Improved Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced Nodes
draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-09

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mif WG)
Last updated 2012-06-21 (latest revision 2012-05-25)
Replaces draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Consensus Unknown
Document shepherd Hui Deng
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Telechat date
Needs a YES. Needs 5 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Ralph Droms
IESG note Hui Deng (denghui02@hotmail.com ) is the document shepherd.
Send notices to mif-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection@tools.ietf.org
Internet Engineering Task Force                            T. Savolainen
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track                                 J. Kato
Expires: November 26, 2012                                           NTT
                                                                T. Lemon
                                                           Nominum, Inc.
                                                            May 25, 2012

   Improved Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced Nodes
                 draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-09

Abstract

   A multi-interfaced node is connected to multiple networks, some of
   which may be utilizing private DNS namespaces.  A node commonly
   receives recursive DNS server configuration information from all
   connected networks.  Some of the recursive DNS servers may have
   information about namespaces other servers do not have.  When a
   multi-interfaced node needs to utilize DNS, the node has to choose
   which of the recursive DNS servers to contact to.  This document
   describes DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options that can be used to configure
   nodes with information required to perform informed recursive DNS
   server selection decisions.

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 November 26, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal

Savolainen, et al.      Expires November 26, 2012               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           MIF and RDNSS selection                May 2012

   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Private namespaces and problems for multi-interfaced nodes . .  5
     2.1.  Fully qualified domain names with limited scopes . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Network interface specific IP addresses  . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.3.  A problem not fully solved by the described solution . . .  8
   3.  Deployment scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  CPE deployment scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Cellular network scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  VPN scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.  Dual-stack accesses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Improved RDNSS selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Procedure for prioritizing RDNSSes and handling
           responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  RDNSS selection DHCPv6 option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.3.  RDNSS selection DHCPv4 option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.4.  Limitations on use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.5.  Coexistence of various RDNSS configuration tools . . . . . 16
     4.6.  Considerations on follow-up queries  . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Example of a node behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  Scalability considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Considerations for network administrators  . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     10.1. Attack vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     10.2. Trust levels of network interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Show full document text