[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Internet Draft                                           RJ Atkinson
draft-rja-ilnp-dns-11.txt                                 Consultant
Expires: 27 JAN 2012                                      Scott Rose
Category: Experimental                                       US NIST
                                                        27 July 2011


                     DNS Resource Records for ILNP
                       draft-rja-ilnp-dns-11.txt


STATUS OF THIS MEMO

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or
   IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before
   before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the
   IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material
   outside the IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an
   adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright
   in such materials, this document may not be modified outside
   the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not
   be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages
   other than English.

   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.



Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This document is not on the IETF standards-track and does not
   specify any level of standard.  This document merely provides
   information for the Internet community.

   This document has had extensive review within the IRTF Routing
   Research Group, and is part of the ILNP document set.  ILNP is
   one of the recommendations made by the RG Chairs.  Separately,
   various refereed research papers on ILNP have also been published
   during this decade.  So the ideas contained herein have had much
   broader review than the IRTF Routing RG.  The views in this
   document were considered controversial by the Routing RG,
   but the RG reached a consensus that the document still should be
   published.  The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus
   on anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered
   controversial.

ABSTRACT

   This note describes additional optional Resource Records for
   use with the Domain Name System (DNS).  These optional resource
   records are for use with the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
   (ILNP).  This is a product of the IRTF Routing RG.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

     1.  Introduction.............................2
     2.  New Resource Records.....................3
     2.1 ID  Resource Record......................3
     2.2 L32 Resource Record......................5
     2.3 L64 Resource Record......................6
     2.4 LP Resource Record.......................7
     3.  Usage Example............................8
     4.  Security Considerations..................9
     5.  IANA Considerations......................9
     6.  References...............................9




Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 2]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


1. INTRODUCTION

   The Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) was developed
   to explore a possible evolutionary direction for the Internet
   Architecture.  An introduction to ILNP is available in a
   separate document. [ILNP-Intro]

   The Domain Name System (DNS) is the standard way that Internet
   nodes locate information about addresses, mail exchangers, and
   other data relating to remote Internet nodes. [RFC 1034] [RFC
   1035] More recently, the IETF have defined standards-track
   security extensions to the DNS. [RFC 4033] These security
   extensions can be used to authenticate signed DNS data records
   and can also be used to store signed public keys in the DNS.
   Further, the IETF have defined a standards-track approach to
   enable secure dynamic update of DNS records over the
   network. [RFC 3007]

   This document defines several new optional data Resource
   Records.  This note specifies the syntax and other items
   required for independent implementations of these DNS resource
   records.  The reader is assumed to be familiar with the basics
   of DNS, including familiarity with [RFC 1034] [RFC 1035].

   The concept of using DNS to support mobile nodes or mobile
   networks was proposed earlier by others. [PHG2002] This
   author was not aware of that work when initially
   developing the DNS extensions defined here.


1.1 Terminology

   In this document, the term "ILNP-enabled" applied to a DNS
   component (either authoritative server or cache) is used to
   indicate that the component attempts to include other ILNP
   RRTypes to the Additional section of a DNS response to
   increase performance and reduce the number of follow-up
   queries for other ILNP RRTypes.  These other RRsets are added
   to the Additional section if space permits and only when the
   QTYPE equals ID, L64, L32, or LP.  There is no method for a
   server to signal that it is ILNP-enabled.

   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. [RFC 2119]





Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 3]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


2. NEW RESOURCE RECORDS

   This document specifies several new and closely related DNS data
   Resource Records (RRs).  These new RR types have the mnemonics
   "ID", "L32", "L64", and "LP".  These resource record types are
   associated with a Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN), that is
   hereafter called the "owner name".  These are part of work on the
   Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP).  [ILNP-Intro]

2.1 "ID" Resource Record

   An ID record has the following logical components:
        <owner name>  IN  ID  <preference>   <I>

   In the above <owner name> is the owner name string, <preference>
   is an unsigned 16-bit value, while <I> is an unsigned 64-bit
   value.

   The <preference> field indicates the owner name's relative
   preference for this ID record among other ID records
   associated with this owner name.  Lower preference values
   are preferred over higher preference values.

   The <I> field complies with the syntactic rules of IPv6
   Interface Identifiers.  Unlike IPv6 Interface Identifiers
   (which are bound to a specific interface of a specific node),
   <I> values are bound to a specific node -- and may be used
   with any interface of that node.

   An "ID" record has the DNS TYPE of ID and a numeric value of <to
   be assigned by IANA>.  An ID record is a member of the Internet
   ("IN") CLASS in the DNS.  Each ID record is associated with a
   owner name entry in the DNS.

   ID records are present only for owner name values that are
   ILNP-capable nodes.  This restriction is important; ILNP-capable
   nodes use the presence of ID records in the DNS to learn that a
   correspondent node is also ILNP-capable.  While erroneous ID
   records in the DNS for an owner name that is not ILNP-capable
   would not prevent communication, such erroneous DNS records could
   increase the delay at the start of an IP communications session.

   Of course, a particular node's owner name might have an ID record
   in the DNS and yet that node might be temporarily disconnected
   from the Internet.

   A given owner name may have zero or more ID records at a given
   time.  In normal operation, nodes that support the



Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 4]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) will have at least one
   valid ID record.

     The ID DNS record has the following RDATA format:

       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |               Preference                      |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                                               |
       |                  ID                           |
       |                                               |
       |                                               |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+


   where:

   Preference     A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies the
                   preference given to this RR among others at
                   the same owner.  Lower Preference values are
                   preferred over higher Preference values.

   ID              A 64-bit unsigned integer.


   ILNP-enabled DNS servers and DNS caches SHOULD attempt
   to return all L32, L64, and LP records associated with
   the owner name of the ID RRset in the Additional section
   of the response if space permits.

2.2 "L32" Resource Record

   An "L32" record has the DNS TYPE of "L32" and a numeric value of
   <to be assigned by IANA>.  An L32 record is a member of the
   Internet ("IN") CLASS in the DNS.  Each L32 record is associated
   with an owner name entry in the DNS.  The Preference field
   indicates the owner name's relative preference for this
   particular L32 record among other L32 records for the same
   owner name.

   An L32 record has the following logical components:

        <owner name>  IN  L32  <preference>   <L>

   In the above, <owner name> is the owner name, <preference> is an
   unsigned 16-bit value, while <L> is an unsigned 32-bit value that
   names a subnetwork where the owner is directly attached.




Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 5]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   The Preference field indicates the owner name's relative
   preference for this L32 record among other L32, L64, and LP
   records associated with this owner name.  Lower values are
   preferred over higher values.

   A given owner name might have zero or more L32 values at a given
   time.  An ILNP-capable IPv4 host SHOULD have at least 1 Locator
   (i.e., L32 or LP) DNS resource record while it is connected to
   the Internet.  An ILNP-capable multi-homed IPv4 host normally
   will have multiple Locator values while multi-homed.  An IPv4
   host that is NOT ILNP-capable MUST NOT have an L32 or LP record
   in its DNS entries.  A node that is not currently connected to
   the Internet might not have any L32 values in the DNS associated
   with its <owner name>.

   A DNS owner name that is naming a subnetwork, rather than naming
   a host, MAY have an L32 record as a wild-card entry, thereby
   applying to entries under that DNS owner name.  This deployment
   scenario probably is most common if the named subnetwork is, was,
   or might become, mobile.

   The L32 DNS record has the following RDATA format:

       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |               Preference                      |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                                               |
       |                  L32                          |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+


   where:

   Preference     A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies the
                   preference given to this RR among others at
                   the same owner.  Lower Preference values are
                   preferred over higher Preference values.

   L32             A 32-bit unsigned integer that names a
                   subnetwork.

   ILNP-enabled DNS servers and DNS caches SHOULD attempt to return
   all ID, L64, and LP records for the same owner name of the L32
   RRset in the Additional section of the response if space permits.







Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 6]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


2.3 "L64" Resource Record

   An "L64" record has the DNS TYPE of "L64" and a numeric value
   of <to be assigned by IANA>.  An L64 record is a member of the
   Internet ("IN") CLASS in the DNS.  Each L64 record is associated
   with an owner name entry in the DNS.

   An L64 record has the following logical components:
        <owner name>  IN  L64  <preference>   <L>


   In the above, <owner name> is the owner name, <preference> is an
   unsigned 16-bit value, while <L> is an unsigned 64-bit value that
   names a subnetwork where <owner name> is directly attached.

   The Preference field indicates the owner name's relative
   preference for this L64 record among other L32, L64, and LP
   records associated with this owner name.  Lower Preference values
   are preferred over higher Preference values.

   A given owner name may have zero or more L64 values at a given
   time.  An ILNP-capable multi-homed host connected to the Internet
   will normally have multiple Locator (i.e., L64 or LP) values
   while multi-homed.

   A DNS owner name that is naming a subnetwork, rather than naming
   a host, MAY have an L64 record as a wild-card entry, thereby
   applying to all entries under that DNS owner name.  This
   deployment scenario is most common if the named subnetwork is,
   was, or might become, mobile.

   A DNS owner name that names a single node that is NOT
   ILNP-capable MUST NOT have an L64 record in the DNS.  A node that
   is not currently connected to the Internet commonly might not
   have any L64 or LP values in the DNS associated with its owner
   name.

   The L64 DNS record has the following RDATA format:

       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |               Preference                      |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                                               |
       |                  L64                          |
       |                                               |
       |                                               |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+




Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 7]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   where:

   Preference     A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies the
                   preference given to this RR among others at
                   the same owner.  Lower Preference values are
                   preferred over higher Preference values.

   L64             A 64-bit unsigned integer that names a
                   subnetwork.

   The Preference field indicates the owner name's relative
   preference for this LP record among other L32, L64, and LP
   records associated with this owner name.  Lower values are
   preferred over higher values.

   ILNP-enabled DNS servers and DNS caches SHOULD attempt to
   return all ID, L32, and LP RRsets associated with the owner
   name of the L64 RRset in the Additional section of the
   response if space permits.

2.4 "LP" Resource Record

   As described in [ILNP-Intro], the LP resource record provides
   one level of indirection within the DNS in naming a Locator
   value.  This is useful in several deployment scenarios, such as
   for a multi-homed site where the multi-homing is handled entirely
   by the site's border routers (e.g. via Locator rewriting)
   or in some mobile network deployment scenarios.

   An "LP" record has the following logical components:
        <owner name>  IN  LP  <preference>   <target-name>


   An LP record has the DNS TYPE of LP and a numeric value of <to be
   assigned by IANA>.  An LP record is a member of the Internet
   ("IN") CLASS in the DNS.  Each LP record is associated with an
   owner name entry in the DNS, and points to a second
   Fully-Qualified Domain Name (shown above as <target-name>).

   LP records MUST NOT be present for owner name values that are not
   ILNP-capable nodes.  This restriction is important; ILNP-capable
   nodes use the presence of "LP" records in the DNS to infer that
   a correspondent node is also ILNP-capable.  While erroneous "LP"
   records in the DNS for an owner name would not prevent
   communication, presence of such erroneous DNS records could
   increase the delay at the start of a communications session.

   Of course, a particular node might have an LP record in the



Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 8]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   DNS and yet temporarily be disconnected from the Internet.

   In the above <owner name> is the owner name, while <target-name>
   is any other valid domain name string.  It is invalid to have
   an LP record with the same value in both the <owner name> and
   <target-name> values.  A given owner name will have zero or
   more LP records at a given time.

     The LP DNS record has the following RDATA format:

       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |               Preference                      |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                                               |
       /                  FQDN                         /
       /                                               /
       |                                               |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+


   where:

   Preference     A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies the
                   preference given to this RR among others at
                   the same owner.  Lower Preference values are
                   preferred over higher Preference values.

   FQDN            A Fully-Qualified Domain Name that has one
                   or more L64 records in the DNS.  This is
             referred to as the <target-name> above.

   The Preference field indicates the owner name's relative
   preference for this LP record among other L32, L64, and LP
   records associated with this owner name.  Lower values are
   preferred.

   ILNP-enabled DNS servers and DNS caches SHOULD attempt to
   return all ID, L32, and L64 RRsets associated with the owner
   name of the LP RRset in the Additional section of the response
   if space permits.

3. USAGE EXAMPLE

   Given a domain name, one can use the Domain Name System (DNS)
   to discover the set of ID records, the set of L32 records,
   the set of L64 records, and the set of LP records that are
    associated with that owner name.




Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                  [Page 9]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   As these DNS records are only used with the Identifier-Locator
   Network Protocol (ILNP), these records MUST NOT be present
   for a node that does not support ILNP.  This lookup process
   is considered to be in the "forward" direction.

   The Preference fields associated with the ID, L32, L64,
   and LP records are used to indicate the owner name's preference
   for others to use one particular ID, L32, L64, or LP record,
   rather than use another ID, L32, L64, or LP record also
   associated with that owner name.  Lower Preference field
   values are preferred over higher Preference field values.

   It is possible that a client querying for one of these record
   types will not receive all ID, L32, L64, and LP RR's in a
   single response.  Credible anecdotal reports indicate at least
   one DNS recursive cache implementation actively drops all
   Additional Data records that were not expected by that DNS
   recursive cache.  So even if the authoritative DNS server
   includes all the relevant records in the Additional Data
   section of the DNS response, the querying client might not
   receive all of those Additional Data records.  DNS caches
   also might purge some ILNP RRsets before others, for example
   if ID RRsets have a longer DNS TTL value than Locator-related
   (e.g. LP, L32, L64) RRsets.  So a client sending queries to
   a DNS cache cannot be certain if they have obtained all
   available RRtypes for a given owner name.  Therefore, the DNS
   client SHOULD send follow-up DNS queries for RRTYPE values
   that were missing and are desired, to ensure that the client
   receives all the necessary information.

   Note that for nodes likely either to be mobile or to be
   multi-homed, the DNS TTL values for L32 and L64 records
   normally will be very low, as those values might change
   frequently.  However, the DNS TTL values for ID and LP records
   normally will be quite long, as those values are not normally
   impacted by node location changes.  Previous trace-driven
   DNS simulations from MIT [SBK2002] and more recent experimental
   DNS validation from U. of St Andrews [Bhatti10] both indicate
   use of very short DNS TTL values is not problematic.

   Any ID value associated with a DNS owner name can be used
   with any or all Locator values associated with that
   same DNS owner name.

4. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

   These new DNS resource record types do not create any new
   vulnerabilities in the Domain Name System.



Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                 [Page 10]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   Existing mechanisms for DNS security can be used unchanged with
   these record types. [RFC 4033] [RFC 3007] As of this writing,
   those mechanisms are believed to be widely implemented in
   currently available DNS servers.

   In situations where authentication of DNS data is a concern,
   the DNS Security extensions SHOULD be used. [RFC 4033]

   If these DNS records are updated dynamically over the network,
   then the Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC 3007] mechanism
   SHOULD be used to secure such transactions.

5. IANA CONSIDERATIONS

   IANA is requested to allocate each of these DNS Resource Records
   (enumerated above in Section 2) a Data RRTYPE value according to
   the procedures of Section 3.1 and 3.1.1 on pages 7 through 9 of
   RFC 5395.  [RFC 5395]

6. REFERENCES


6.1 Normative References

   [RFC 1034] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - Concepts and
           Facilities", RFC-1034, 1 November 1987

   [RFC 1035] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - Implementation and
           Specification", RFC-1035, 1 November 1987.

   [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
              Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              March 1997.

   [RFC 3007] B. Wellington, "Secure Domain Name System Dynamic
              Update", RFC 3007, RFC Editor, November 2000.

   [RFC 3597] A. Gustafsson, "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource
              Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

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

   [RFC 5395] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Domain Name System IANA
              Considerations", RFC 5395, November 2008.

6.2 INFORMATIVE REFERENCES



Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                 [Page 11]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   [Bhatti10]  S. Bhatti, "Reducing DNS Caching (or 'How low
                can we go ?')", Presentation to 38th JANET
                Networkshop, 31st March 2010, UK Joint
                Academic Network (JANET), University of Manchester,
                Manchester, England, UK.

   [PHG2002]    Andreas Pappas, Stephen Hailes, Raffaele Giaffreda,
                "Mobile Host Location Tracking through DNS",
             IEEE London Communications Symposium,
             London, England, UK, September 2002.
                <http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/lcs/papers2002/LCS072.pdf>

   [ILNP-Intro] R. Atkinson, "ILNP Concept of Operations",
                draft-rja-ilnp-intro-09.txt, January 2011.

   [SBK2002]    Alex C. Snoeren, Hari Balakrishnan, & M. Frans
                Kaashoek, "Reconsidering Internet Mobility",
                Proceedings of 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in
                Operating Systems, 2002.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

   Mohamed Boucadair, Noel Chiappa, Saleem Bhatti, Steve Blake,
   Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley, Volker Hilt, Tony Li,
   and Yakov Rehkter (in alphabetical order) provided review and
   feedback on earlier versions of this document. Steve Blake
   provided an especially thorough review of the entire ILNP
   document set.

Authors' Addresses:

   RJ Atkinson
   Consultant
   McLean, VA
   22103 USA

   Email: rja.lists@gmail.com

   Scott Rose
   US National Institute for Standards & Technology
   100 Bureau Drive
   Gaithersburg, MD
   20899 USA

   Email: scottr.nist@gmail.com






Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                 [Page 12]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


   [NOTE:  Appendix A is to be removed by the
        RFC Editor prior to publication.]

   Appendix A:


          DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE

      When ready for formal consideration, this template is
      to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing the
      template to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.

      A.    Submission Date:  To be determined.

      B.    Submission Type:
            [X] New RRTYPE

      C.    Contact Information for submitter:
               Name:  R. Atkinson
               Email Address: rja.lists@gmail.com
               International telephone number: unlisted
               Other contact handles:

      D.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?

         Support for an experimental set of IP extensions
         that replace the concept of an "IP Address" with
         distinct "Locator" and "Identifier" values.

      E.    Description of the proposed RR type.

            Please see draft-rja-ilnp-dns-07.txt for a full
            description.

      F.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
            need and why are they unsatisfactory?

         The AAAA record combines both Locator and Identifier,
         so has significantly different semantics than having
         separate L64 and ID record values.  The AAAA record also
         lacks scalability and flexibility in the context of the
         experimental protocol extensions that will use the ID
         and L64 records, as any valid ID record value for a node
         can be used on the wire with any valid L64 record value
         for the same node.

         The CNAME record is closest conceptually to an "LP"
         record, but a CNAME is a node name referral scheme,



Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                 [Page 13]

Internet Draft                  ILNP DNS                     27 JUL 2011


         while the LP record is indicating that the given node
         has the same routing prefix as some other domain name,
         but does not necessarily have any other values that are
         the same.

            Lastly, the AAA and CNAME RR Types lack a preference
            field to rank responses.  Such preference information
            is useful with ILNP.

      G.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?

         As described in this draft, "ID", "L32", "L64", and "LP".

      H.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
            Registry or require the creation of a new IANA
            sub-registry in DNS Parameters?

         Existing registry of DNS Resource Record (RR) data TYPE
         values should be used.

      I.    Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
            servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
            processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC 3597])?

         No.

      J.    Comments:
           This document defines "ILNP-enabled" DNS servers
           or DNS caches as a DNS server (authoritative or recursive)
           that include other ILNP RRTypes in the Additional
           section of a DNS response that match a QNAME (if
              size permits).  This is to reduce the number of
              client follow-up DNS queries and only applies when the
              QTYPE is either ID, L32, L64, or LP.  There is no
           signalling mechanism for this Additional section
              processing, and this is believed to be compatible
              with existing non-ILNP-enabled DNS servers and clients.

              No changes are required for existing deployed
              DNS servers or DNS caches.

   Expires: 27 JAN 2012









Atkinson & Rose            Expires in 6 months                 [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/