|Fujiwara & Vixie||Expires 23 July 2023||[Page]|
- Network Working Group
- Intended Status:
- Best Current Practice
Fragmentation Avoidance in DNS
EDNS0 enables a DNS server to send large responses using UDP and is widely deployed. Large DNS/UDP responses are fragmented, and IP fragmentation has exposed weaknesses in application protocols. It is possible to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS by limiting response size where possible, and signaling the need to upgrade from UDP to TCP transport where necessary. This document proposes techniques to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS.¶
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 23 July 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
DNS has an EDNS0 [RFC6891] mechanism. It enables a DNS server to send large responses using UDP. EDNS0 is now widely deployed, and DNS (over UDP) relies on on IP fragmentation when the EDNS buffer size is set to a value larger than the path MTU.¶
Fragmented DNS UDP responses have systemic weaknesses, which expose the requestor to DNS cache poisoning from off-path attackers. (See Appendix A for references and details.)¶
[RFC8900] summarized that IP fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication. The transport of DNS messages over UDP should take account of the observations stated in that document.¶
TCP avoids fragmentation using its Maximum Segment Size (MSS) parameter, but each transmitted segment is header-size aware such that the size of the IP and TCP headers is known, as well as the far end's MSS parameter and the interface or path MTU, so that the segment size can be chosen so as to keep the each IP datagram below a target size. This takes advantage of the elasticity of TCP's packetizing process as to how much queued data will fit into the next segment. In contrast, DNS over UDP has little datagram size elasticity and lacks insight into IP header and option size, and so must make more conservative estimates about available UDP payload space.¶
This document proposes that implementations set the "Don't Fragment (DF) bit" [RFC0791] on IPv4 and not using the "Fragment header" [RFC8200] on IPv6 in DNS/UDP messages in order to avoid IP fragmentation, and describes how to avoid packet losses due to DF bit and small MTU links.¶
A path MTU different from the recommended value could be obtained from static configuration, or server routing hints, or some future discovery protocol; that would be the subject of a future specification and is beyond our scope here.¶
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 BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
"Requestor" refers to the side that sends a request. "Responder" refers to an authoritative, recursive resolver or other DNS component that responds to questions. (Quoted from EDNS0 [RFC6891])¶
"Path MTU" is the minimum link MTU of all the links in a path between a source node and a destination node. (Quoted from [RFC8201])¶
In this document, the term "Path MTU discovery" includes both Classical Path MTU discovery [RFC1191], [RFC8201], and Packetization Layer Path MTU discovery [RFC8899].¶
Many of the specialized terms used in this document are defined in DNS Terminology [RFC8499].¶
3. Proposal to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS
These recommendations are intended for nodes with global IP addresses on the Internet. Private networks or local networks are out of the scope of this document.¶
The methods to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS are described below:¶
3.1. Recommendations for UDP responders
- UDP responders SHOULD send DNS responses without "Fragment header" [RFC8200] on IPv6.¶
- UDP responders are RECOMMENDED to set IP "Don't Fragment flag (DF) bit" [RFC0791] on IPv4.¶
- UDP responders SHOULD compose response packets that fit in both the offered requestor's maximum UDP payload size [RFC6891], the interface MTU, and the RECOMMENDED maximum DNS/UDP payload size 1400.¶
- If the UDP responder detects an immediate error that the UDP packet cannot be sent beyond the path MTU size (EMSGSIZE), the UDP responder MAY recreate response packets fit in path MTU size, or TC bit set.¶
UDP responders SHOULD limit response size when UDP responders are located on small MTU (<1500) networks.¶
The cause and effect of the TC bit are unchanged from EDNS0 [RFC6891].¶
3.2. Recommendations for UDP requestors
- UDP requestors SHOULD limit the requestor's maximum UDP payload size to the RECOMMENDED size of 1400 or smaller size.¶
- UDP requestors MAY drop fragmented DNS/UDP responses without IP reassembly to avoid cache poisoning attacks.¶
- DNS responses may be dropped by IP fragmentation. Upon a timeout, to avoid name resolution fails, UDP requestors MAY retry using TCP or UDP with a smaller requestor's maximum UDP payload size per local policy.¶
4. Recommendations for zone operators and DNS server operators
Large DNS responses are the result of zone configuration. Zone operators SHOULD seek configurations resulting in small responses. For example,¶
- Use a smaller number of name servers (13 may be too large)¶
- Use a smaller number of A/AAAA RRs for a domain name¶
- Use 'minimal-responses' configuration: Some implementations have a 'minimal responses' configuration that causes DNS servers to make response packets smaller, containing only mandatory and required data (Appendix C).¶
- Use a smaller signature / public key size algorithm for DNSSEC. Notably, the signature sizes of ECDSA and EdDSA are smaller than those for RSA.¶
5.1. Protocol compliance
Prior research [Fujiwara2018] has shown that some authoritative servers ignore the EDNS0 requestor's maximum UDP payload size, and return large UDP responses.¶
It is also well known that some authoritative servers do not support TCP transport.¶
Such non-compliant behavior cannot become implementation or configuration constraints for the rest of the DNS. If failure is the result, then that failure must be localized to the non-compliant servers.¶
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.¶
7. Security Considerations
When avoiding fragmentation, a DNS/UDP requestor behind a small-MTU network may experience UDP timeouts which would reduce performance and which may lead to TCP fallback. This would indicate prior reliance upon IP fragmentation, which is universally considered to be harmful to both the performance and stability of applications, endpoints, and gateways. Avoiding IP fragmentation will improve operating conditions overall, and the performance of DNS/TCP has increased and will continue to increase.¶
The author would like to specifically thank Paul Wouters, Mukund Sivaraman, Tony Finch, Hugo Salgado, Peter van Dijk, Brian Dickson, Puneet Sood, Jim Reid, Petr Spacek, Peter van Dijk, Andrew McConachie, Joe Abley, Daisuke Higashi and Joe Touch for extensive review and comments.¶
9.1. Normative References
- Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
- Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
- Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
- McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
- Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
- Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T. Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8899>.
9.2. Informative References
- Brandt, M., Dai, T., Klein, A., Shulman, H., and M. Waidner, "Domain Validation++ For MitM-Resilient PKI", Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , .
- "DNS flag day 2020", n.d., <https://dnsflagday.net/2020/>.
- Fujiwara, K., "Measures against cache poisoning attacks using IP fragmentation in DNS", OARC 30 Workshop , .
- Herzberg, A. and H. Shulman, "Fragmentation Considered Poisonous", IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security , .
- Hlavacek, T., "IP fragmentation attack on DNS", RIPE 67 Meeting , , <https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/240-ipfragattack.pdf>.
- Huston, G. and J. Damas, "Measuring DNS Flag Day 2020", OARC 34 Workshop , .
- Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>.
- Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC7739, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7739>.
- Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
- Bonica, R., Baker, F., Huston, G., Hinden, R., Troan, O., and F. Gont, "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile", BCP 230, RFC 8900, DOI 10.17487/RFC8900, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8900>.
Appendix A. Weaknesses of IP fragmentation
"Fragmentation Considered Poisonous" [Herzberg2013] proposed effective off-path DNS cache poisoning attack vectors using IP fragmentation. "IP fragmentation attack on DNS" [Hlavacek2013] and "Domain Validation++ For MitM-Resilient PKI" [Brandt2018] proposed that off-path attackers can intervene in path MTU discovery [RFC1191] to perform intentionally fragmented responses from authoritative servers. [RFC7739] stated the security implications of predictable fragment identification values.¶
DNSSEC is a countermeasure against cache poisoning attacks that use IP fragmentation. However, DNS delegation responses are not signed with DNSSEC, and DNSSEC does not have a mechanism to get the correct response if an incorrect delegation is injected. This is a denial-of-service vulnerability that can yield failed name resolutions. If cache poisoning attacks can be avoided, DNSSEC validation failures will be avoided.¶
In Section 3.2 (Message Side Guidelines) of UDP Usage Guidelines [RFC8085] we are told that an application SHOULD NOT send UDP datagrams that result in IP packets that exceed the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) along the path to the destination.¶
A DNS message receiver cannot trust fragmented UDP datagrams primarily due to the small amount of entropy provided by UDP port numbers and DNS message identifiers, each of which being only 16 bits in size, and both likely being in the first fragment of a packet, if fragmentation occurs. By comparison, TCP protocol stack controls packet size and avoid IP fragmentation under ICMP NEEDFRAG attacks. In TCP, fragmentation should be avoided for performance reasons, whereas for UDP, fragmentation should be avoided for resiliency and authenticity reasons.¶
Appendix B. Details of requestor's maximum UDP payload size discussions
There are many discussions for default path MTU size and requestor's maximum UDP payload size.¶
- The minimum MTU for an IPv6 interface is 1280 octets (see Section 5 of [RFC8200]). Then, we can use it as the default path MTU value for IPv6. The corresponding minimum MTU for an IPv4 interface is 68 (60 + 8) [RFC0791].¶
- Most of the Internet and especially the inner core has an MTU of at least 1500 octets. Maximum DNS/UDP payload size for IPv6 on MTU 1500 ethernet is 1452 (1500 minus 40 (IPv6 header size) minus 8 (UDP header size)). To allow for possible IP options and distant tunnel overhead, the authors' recommendation of default maximum DNS/UDP payload size is 1400.¶
- [RFC4035] defines that "A security-aware name server MUST support the EDNS0 message size extension, MUST support a message size of at least 1220 octets". Then, the smallest number of the maximum DNS/UDP payload size is 1220.¶
- In order to avoid IP fragmentation, [DNSFlagDay2020] proposed that the UDP requestors set the requestor's payload size to 1232, and the UDP responders compose UDP responses fit in 1232 octets. The size 1232 is based on an MTU of 1280, which is required by the IPv6 specification [RFC8200], minus 48 octets for the IPv6 and UDP headers.¶
- [Huston2021] analyzed the result of [DNSFlagDay2020] and reported that their measurements suggest that in the interior of the Internet between recursive resolvers and authoritative servers the prevailing MTU is at 1,500 and there is no measurable signal of use of smaller MTUs in this part of the Internet, and proposed that their measurements suggest setting the EDNS0 Buffer size to IPv4 1472 octets and IPv6 1452 octets.¶
Appendix C. Minimal-responses
Some implementations have a 'minimal responses' configuration that causes a DNS server to make response packets smaller, containing only mandatory and required data.¶
Under the minimal-responses configuration, DNS servers compose response messages using only RRSets corresponding to queries. In the case of delegation, DNS servers compose response packets with delegation NS RRSet in the authority section and in-domain (in-zone and below-zone) glue in the additional data section. In case of a non-existent domain name or non-existent type, the start of authority (SOA RR) will be placed in the Authority Section.¶
In addition, if the zone is DNSSEC signed and a query has the DNSSEC OK bit, signatures are added in the answer section, or the corresponding DS RRSet and signatures are added in the authority section. Details are defined in [RFC4035] and [RFC5155].¶