This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide privacy for DNS. Encryption provided by TLS eliminates opportunities for eavesdropping and on-path tampering with DNS queries in the network, such as discussed in RFC 7626. In addition, this document specifies two usage profiles for DNS over TLS and provides advice on performance considerations to minimize overhead from using TCP and TLS with DNS.

No abstract

IONSince late 1999, DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) [1,2,3] attack has drawn many attentions from both research and industry communities. Many potential solutions (e.g., ingress filtering [6,7], packet marking [5,8,9,10,11] or tracing [4], and aggregate-based congestion control or rate limiting) have been proposed to handle this network bandwidth consumption attack. Among them, "ICMP traceback (iTrace)" is currently being considered as an industry standard by IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). While the idea of iTrace is very clever, efficient, reasonably secure and practical, it suffers a serious statistic problem such that the chance for "useful" and "valuable" iTrace messages can be extremely small against various types of DDoS attacks. This implies that most of the network resources spent on generating and utilizing iTrace messages will be wasted. Therefore, we propose a simple enhancement called "Intention-Driven" iTrace, which conceptually introduces an extra bit in the routing and forwarding process. With the new "intention-bit", it is shown that, through our simulation study, the performance of iTrace improves dramatically. This work has been proposed to IETF's ICMP Trace-Back working group.

Abstractm Despite BGP's critical importance as the de-facto Internet inter-domain routing protocol, there is little understanding of how BGP actually performs under stressful conditions when dependable routing is most needed. In this paper, we examine BGP's behavior during one stressful period, the Code Red/Nimda attack on September 18, 2001. The attack was correlated with a 30-fold increase in the BGP update messages at a monitoring point which peers with a number of Internet service providers. Our examination of BGP's behavior during the event concludes that BGP exhibited no significant abnormality, and that over 40% of the observed updates can be attributed to the monitoring artifact in current BGP measurement settings. Our analysis, however, does reveal several weak points in both the protocol and its implementation, such as BGP's sensitivity to the transport session reliability, its inability to avoid the global propagation of small local changes, and its certain implementation features whose otherwise benign effects only get amplified under stressful conditions. We also identify areas for improvement in the current network measurement and monitoring effort.

This document specifies the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO), which obsoletes the TCP MD5 Signature option of RFC 2385 (TCP MD5). TCP-AO specifies the use of stronger Message Authentication Codes (MACs), protects against replays even for long-lived TCP connections, and provides more details on the association of security with TCP connections than TCP MD5. TCP-AO is compatible with either a static Master Key Tuple (MKT) configuration or an external, out-of-band MKT management mechanism; in either case, TCP-AO also protects connections when using the same MKT across repeated instances of a connection, using traffic keys derived from the MKT, and coordinates MKT changes between endpoints. The result is intended to support current infrastructure uses of TCP MD5, such as to protect long-lived connections (as used, e.g., in BGP and LDP), and to support a larger set of MACs with minimal other system and operational changes. TCP-AO uses a different option identifier than TCP MD5, even though TCP-AO and TCP MD5 are never permitted to be used simultaneously. TCP-AO supports IPv6, and is fully compatible with the proposed requirements for the replacement of TCP MD5.

The Domain Name System (DNS) seems ideal for connectionless UDP, yet this choice results in challenges of eavesdropping that compromises privacy, source-address spoofing that simplifies denial-of-service (DoS) attacks on the server and third parties, injection attacks that exploit fragmentation, and reply-size limits that constrain key sizes and policy choices. We propose T-DNS to address these problems. It uses TCP to smoothly support large payloads and to mitigate spoofing and amplification for DoS. T-DNS uses transport-layer security (TLS) to provide privacy from users to their DNS resolvers and optionally to authoritative servers. TCP and TLS are hardly novel, and expectations about DNS suggest connections will balloon client latency and overwhelm server with state. Our contribution is to show that T-DNS significantly improves security and privacy: TCP prevents denial-of-service (DoS) amplification against others, reduces the effects of DoS on the server, and simplifies policy choices about key size. TLS protects against eavesdroppers to the recursive resolver. Our second contribution is to show that with careful implementation choices, these benefits come at only modest cost: end-to-end latency from TLS to the recursive resolver is only about 9% slower when UDP is used to the authoritative server, and 22% slower with TCP to the authoritative. With diverse traces we show that connection reuse can be frequent (60-95% for stub and recursive resolvers, although half that for authoritative servers), and after connection establishment, experiments show that TCP and TLS latency is equivalent to UDP. With conservative timeouts (20 s at authoritative servers and 60 s elsewhere) and estimated perconnection memory, we show that server memory requirements match current hardware: a large recursive resolver may have 24k active connections requiring about 3.6 GB additional RAM. Good performance requires key design and implementation decisions we identify: query pipelining, out-of-order responses, TCP fastopen and TLS connection resumption, and plausible timeouts.

Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

No abstract