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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

Network Working Group                                           P. Vixie
Internet-Draft                                   Farsight Security, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                   A. Kato
Expires: August 17, 2014                    Keio University/WIDE Project
                                                                J. Abley
                                                               Dyn, Inc.
                                                       February 13, 2014


                   DNS Referral Response Size Issues
                      draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-15

Abstract

   With a mandated default minimum maximum UDP message size of 512
   octets, the DNS protocol presents some special problems for zones
   wishing to expose a moderate or high number of authority servers (NS
   resource records).  This document explains the operational issues
   caused by, or related to this response size limit, and suggests ways
   to optimize the use of this limited space.  Guidance is offered to
   DNS server implementors and to DNS zone administrators.

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 http://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 August 17, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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



Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


   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.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction and Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Delegation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Relevant Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Advice to Zone Administrators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Advice to Server Implementors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Appendix A.  The response simulator program  . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Appendix B.  Editorial Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     B.1.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
























Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


1.  Terminology

   This document uses terminology specific to the Domain Name System
   (DNS), including the following common abbreviations:

   A: A resource record type used to specify an IPv4 address [RFC1034]

   AAAA:  A resource record type used to specify an IPv6 address
      [RFC3596]

   CNAME:  A resource record type used to define a canonical name
      [RFC1034]

   DNAME:  A resource record type used to map a DNS subtree onto another
      domain [RFC2672]

   DNSSEC:  DNS Security Extensions [RFC4033]

   DO:  "DNS OK" -- a flag in the EDNS header used to signal the ability
      to use DNSSEC [RFC4035]

   EDNS:  Extension mechanisms for DNS [RFC6891]

   EDNS0:  EDNS version 0 [RFC6891]

   MTU:  Maximum Transmission Unit, the maximum size for a datagram to
      be forwarded on an interface without needing fragmentation
      [RFC0791] [RFC2460]

   NS:  A resource record type used to specify a nameserver on either
      side of a zone cut [RFC1034]

   RR:  Resource Record [RFC1034]

   RRSet:  Resource Record Set [RFC1034]

   TC:  A bit in the DNS message header used to indicate that the
      message has been truncated [RFC1034]

   In an exchange of DNS messages between two hosts, this document
   refers to the host sending a DNS request as the initiator, and the
   host sending a DNS response as the responder.









Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


2.  Introduction and Overview

   The original DNS standard limited the UDP message size to 512 octets
   (see Section 4.2.1 of [RFC1035]).  Even though this limitation was
   due to the required minimum IP reassembly limit for IPv4, it became a
   hard DNS protocol limit and is not implicitly relaxed by changes in a
   network layer protocol, e.g. by the larger minimum MTU specified in
   IPv6 [RFC2460] than in IPv4 [RFC0791].

   The EDNS protocol extension starting with version 0 permits larger
   responses by mutual agreement of the initiator and responder (see
   Section 4.3 and Section 6.2 of [RFC6891]), and it is recommended to
   support EDNS.  The 512 octets UDP message size limit will remain in
   practical effect until substantially all DNS servers and resolvers
   support EDNS.

   Since DNS responses include a copy of the request, the space
   available for response data is somewhat less than the full 512
   octets.  Negative responses are quite small, but for positive and
   referral responses, every octet must be carefully and sparingly
   allocated.  While the response size of positive responses is also a
   concern in [RFC3226], this document specifically addresses referral
   response size.

   While more than fourteen years passed since the publication of the
   original EDNS0 document [RFC2671], measurements conducted at the M
   Root Server in May 2012 suggested that only around 65% of initiators
   support it.  This fraction was consistent with similar measurements
   conducted in 2010 and 2011.  The long tail of EDNS deployment may
   eventually be measured in decades.

   DNS initiators and responders that support DNSSEC [RFC4033], and
   signal a desire to use it, can expect larger response sizes in the
   case where those responses contain DNSSEC RRSets.  EDNS support in
   DNSSEC-aware initiators and responders can be assumed, since the
   desire to use DNSSEC is signalled using the DO flag in the EDNS0
   header.

   Even in scenarios where EDNS support in initiators and responders can
   be assumed, e.g. in the case of messages exchanged using DNSSEC, or
   at some future time where EDNS deployment can be considered
   ubiquitous, there will still be cases when MTU limitations or IP
   fragmentation/reassembly problems in firewalls and other middleboxes
   will cause EDNS failures which lead to non-extended DNS retries.  A
   smaller referral response will always be better than a larger one if
   the same end result can be achieved either way.  See [RFC5625],
   [SAC035], and Section 6.2.6 of [RFC6891] for further discussion.




Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


3.  Delegation Details

3.1.  Relevant Protocol Elements

   A positive delegation response will include the following elements:

    +--------------------+-------------------------------------------+
    | Section            | Description                               |
    +--------------------+-------------------------------------------+
    | Header Section     | Fixed length (12 octets)                  |
    |                    |                                           |
    | Question Section   | Original query (name, class, type)        |
    |                    |                                           |
    | Answer Section     | Empty, or a CNAME/DNAME chain             |
    |                    |                                           |
    | Authority Section  | NS RRSet (name server names)              |
    |                    |                                           |
    | Additional Section | A and AAAA RRSets (name server addresses) |
    +--------------------+-------------------------------------------+

   If the total size of the UDP response exceeds 512 octets or the size
   advertised in EDNS, and if the data that does not fit was "required",
   then the TC bit will be set to indicate truncation.  This will
   usually cause the requester to retry using TCP, depending on what
   information was desired and what information was omitted.  For
   example, truncation in the authority section is of no interest to a
   stub resolver who only plans to consume the answer section.  If a
   retry using TCP is needed, the total cost of the transaction is much
   higher.  See Section 6.1.3.2 of [RFC1123] for details on the
   requirement that UDP be attempted before falling back to TCP.

   RRSets are are never sent partially unless the TC bit is set to
   indicate truncation.  When the TC bit is set, the final apparent
   RRSet in the final non-empty section must be considered "possibly
   damaged" (see Section 6.2 of [RFC1035] and Section 9 of [RFC2181]).

   With or without truncation, the glue present in the additional data
   section should be considered "possibly incomplete", and requesters
   should be prepared to re-query for any damaged or missing RRSets.
   Note that truncation of the additional data section might not be
   signaled via the TC bit since additional data is often optional (see
   discussion in Appendix B of [RFC4472]).

   DNS label compression allows the component labels of a domain name to
   be instantiated exactly once per DNS message, and then referenced
   with a two-octet "pointer" from other locations in that same DNS
   message (see Section 4.1.4 of [RFC1035]).  If all name server names
   in a message share a common parent domain (for example, all of them



Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


   are in the "ROOT-SERVERS.NET" domain), then more space will be
   available for incompressible data (such as name server addresses).

   The query name can be as long as 255 octets of network data.  In this
   worst case scenario, the question section will be 259 octets in size,
   which would leave only 240 octets for the authority and additional
   sections (after deducting 12 octets for the fixed length header) in a
   referral.

3.2.  Advice to Zone Administrators

   Average and maximum question section sizes can be predicted by the
   zone administrator, since they will know what names actually exist
   and can measure which ones are queried for most often.  Note that if
   the zone contains any wildcards, it is possible for maximum length
   queries to require positive responses, but that it is reasonable to
   expect truncation and TCP retry in that case.  For cost and
   performance reasons, the majority of requests should be satisfied
   without truncation or TCP retry.

   Some queries for non-existant names can be large.  If DNSSEC is not
   being used this is unlikely to pose a problem since unsigned negative
   responses need not contain any answer, authority or additional
   records.  See Section 2.1 of [RFC2308] for more information about the
   format of negative responses without DNSSEC.  Negative responses from
   DNSSEC-signed zones can be much larger, however, due to the need to
   provide authenticated denial of existance [RFC7129].

   The minimum useful number of name servers is two, for redundancy (see
   Section 4.1 of [RFC1034]).  A zone's name servers should be reachable
   by all IP protocols versions (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.  As
   long as the servers are well managed, the server serving IPv6 might
   be different from the server serving IPv4 sharing the same server
   name.

   The best case is no truncation at all.  This is because many
   requesters will retry using TCP immediately, or will automatically
   requery for RRSets that are possibly truncated, without considering
   whether the omitted data was actually necessary.

   Anycast [RFC3258] [RFC4786] is a useful technique for improving
   performance and below the zone cut being described by a delegation is
   responses.

   While it is irrelevant to the response size issue, all zones have to
   be served via IPv4 as well as IPv6 to avoid name space fragmentation
   [RFC3901].




Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


3.3.  Advice to Server Implementors

   Each NS RR for a zone will add 12 fixed octets (name, type, class,
   ttl, and rdlen) plus 2 to 255 variable octets (for the NSDNAME).
   Each A RR will require 16 octets, and each AAAA RR will require 28
   octets.

   While DNS distinguishes between necessary and optional resource
   records, this distinction is according to protocol elements necessary
   to signify facts, and takes no official notice of protocol content
   necessary to ensure correct operation.  For example, a name server
   name that is in or below the zone cut being described by a delegation
   is "necessary content", since there is no way to reach that zone
   unless the parent zone's delegation includes "glue records"
   describing that name server's addresses.

   Recall that the TC bit is only set when a required RRSet can not be
   included in its entirety (see Section 9 of [RFC2181]).  Even when
   some of the RRSets to be included in the additional section don't fit
   in the response size, the TC bit isn't set.  These RRSets may be
   important for a referral.  Some DNS implementations try to resolve
   these missing glue records separately which will introduce extra
   queries and extra time to resolve a given name.

   A delegation response should prioritize glue records as follows.

   first:  All glue RRSets for one name server whose name is in or below
      the zone being delegated, or which has multiple address RRSets
      (currently A and AAAA), or preferably both;

   second:  Alternate between adding all glue RRSets for any name
      servers whose names are in or below the zone being delegated, and
      all glue RRSets for any name servers who have multiple address
      RRSets (currently A and AAAA);

   thence:  All other glue RRSets, in any order.

   Whenever there are multiple candidates for a position in this
   priority scheme, one should be chosen on a round-robin or fully
   random basis.  The goal of this priority scheme is to offer
   "necessary" glue first to fill into the response if possible.

   If any "necessary" content cannot be fit in the response, then it is
   advisable that the TC bit be set in order to force a TCP retry,
   rather than have the zone be unreachable.  Note that a parent
   server's proper response to a query for in-child glue or below-child
   glue is a referral rather than an answer, and that this referral must
   be able to contain the in-child or below-child glue, and that in



Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


   outlying cases, only EDNS or TCP will be large enough to contain that
   data.

   The glue record order should be independent of the version of IP used
   in the query because the DNS server might just see a query from an
   intermediate server rather than the query from the original client.













































Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


4.  Analysis

   An instrumented protocol trace of a best case delegation response is
   shown in Figure 1.  Note that 13 servers are named, and 13 addresses
   are given.  This query was artificially designed to exactly reach the
   512 octets limit.

   ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANS: 0, AUTH: 13, ADDIT: 13
   ;; QUERY SECTION:
   ;;  [23456789.123456789.123456789.\
        123456789.123456789.123456789.com A IN]        ;; @80

   ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
   com.                 172800 NS  E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @112
   com.                 172800 NS  F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @128
   com.                 172800 NS  G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @144
   com.                 172800 NS  H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @160
   com.                 172800 NS  I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @176
   com.                 172800 NS  J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @192
   com.                 172800 NS  K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @208
   com.                 172800 NS  L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @224
   com.                 172800 NS  M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @240
   com.                 172800 NS  A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @256
   com.                 172800 NS  B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @272
   com.                 172800 NS  C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @288
   com.                 172800 NS  D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  ;; @304


   ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
   A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.5.6.30           ;; @320
   B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.33.14.30         ;; @336
   C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.26.92.30         ;; @352
   D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.31.80.30         ;; @368
   E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.12.94.30         ;; @384
   F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.35.51.30         ;; @400
   G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.42.93.30         ;; @416
   H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.54.112.30        ;; @432
   I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.43.172.30        ;; @448
   J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.48.79.30         ;; @464
   K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.52.178.30        ;; @480
   L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.41.162.30        ;; @496
   M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.  172800 A   192.55.83.30         ;; @512

   ;; MSG SIZE  sent: 80  rcvd: 512


                                 Figure 1




Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


   For longer query names, the number of address records supplied will
   be lower.  Furthermore, it is only by using a common parent name
   (which is "GTLD-SERVERS.NET." in this example) that all 13 addresses
   are able to fit, due to the use of label compression pointers in the
   last 12 occurrences of the parent domain name.  The outputs from the
   response simulator in Appendix A (written in perl [PERL]) shown in
   Figure 2 and Figure 3 demonstrate these properties.

  % perl respsize.pl a.dns.br b.dns.br c.dns.br d.dns.br
   a.dns.br requires 10 bytes
   b.dns.br requires 4 bytes
   c.dns.br requires 4 bytes
   d.dns.br requires 4 bytes
   # of NS: 4
   For maximum size query (255 byte):
       only A is considered:        # of A is 4 (green)
       A and AAAA are considered:   # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow)
       preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 3 (yellow)
   For average size query (64 byte):
       only A is considered:        # of A is 4 (green)
       A and AAAA are considered:   # of A+AAAA is 4 (green)
       preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green)


                                 Figure 2


   % perl respsize.pl ns-ext.isc.org ns.psg.com ns.ripe.net ns.eu.int
   ns-ext.isc.org requires 16 bytes
   ns.psg.com requires 12 bytes
   ns.ripe.net requires 13 bytes
   ns.eu.int requires 11 bytes
   # of NS: 4
   For maximum size query (255 byte):
       only A is considered:        # of A is 4 (green)
       A and AAAA are considered:   # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow)
       preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 2 (yellow)
   For average size query (64 byte):
       only A is considered:        # of A is 4 (green)
       A and AAAA are considered:   # of A+AAAA is 4 (green)
       preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green)


                                 Figure 3

   Here we use the term "green" if all address records could fit, or
   "yellow" if two or more could fit, or "orange" if only one could fit,
   or "red" if no address record could fit.  It's clear that without a



Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


   common parent for name server names, much space would be lost.  For
   these examples we use an average/common name size of 15 octets,
   befitting our assumption of "GTLD-SERVERS.NET." as our common parent
   name.

   We assume a medium query name size of 64 since that is the typical
   size seen in trace data at the time of this writing.  If
   Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) or any other technology that
   results in larger query names be deployed significantly in advance of
   EDNS, then new measurements and new estimates will have to be made.









































Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


5.  Conclusions

   The current practice of giving all name server names a common parent
   (such as "GTLD-SERVERS.NET." or "ROOT-SERVERS.NET.") saves space in
   DNS responses and allows for more name servers to be enumerated than
   would otherwise be possible, since the common parent domain name only
   appears once in a DNS message and is referred to via "compression
   pointers" thereafter.

   If all name server names for a zone share a common parent, then it is
   operationally advisable to make all servers for the zone thus served
   also be authoritative for the zone of that common parent.  For
   example, the root name servers (?.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.) can answer
   authoritatively for the ROOT-SERVERS.NET. zone.  This is to ensure
   that the zone's servers always have the zone's name servers' glue
   available when delegating, and will be able to respond with answers
   rather than referrals if a requester who wants that glue comes back
   asking for it.  In this case the name server will likely be a
   "stealth master" -- authoritative but not advertised in the glue
   zone's NS RRSet.  See Section 2 of [RFC1996] for more information
   about stealth masters.

   Thirteen (13) is the effective maximum number of name server names
   usable with traditional (non-extended) DNS, assuming a common parent
   domain name, and given that implicit referral response truncation is
   undesirable in the average case.

   More than one address record in a protocol family per server is
   inadvisable since the necessary glue RRSets (A or AAAA) are
   atomically indivisible, and will be larger than a single resource
   record.  Larger RRSets are more likely to lead to or encounter
   truncation.

   More than one address record across protocol families is less likely
   to lead to or encounter truncation, partly because multiprotocol
   clients, which are required to handle larger RRSets such as AAAA RRs,
   are more likely to speak EDNS, which can use a larger UDP response
   size limit, and partly because the resource records (A and AAAA) are
   in different RRSets and are therefore divisible from each other.

   Name server names that are at or below the zone they serve are more
   sensitive to referral response truncation, and glue records for them
   should be considered "more important" than other glue records, in the
   assembly of referral responses.







Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


6.  Security Considerations

   The recommendations contained in this document have no known security
   implications.















































Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.
















































Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Peter Koch, Rob Austein, Mark Andrews, Kenji
   Rikitake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Olafur Gudmundsson, Alfred Hoenes,
   Alexander Mayrhofer, and Ray Bellis for their valuable comments and
   suggestions.

   This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation
   (research grant SCI-0427144) and DNS-OARC.










































Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

9.2.  Informative References

   [PERL]     Wall, L., Christiansen, T., and J. Orwant, "Programming
              Perl, 3rd ed.", ISBN 0-596-00027-8, July 2000.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC1123]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
              and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.

   [RFC1996]  Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
              Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.

   [RFC2308]  Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
              NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC2671]  Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
              RFC 2671, August 1999.

   [RFC2672]  Crawford, M., "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection",
              RFC 2672, August 1999.

   [RFC3226]  Gudmundsson, O., "DNSSEC and IPv6 A6 aware server/resolver
              message size requirements", RFC 3226, December 2001.

   [RFC3258]  Hardie, T., "Distributing Authoritative Name Servers via
              Shared Unicast Addresses", RFC 3258, April 2002.

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
              "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
              October 2003.



Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


   [RFC3901]  Durand, A. and J. Ihren, "DNS IPv6 Transport Operational
              Guidelines", BCP 91, RFC 3901, September 2004.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, March 2005.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [RFC4472]  Durand, A., Ihren, J., and P. Savola, "Operational
              Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS", RFC 4472,
              April 2006.

   [RFC4786]  Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast
              Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, December 2006.

   [RFC5625]  Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
              BCP 152, RFC 5625, August 2009.

   [RFC6891]  Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
              for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, April 2013.

   [RFC7129]  Gieben, R. and W. Mekking, "Authenticated Denial of
              Existence in the DNS", RFC 7129, February 2014.

   [SAC035]   Bellis, R. and L. Phifer, "Test Report: DNSSEC Impact on
              Broadband Routers and Firewalls", SAC 035, September 2008.






















Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


Appendix A.  The response simulator program

   #!/usr/bin/perl
   #
   # SYNOPSIS
   #    respsize.pl [ -z zone ] fqdn_ns1 fqdn_ns2 ...
   #        if all queries are assumed to have a same zone suffix,
   #     such as "jp" in JP TLD servers, specify it in -z option
   #
   use strict;
   use Getopt::Std;

   my ($sz_msg) = (512);
   my ($sz_header, $sz_ptr, $sz_rr_a, $sz_rr_aaaa) = (12, 2, 16, 28);
   my ($sz_type, $sz_class, $sz_ttl, $sz_rdlen) = (2, 2, 4, 2);
   my (%namedb, $name, $nssect, %opts, $optz);
   my $n_ns = 0;

   getopt('z', %opts);
   if (defined($opts{'z'})) {
       server_name_len($opts{'z'}); # just register it
   }

   foreach $name (@ARGV) {
       my $len;
       $n_ns++;
       $len = server_name_len($name);
       print "$name requires $len bytes\n";
       $nssect += $sz_ptr + $sz_type + $sz_class + $sz_ttl
               +  $sz_rdlen + $len;
   }
   print "# of NS: $n_ns\n";
   arsect(255, $nssect, $n_ns, "maximum");
   arsect(64, $nssect, $n_ns, "average");

   sub server_name_len {
       my ($name) = @_;
       my (@labels, $len, $n, $suffix);

       $name =~ tr/A-Z/a-z/;
       @labels = split(/\./, $name);
       $len = length(join('.', @labels)) + 2;
       for ($n = 0; $#labels >= 0; $n++, shift @labels) {
           $suffix = join('.', @labels);
           return length($name) - length($suffix) + $sz_ptr
               if (defined($namedb{$suffix}));
           $namedb{$suffix} = 1;
       }



Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


       return $len;
   }

   sub arsect {
       my ($sz_query, $nssect, $n_ns, $cond) = @_;
       my ($space, $n_a, $n_a_aaaa, $n_p_aaaa, $ansect);
       $ansect = $sz_query + $sz_type + $sz_class;
       $space = $sz_msg - $sz_header - $ansect - $nssect;
       $n_a = atmost(int($space / $sz_rr_a), $n_ns);
       $n_a_aaaa = atmost(int($space
                              / ($sz_rr_a + $sz_rr_aaaa)), $n_ns);
       $n_p_aaaa = atmost(int(($space - $sz_rr_a * $n_ns)
                              / $sz_rr_aaaa), $n_ns);
       printf "For %s size query (%d byte):\n", $cond, $sz_query;
       printf "    only A is considered:        ";
       printf "# of A is %d (%s)\n", $n_a, &judge($n_a, $n_ns);
       printf "    A and AAAA are considered:   ";
       printf "# of A+AAAA is %d (%s)\n",
              $n_a_aaaa, &judge($n_a_aaaa, $n_ns);
       printf "    preferred-glue A is assumed: ";
       printf "# of A is %d, # of AAAA is %d (%s)\n",
           $n_a, $n_p_aaaa, &judge($n_p_aaaa, $n_ns);
   }

   sub judge {
       my ($n, $n_ns) = @_;
       return "green" if ($n >= $n_ns);
       return "yellow" if ($n >= 2);
       return "orange" if ($n == 1);
       return "red";
   }

   sub atmost {
       my ($a, $b) = @_;
       return 0 if ($a < 0);
       return $b if ($a > $b);
       return $a;
   }













Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


Appendix B.  Editorial Notes

   This section (and sub-sections) to be removed prior to publication.

B.1.  Change History

   15 Draft resurrected; Joe added as co-author; changed Paul's
      affiliation.  Minor wordsmithing to account for the passage of
      time.  Terminology section added.  Added commentary on DNSSEC
      impact on response sizes and EDNS support.









































Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      DNS Referral Response Size Issues      February 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Paul Vixie
   Farsight Security, Inc.
   155 Bovet Road, #476
   San Mateo, CA  94402
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 489 7919
   Email: vixie@farsightsecurity.com


   Akira Kato
   Keio University/WIDE Project
   Graduate School of Media Design
   4-1-1 Hiyoshi
   Kohoku, Yokohama  223-8526
   Japan

   Phone: +81 45 564 2490
   Email: kato@wide.ad.jp


   Joe Abley
   Dyn, Inc.
   470 Moore Street
   London, ON  N6C 2C2
   Canada

   Phone: +1 519 670 9327
   Email: jabley@dyn.com




















Vixie, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/