MIPSHOP WG G. Bajko
Internet Draft Nokia
Intended Status: Proposed Standard July 12, 2009
Expires: January 11, 2010
Locating IEEE 802.21 Mobility Servers using DNS
draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery-07
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 11, 2010.
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document defines application service tags that allow service
location without relying on rigid domain naming conventions, and DNS
procedures for discovering servers which provide IEEE 802.21
[IEEE802.21] defined Mobility Services. Such Mobility Services are
used to assist a Mobile Node (MN) supporting IEEE 802.21
[IEEE802.21], in handover preparation (network discovery) and
G. Bajko Expires 01/11/10 [Page 1]
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS June 2009
handover decision (network selection). The services addressed by
this document are the Media Independent Handover Services defined in
[IEEE802.21].
Conventions used in this document
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.
Terminology and abbreviations used in this document
Mobility Services: comprises of a set of different services provided
by the network to mobile nodes to facilitate handover preparation
and handover decision, as described in [IEEE802.21].
Mobility Server: a network node providing IEEE 802.21 Mobility
Services.
MIH: Media Independent Handover, as defined in [IEEE802.21].
MIH Service: MIHIS, MIHES or MIHCS type of service, as defined in
[IEEE802.21].
Application service: is a generic term for some type of
application, independent of the protocol that may be used to offer
it. Each application service will be associated with an IANA-
registered tag.
Application protocol: is used to implement the application service.
These are also associated with IANA-registered tags.
Home domain: the DNS suffix of the operator with which the Mobile
Node has a subscription service. The suffix is usually stored in the
Mobile Node as part of the subscription.
Table of Content
1. Introduction....................................................2
2. Discovering a Mobility Server...................................3
2.1 Selecting a Mobility Service..............................4
2.2 Selecting the transport protocol..........................4
2.3 Determining the IP address and port.......................6
3. IANA Considerations.............................................6
4. Security Considerations.........................................7
5. Normative References............................................8
6. Informative References..........................................8
7. Author's Address................................................9
1. Introduction
G. Bajko Expires 12/03/09 [Page 2]
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS June 2009
IEEE 802.21 [IEEE802.21] defines three distinct service types to
facilitate link layer handovers across heterogeneous technologies:
a) MIH Information Services (MIHIS)
IS provides a unified framework to the higher layer entities
across the heterogeneous network environment to facilitate
discovery and selection of multiple types of networks existing
within a geographical area, with the objective to help the
higher layer mobility protocols to acquire a global view of the
heterogeneous networks and perform seamless handover across
these networks.
b) MIH Event Services (MIHES)
Events may indicate changes in state and transmission behavior
of the physical, data link and logical link layers, or predict
state changes of these layers. The Event Service may also be
used to indicate management actions or command status on the
part of the network or some management entity.
c) MIH Command Services (MIHCS)
The command service enables higher layers to control the
physical, data link, and logical link layers. The higher layers
may control the reconfiguration or selection of an appropriate
link through a set of handover commands.
In IEEE terminology these services are called Media Independent
Handover (MIH) services.
While these services may be co-located, the different pattern and
type of information they provide does not necessitate the co-
location.
"Service Management" service messages, i.e., MIH registration, MIH
capability discovery and MIH event subscription messages, are
considered as MIHES and MIHCS when transporting MIH messages over L3
transport.
An Mobile Node (MN) may make use of any of these MIH service types
separately or any combination of them.
It is anticipated that a Mobility Server will not necessarily host
all three of these MIH Services together, thus there is a need to
discover the MIH Service types separately.
This document defines a number of application service tags that
allow service location without relying on rigid domain naming
conventions.
2. Discovering a Mobility Server
The Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) [RFC3401] is used to
implement lazy binding of strings to data, in order to support
dynamically configured delegation systems. The DDDS functions by
G. Bajko Expires 12/03/09 [Page 3]
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS June 2009
mapping some unique string to data stored within a DDDS Database by
iteratively applying string transformation rules until a terminal
condition is reached. When DDDS uses DNS as a distributed database
of Rules, these Rules are encoded using the Naming Authority Pointer
(NAPTR) Resource Record (RR). One of these Rules is the First Well
Known Rule, which says where the process starts.
In current specifications, the First Well Known Rule in a DDDS
application [RFC3403] is assumed to be fixed, ie the domain in the
tree where the lookups are to be routed to, is known. This document
proposes the input to the First Well Known Rule to be dynamic, based
on the search path the resolver discovers or is configured with.
The search path of the resolver can either be pre-configured,
discovered using DHCP or learned from a previous MIH Information
Service (IS) query [IEEE802.21] as described in
[ID.ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution].
When the MN needs to discover Mobility Services in its home domain,
the input to the First Well Known Rule MUST be the MN's home domain,
which is assumed to be pre-configured in the MN.
When the MN needs to discover Mobility Services in a local (visited)
domain, it SHOULD use DHCP as described in [ID.ietf-mipshop-mos-
dhcp-options] to discover the IP address of the server hosting the
desired service, and contact it directly. In some instances, the
discovery may result in a per protocol/application list of domain
names which are then to be used as starting points for the
subsequent NAPTR lookups. If neither IP address or domain name can
be discovered with the above procedure, the MN MAY request for a
domain search list, as described in [RFC3397] and [RFC3646], and use
it as input to the DDDS application.
The MN may also have a list of cached domain names of Service
Providers, learned from a previous MIH Information Service (IS)
query [IEEE802.21]. If the cache entries have not expired, they can
be used as input to the DDDS application.
When the MN does not find valid domain names using the procedures
above, it MUST stop any attempt to discover MIH Services.
The dynamic rule described above SHOULD NOT be used for discovering
services other than MIH Services described in this document, unless
stated otherwise by a future specification.
The procedures defined here result in an IP address, port and
transport protocol where the MN can contact the Mobility Server
which hosts the service the MN is looking for.
2.1 Selecting a Mobility Service
G. Bajko Expires 12/03/09 [Page 4]
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS June 2009
The MN should know the characteristics of the Mobility Services
defined in [IEEE802.21] and based on that it should be able to
select the service it wants to use to facilitate its handover. The
services it can choose from are:
- Information Service (MIHIS)
- Event Service (MIHES)
- Command Service (MIHCS)
The service identifiers for the services are "MIHIS", "MIHES", and
"MIHCS" respectively.
The server supporting any of the above services MUST support at
least UDP and TCP as transport, as described in [ID.ietf-mipshop-
mstp-solution]. SCTP and other transport protocols MAY also be
supported.
2.2 Selecting the transport protocol
After the desired service has been chosen, the client selects the
transport protocol it prefers to use. Note, that transport selection
may impact the handover performance.
The services relevant for the task of transport protocol selection
are those with NAPTR service fields with values "ID+M2X", where ID
is the service identifier defined in the previous section and X is a
letter that corresponds to a transport protocol supported by the
domain. This specification defines M2U for UDP, M2T for TCP and M2S
for SCTP. This document also establishes an IANA registry for
NAPTR service name to transport protocol mappings.
These NAPTR [RFC3403] records provide a mapping from a domain to the
SRV [RFC2782] record for contacting a server with the specific
transport protocol in the NAPTR services field. The resource record
MUST contain an empty regular expression and a replacement value,
which indicates the domain name where the SRV record for that
particular transport protocol can be found. If the server supports
multiple transport protocols, there will be multiple NAPTR records,
each with a different service value. As per [RFC3403], the client
discards any records whose services fields are not applicable.
The MN MUST discard any service fields that identify a resolution
service whose value is not "M2X", for values of X that indicate
transport protocols supported by the client. The NAPTR processing
as described in RFC 3403 will result in the discovery of the most
preferred transport protocol of the server that is supported by the
client, as well as an SRV record for the server.
As an example, consider a client that wishes to find MIHIS service
in the example.com domain. The client performs a NAPTR query for
that domain, and the following NAPTR records are returned:
order pref flags service regexp replacement
IN NAPTR 50 50 "s" "MIHIS+M2T" "" _MIHIS._tcp.example.com
G. Bajko Expires 12/03/09 [Page 5]
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS June 2009
IN NAPTR 90 50 "s" "MIHIS+M2U" "" _MIHIS._udp.example.com
This indicates that the domain does have a server providing MIHIS
services over TCP and UDP, in that order of preference. Since the
client supports TCP and UDP, TCP will be used, targeted to a host
determined by an SRV lookup of _MIHIS._tcp.example.com. That lookup
would return:
;; Priority Weight Port Target
IN SRV 0 1 XXXX server1.example.com
IN SRV 0 2 XXXX server2.example.com
If no NAPTR records are found, the client constructs SRV queries for
those transport protocols it supports, and does a query for each.
Queries are done using the service identifier "_MIHIS" for the MIH
Information Service, "_MIHES" for the MIH Event Service and "_MIHCS"
for the MIH Command Service. A particular transport is supported if
the query is successful. The client MAY use any transport protocol
it desires which is supported by the server.
Note, that the regexp field in the NAPTR example above is empty. The
regexp field MUST NOT be used when discovering MIH services, as its
usage can be complex and error prone; and the discovery of the MIH
services do not require the flexibility provided by this field over
a static target present in the TARGET field.
If the client is already configured with the information about which
transport protocol is used for a mobility service in a particular
domain, it can directly perform an SRV query for that specific
transport using the service identifier of the Mobility Service. For
example, if the client knows that it should be using TCP for MIH IS
service, it can perform a SRV query directly for
_MIHIS._tcp.example.com.
2.3 Determining the IP address and port
Once the server providing the desired service and the transport
protocol has been determined, the next step is to determine the IP
address and port.
The response to the SRV DNS query contains the port number in the
Port field of the SRV RDATA.
According to the specification of SRV RRs in [RFC2782], the TARGET
field is a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) which MUST have one or
more address records; the FQDN must not be an alias, i.e., there
MUST NOT be a CNAME or DNAME RR at this name. Unless the SRV DNS
query already has reported a sufficient number of these address
records in the Additional Data section of the DNS response (as
recommended by [RFC2782]), the MN needs to perform A and/or AAAA
record lookup(s) of the domain name, as appropriate. The result will
G. Bajko Expires 12/03/09 [Page 6]
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS June 2009
be a list of IP addresses, each of which can be contacted using the
transport protocol determined previously.
If the result of the SRV query contains a port number, then the MN
SHOULD contact the server at that port number. If the SRV record did
not contain a port number then the MN SHOULD contact the server at
the default port number of that particular service. A default port
number for MIH services is requested from IANA in [ID.ietf-mipshop-
mstp-solution].
3. IANA considerations
The usage of NAPTR records described here requires well known values
for the service fields for each transport supported by Mobility
Services. The table of mappings from service field values to
transport protocols is to be maintained by IANA.
The registration in the RFC MUST include the following information:
Service Field: The service field being registered.
Protocol: The specific transport protocol associated with that
service field. This MUST include the name and acronym for the
protocol, along with reference to a document that describes the
transport protocol.
Name and Contact Information: The name, address, email address
and telephone number for the person performing the
registration.
The following values have been placed into the registry:
Service Fields Protocol
MIHIS+M2T TCP
MIHIS+M2U UDP
MIHIS+M2S SCTP
MIHES+M2T TCP
MIHES+M2U UDP
MIHES+M2S SCTP
MIHCS+M2T TCP
MIHCS+M2U UDP
MIHCS+M2S SCTP
New Service Fields are to be added via Standards Action as defined
in [RFC5226].
New entries to the table that specify additional transport protocols
for the existing Service Fields may similarly be registered by IANA
through Standards Action [RFC5226].
IANA is also requested to register MIHIS, MIHES, MIHCS as service
names in the port registry.
G. Bajko Expires 12/03/09 [Page 7]
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS June 2009
4. Security considerations
A list of known threats to services using DNS is documented in
[RFC3833]. For most of those identified threats, the DNS Security
Extensions [RFC4033] does provide protection. It is therefore
recommended to consider the usage of DNSSEC [RFC4033] and the
aspects of DNSSEC Operational Practices [RFC4641] when deploying
IEEE 802.21 Mobility Services.
In deployments where DNSSEC usage is not feasible, measures should
be taken to protect against forged DNS responses and cache poisoning
as much as possible. Efforts in this direction are documented in
[ID.ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience].
Where inputs to the procedure described in this document are fed via
DHCP, DHCP vulnerabilities can also cause issues. For instance, the
inability to authenticate DHCP discovery results may lead to the
mobility service results also being incorrect, even if the DNS
process was secured.
5. Normative References
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[RFC3403] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
October 2002.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033,
March 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
2008.
[RFC3397] B. Aboba and S. Cheshire, "DHCP Domain Search Option", RFC
3397, November 2002.
[RFC3646] R. Droms, "DNS Configuration options for DHCPv6", RFC
3646, December 2003.
[ID.ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution] Mobility Services Transport Protocol
Design, Melia et al, April 2008, work in progress
[ID.ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options] DHCP Options for IEEE 802.21
Mobility Services (MoS) Discovery, Bajko et al, May 2009, work
in progress
G. Bajko Expires 12/03/09 [Page 8]
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS June 2009
6. Informative References
[IEEE802.21] IEEE 802.21 Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Media Independent Handover Services
http://www.ieee802.org/21/private/Published%20Spec/802.21-
2008.pdf (access to the document requires membership)
[RFC4641] Kolkman, O. and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC Operational Practices",
RFC 4641, September 2006.
[RFC3401] M. Mealling, "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.
[RFC3833] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain
Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.
[ID.ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience] Measures for making DNS more
resilient against forged answers, Hubert et al, August 2008,
work in progress
7. Author's Addresses
Gabor Bajko
gabor(dot)bajko(at)nokia(dot)com
G. Bajko Expires 12/03/09 [Page 9]
