acl" : "2001:db8:1234:111:222::/64",
"dm_ctrl" : "manufacturer.example.net",
"dm_port" : "4433",
"ns_list" : [ "ns1.publicdns.example", "ns2.publicdns.example"],
"zone" : "n8d234f.r.example.net",
"auth_method" : "certificate",
"hna_certificate":"-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----\nMIIDTjCCFGy....",
}
The dm_ctrl and dm_port values would be built into the firmware.
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft public-names April 2021
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
8275 Trans Canada Route
Saint Laurent, QC 4S 0B6
Canada
EMail: daniel.migault@ericsson.com
Ralf Weber
Nominum
2000 Seaport Blvd
Redwood City 94063
US
EMail: ralf.weber@nominum.com
Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
470 Dawson Avenue
Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7
Canada
EMail: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Ray Hunter
Globis Consulting BV
Weegschaalstraat 3
Eindhoven 5632CW
NL
EMail: v6ops@globis.net
Migault, et al. Expires October 30, 2021 [Page 38]