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

Versions: 00 01 02 RFC 2671

   DNSIND Working Group                                         Paul Vixie
   INTERNET-DRAFT                                                      ISC
   <draft-ietf-dnsind-edns0-02.txt>                                  June, 1999
   
                     Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)
   
   Status of this Memo
   
      This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
      all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
   
      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.
   
   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.
   
   1 - Rationale and Scope
   
   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.
   
   Expires December 1999                                           [Page 1]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                        June 1999
   
   1.2. Existing clients 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.  We must however take account of client behaviour
   in the face of extra fields, and design a fallback scheme for
   interoperability with these clients.
   
   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 are
   needed.
   
   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.
   
   3 - Extended Label Types
   
   3.1. The ``0 1'' label type will now indicate an extended label type,
   whose value is encoded in the lower six bits of the first octet of a
   label.  All subsequently developed label types should be encoded using
   an extended label type.
   
   3.2. The ``1 1 1 1 1 1'' extended label type will be reserved for future
   expansion of the extended label type code space.
   
   4 - OPT pseudo-RR
   
   4.1. One OPT pseudo-RR can be added to the additional data section of
   either a request or a response.  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 shall never be cached, forwarded, or stored in or
   loaded from master files.  The quantity of OPT pseudo-RRs per message
   
   Expires December 1999                                           [Page 2]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                        June 1999
   
   shall 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
   
   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.
   
   4.5. 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.
   
   Expires December 1999                                           [Page 3]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                        June 1999
   
   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.
   
   4.5.3. The requestor's maximum payload size can change over time, and
   should therefore 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: |                               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
   
   Expires December 1999                                           [Page 4]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                        June 1999
   
                   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
                   responses will be limited in format to the VERSION level
                   of the request, but the VERSION of each response will 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.
   
   Z               Set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers, unless
                   modified in a subsequent specification.
   
   5 - Transport Considerations
   
   5.1. The presence of an OPT pseudo-RR in a request should be taken as 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 must be taken as an
   indication that the requestor does not implement any part of this
   specification and that the responder may make no use of 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.
   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.  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 December 1999                                           [Page 5]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                        June 1999
   
   7 - IANA Considerations
   
   IANA is hereby requested to assign an RR type code for OPT.
   
   It is the recommendation of this document and its working group that
   IANA create a registry for EDNS Extended Label Types, for EDNS Option
   Codes, and for EDNS Version Numbers.
   
   This document assigns label type 0b01xxxxxx as "EDNS Extended Label
   Type."  We request that IANA record this assignment.
   
   This document assigns extended label type 0bxx111111 as "Reserved for
   future extended label types."  We request that IANA record this
   assignment.
   
   This document assigns option code 65535 to "Reserved for future
   expansion."
   
   This document expands the RCODE space from 4 bits to 12 bits.  This will
   allow IANA to assign more than the 16 distinct RCODE values allowed in
   [RFC1035].
   
   This document assigns EDNS Extended RCODE "16" to "BADVERS".
   
   IESG approval should be 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) should be
   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 December 1999                                           [Page 6]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                        June 1999
   
   9 - References
   
   [RFC1035]  P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and
              Specification,'' RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences
              Institute, November 1987.
   
   10 - Author's Address
   
                 Paul Vixie
                    Internet Software Consortium
                    950 Charter Street
                    Redwood City, CA 94063
                    +1 650 779 7001
                    <vixie@isc.org>
   
   Expires December 1999                                           [Page 7]
   

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/