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

Versions: (draft-conroy-enum-edns0) 00

ENUM                                                           L. Conroy
Internet-Draft                                                      RMRL
Intended status: Best Current                                    J. Reid
Practice                                                        DNS-MODA
Expires: March 5, 2007                                 September 1, 2006

                   ENUM Requirement for EDNS0 Support

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006


   Support for EDNS0 (Extension Mechanisms for DNS) is mandated in this
   document for DNS entities querying for or serving NAPTR records.  In
   general those entities will be supporting ENUM resolution.  This
   requirement is needed because DNS responses to ENUM-related queries
   generally return large RRSets.  Without EDNS0 support these lookups
   would result in truncated responses and repeated queries over TCP
   transport.  That has a severe impact on DNS server load and on the
   latency of those queries.

   This document adds an operational requirement to use of the protocol
   standardised in RFC 3761.

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  DNS - Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Problem  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Required Aspects of EDNS0 Support  . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.1.  TCP Requirement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.2.  Fragmentation Requirement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.3.  Intermediary Node Requirement  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [12].

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

2.  Introduction

   ENUM is defined in RFC 3761[1].  It uses the underlying DNS protocol
   to handle its queries and responses for NAPTR resource records
   (defined in RFC 3403 [2]) that are to be processed by an ENUM client.

   The DNS protocol is defined in RFC 1034[3], RFC 1035[4] and clarified
   in RFC 2181[5].  Requirements for Internet Hosts are specified in RFC
   1123[6].  DNS is a simple and efficient protocol and is fundamental
   to the operation of Internet communications.

   Entities involved in processing ENUM queries and responses have to
   deal with messages that typically return large sets of resource
   records (RRSets).  These messages do not fit the profile for which
   DNS was originally designed, and so it is necessary to implement the
   standard Extension Mechanisms for DNS as described in RFC 2671[7],
   specifically the feature by which a DNS entity can indicate its
   ability to process messages of a given size over UDP transport.

2.1.  DNS - Background

   For historical reasons a size limit of 512 bytes is specified in RFC
   1035 for all messages exchanged in DNS over UDP transport.  Small
   MTUs were common in early networks and fragmentation issues were not
   well addressed in the communications software that existed when the
   DNS was introduced.  This 512 byte limit was chosen to avoid the risk
   of packet fragmentation over paths with a small MTU.  When an answer
   will not fit within this limit, the DNS response will be truncated
   (indicated by the "TC" flag being set to '1' in the response).

   DNS queries and responses can also be carried over TCP transport.  In
   this case, the size limit is not applied because TCP already has
   robust mechanisms for handling fragmentation and the reconstruction
   of packets.  TCP does have performance implications for simple query-
   response interactions: for instance by increasing the overall time
   taken to complete the transaction and increasing the volume of
   network traffic.  Thus it is not the default choice of transport for
   the DNS protocol.

   RFC 1035 mandates support for UDP-based queries but only recommends
   support for TCP-based queries.  However RFC 1123 essentially makes
   TCP query support mandatory.  It mandates that a DNS resolver discard
   a truncated response and retry using another transport protocol.  In
   effect, authoritative name servers that do not answer TCP queries
   after returning truncated responses are misconfigured.

   With the introduction of the Extension mechanisms described in RFC
   2671, there is now a mechanism by which a DNS entity can indicate

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

   that it is capable of handling UDP-based DNS transactions larger than
   those described in RFC 1035.

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

3.  Problem

   ENUM zones typically store large sets of resource records (RRSets).
   An entry for one E.164 telephone number (i.e. one owner-name) could
   contain 10-20 NAPTR records or more.  An answer returning such an
   RRSet will almost certainly exceed the capacity of a DNS response
   meeting the size limit set in RFC 1035 for messages using UDP
   transport.  RFC 1035 (and RFC 1123) outline a "fallback" mechanism.
   The server indicates that it cannot return the full answer by setting
   the TC flag in its response.  On receiving this message the client
   will discard the partial result and retry the query using TCP

   This fallback induces extra latency and network traffic when
   resolving ENUM queries.  The initial truncated response is returned
   over UDP and discarded, a TCP transport connection is initiated, the
   query is repeated and the TCP connection torn down once the complete
   answer has been received.  These overheads are unacceptable in some
   environments where ENUM will be used: high-latency mobile data
   networks for instance.

   This behaviour also causes extra load on the name servers.  They have
   to process the initial query and construct a truncated response, only
   to receive the query again using TCP transport.  Furthermore, even
   after it has returned the full answer over a TCP connection the name
   server must maintain a TCP control block for a certain time after it
   has sent the answer and shutdown of the TCP connection has been
   initiated.  Answering a high volume of queries using short-lived TCP
   connections causes issues with memory usage, involves the name server
   in unnecessary processing and may constrict the number of concurrent
   connections that may be open.  On busy name servers this has severe
   operational impact on throughput.

   The proportion of conventional DNS queries that exceed the UDP size
   limit specified in RFC 1035 is relatively small.  So the impact on
   normal query resolution of this TCP fallback mechanism is minimal.
   It just does not happen often enough to be a significant concern.
   However for ENUM lookups for NAPTR records this assumption no longer
   holds.  This fallback procedure will no longer be the exception.  It
   may well be the norm and performance when handling ENUM queries will
   suffer as a result.

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

4.  Solution

   In short, the solution to the problem of returning the large RRSets
   typical of ENUM queries is to use EDNS0.  This will maintain high
   performance and avoid excessive load on DNS servers.  An ENUM client
   and any resolving name server can use EDNS0 to indicate the size of
   UDP packet it is prepared to handle in a DNS response.  This allows
   name servers involved in the resolution to return answers using UDP
   that fit within the limit set by the resolver rather than that
   specified in RFC 1035.  For a description of other situations in
   which EDNS0 is useful and for further motivations on its use, see RFC
   3225[8] and RFC 3226[13].

   As well as using EDNS0, it is necessary to ensure that the buffer
   sizes reported are adequate.  It should be noted that the penalty of
   choosing too low a size for EDNS0 support may be even more severe
   that the standard method described in RFC 1035 and RFC 1123.  Thus it
   is good practice to select a larger size than is likely to be needed,
   to counteract that greater cost where fallbacks still occur.
   Sections 2.4 and particularly 2.5 of [9] explain the rationale for
   using the size option of EDNS0 for queries that return larger
   responses.  In that document, section 3.1 describes expected server
   behaviour, section 4.1 describes expected resolver behaviour, while
   section 3 summarises the proposed message sizes to be supported by
   servers and resolvers.  These same size recommendations are repeated
   here, as it is felt that ENUM already has a similar issue with larger
   responses, and will certainly need the larger messages sizes with the
   introduction of IPv6 and DNSSEC support.

4.1.  Required Aspects of EDNS0 Support

   There are some subtleties with EDNS0 support within ENUM, so the full
   implications of the requirement of EDNS0 support for ENUM resolution
   are explained here.

   The basic requirement for EDNS0 support in ENUM entities is in two

      ALL entities involved in querying for or serving NAPTR records
      MUST support EDNS0.

      ALL entities involved in querying for or serving NAPTR records
      MUST be able to support EDNS0 buffer sizes for queries or
      responses of at least 1220 bytes, and SHOULD be able to support
      buffer sizes of 4000 bytes.

      Entities querying for NAPTR records MUST use EDNS0 in their
      queries unless they have current knowledge that EDNS0 support is

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

      not provided at the target of their queries.

      Entities looking up NAPTR records MUST advertise a buffer size of
      at least 1220 bytes in their queries, and SHOULD advertise a
      buffer size of 4000 bytes.  Consideration should also be given to
      the MTU of the underlying network, less any overhead needed for
      lower-level network protocols.

   Of course, support is one thing, but use is another.  The mandate for
   support of EDNS0 when processing ENUM queries does not imply
   spontaneous use.  The mechanism described in RFC 2671 applies.  If a
   name server receives a query indicating that the client supports
   EDNS0, then it replies with an extended response, assuming that name
   server supports ENDS0.  If it does not receive such an indication,
   then it responds with a conventional RFC 1035-style reply.
   Similarly, resolvers querying for NAPTR records must indicate their
   ability to support EDNS0 and larger buffer sizes when they send those
   lookups because this is the only way that they will receive such

   There are three further aspects to EDNS0 support.

4.1.1.  TCP Requirement

   Firstly, it is still possible that ENUM-related queries could result
   in truncated responses and TCP retries even though an EDNS0-enabled
   mechanism is used.  A zone could include a larger set of NAPTR
   records than will fit into the packet size the client has reported
   itself as supporting.  If the ENUM client requests all available
   resource records for some ENUM zone rather than just its NAPTR
   records, there may be large amounts of data for other resource record
   types for the queried owner-name: eg TXT records.  In this case the
   complete answer may well exceed the client's advertised packet size
   even though a NAPTR-specific query would not.  Also, the EDNS0 query
   may fail for the reasons covered below.  In all these cases the
   fallback mechanism described in RFC 2671 will be needed.  For the
   fallback process to work for large RRSets, entities will need to
   support TCP transport even if EDNS0 is disabled or unavailable for
   some reason.


      If an entity involved knows that EDNS0 queries and responses work
      in the current ENUM resolution chain, it MUST be willing to
      support queries and responses using TCP transport.

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

4.1.2.  Fragmentation Requirement

   Second, a DNS server may receive queries that indicate a given size
   of response is acceptable.  However, the resolver may be connected
   via a network with a lower MTU, in which case the response packet
   will undergo fragmentation and reassembly in transit.

   Thus, although obvious (and not directly related to its use in
   processing ENUM requests), this means that:

      A DNS server responding to a query that includes the EDNS0 size
      option MUST NOT set the DF (Don't Fragment) bit in the UDP packet
      holding its answer.

4.1.3.  Intermediary Node Requirement

   The final point concerns intermediate nodes.  It has been noticed
   that some intermediate nodes exhibit overly aggressive behaviour.


      Intermediate nodes MUST NOT block or discard valid ENUM queries
      and responses that indicate EDNS0 support.  In particular,
      intermediate packet filters MUST NOT assume that UDP DNS responses
      larger than 512 bytes are invalid.  These responses are correct
      and MUST NOT be intercepted provided they comply with the EDNS0
      standard.  Such packet discard strategies are in error.

      Intermediate nodes MUST NOT block valid DNS queries and responses
      sent over TCP transport.  It is perfectly reasonable for DNS
      queries to be sent over TCP transport.

   This last requirement means that intermediary packet filters MUST NOT
   simply block all TCP-based DNS traffic.

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does appear to introduce any extra security issues over
   and above those mentioned in RFC 3761 and in RFC 2671, as well as
   those listed in the thorough analysis of the threats to DNS in RFC
   3833 [14].

   It should be noted that mandating the use of EDNS0 by ENUM-related
   entities also facilitates the deployment of Secure DNS, DNSSEC,
   currently defined in RFC 4035 [9], RFC 4034 [10] and RFC 4033 [11].
   Secure DNS will be necessary to verify the integrity of ENUM
   responses.  RFC 3225 [8] states that clients signal their ability to
   handle signed responses via the DO (DNSSEC OK) bit in the EDNS0
   header and a name server will not return these unless this bit is
   set.  So unless EDNS0 is used, ENUM-related entities will be unable
   to verify DNSSEC-signed responses from the DNS.  Signed replies from
   the DNS are also much larger than unsigned ones, which provided an
   added incentive to use larger UDP payloads.

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA requirements.

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

7.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank the working group members active on the ENUM
   mailing list who engaged in this topic, and the development and
   operational teams that collected data confirming the need for this

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
         Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation  Discovery System (DDDS)
         Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.

   [2]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)  Part
         Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
         October 2002.

         RFC 1034, November 1987.

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

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

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

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

   [8]   Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC", RFC 3225,
         December 2001.

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

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

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

8.2.  Informative References

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

   [13]  Gudmundsson, O., "DNSSEC and IPv6 A6 Requirements", RFC 3226,

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

         December 2001.

   [14]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
         System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

Authors' Addresses

   Lawrence Conroy
   Roke Manor Research
   Roke Manor
   Old Salisbury Lane
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44 1794 833666
   Email: lconroy@insensate.co.uk
   URI:   http://www.sienum.co.uk

   Jim Reid
   6 Langside Court
   Bothwell, SCOTLAND
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44 1698 852881
   Email: jim@dns-moda.org

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           ENUM EDNS0 Requirements          September 2006

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   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

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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Conroy & Reid             Expires March 5, 2007                [Page 16]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.128b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/