Operational Considerations for use of DNS in IoT devices
draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-00

Abstract

This document details concerns about how Internet of Things devices use IP addresses and DNS names. The issue becomes acute as network operators begin deploying RFC8520 Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) definitions to control device access.

This document explains the problem through a series of examples of what can go wrong, and then provides some advice on how a device manufacturer can best make deal with these issues. The recommendations have an impact upon device and network protocol design.

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 January 9, 2020.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2019 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 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
• 2. Strategies to map names
• 3. DNS and IP Anti-Patterns for IoT device Manufacturers
• 4. DNS privacy and outsourcing vs MUD controllers
• 5. Recommendations on MUD and DNS co-existence
• 6. Privacy Considerations
• 7. Security Considerations
• 8. References
• 8.1. Normative References
• 8.2. Informative References
• Appendix A. Appendices
• Author's Address

1. Introduction

[RFC8520] provides a standardized way to describe how a specific purpose device makes use of Internet resources. Access Control Lists (ACLs) can be defined in an RFC8520 Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) file that permit a device to access Internet resources by DNS name.

Use of a DNS name rather than IP address in the ACL has many advantages: not only does the layer of indirection permit the mapping of name to IP address to be changed over time, it also generalizes automatically to IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, as well as permitting loading balancing of traffic by many different common ways, including geography.

At the MUD policy enforcement point – the firewall – there is a problem. The firewall has only access to the layer-3 headers of the packet. This includes the source and destination IP address, and if not encrypted by IPsec, the destination UDP or TCP port number present in the transport header. The DNS name is not present!

In order to implement this, there must be a mapping between the names in the ACLs and layer-3 IP addresses. The first section of this document details a few strategies that are used.

The second section of this document details how common manufacturer anti-patterns get in the way this mapping.

The third section of this document details how current trends in DNS resolution such as public DNS servers, DNS over TLS (DoT), and DNS over HTTPS (DoH) cause problems for the strategies employed. Poor interactions with content-distribution networks is a frequent pathology that results.

The fourth section of this document makes a series of recommendations ("best current practices") for manufacturers on how to use DNS, and IP addresses with specific purpose IoT devices.

The Privacy Considerations section concerns itself with issues that DNS-over-TLS and DNS-over-HTTPS are frequently used to deal with. The question is how these concerns apply to IoT devices located within a residence or enterprise is dealt with.

The Security Considerations section covers some of the negative outcomes should MUD/firewall managers and IoT manufacturers choose not to cooperate.

2. Strategies to map names

TBD

3. DNS and IP Anti-Patterns for IoT device Manufacturers

TBD

4. DNS privacy and outsourcing vs MUD controllers

TBD

5. Recommendations on MUD and DNS co-existence

TBD

6. Privacy Considerations

TBD

7. Security Considerations

TBD

8. References

8.1. Normative References

8.2. Informative References

Appendix A. Appendices

Author's Address