[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-graff-dnsext-edns0bis) 00 01
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 6891
DNSEXT Working Group Paul Vixie, ISC
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-00.txt>
December 27, 2007
Revised extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed
fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not
allow clients to advertise their capabilities to servers. This
document describes backward compatible mechanisms for allowing the
protocol to grow.
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 December 27, 2007
1 - Introduction
1.1. DNS (see [RFC1035]) specifies a Message Format and within such
messages there are standard formats for encoding options, errors, and
name compression. The maximum allowable size of a DNS Message is
fixed. Many of DNS's protocol limits are too small for uses which are
or which are desired to become common. There is no way for
implementations to advertise their capabilities.
1.2. Unextended agents will not know how to interpret the protocol
extensions detailed here. In practice, these clients will be upgraded
when they have need of a new feature, and only new features will make
use of the extensions. Extended agents must be prepared for behaviour
of unextended clients in the face of new protocol elements, and fall
back gracefully to unextended DNS.
1.3. 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
[RFC2119].
2 - Affected Protocol Elements
2.1. The DNS Message Header's (see [RFC1035 4.1.1]) second full 16-bit
word is divided into a 4-bit OPCODE, a 4-bit RCODE, and a number of
1-bit flags. The original reserved Z bits have been allocated to
various purposes, and most of the RCODE values are now in use. More
flags and more possible RCODEs are needed.
2.2. The first two bits of a wire format domain label are used to
denote the type of the label. [RFC1035 4.1.4] allocates two of the
four possible types and reserves the other two. Proposals for use of
the remaining types far outnumber those available. More label types
were needed, and an extension mechanism was proposed in RFC 2671
[RFC2671 Section 3].
2.3. DNS Messages are limited to 512 octets in size when sent over
UDP. While the minimum maximum reassembly buffer size still allows a
limit of 512 octets of UDP payload, most of the hosts now connected to
the Internet are able to reassemble larger datagrams. Some mechanism
must be created to allow requestors to advertise larger buffer sizes
to responders.
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 December 27, 2007
3 - Extended Label Types
[RFC2671 Section 3] reserved label type "0 1" to indicate that an
extended label type followed in the next octet, but gave inadequate
guidance as to how EDNS, as a hop-by-hop signalling method, could be
used to carry a new kind of DNS label. Extended label types might be
addressed in a future specification, perhaps requiring that the EDNS
VERSION be incremented.
4 - OPT pseudo-RR
4.1. One OPT pseudo-RR (RR type 41) MAY be added to the additional
data section of a request, and to responses to such requests. An OPT
is called a pseudo-RR because it pertains to a particular transport
level message and not to any actual DNS data. OPT RRs MUST NOT be
cached, forwarded, or stored in or loaded from master files. The
quantity of OPT pseudo-RRs per message MUST be either zero or one, but
not greater.
4.2. An OPT RR has a fixed part and a variable set of options
expressed as {attribute, value} pairs. The fixed part holds some DNS
meta data and also a small collection of new protocol elements which
we expect to be so popular that it would be a waste of wire space to
encode them as {attribute, value} pairs.
4.3. The fixed part of an OPT RR is structured as follows:
Field Name Field Type Description
------------------------------------------------------
NAME domain name empty (root domain)
TYPE u_int16_t OPT
CLASS u_int16_t sender's UDP payload size
TTL u_int32_t extended RCODE and flags
RDLEN u_int16_t describes RDATA
RDATA octet stream {attribute,value} pairs
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 December 27, 2007
4.4. The variable part of an OPT RR is encoded in its RDATA and is
structured as zero or more of the following:
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | OPTION-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4: | |
/ OPTION-DATA /
/ /
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
OPTION-CODE (Assigned by IANA.)
OPTION-LENGTH Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA.
OPTION-DATA Varies per OPTION-CODE.
4.4.1. Order of appearance of option tuples is never relevant. Any
option whose meaning is affected by other options is so affected no
matter which one comes first in the OPT RDATA.
4.4.2. Any OPTION-CODE values not understood by a responder or
requestor MUST be ignored. So, specifications of such options might
wish to include some kind of signalled acknowledgement. For example,
an option specification might say that if a responder sees option XYZ,
it SHOULD include option XYZ in its response.
4.5. The sender's UDP payload size (which OPT stores in the RR CLASS
field) is the number of octets of the largest UDP payload that can be
reassembled and delivered in the sender's network stack. Note that
path MTU, with or without fragmentation, may be smaller than this.
4.5.1. Note that a 512-octet UDP payload requires a 576-octet IP
reassembly buffer. Choosing 1280 on an Ethernet connected requestor
would be reasonable. The consequence of choosing too large a value
may be an ICMP message from an intermediate gateway, or even a silent
drop of the response message.
4.5.2. Both requestors and responders are advised to take account of
the path's discovered MTU (if already known) when considering message
sizes.
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 December 27, 2007
4.5.3. The requestor's maximum payload size can change over time, and
therefore MUST NOT be cached for use beyond the transaction in which
it is advertised.
4.5.4. The responder's maximum payload size can change over time, but
can be reasonably expected to remain constant between two sequential
transactions; for example, a meaningless QUERY to discover a
responder's maximum UDP payload size, followed immediately by an
UPDATE which takes advantage of this size. (This is considered
preferrable to the outright use of TCP for oversized requests, if
there is any reason to suspect that the responder implements EDNS, and
if a request will not fit in the default 512 payload size limit.)
4.5.5. Due to transaction overhead, it is unwise to advertise an
architectural limit as a maximum UDP payload size. Just because your
stack can reassemble 64KB datagrams, don't assume that you want to
spend more than about 4KB of state memory per ongoing transaction.
4.6. The extended RCODE and flags (which OPT stores in the RR TTL
field) are structured as follows:
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | EXTENDED-RCODE | VERSION |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | DO| Z |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
EXTENDED-RCODE Forms upper 8 bits of extended 12-bit RCODE. Note
that EXTENDED-RCODE value "0" indicates that an
unextended RCODE is in use (values "0" through "15").
VERSION Indicates the implementation level of whoever sets it.
Full conformance with this specification is indicated
by version ``0.'' Requestors are encouraged to set
this to the lowest implemented level capable of
expressing a transaction, to minimize the responder
and network load of discovering the greatest common
implementation level between requestor and responder.
A requestor's version numbering strategy should
ideally be a run time configuration option.
If a responder does not implement the VERSION level of
the request, then it answers with RCODE=BADVERS. All
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 December 27, 2007
responses MUST be limited in format to the VERSION
level of the request, but the VERSION of each response
MUST be the highest implementation level of the
responder. In this way a requestor will learn the
implementation level of a responder as a side effect
of every response, including error responses,
including RCODE=BADVERS.
DO DNSSEC OK bit [RFC3225].
Z Set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers,
unless modified in a subsequent specification
[IANAFLAGS].
5 - Transport Considerations
5.1. The presence of an OPT pseudo-RR in a request is an indication
that the requestor fully implements the given version of EDNS, and can
correctly understand any response that conforms to that feature's
specification.
5.2. Lack of use of these features in a request is an indication that
the requestor does not implement any part of this specification and
that the responder SHOULD NOT use any protocol extension described
here in its response.
5.3. Responders who do not understand these protocol extensions are
expected to send a response with RCODE NOTIMPL, FORMERR, or SERVFAIL,
or to appear to "time out" due to inappropriate action by a "middle
box" such as a NAT. Therefore use of extensions SHOULD be ``probed''
such that a responder who isn't known to support them be allowed a
retry with no extensions if it responds with such an RCODE, or does
not respond. If a responder's capability level is cached by a
requestor, a new probe SHOULD be sent periodically to test for changes
to responder capability.
6 - Security Considerations
Requestor-side specification of the maximum buffer size may open a new
DNS denial of service attack if responders can be made to send
messages which are too large for intermediate gateways to forward,
thus leading to potential ICMP storms between gateways and responders.
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 December 27, 2007
7 - IANA Considerations
IANA has allocated RR type code 41 for OPT.
This document controls the following IANA sub-registries in registry
"DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM PARAMETERS":
"EDNS Extended Label Type"
"EDNS Option Codes"
"EDNS Version Numbers"
"Domain System Response Code"
This document assigns label type 0b01xxxxxx as "EDNS Extended Label
Type." We request that IANA record this assignment.
This document assigns option code 65535 to "Reserved for future
expansion."
This document assigns EDNS Extended RCODE "16" to "BADVERS".
IESG approval is required to create new entries in the EDNS Extended
Label Type or EDNS Version Number registries, while any published RFC
(including Informational, Experimental, or BCP) is grounds for
allocation of an EDNS Option Code.
8 - Acknowledgements
Paul Mockapetris, Mark Andrews, Robert Elz, Don Lewis, Bob Halley,
Donald Eastlake, Rob Austein, Matt Crawford, Randy Bush, and Thomas
Narten were each instrumental in creating and refining this
specification.
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 December 27, 2007
9 - References
[RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification,'' RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, November 1987.
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels,'' RFC 2119, Harvard University, March
1997.
[RFC2671] P. Vixie, ``Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0),'' RFC
2671, Internet Software Consortium, August 1999.
[RFC3225] D. Conrad, ``Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC,'' RFC
3225, Nominum Inc., December 2001.
[IANAFLAGS] IANA, ``DNS Header Flags and EDNS Header Flags,'' web
site http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-header-flags, as
of June 2005 or later.
10 - Author's Address
Paul Vixie
Internet Systems Consortium
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
+1 650 423 1301
<vixie@isc.org>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) IETF Trust (2007).
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.
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 December 27, 2007
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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Expires May 27, 2008 [Page 9]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/