Discovering Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
RFC 5223
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (August 2008) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | James Polk , Hannes Tschofenig , Henning Schulzrinne | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-polk-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5223 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jon Peterson | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 5223
Network Working Group H. Schulzrinne
Request for Comments: 5223 Columbia University
Category: Standards Track J. Polk
Cisco
H. Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
August 2008
Discovering Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol describes an XML-
based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geospatial or
civic location information to service contact Uniform Resource
Locators (URLs). LoST servers can be located anywhere, but a
placement closer to the end host, e.g., in the access network, is
desirable. In disaster situations with intermittent network
connectivity, such a LoST server placement provides benefits
regarding the resiliency of emergency service communication.
This document describes how a LoST client can discover a LoST server
using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP).
Schulzrinne, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5223 DHCP-Based LoST Discovery August 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Domain Name Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. LoST Server DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. LoST Server DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol [RFC5222]
describes an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and
geospatial or civic location information to service contact Uniform
Resource Locators (URLs).
In order to interact with a LoST server, the LoST client needs to
discover the server's IP address. Several mechanisms can be used to
learn this address, including manual configuration. In environments
where the access network itself either deploys a LoST server or knows
a third party that operates a LoST server, DHCP can provide the end
host with a domain name. This domain name is then used as input to
the DNS-based resolution mechanism described in LoST [RFC5222] that
reuses the URI-enabled NAPTR specification (see [RFC4848]).
This document specifies a DHCPv4 and a DHCPv6 option that allows LoST
clients to discover local LoST servers.
Section 2 provides terminology. Section 3 shows the encoding of the
domain name. Section 4 describes the DHCPv4 option while Section 5
describes the DHCPv6 option, with the same functionality. IANA and
Security Considerations complete the document in Sections 7 and 8.
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
Schulzrinne, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5223 DHCP-Based LoST Discovery August 2008
Within this document, we use terminology from [RFC5012] and
[RFC5222].
3. Domain Name Encoding
This section describes the encoding of the domain name used in the
DHCPv4 option shown in Section 4 and also used in the DHCPv6 option
shown in Section 5.
The domain name is encoded according to Section 3.1 of RFC 1035
[RFC1035] whereby each label is represented as a one-octet length
field followed by that number of octets. Since every domain name
ends with the null label of the root, a domain name is terminated by
a length byte of zero. The high-order two bits of every length octet
MUST be zero, and the remaining six bits of the length field limit
the label to 63 octets or less. To simplify implementations, the
total length of a domain name (i.e., label octets and label length
octets) is restricted to 255 octets or less.
4. LoST Server DHCPv4 Option
The LoST server DHCPv4 option carries a DNS (RFC 1035 [RFC1035])
fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) to be used by the LoST client to
locate a LoST server.
The DHCP option for this encoding has the following format:
Code Len LoST Server Domain Name
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----
| 137 | n | s1 | s2 | s3 | s4 | s5 | ...
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----
Figure 1: LoST FQDN DHCPv4 Option
The values s1, s2, s3, etc. represent the domain name labels in the
domain name encoding. Note that the length field in the DHCPv4
option represents the length of the entire domain name encoding,
whereas the length fields in the domain name encoding (see Section 3)
is the length of a single domain name label.
Code: OPTION_V4_LOST (137)
Len: Length of the 'LoST Server Domain Name' field
in octets; variable.
LoST Server Domain Name: The domain name of the LoST
server for the client to use.
Schulzrinne, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5223 DHCP-Based LoST Discovery August 2008
A DHCPv4 client MAY request a LoST server domain name in a Parameter
Request List option, as described in [RFC2131].
The encoding of the domain name is described in Section 3.
This option contains a single domain name and, as such, MUST contain
precisely one root label.
5. LoST Server DHCPv6 Option
This section defines a DHCPv6 option to carry a domain name.
The DHCPv6 option has the format shown in Figure 2.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_V6_LOST | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LoST Server Domain Name |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
option-code: OPTION_V6_LOST (51)
option-length: Length of the 'LoST Server Domain Name' field
in octets; variable.
LoST Server Domain Name: The domain name of the LoST
server for the client to use.
Figure 2: DHCPv6 Option for LoST Server Domain Name List
A DHCPv6 client MAY request a LoST server domain name in an Options
Request Option (ORO), as described in [RFC3315].
The encoding of the domain name is described in Section 3.
This option contains a single domain name and, as such, MUST contain
precisely one root label.
6. Example
This section shows an example of a DHCPv4 option where the DHCP
server wants to offer the "example.com" domain name to the client as
input to the U-NAPTR LoST discovery procedure. This domain name
would be encoded as follows:
Schulzrinne, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5223 DHCP-Based LoST Discovery August 2008
+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|137 |13 | 7 | e | x | a | m | p | l | e | 3 | c | o | m | 0 |
+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 3: Example for a LoST FQDN DHCPv4 Option
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. DHCPv4 Option
The following DHCPv4 option code for the Location-to-Service
Translation (LoST) Protocol server option has been assigned by IANA:
Option Name Value Described in
-----------------------------------------------
OPTION_V4_LOST 137 Section 4
7.2. DHCPv6 Option
IANA has assigned the following DHCPv6 option code for the Location-
to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol option:
Option Name Value Described in
------------------------------------------------
OPTION_V6_LOST 51 Section 5
8. Security Considerations
If an adversary manages to modify the response from a DHCP server or
insert its own response, a LoST client could be led to contact a
rogue LoST server under the control of the adversary or be given an
invalid address. These threats are documented in [RFC5069]. The
security considerations in [RFC2131], [RFC2132], and [RFC3315] are
applicable to this document.
[RFC5222] enumerates the LoST security mechanisms.
9. Acknowledgements
Andrew Newton reviewed the document and helped simplify the
mechanism. Other helpful input was provided by Jari Arkko, Leslie
Daigle, Vijay K. Gurbani (Gen-ART Review), David W. Hankins, Russ
Housley, Tim Polk, Mark Stapp, and Christian Vogt.
Schulzrinne, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5223 DHCP-Based LoST Discovery August 2008
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4848] Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
(DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.
[RFC5012] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",
RFC 5012, January 2008.
[RFC5069] Taylor, T., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., and M.
Shanmugam, "Security Threats and Requirements for
Emergency Call Marking and Mapping", RFC 5069,
January 2008.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008.
Schulzrinne, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5223 DHCP-Based LoST Discovery August 2008
Authors' Addresses
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
US
EMail: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu
James Polk
Cisco
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike
Richardson, TX 75082
US
EMail: jmpolk@cisco.com
Hannes Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo 02600
Finland
Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com
URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
Schulzrinne, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5223 DHCP-Based LoST Discovery August 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Schulzrinne, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]