ADD                                                    M. Boucadair, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                           T. Reddy, Ed.
Expires: November 5, 2021                                         McAfee
                                                                 D. Wing
                                                                  Citrix
                                                                 N. Cook
                                                            Open-Xchange
                                                               T. Jensen
                                                               Microsoft
                                                             May 4, 2021


  DHCP and Router Advertisement Options for the Discovery of Network-
                       designated Resolvers (DNR)
                         draft-ietf-add-dnr-01

Abstract

   The document specifies new DHCP and IPv6 Router Advertisement options
   to discover encrypted DNS servers (e.g., DNS-over-HTTPS, DNS-over-
   TLS, DNS-over-QUIC).  Particularly, it allows to learn an
   authentication domain name together with a list of IP addresses and a
   set of service parameters to reach such encrypted DNS servers.

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
   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 5, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   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
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Configuration Data for Encrypted DNS  . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Handling Configuration Data Conflicts . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Connection Establishment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Multihoming Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  DHCPv6 Encrypted DNS Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  DHCPv6 Client Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  DHCPv4 Encrypted DNS Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  DHCPv4 Client Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IPv6 RA Encrypted DNS Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  IPv6 Host Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Hosting Encrypted DNS Forwarder in Local Networks . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Managed CPEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.1.1.  DNS Forwarders  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.1.2.  ACME  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.1.3.  Auto-Upgrade Based on Domains and their Subdomains  .  13
     7.2.  Unmanaged CPEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Spoofing Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Deletion Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.3.  Passive Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.4.  Wireless Security - Authentication Attacks  . . . . . . .  16
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.1.  DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.2.  DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.3.  Neighbor Discovery Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   11. Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   Appendix A.  Sample Target Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . .  23
     A.1.  Managed CPEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       A.1.1.  Direct DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       A.1.2.  Proxied DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     A.2.  Unmanaged CPEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       A.2.1.  ISP-facing Unmanaged CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       A.2.2.  Internal Unmanaged CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Appendix B.  Make Use of Discovered Encrypted DNS Servers . . . .  28
   Appendix C.  Legacy CPEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Introduction

   This document focuses on the support of encrypted DNS such as DNS-
   over-HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484], DNS-over-TLS (DoT) [RFC7858], or DNS-
   over-QUIC (DoQ) [I-D.ietf-dprive-dnsoquic] in local networks.

   In particular, the document specifies how a local encrypted DNS
   server can be discovered by connected hosts by means of DHCP
   [RFC2132], DHCPv6 [RFC8415], and IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA)
   [RFC4861] options.  These options are designed to convey the
   following information: the DNS Authentication Domain Name (ADN), a
   list of IP addresses, and a set of service parameters.

   Sample target deployment scenarios are discussed in Appendix A; both
   managed and unmanaged Customer Premises Equipment (CPEs) are covered.
   It is out of the scope of this document to provide an exhaustive
   inventory of deployments where Encrypted DNS options (Sections 4, 5,
   and 6) can be used.

   Considerations related to hosting a DNS forwarder in a local network
   are described in Section 7.

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.

   This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8499].  The
   following additional terms are used:

   Do53:  refers to unencrypted DNS.

   Encrypted DNS:  refers to a scheme where DNS exchanges are
      transported over an encrypted channel.  Examples of encrypted DNS



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


      are DNS-over-TLS (DoT) [RFC7858], DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484],
      or DNS-over-QUIC (DoQ) [I-D.ietf-dprive-dnsoquic].

   Encrypted DNS options:  refers to the options defined in Sections 4,
      5, and 6.

   Managed CPE:  refers to a CPE that is managed by an Internet Service
      Provider (ISP).

   Unmanaged CPE:  refers to a CPE that is not managed by an ISP.

   DHCP:  refers to both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6.

3.  Overview

   This document describes how a DNS client can discover local encrypted
   DNS servers using DHCP (Sections 4 and 5) and Neighbor Discovery
   protocol (Section 6): Encrypted DNS options.

   These options configure an authentication domain name, a list of IPv6
   addresses, and a set of service parameters of the encrypted DNS
   server.  More information about the design of these options is
   provided in the following subsections.

3.1.  Configuration Data for Encrypted DNS

   In order to allow for PKIX-based authentication between a DNS client
   and an encrypted DNS server, the Encrypted DNS options are designed
   to include an authentication domain name.  This ADN is presented as a
   reference identifier for DNS authentication purposes.  This design
   accommodates the current best practices for issuing certificates as
   per Section 1.7.2 of [RFC6125]:

    |  Some certification authorities issue server certificates based on
    |  IP addresses, but preliminary evidence indicates that such
    |  certificates are a very small percentage (less than 1%) of issued
    |  certificates.

   To avoid adding a dependency on another server to resolve the ADN,
   the Encrypted DNS options return the IP address(es) to locate the
   encrypted DNS server.  In the various scenarios sketched in
   Appendix A, encrypted DNS servers may terminate on the same IP
   address or distinct IP addresses.  Terminating encrypted DNS servers
   on the same or distinct IP addresses is deployment specific.

   In order to optimize the size of discovery messages when all servers
   terminate on the same IP address, early versions of this document
   considered relying upon the discovery mechanisms specified in



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   [RFC2132][RFC3646][RFC8106] to retrieve a list of IP addresses to
   reach their DNS servers.  Nevertheless, this approach requires a
   client that supports more than one encrypted DNS to probe that list
   of IP addresses.  To avoid such probing, the options defined in the
   following sections associate an IP address with an encrypted DNS
   type.  No probing is required in such a design.

   A list of IP addresses to reach an encrypted DNS server may be
   returned in the Encrypted DNS options to accommodate current
   deployments relying upon primary and backup servers.  Whether one IP
   address or more are returned in an Encrypted DNS option is deployment
   specific.  For example, a router embedding a recursive server or
   forwarder has to include one single IP address pointing to one of its
   LAN-facing interfaces.  This address can be a private IPv4 address, a
   link-local address, a Unique Local IPv6 unicast Address (ULA), or a
   Global Unicast Address (GUA).

   If more than one IP address are to be returned in an Encrypted DNS
   option, these addresses are ordered in the preference for use by the
   client.

   Because distinct Encrypted DNS protocols may be provisioned by a
   network (e.g., DoT, DoH, and DoQ) and that some of these protocols
   may make use of customized port numbers instead of default ones, the
   Encrypted DNS options are designed to return a set of service
   parameters.  These parameters are encoded following the same rules
   for encoding SvcParams in Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https].
   This encoding approach may increase the size of the options but it
   has the merit to rely upon an existing IANA registry and thus to
   accommodate new Encrypted DNS protocols and service parameters that
   may be defined in the future.  For example, "dohpath" service
   parameter (Section 5.1 of [I-D.schwartz-svcb-dns]) supplies a
   relative DoH URI Template.

   A single option is used to convey both the ADN and IP addresses
   because otherwise means to correlate an IP address with an ADN will
   be required if, for example, more than one ADN is supported by the
   network.

3.2.  Handling Configuration Data Conflicts

   If the encrypted DNS is discovered by a host using both RA and DHCP,
   the rules discussed in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC8106] MUST be followed.

   DHCP/RA options to discover encrypted DNS servers (including, DoH URI
   Templates) takes precedence over DDR [I-D.ietf-add-ddr] since DDR
   uses unencrypted DNS to an external DNS resolver, which is




Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   susceptible to both internal and external attacks whereas DHCP/RA is
   typically protected using the mechanisms discussed in Section 8.1.

3.3.  Connection Establishment

   If the local DNS client supports one of the discovered Encrypted DNS
   protocols identified by Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN)
   protocol identifiers, the DNS client establishes an encrypted DNS
   session following the order of the discovered servers.  The client
   follows the mechanism discussed in Section 8 of [RFC8310] to
   authenticate the DNS server certificate using the authentication
   domain name conveyed in the Encrypted DNS options.  ALPN-related
   considerations can be found in Section 6.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https].

3.4.  Multihoming Considerations

   Devices may be connected to multiple networks; each providing their
   own DNS configuration using the discovery mechanisms specified in
   this document.  Nevertheless, it is out of the scope of this
   specification to discuss DNS selection of multi-interface devices.
   The reader may refer to [RFC6731] for a discussion of issues and an
   example of DNS server selection for multi-interfaced devices.

4.  DHCPv6 Encrypted DNS Option

4.1.  Option Format

   The format of the DHCPv6 Encrypted DNS option is shown in Figure 1.

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       OPTION_V6_DNR           |         Option-length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         ADN Length            |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   ~                   authentication-domain-name                  ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Addr Length           |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   ~                        ipv6-address(es)                       ~
   |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   ~                 Service Parameters (SvcParams)                ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 1: DHCPv6 Encrypted DNS Option



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   The fields of the option shown in Figure 1 are as follows:

   Option-code:  OPTION_V6_DNR (TBA1, see Section 9.1)

   Option-length:  Length of the enclosed data in octets.

   ADN Length:  Length of the authentication-domain-name field in
      octets.

   authentication-domain-name (variable length):  A fully qualified
      domain name of the encrypted DNS server.  This field is formatted
      as specified in Section 10 of [RFC8415].

      An example of the authentication-domain-name encoding is shown in
      Figure 2.  This example conveys the FQDN "doh1.example.com.", and
      the resulting Option-length field is 18.

     +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
     | 0x04 |   d  |   o  |   h  |  1   | 0x07 |   e  |   x  |   a  |
     +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
     |   m  |   p  |   l  |   e  | 0x03 |   c  |   o  |   m  | 0x00 |
     +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

    Figure 2: An Example of the DNS authentication-domain-name Encoding

   Addr Length:  Length of enclosed IPv6 addresses in octets.  It MUST
      be a multiple of 16.

   ipv6-address(es) (variable length):  Indicates one or more IPv6
      addresses to reach the encrypted DNS server.  An address can be
      link-local, ULA, or GUA.  The format of this field is shown in
      Figure 3.

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                         ipv6-address                          |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              ...                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 3: Format of the IPv6 Addresses Field

   Service Parameters (SvcParams) (variable length):  Specifies a set of
      service parameters that are encoded following the rules in
      Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https].  Service parameters




Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


      may include, for example, a list of ALPN protocol identifiers or
      alternate port numbers.

      If no port service parameter is included, this indicates that
      default port numbers should be used.  As a reminder, the default
      port number is 853 for DoT and 443 for DoH.

      The length of this field is ('Option-length' - 4 - 'ADN Length' -
      'Addr Length').

   Multiple instances of OPTION_V6_DNR may be returned to a DHCPv6
   client; each pointing to a distinct encrypted DNS server.  These
   instances are ordered in the preference for use by the client.

4.2.  DHCPv6 Client Behavior

   To discover an encrypted DNS server, the DHCPv6 client MUST include
   OPTION_V6_DNR in an Option Request Option (ORO), as in Sections
   18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.4, 18.2.5, 18.2.6, and 21.7 of [RFC8415].

   The DHCP client MUST be prepared to receive multiple OPTION_V6_DNR
   options; each option is to be treated as a separate encrypted DNS
   server.

   The DHCPv6 client MUST silently discard multicast and host loopback
   addresses conveyed in OPTION_V6_DNR.

5.  DHCPv4 Encrypted DNS Option

5.1.  Option Format

   The format of the DHCPv4 Encrypted DNS option is illustrated in
   Figure 4.


















Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


                      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     |     TBA2      |     Length    |
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     |   ADN Length  |               |
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               |
                     ~  authentication-domain-name   ~
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     |  Addr Length  |               |
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               +
                     ~        IPv4 Address(es)       ~
                     |               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     |               |               |
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               |
                     ~Service Parameters (SvcParams) ~
                     |                               |
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 4: DHCPv4 Encrypted DNS Option

   The fields of the option shown in Figure 4 are as follows:

   Code:  OPTION_V4_DNR (TBA2, see Section 9.2).

   Length:  Indicates the length of the enclosed data in octets.

   ADN Length:  Indicates the length of the authentication-domain-name
      in octets.

   authentication-domain-name (variable length):  Includes the
      authentication domain name of the encrypted DNS server.  This
      field is formatted as specified in Section 10 of [RFC8415].  The
      format of this field is shown in Figure 5.  The values s1, s2, s3,
      etc. represent the domain name labels in the domain name encoding.

                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
                   |  s1 |  s2 |  s3 |  s4 | s5  |  ...
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
                     authentication-domain-name

         Figure 5: Format of the Authentication Domain Name Field

   Addr Length:  Indicates the length of included IPv4 addresses in
      octets.  It MUST be a multiple of 4.

   IPv4 Address(es) (variable length):  Indicates one or more IPv4
      addresses to reach the encrypted DNS server.  Both private and
      public IPv4 addresses can be included in this field.  The format



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


      of this field is shown in Figure 6.  This format assumes that an
      IPv4 address is encoded as a1.a2.a3.a4.

               0     8     16    24    32    40    48
               +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
               |  a1 |  a2 |  a3 |  a4 |  a1 |  a2 | ...
               +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
                 IPv4 Address 1          IPv4 Address 2 ...

               Figure 6: Format of the IPv4 Addresses Field

   Service Paramters (SvcParams) (variable length):  Specifies a set of
      service parameters that are encoded following the rules in
      Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https].  Service parameters
      may include, for example, a list of ALPN protocol identifiers or
      alternate port numbers.

      If no port service parameter is included, this indicates that
      default port numbers should be used.

      The length of this field is ('Option-length' - 2 - 'ADN Length' -
      'Addr Length').

   OPTION_V4_DNR is a concatenation-requiring option.  As such, the
   mechanism specified in [RFC3396] MUST be used if OPTION_V4_DNR
   exceeds the maximum DHCPv4 option size of 255 octets.

   Multiple instances of OPTION_V4_DNR may be returned to a DHCPv4
   client; each pointing to a distinct encrypted DNS server.  These
   instances are ordered in the preference for use by the client.

5.2.  DHCPv4 Client Behavior

   To discover an encrypted DNS server, the DHCPv4 client requests the
   Encrypted DNS server by including OPTION_V4_DNR in a Parameter
   Request List option [RFC2132].

   The DHCPv4 client MUST be prepared to receive multiple DHCP
   OPTION_V4_DNR options; each option is to be treated as a separate
   encrypted DNS server.

   The DHCPv4 client MUST silently discard multicast and host loopback
   addresses conveyed in OPTION_V4_DNR.








Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


6.  IPv6 RA Encrypted DNS Option

6.1.  Option Format

   This section defines a new Neighbor Discovery option [RFC4861]: IPv6
   RA Encrypted DNS option.  This option is useful in contexts similar
   to those discussed in Section 1.1 of [RFC8106].

   The format of the IPv6 RA Encrypted DNS option is illustrated in
   Figure 7.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     TBA3      |     Length    |         ADN Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           Lifetime                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                   authentication-domain-name                  ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Addr Length           |                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
     ~                        ipv6-address(es)                       ~
     |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                               |     SvcParams Length          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                 Service Parameters (SvcParams)                ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 7: RA Encrypted DNS Option

   The fields of the option shown in Figure 7 are as follows:

   Type:  8-bit identifier of the Encrypted DNS Option as assigned by
      IANA (TBA3, see Section 9.3).

   Length:  8-bit unsigned integer.  The length of the option (including
      the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 octets.

   Lifetime:  32-bit unsigned integer.  The maximum time in seconds
      (relative to the time the packet is received) over which the
      discovered Authentication Domain Name is valid.

      The value of Lifetime SHOULD by default be at least 3 *
      MaxRtrAdvInterval, where MaxRtrAdvInterval is the maximum RA
      interval as defined in [RFC4861].

      A value of all one bits (0xffffffff) represents infinity.



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


      A value of zero means that this Authentication Domain Name MUST no
      longer be used.

   ADN Length:  16-bit unsigned integer.  This field indicates the
      length of the authentication-domain-name field in octets.

   authentication-domain-name (variable length):  The domain name of the
      encrypted DNS server.  This field is formatted as specified in
      Section 10 of [RFC8415].

   Addr Length:  16-bit unsigned integer.  This field indicates the
      length of enclosed IPv6 addresses in octets.  It MUST be a
      multiple of 16.

   ipv6-address(es) (variable length):  One or more IPv6 addresses of
      the encrypted DNS server.  An address can be link-local, ULA, or
      GUA.

      All of the addresses share the same Lifetime value.  Similar to
      [RFC8106], if it is desirable to have different Lifetime values
      per IP address, multiple Encrypted DNS options may be used.

      The format of this field is shown in Figure 3.

   SvcParams Length:  16-bit unsigned integer.  This field indicates the
      length of the Service Parameters field in octets.

   Service Paramters (SvcParams) (variable length):  Specifies a set of
      service parameters that are encoded following the rules in
      Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https].  Service parameters
      may include, for example, a list of ALPN protocol identifiers or
      alternate port numbers.

      If no port service parameter is included, this indicates that
      default port numbers should be used.

   The option MUST be padded with zeros so that the full enclosed data
   is a multiple of 8 octets (Section 4.6 of [RFC4861]).

6.2.  IPv6 Host Behavior

   The procedure for DNS configuration is the same as it is with any
   other Neighbor Discovery option [RFC4861].  In addition, the host
   follows the procedure described in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC8106].

   The host MUST silently discard multicast and host loopback addresses
   conveyed in the Encrypted DNS options.




Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


7.  Hosting Encrypted DNS Forwarder in Local Networks

   This section discusses some deployment considerations to host an
   encrypted DNS forwarder within a local network.

7.1.  Managed CPEs

   The section discusses mechanisms that can be used to host an
   encrypted DNS forwarder in a managed CPE (Appendix A.1).

7.1.1.  DNS Forwarders

   The managed CPE should support a configuration parameter to instruct
   the CPE whether it has to relay the encrypted DNS server received
   from the ISP's network or has to announce itself as a forwarder
   within the local network.  The default behavior of the CPE is to
   supply the encrypted DNS server received from the ISP's network.

7.1.2.  ACME

   The ISP can assign a unique FQDN (e.g., "cpe1.example.com") and a
   domain-validated public certificate to the encrypted DNS forwarder
   hosted on the CPE.  Automatic Certificate Management Environment
   (ACME) [RFC8555] can be used by the ISP to automate certificate
   management functions such as domain validation procedure, certificate
   issuance and certificate revocation.

7.1.3.  Auto-Upgrade Based on Domains and their Subdomains

   If the ADN conveyed in DHCP/RA (Sections 4, 5, and 6) is
   preconfigured in popular OSes or browsers as a verified resolver and
   the auto-upgrade (Appendix B) is allowed for both the preconfigured
   ADN and its sub-domains, the encrypted DNS client will learn the
   local encrypted DNS forwarder using DHCP/RA and auto-upgrade because
   the preconfigured ADN would match the subjectAltName value in the
   server certificate.  For example, if the preconfigured ADN is
   "*.example.com" and the discovered encrypted DNS forwarder is
   "cpe1.example.com", auto-upgrade will take place.

   In this case, the CPE can communicate the ADN of the local DoH
   forwarder (Section 7.1.2) to internal hosts using DHCP/RA (Sections
   4, 5, and 6).

   Let's suppose that "*.example.net" is preconfigured as a verified
   resolved in the browser or OS.  If the encrypted DNS client discovers
   a local forwarder "cpe1-internal.example.net", the encrypted DNS
   client will auto-upgrade because the preconfigured ADN would match
   subjectAltName value "cpe1-internal.example.net" of type dNSName.  As



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   shown in Figure 8, the auto-upgrade to a rogue server advertising
   "rs.example.org" will fail because it does not match "*.example.net".

              Encrypted DNS                              CPE
              capable client                             (@i)
                    |                                     |
                    |<=================DHCP===============|
                    | {ADN=cpe1-internal.example.net, @i} |
                    |                                     |
                    |                   Rogue Server      |
                    |                       (@rs)         |
                    |                         |           |
                    X<===========DHCP=========|           |
                    |{ADN=rs.example.org, @rs}|           |
                    |                         |           |
                    |                                     |
                    |<=================DoH===============>|
                    |                                     |

              Legend:
                * @i: internal IP address of the CPE
                * @rs: IP address of a rogue server

    Figure 8: A Simplified Example of Auto-upgrade based on Subdomains

7.2.  Unmanaged CPEs

   The approach specified in Section 7.1 does not apply for hosting a
   DNS forwarder in an unmanaged CPE.

   The unmanaged CPE administrator can host an encrypted DNS forwarder
   on the unmanaged CPE.  This assumes the following:

   o  The encrypted DNS server certificate is managed by the entity in-
      charge of hosting the encrypted DNS forwarder.

      Alternatively, a security service provider can assign a unique
      FQDN to the CPE.  The encrypted DNS forwarder will act like a
      private encrypted DNS server only be accessible from within the
      local network.

   o  The encrypted DNS forwarder will either be configured to use the
      ISP's or a 3rd party encrypted DNS server.

   o  The unmanaged CPE will advertise the encrypted DNS forwarder ADN
      using DHCP/RA to internal hosts.





Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   Figure 9 illustrates an example of an unmanaged CPE hosting a
   forwarder which connects to a 3rd party encrypted DNS server.  In
   this example, the DNS information received from the managed CPE (and
   therefore from the ISP) is ignored by the Internal CPE hosting the
   forwarder.

              ,--,--,--.                         ,--,
            ,'         Internal   Managed     ,-'    '-     3rd Party
     Host--(  Network#A  CPE--------CPE------(   ISP   )--- DNS Server
      |     `.         ,-'|          |        `-.    -'       |
      |       `-'--'--'   |          |<==DHCP==>|`--'         |
      |                   |<==DHCP==>|          |             |
      |<======DHCP=======>|          |                        |
      |     {RI, @i}      |                                   |
      |<==Encrypted DNS==>|<==========Encrypted DNS==========>|

     Legend:
       * @i: IP address of the DNS forwarder hosted in the Internal
             CPE.

         Figure 9: Example of an Internal CPE Hosting a Forwarder

8.  Security Considerations

8.1.  Spoofing Attacks

   DHCP/RA messages are not encrypted or protected against modification
   within the LAN.  Unless mitigated (described below), the content of
   DHCP and RA messages can be spoofed or modified by active attackers,
   such as compromised devices within the local network.  An active
   attacker (Section 3.3 of [RFC3552]) can spoof the DHCP/RA response to
   provide the attacker's Encrypted DNS server.  Note that such an
   attacker can launch other attacks as discussed in Section 22 of
   [RFC8415].  The attacker can get a domain name with a domain-
   validated public certificate from a CA and host an Encrypted DNS
   server.  Also, an attacker can use a public IP address and get an 'IP
   address'-validated public certificate from a CA to host an Encrypted
   DNS server.

   Attacks of spoofed or modified DHCP responses and RA messages by
   attackers within the local network may be mitigated by making use of
   the following mechanisms:

   o  DHCPv6-Shield described in [RFC7610], the CPE discards DHCP
      response messages received from any local endpoint.

   o  RA-Guard described in [RFC7113], the CPE discards RAs messages
      received from any local endpoint.



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   o  Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) solution for DHCP
      described in [RFC7513], the CPE filters packets with forged source
      IP addresses.

   Encrypted DNS sessions with rogue servers that spoof the IP address
   of a DNS server will fail because the DNS client will fail to
   authenticate that rogue server based upon PKIX authentication
   [RFC6125], particularly the authentication domain name in the
   Encrypted DNS Option.  DNS clients that ignore authentication
   failures and accept spoofed certificates will be subject to attacks
   (e.g., redirect to malicious servers, intercept sensitive data).

   Encrypted DNS connections received from outside the local network
   MUST be discarded by the encrypted DNS forwarder in the CPE.  This
   behavior adheres to REQ#8 in [RFC6092]; it MUST apply for both IPv4
   and IPv6.

8.2.  Deletion Attacks

   If the DHCP responses or RAs are dropped by the attacker, the client
   can fallback to use a preconfigured encrypted DNS server.  However,
   the use of policies to select servers is out of the scope of this
   document.

   Note that deletion attack is not specific to DHCP/RA.

8.3.  Passive Attacks

   A passive attacker (Section 3.2 of [RFC3552]) can identify a host is
   using DHCP/RA to discover an encrypted DNS server and can infer that
   host is capable of using DoH/DoT/DoQ to encrypt DNS messages.
   However, a passive attacker cannot spoof or modify DHCP/RA messages.

8.4.  Wireless Security - Authentication Attacks

   Wireless LAN (WLAN) as frequently deployed in local networks (e.g.,
   home networks) is vulnerable to various attacks (e.g., [Evil-Twin],
   [Krack], [Dragonblood]).  Because of these attacks, only
   cryptographically authenticated communications are trusted on WLANs.
   This means that an information (e.g., NTP server, DNS server, default
   domain) provided by such networks via DHCP, DHCPv6, or RA are
   untrusted because DHCP and RA messages are not authenticated.

   If the pre-shared key is the same for all clients that connect to the
   same WLAN, the shared key will be available to all nodes, including
   attackers.  As such, it is possible to mount an active on-path
   attack.  Man-in-the-middle attacks are possible within local networks
   because such WLAN authentication lacks peer entity authentication.



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   This leads to the need for provisioning unique credentials for
   different clients.  Endpoints can be provisioned with unique
   credentials (username and password, typically) provided by the local
   network administrator to mutually authenticate to the local WLAN
   Access Point (e.g., 802.1x Wireless User Authentication on OpenWRT
   [dot1x], EAP-pwd [RFC8146]).  Not all endpoint devices (e.g., IoT
   devices) support 802.1x supplicant and need an alternate mechanism to
   connect to the local network.  To address this limitation, unique
   pre-shared keys can be created for each such device and WPA-PSK is
   used (e.g., [PSK]).

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  DHCPv6 Option

   IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCPv6 Option Code in
   the registry maintained in [DHCPV6].

   +-------+---------------+-----------+--------------+----------------+
   | Value | Description   | Client    | Singleton    | Reference      |
   |       |               | ORO       | Option       |                |
   +-------+---------------+-----------+--------------+----------------+
   | TBA1  | OPTION_V6_DNR | Yes       | No           | [ThisDocument] |
   +-------+---------------+-----------+--------------+----------------+

9.2.  DHCPv4 Option

   IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCP Option Code in the
   registry maintained in [BOOTP].

   +------+------------------+-------+----------------+----------------+
   | Tag  | Name             | Data  | Meaning        | Reference      |
   |      |                  | Length|                |                |
   +------+------------------+-------+----------------+----------------+
   | TBA2 | OPTION_V4_DNR    | N     | Encrypted DNS  | [ThisDocument] |
   |      |                  |       | Server         |                |
   +------+------------------+-------+----------------+----------------+

9.3.  Neighbor Discovery Option

   IANA is requested to assign the following new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
   Option type in the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" sub-
   registry under the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6
   (ICMPv6) Parameters" registry maintained in [ND].







Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


           +------+--------------------------+----------------+
           | Type | Description              | Reference      |
           +------+--------------------------+----------------+
           | TBA3 | DNS Encrypted DNS Option | [ThisDocument] |
           +------+--------------------------+----------------+

10.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet and Michael Richardson for the
   review.

   Thanks to Stephen Farrell, Martin Thomson, Vittorio Bertola, Stephane
   Bortzmeyer, Ben Schwartz, and Iain Sharp for the comments.

   Thanks to Mark Nottingham for the feedback on HTTP redirection.

   The use of DHCP to retrieve an authentication domain name was
   discussed in Section 7.3.1 of [RFC8310] and
   [I-D.pusateri-dhc-dns-driu].

   Thanks to Bernie Volz for the review of the DHCP part.

11.  Contributing Authors

      Nicolai Leymann
      Deutsche Telekom
      Germany

      Email: n.leymann@telekom.de

      Zhiwei Yan
      CNNIC
      No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
      Beijing  100190
      China

      EMail: yan@cnnic.cn

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https]
              Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service binding
              and parameter specification via the DNS (DNS SVCB and
              HTTPS RRs)", draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05 (work in
              progress), April 2021.




Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   [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>.

   [RFC2132]  Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
              Extensions", RFC 2132, DOI 10.17487/RFC2132, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2132>.

   [RFC3396]  Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
              Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3396, November 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3396>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC8106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [Auto-upgrade]
              The Unicode Consortium, "DoH providers: criteria, process
              for Chrome", <docs.google.com/document/
              d/128i2YTV2C7T6Gr3I-81zlQ-_Lprnsp24qzy_20Z1Psw/edit>.






Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   [BOOTP]    "BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP Options",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/
              bootp-dhcp-parameters.xhtml#options>.

   [DHCPV6]   "DHCPv6 Option Codes", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
              dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml#dhcpv6-
              parameters-2>.

   [dot1x]    Cisco, "Basic 802.1x Wireless User Authentication",
              <https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/
              wireless.security.8021x>.

   [Dragonblood]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Dragonblood: Analyzing the
              Dragonfly Handshake of WPA3 and EAP-pwd",
              <https://papers.mathyvanhoef.com/dragonblood.pdf>.

   [Evil-Twin]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Evil twin (wireless networks)",
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
              Evil_twin_(wireless_networks)>.

   [I-D.ietf-add-ddr]
              Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., Wood, C. A., McManus, P., and T.
              Jensen, "Discovery of Designated Resolvers", draft-ietf-
              add-ddr-00 (work in progress), February 2021.

   [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-v6ops-rfc7084-bis]
              Martinez, J. P., "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer
              Edge Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-04 (work in
              progress), June 2017.

   [I-D.pusateri-dhc-dns-driu]
              Pusateri, T. and W. Toorop, "DHCPv6 Options for private
              DNS Discovery", draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu-00 (work in
              progress), July 2018.

   [I-D.schwartz-svcb-dns]
              Schwartz, B., "Service Binding Mapping for DNS Servers",
              draft-schwartz-svcb-dns-03 (work in progress), April 2021.

   [Krack]    The Unicode Consortium, "Key Reinstallation Attacks",
              2017, <https://www.krackattacks.com/>.



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   [ND]       "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats",
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/
              icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-5>.

   [PSK]      Cisco, "Identity PSK Feature Deployment Guide",
              <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/
              controller/technotes/8-5/
              b_Identity_PSK_Feature_Deployment_Guide.html>.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.

   [RFC3646]  Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.

   [RFC6731]  Savolainen, T., Kato, J., and T. Lemon, "Improved
              Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced
              Nodes", RFC 6731, DOI 10.17487/RFC6731, December 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6731>.

   [RFC7113]  Gont, F., "Implementation Advice for IPv6 Router
              Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)", RFC 7113,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7113, February 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7113>.

   [RFC7513]  Bi, J., Wu, J., Yao, G., and F. Baker, "Source Address
              Validation Improvement (SAVI) Solution for DHCP",
              RFC 7513, DOI 10.17487/RFC7513, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7513>.





Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   [RFC7610]  Gont, F., Liu, W., and G. Van de Velde, "DHCPv6-Shield:
              Protecting against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers", BCP 199,
              RFC 7610, DOI 10.17487/RFC7610, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7610>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8146]  Harkins, D., "Adding Support for Salted Password Databases
              to EAP-pwd", RFC 8146, DOI 10.17487/RFC8146, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8146>.

   [RFC8310]  Dickinson, S., Gillmor, D., and T. Reddy, "Usage Profiles
              for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLS", RFC 8310,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8310, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8310>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8499]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
              January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.

   [RFC8520]  Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
              Description Specification", RFC 8520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.

   [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>.

   [TR-069]   The Broadband Forum, "CPE WAN Management Protocol",
              December 2018, <https://www.broadband-
              forum.org/technical/download/TR-069.pdf>.

   [TS.24008]
              3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
              network protocols; Stage 3 (Release 16)", December 2019,
              <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.






Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


Appendix A.  Sample Target Deployment Scenarios

   ISPs traditionally provide DNS resolvers to their customers.  To that
   aim, ISPs deploy the following mechanisms to advertise a list of DNS
   Recursive DNS server(s) to their customers:

   o  Protocol Configuration Options in cellular networks [TS.24008].

   o  DHCPv4 [RFC2132] (Domain Name Server Option) or DHCPv6
      [RFC8415][RFC3646] (OPTION_DNS_SERVERS).

   o  IPv6 Router Advertisement [RFC4861][RFC8106] (Type 25 (Recursive
      DNS Server Option)).

   The communication between a customer's device (possibly via Customer
   Premises Equipment (CPE)) and an ISP-supplied DNS resolver takes
   place by using cleartext DNS messages (Do53).  Some examples are
   depicted in Figure 10.  In the case of cellular networks, the
   cellular network will provide connectivity directly to a host (e.g.,
   smartphone, tablet) or via a CPE.  Do53 mechanisms used within the
   Local Area Network (LAN) are similar in both fixed and cellular CPE-
   based broadband service offerings.

   Some ISPs rely upon external resolvers (e.g., outsourced service or
   public resolvers); these ISPs provide their customers with the IP
   addresses of these resolvers.  These addresses are typically
   configured on CPEs using dedicated management tools.  Likewise, users
   can modify the default DNS configuration of their CPEs (e.g.,
   supplied by their ISP) to configure their favorite DNS servers.  This
   document permits such deployments.





















Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


             (a) Fixed Networks
                                              ,--,--,--.
                 +-+      LAN     +---+    ,-'           `-.
                 |H+--------------+CPE+---+      ISP        )
                 +-+              +---+    `-.          ,-'
                  |                           `--'--'--'
                  |                               |
                  |<=============Do53============>|
                  |                               |

             (b) Cellular Networks

                  |                               |
                  |<=============Do53============>|
                  |                               |
                  |                           ,--,--,-.
                 +-+      LAN     +---+    ,-'         .
                 |H+--------------+CPE+---+             \
                 +-+              +---+  ,'     ISP     `-.
                                         (                )
                                    +-----+-.          ,-'
                 +-+                |        `--'--'--'
                 |H+----------------+             |
                 +-+                              |
                  |                               |
                  |<=============Do53============>|
                  |                               |

             Legend:
              * H: refers to a host.

                   Figure 10: Sample Legacy Deployments

A.1.  Managed CPEs

   This section focuses on CPEs that are managed by ISPs.

A.1.1.  Direct DNS

   ISPs have developed an expertise in managing service-specific
   configuration information (e.g., CPE WAN Management Protocol
   [TR-069]).  For example, these tools may be used to provision the DNS
   server's ADN to managed CPEs if an encrypted DNS is supported by a
   local network similar to what is depicted in Figure 11.

   For example, DoH-capable (or DoT) clients establish the DoH (or DoT)
   session with the discovered DoH (or DoT) server.




Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   The DNS client discovers whether the DNS server in the local network
   supports DoH/DoT/DoQ by using a dedicated field in the discovery
   message: Encrypted DNS Types (Sections 4, 5, and 6) .

             (a) Fixed Networks

                                              ,--,--,--.
                 +-+      LAN     +---+    ,-'           `-.
                 |H+--------------+CPE+---+      ISP        )
                 +-+              +---+    `-.          ,-'
                  |                           `--'--'--'
                  |                               |
                  |<========Encrypted DNS========>|
                  |                               |

             (b) Cellular Networks

                  |                               |
                  |<========Encrypted DNS========>|
                  |                               |
                  |                           ,--,--,-.
                 +-+      LAN     +---+    ,-'         .
                 |H+--------------+CPE+---+             \
                 +-+              +---+  ,'     ISP     `-.
                                         (                )
                                    +-----+-.          ,-'
                 +-+                |        `--'--'--'
                 |H+----------------+             |
                 +-+                              |
                  |                               |
                  |<========Encrypted DNS========>|
                  |                               |

                    Figure 11: Encrypted DNS in the WAN

   Figure 11 shows the scenario where the CPE relays the list of
   encrypted DNS servers it learns for the network by using mechanisms
   like DHCP or a specific Router Advertisement message.  In such
   context, direct encrypted DNS sessions will be established between a
   host serviced by a CPE and an ISP-supplied encrypted DNS server (see
   the example depicted in Figure 12 for a DoH/DoT-capable host).










Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


                         ,--,--,--.             ,--,--,--.
                      ,-'          `-.       ,-'   ISP    `-.
              Host---(      LAN      CPE----(    DNS Server  )
                |     `-.          ,-'       `-.          ,-'
                |        `--'--'--'             `--'--'--'
                |                                   |
                |<=========Encrypted DNS===========>|

                 Figure 12: Direct Encrypted DNS Sessions

A.1.2.  Proxied DNS

   Figure 13 shows a deployment where the CPE embeds a caching DNS
   forwarder.  The CPE advertises itself as the default DNS server to
   the hosts it serves.  The CPE relies upon DHCP or RA to advertise
   itself to internal hosts as the default DoT/DoH/Do53 server.  When
   receiving a DNS request it cannot handle locally, the CPE forwards
   the request to an upstream DoH/DoT/Do53 resolver.  Such deployment is
   required for IPv4 service continuity purposes (e.g., Section 5.4.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis]) or for supporting advanced services
   within a local network (e.g., malware filtering, parental control,
   Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) [RFC8520] to only allow intended
   communications to and from an IoT device).  When the CPE behaves as a
   DNS forwarder, DNS communications can be decomposed into two legs:

   o  The leg between an internal host and the CPE.

   o  The leg between the CPE and an upstream DNS resolver.

   An ISP that offers encrypted DNS to its customers may enable
   encrypted DNS in one or both legs as shown in Figure 13.  Additional
   considerations related to this deployment are discussed in Section 7.



















Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   (a)
                         ,--,--,--.             ,--,--,--.
                      ,-'          `-.       ,-'   ISP    `-.
              Host---(      LAN      CPE----(    DNS Server  )
                |     `-.          ,-'|      `-.          ,-'
                |        `--'--'--'   |         `--'--'--'
                |                     |             |
                |<=====Encrypted=====>|<=Encrypted=>|
                |         DNS         |     DNS     |

   (b)
                         ,--,--,--.             ,--,--,--.
             Legacy   ,-'          `-.       ,-'   ISP    `-.
              Host---(      LAN      CPE----(    DNS Server  )
                |     `-.          ,-'|      `-.          ,-'
                |        `--'--'--'   |         `--'--'--'
                |                     |             |
                |<=======Do53========>|<=Encrypted=>|
                |                     |     DNS     |

                 Figure 13: Proxied Encrypted DNS Sessions

A.2.  Unmanaged CPEs

A.2.1.  ISP-facing Unmanaged CPEs

   Customers may decide to deploy unmanaged CPEs (assuming the CPE is
   compliant with the network access technical specification that is
   usually published by ISPs).  Upon attachment to the network, an
   unmanaged CPE receives from the network its service configuration
   (including the DNS information) by means of, e.g., DHCP.  That DNS
   information is shared within the LAN following the same mechanisms as
   those discussed in Appendix A.1.  A host can thus establish DoH/DoT
   session with a DoH/DoT server similar to what is depicted in
   Figure 12 or Figure 13.

A.2.2.  Internal Unmanaged CPEs

   Customers may also decide to deploy internal routers (called
   hereafter, Internal CPEs) for a variety of reasons that are not
   detailed here.  Absent any explicit configuration on the internal CPE
   to override the DNS configuration it receives from the ISP-supplied
   CPE, an Internal CPE relays the DNS information it receives via DHCP/
   RA from the ISP-supplied CPE to connected hosts.  Encrypted DNS
   sessions can be established by a host with the DNS servers of the ISP
   (see Figure 14).





Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


                    ,--,--,--.                    ,--,--,--.
                 ,-'          Internal         ,-'    ISP   `-.
          Host--(    Network#A   CPE----CPE---(    DNS Server   )
           |     `-.          ,-'              `-.          ,-'
           |        `--'--'--'                    `--'--'--'
           |                                          |
           |<==============Encrypted DNS=============>|

    Figure 14: Direct Encrypted DNS Sessions with the ISP DNS Resolver
                              (Internal CPE)

   Similar to managed CPEs, a user may modify the default DNS
   configuration of an unmanaged CPE to use his/her favorite DNS servers
   instead.  Encrypted DNS sessions can be established directly between
   a host and a 3rd Party DNS server (see Figure 15).

                 ,--,--,--.                  ,--,
               ,'         Internal        ,-'    '-     3rd Party
        Host--(  Network#A  CPE----CPE---(   ISP   )--- DNS Server
         |     `.         ,-'             `-.    -'         |
         |       `-'--'--'                   `--'           |
         |                                                  |
         |<=================Encrypted DNS==================>|

      Figure 15: Direct Encrypted DNS Sessions with a Third Party DNS
                                 Resolver

   Section 7.2 discusses considerations related to hosting a forwarder
   in the Internal CPE.

Appendix B.  Make Use of Discovered Encrypted DNS Servers

   Even if the use of a discovered encrypted DNS server is beyond the
   discovery process and falls under encrypted server selection, the
   following discusses typical conditions under which discovered
   encrypted DNS server can be used.

   o  If the DNS server's IP address discovered by using DHCP/RA is
      preconfigured in the OS or Browser as a verified resolver (e.g.,
      part of an auto-upgrade program such as [Auto-upgrade]), the DNS
      client auto-upgrades to use the preconfigured encrypted DNS server
      tied to the discovered DNS server IP address.  In such a case the
      DNS client will perform additional checks out of band, such as
      confirming that the Do53 IP address and the encrypted DNS server
      are owned and operated by the same organisation.

   o  Similarly, if the ADN conveyed in DHCP/RA (Sections 4, 5, and 6)
      is preconfigured in the OS or browser as a verified resolver, the



Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


      DNS client auto-upgrades to establish an encrypted a DoH/DoT/DoQ
      session with the ADN.

      In such case, the DNS client matches the domain name in the
      Encrypted DNS DHCP/RA option with the 'DNS-ID' identifier type
      within subjectAltName entry in the server certificate conveyed in
      the TLS handshake.

Appendix C.  Legacy CPEs

   Hosts serviced by legacy CPEs that can't be upgraded to support the
   options defined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 won't be able to learn the
   encrypted DNS server hosted by the ISP, in particular.  If the ADN is
   not discovered using DHCP/RA, such hosts will have to fallback to use
   discovery using the resolver IP address as defined in Section 4 of
   [I-D.ietf-add-ddr] to discover the designated resolvers.  The
   guidance in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-add-ddr] related to the
   designated resolver verification has to be followed in such case.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair (editor)
   Orange
   Rennes  35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Tirumaleswar Reddy (editor)
   McAfee, Inc.
   Embassy Golf Link Business Park
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560071
   India

   Email: TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com


   Dan Wing
   Citrix Systems, Inc.
   USA

   Email: dwing-ietf@fuggles.com








Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers       May 2021


   Neil Cook
   Open-Xchange
   UK

   Email: neil.cook@noware.co.uk


   Tommy Jensen
   Microsoft
   USA

   Email: tojens@microsoft.com







































Boucadair, et al.       Expires November 5, 2021               [Page 30]