Gecko [ 122.154.134.11 ]

Name	Size	Permission
draft-faltstrom-uri-06.txt	25.4 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-repr...	26.33 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-behave-address-form...	39.77 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-behave-dns64-11.txt	74.26 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify...	64.79 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requ...	16.18 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u...	31.33 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-regis...	17.29 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07.t...	33.32 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-...	8.37 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-e...	26.51 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-d...	36.92 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc3597-bis-...	17.1 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-md5-dep...	10.04 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-0...	45.62 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-ti...	69.65 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-...	20.25 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-requir...	14.82 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-m...	35.2 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-06.t...	25.01 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-0...	8.44 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-kerr-ixfr-only-01.txt	10.76 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-mekking-dnsop-auto-cpsyn...	11.41 KB	-rw-r--r--
draft-yao-dnsext-bname-04.txt	26.57 KB	-rw-r--r--
update	670 B	-rw-r--r--

Code Editor : draft-mekking-dnsop-auto-cpsync-00.txt

Domain Name System Operations                                 W. Mekking
Internet-Draft                                                NLnet Labs
Intended status: Standards Track                           June 29, 2010
Expires: December 31, 2010

Automated (DNSSEC) Child Parent Synchronization using DNS UPDATE
                   draft-mekking-dnsop-auto-cpsync-00

Abstract

This document proposes a way to synchronise existing trust anchors
   automatically between a child zone and its parent.  The algorithm can
   be used for other Resource Records that are required to delegate from
   a parent to a child such as NS and glue records.

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2010.

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

Mekking                 Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Child Parent Synchronization             June 2010

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.

1.  Introduction

This memo defines a way to synchronise existing trust anchors
   automatically between a child zone and its parent.  The algorithm can
   be used for other Resource Records that are required to delegate from
   a parent to a child such as NS and glue records.

To create a DNSSEC RFC 4035 [RFC4035] chain of trust, child zones
   must submit their DNSKEYs, or hashes of their DNSKEYs, to their
   parent zone.  The parent zone publishes the hashes of the DNSKEYs in
   the form of a DS record.  The DNSKEY RRset at the child may change
   over time.  In order to keep the chain of trust intact, the DS
   records at the parent zone also needs to be updated.  The rolling of
   the keys with the SEP bit on is one of the few tasks in DNSSEC that
   yet has to be fully automated.

The DNS UPDATE mechanism RFC 2136 [RFC2136] can be used to push zone
   changes to the parent.

To bootstrap the direct communication channel, information must be
   exchanged in order to detect service location and granting update
   privileges.  A new or existing child zone can request a direct
   communication channel with the parent.  If the parent allows for
   direct communication with child zones, the parent can share the
   required data to set up the channel to the child zone.  Once the
   child has the required credentials, it can use the direct
   communication channel with the parent to request zone changes related
   to its delegation.

If a third party is involved, the third party can act on behalf of
   the parent.  In this case, the third party will give out the required
   credentials to set up the communication channel.

It is RECOMMENDED that the direct communication channel is secured
   with TSIG [RFC2845] or SIG0 [RFC2931].

2.  Access and Update Control

The DNS UPDATE normally is used for granting update permissions to a
   machine that is within the boundary of the same organization.  This
   document proposes to grant child zones the same permissions.
   However, it MUST NOT be possible that a child zone updates

Mekking                 Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Child Parent Synchronization             June 2010

information in the parent zone that falls outside the administrative
   domain of the corresponding delegation.  For example, it MUST NOT be
   possible for a child zone to update the data that the parent is
   authoritative for, or update a delegation that is pointed to a
   different child zone.  It MUST only be able to update records that
   match one of the following:

Or:   The owner name is equal the child zone name and RRtype is
      delegation specific.  Currently those are records with RRtype NS
      or DS.

Or:   The owner name is a subdomain of the child zone name and RRtype
      is glue specific.  Currently those are records with RRtype A or
      AAAA.

This list may be expanded in the future, if there is need for more
   delegation related zone content.

In case of adding or deleting delegation specific records, the DNSSEC
   related RRs in the parent zone might need to be updated.

The service location may be handed out by the registrar during
   bootstrap If this information is missing, the normal guidelines for
   sending DNS UPDATE messages SHOULD be followed.

3.  Update Mechanism

3.1.  Child Duties

Updating the NS RRset or corresponding glue at the parent, an update
   can be sent at any time.  Updating the DS RRset is part of key
   rollover, as described in RFC 4641 [RFC4641].  When performing a key
   rollover that involves updating the RRset at the parent, the child
   introduces a new DNSKEY in its zone that represents the security
   entry point for determining the chain of trust.  After a while, it
   will revoke and/or remove the previous security entry point.  The
   timings when to update the DS RRset at the parent are described in
   draft-dnsop-morris-dnssec-key-timing [keytiming].  When updating the
   DS RRset at the parent automatically, these timing specifications
   SHOULD be followed.  To determine the propagation delays described in
   this document, the child should poll the parent zone for a short
   time, until the DS is visible at all parent name servers.

To discuss: A child zone might be unable to reach all parent name
   servers.

The child notifies the parent of the requested changes by sending a
   DNS UPDATE message.  If it receives a NOERROR reply in return, the

Mekking                 Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Child Parent Synchronization             June 2010

update is acknowledged by the parent zone.  Otherwise, the child MAY
   retry transmitting the update.  In order to prevent duplicate
   updates, it SHOULD follow the guidelines described in RFC 2136
   [RFC2136].

3.2.  Parent Duties

When the master DNS server of the parent receives a DNS UPDATE from
   one of its children the following must be done:

Step 1:  Check the TSIG/SIG0 credentials.  In case of TSIG, the
      parent should follow the TSIG processing described in section 3.2
      of RFC 2845.  In case of SIG0, the parent should follow the SIG0
      processing described in section 3.2 of RFC 2931.

Step 2:  Verify that the updates matches the update policy for child
      zones.

Step 3:  If verified, send back DNS UPDATE OK.  Otherwise, send back
      DNS UPDATE REFUSED.

Step 4:  If verified, apply changes.  How that is done is a matter of
      policy.

3.3.  Proxy considerations

Some environments don't allow for direct communication between parent
   and child zone.  In these case, the parent duties can be performed by
   a different party (for example, the registar).  The third party will
   forward the update to the parent zone.  In what format depends on
   local policy.

4.  Example BIND9 Configuration

This is how a parent zone can configure a policy to enable a child
   zone synchronize delegation specific records.  The first rule of the
   update policy grants children to update their DS and NS records in
   the parent zone, in this case example.com.  The second rule of the
   update policy grants children to update the corresponding glue
   records.

key cs.example.com. {
   algorithm HMAC-MD5;
   secret "secretforcs";
   }

key math.example.com. {
   algorithm HMAC-MD5;

Mekking                 Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Child Parent Synchronization             June 2010

secret "secretformath";
   }

...

zone "example.com" {
   type master;
   file "example.com";
   update-policy { grant *.example.com. self *.example.com.  DS NS; };
   update-policy { grant *.example.com. selfsub *.example.com.  A AAAA;
   };
   };

5.  Security Considerations

Automating the synchronization of (DNSSEC) records between the parent
   and child created a new channel.  We have recommended that this
   channel should be secured with TSIG or SIG0.  There is an advantage
   and a disadvantage of the new security channel.  The disadvantage is
   that you create a new attack window for your DNSSEC credentials.  If
   the automated synchronization is used for updating DS records at the
   parent, you SHOULD pick a cryptographically an equally strong or
   stronger TSIG/SIG0 key than the strength of your DNSSEC keys.

The advantage is that if somehow your DNSSEC keys are compromised,
   you can still use this channel to perform an emergency key rollover.

6.  IANA Considerations

None.

7.  Acknowledgments

Rickard Bellgrim, Wolfgang Nagele, Wouter Wijngaards and more.

8.  References

8.1.  Informative References

[RFC2136]    Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
                "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS
                UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997.

[RFC4641]    Kolkman, O. and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC Operational
                Practices", RFC 4641, September 2006.

[keytiming]  Morris, S., Ihren, J., and J. Dickinson, "DNSSEC Key
                Timing Considerations", March 2010.

Mekking                 Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Child Parent Synchronization             June 2010

8.2.  Normative References

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

[RFC2845]    Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D., and B.
                Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for
                DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.

[RFC2931]    Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures (
                SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000.

[RFC4035]    Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
                Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
                Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

Author's Address

Matthijs Mekking
   NLnet Labs
   Science Park 140
   Amsterdam  1098 XG
   The Netherlands

EMail: matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl

Mekking                 Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 6]

${this.title}

Code Editor : draft-mekking-dnsop-auto-cpsync-00.txt