Internet DRAFT - draft-kurtis-tld-ops

draft-kurtis-tld-ops






DNSOP                                                       K. Lindqvist
Internet-Draft                                  Netnod Internet Exchange
Expires: December 3, 2005                                      June 2005


                         Operation of TLD zones
                      draft-kurtis-tld-ops-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 December 3, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   The Internet is today the defacto standard packet network for a lot
   of critical communications.  The Internet in turn have a heavy
   dependency on the Domain Name System (DNS) for it's "normal"
   operations.  The IETF in June 2000 described the operating
   requirements [1]for the so called root-servers that defines the root
   of the DNS lookup tree.  Similar requirements could where deemed
   needed be applied to DNS infrastructure at other levels of the DNS
   tree as well.  This document analyses these requirements and what can
   be done to ensure a reliable DNS infrastructure.



Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               TLD Operations                    June 2005


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   3.  Use of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   4.  Analysis of requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   5.  Operational requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     5.1   Slave server operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       5.1.1   Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       5.1.2   Physical requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       5.1.3   Software requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       5.1.4   Protocol requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.2   Slave server infrastructure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       5.2.1   Dimensioning the infrastructure  . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       5.2.2   Following common practice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.3   Registry operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       5.3.1   Registry/Registrar interface . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   7.  Protocol Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   10.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  9
















Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               TLD Operations                    June 2005


1.  Introduction

   The Internet is today the defacto standard packet network for a lot
   of critical communications.  The Internet in turn have a heavy
   dependency on the Domain Name System (DNS) for it's "normal"
   operations.  The IETF in June 2000 described the operating
   requirements [1]for the so called root-servers that defines the root
   of the DNS lookup tree.  So far though, operational requirements of
   the second tier of the DNS has not been defined.  This document tries
   to analyze and define the operational requirements for the second
   tier in the DNS lookup hierarchy.

   The second tier infrastructure in the DNS is called the Top Level
   Domains (TLDs).  These include both generic TLDs (gTLDs) such as	.com
   and .info and country code TLDs (ccTLDs).  In the hierarchy
   immediately under the TLDs, we will have either directly registered
   domain names in use by an entity for lookup of their services and
   host names.  Alternatively we will find a third their hierarchy
   grouping the same type of names, for example edu.uk for educational
   institutions in the UK, and co.uk for commercial companies in the UK.
   The latter method is mostly used to provide better scaling for the
   TLD.  In this case this document would be applicable to both the
   second and the third tier.

   The service level experience of the end-user with regard to DNS is
   dependent on several levels of hierarchy.  Usually each level will be
   the responsibility of multiple entities, such as the root-server
   operators, the TLD slave-server operators and the operator of the
   actual leaf zone.  The weakest operation in that chain can make the
   service unreachable and result in a failure for an end node trying to
   access a particular service address, or host name.  The root-server
   operations are as noted earlier described in an IETF/RFC.  This
   document tries to outline the same requirements for the TLDs.  This
   leaves the operator of the leaf zone.  This document should however
   also provide useful information for operators of leaf zones, but some
   of the requirements may be considered to strict for most leaf zones.

2.  Terminology

   Service Address: an IP address associated with a particular service
      (e.g. the address of a nameserver).

3.  Use of this document

   While this document provides for a set of operational requirements
   for a TLD, they are not to be taken as absolute requirements.  Needs
   and capabilities of TLDs will vary over the different operational
   aspects in this document.  Some of them are still to be considered as



Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               TLD Operations                    June 2005


   minimal requirements, the slave-server operations, registry
   operations and protocol requirements.

   This document is not to been seen as an absolute requirements
   document, but rather as a check-list for TLD registrars, registries
   and TLD slave-server operators.  The intent is also no to try and
   "score" the various requirements.  The priority among them will vary
   very much between different TLDs and uses.

4.  Analysis of requirements

   The requirements in this document are targeting maximum operational
   stability, security and resilience for a TLD operation.  This
   reflects the critical dependency many systems today have on the
   Internet, and the role the DNS has come to play.  The requirements
   are not targeting business practices, or take into account
   affordability or need.  This analysis is left to the users and
   readers of this document.

5.  Operational requirements

5.1  Slave server operations


5.1.1  Location

   The ideal location of slave-servers can be broken down into two sub-
   categories.  The ideal physical location, which is discussed in
   Section 5.1.2, and location in the network topology.

   Finding the ideal location for the TLD slave-servers in the topology
   is a complex analysis.  Factors that should be taken into account are
   o  Ensure optimal performance for the target community (such as a
      particular country for a ccTLD).  I.e try to be as topologically
      close to the largest user base as possible.
   o  The slave servers should be as topologically diverse as is
      feasible to avoid a infrastructure problem taking out one or more
      of the servers.
   o  Locating slave-servers where they will have the best and easiest
      access to a large number of networks will provide better
      performance and give more networks shorter and more direct access
      to the data.

5.1.2  Physical requirements

   The location of the slave-servers should meet co-location industry
   standards with regard to the physical environment.  This includes




Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               TLD Operations                    June 2005


   Redundant power feeding: The servers should be located so that a
      single interrupt of power into the site where these are located
      does not effect the servers, or the network infrastructure
      servicing the slave-servers.
   Cooling: The site should provide adequate and redundant cooling that
      also operates adequately in the event of a power failure.
   Access: The physical location should have restricted access, and only
      allow required operational staff to gain physical and control of
      the slave-servers.
   Fire supresssion: The physical location should provide adequate fire
      fighting and/or suppression equipment.

5.1.3  Software requirements

   The slave-servers should be held to normal industry standards.  This
   includes standard operational practices as

   Patches: The server operating system and software should be kept
      uptodate with the most recent security patches for the software.
   Backups: The slave-server systems should be backed up regularly.
      This includes zone data, system configurations and other data and
      configurations needed for a quick system recovery in the case of a
      failure.  The procedures and systems for backup should be tested
      for resteration regularly.
   Capacity: The system software should be otpimally tuned to serve the
      requirements of the zone in question.  The system should be able
      to handle at least three times the normal load of questions per
      seconds.
   Remote management: The server system should allow for secure,
      encrypted and authenticated remote management.
   Time syncronization: Servers should for accuracy of logging have
      their clocks syncronized using the Network Time Protocol [2].

5.1.4  Protocol requirements

   The slave-servers must be running software that supports the current
   set of DNS protocol standards (as of writing RFC1034 [3],RFC1035
   [4],RFC2181 [5].  For TLDs that are claiming Secure DNS support, the
   server software also should support RFC4033 [6],RFC4034 [7], RFC4035
   [8].

   In addition to supporting the above protocol standards there are also
   a number of configuration parameters the slave-service should follow.
   These are







Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               TLD Operations                    June 2005


   Recursion: The slave-service should not be providing recursive name-
      service.
   In-Bailiwick-glue: The zone should be configured to use "In-
      Bailiwick-glue", as that will give the TLD operator full control
      over the entire delegation chain and give the TLD operational
      control over the stability of the service.
   Limited service The TLD slave-service should not at the same time be
      authorative for relatives (lower tiers) to the TLD zone.  This
      avoids collapsing signed delegation data when DNSSEC is used.

5.2  Slave server infrastructure

   A critical factor in guaranteeing the stability, resilience and
   redundancy of the TLD slave-service is the network infrastructure
   that connects the physical servers.  With the increase in Distributed
   Denial of Service(DDoS) attacks, this is also an increasing area of
   concerns for TLD operators.  Configuring and dimensioning the network
   infrastrucutre is therefor becoming inreasingly important for the TLD
   operator.

5.2.1  Dimensioning the infrastructure

   The network infrastructure should be dimensioned to handle a network
   load of three times the normal load, measured in packets-per-seconds,
   pps.  The infrastructure should also be able of dropping packets at
   line-rate in order to protect the service in the case of an attack.
   What "line-rate" corresponds to in absolute numbers is depending on
   local conditions, such as affordability, need and uplink speeds.

5.2.2  Following common practice

   The network infrastructure fronting the slave-service should be
   configured accoring to normal industry practice.  This includes at a
   minimum

   Network separation: The network connection should not be shared with
      other, non-trusted hosts.  In other words, the connection should
      be provided on a switched or routed infrastructure to avoid
      wiretapping and/or spoofing of packets.
   Ingress filtering: The network infrastructure should filter out
      spoofed packets using the methods descibed in RFC3704/BCP84 [9].
   Network protection: The infrastructure should apply some form of
      packet filtering methods that only allows traffic to ports needed
      for the service and management traffic from well-known management
      networks if needed.






Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               TLD Operations                    June 2005


   Network security: The network infrastructure should be configured
      accoring to industry standard, for example as described in
      FILL_IN.  The network infrastructure should also onyl be remotly
      and physically accessiable by operational staff.  Remote access
      must be authenticated and encrypted.

5.3  Registry operations


5.3.1  Registry/Registrar interface

   FILL_IN perhaps some text on EPP etc.

6.  Security Considerations


7.  Protocol Considerations

   This document does not impose any protocol considerations.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action from IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The following people have contributed to this document: David Meyer,
   Peter Koch, Johan Ihren, Patrik Falstrom.  The author would like to
   extend great appreciation to them for the reviews, and text they have
   contributed with.

10.  References

   [1]  Bush, R., Karrenberg, D., Kosters, M., and R. Plzak, "Root Name
        Server Operational Requirements", BCP 40, RFC 2870, June 2000.

   [2]  Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification,
        Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992.

   [3]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
        STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [4]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
        specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [5]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification",
        RFC 2181, July 1997.




Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               TLD Operations                    June 2005


   [6]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
        "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033,
        March 2005.

   [7]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
        "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
        March 2005.

   [8]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
        "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions",
        RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [9]  Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
        Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.


Author's Address

   Kurt Erik Lindqvist
   Netnod Internet Exchange
   Bellmansgatan 30
   118 47 Stockholm
   Sweden

   Email: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se
   URI:   http://www.netnod.se/

























Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               TLD Operations                    June 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   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.


Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Lindqvist               Expires December 3, 2005                [Page 9]