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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

DNSOP Working Group                                             G. Moura
Internet-Draft                                        SIDN Labs/TU Delft
Intended status: Informational                               W. Hardaker
Expires: December 13, 2019                                  J. Heidemann
                                      USC/Information Sciences Institute
                                                               M. Davids
                                                               SIDN Labs
                                                           June 11, 2019

      Considerations for Large Authoritative DNS Servers Operators


   This document summarizes recent research work exploring DNS
   configurations and offers specific, tangible considerations to
   operators for configuring authoritative servers.

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

Ed note

   This draft will be renamed to draft-moura-dnsop-large-authoritative-
   considerations in case adpoted by the WG, to reflect the new title.

   Text inside square brackets ([RF:ABC]) refers to:

   o  individual comments we have received about the draft, and
      enumerated under <https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-

   o  Issues listed on our Github repository

   Both types will be removed before publication.

   This draft is being hosted on GitHub - <https://github.com/gmmoura/
   draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations>, where the most
   recent version of the document and open issues can be found.  The
   authors gratefully accept pull requests.

Status of This Memo

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

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   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 https://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 December 13, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  C1:  Use equally strong IP anycast in every authoritative
       server (NS) for better load distribution  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  C2: Routing Can Matter More Than Locations  . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  C3: Collecting Detailed Anycast Catchment Maps Ahead of
       Actual Deployment Can Improve Engineering Designs . . . . . .   7
   6.  C4: When under stress, employ two strategies  . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  C5: Consider longer time-to-live values whenever possible . .  10
   8.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

1.  Introduction

   This document summarizes recent research work exploring DNS
   configurations and offers specific tangible considerations to DNS
   authoritative servers operators (DNS operators hereafter).
   [RF:JAb2]], [RF:MSJ1], [RF:DW2].  The considerations (C1-C5)
   presented in this document are backed by previous research work,
   which used wide-scale Internet measurements upon which to draw their
   conclusions.  This document describes the key engineering options,
   and points readers to the pertinent papers for details and
   [RF:Issue15] other research works related to each consideration here

   [RF:JAb1, Issue#2, SJa-02].  These considerations are designed for
   operators of "large" authoritative servers.  In this context, "large"
   authoritative servers refers to those with a significant global user
   population, like TLDs, run by a single or multiple operators.  These
   considerations may not be appropriate for smaller domains, such as
   those used by an organization with users in one city or region, where
   goals such as uniform low latency are less strict.

   It is likely that these considerations might be useful in a wider
   context, such as for any stateless/short-duration, anycasted service.
   Because the conclusions of the studies don't verify this fact, the
   wording in this document discusses DNS authoritative services only

2.  Background

   The domain name system (DNS) has main two types of DNS servers:
   authoritative servers and recursive resolvers.  Figure 1 shows their
   relationship.  An authoritative server (ATn in Figure 1) knows the
   content of a DNS zone from local knowledge, and thus can answer
   queries about that zone without needing to query other servers
   [RFC2181].  A recursive resolver (Re_n) is a program that extracts
   information from name servers in response to client requests
   [RFC1034].  A client (stub in Figure 1) refers to stub resolver
   [RFC1034] that is typically located within the client software.

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

               +-----+   +-----+   +-----+   +-----+
               | AT1 |   | AT2 |   | AT3 |   | AT4 |
               +-----+   +-----+   +-----+   +-----+
                  ^         ^         ^         ^
                  |         |         |         |
                  |      +-----+      |         |
                  +------|Re_1 |------+         |
                  |      +-----+                |
                  |         ^                   |
                  |         |                   |
                  |      +-----+    +-----+     |
                  +------|Re_2 |    |Re_3 |-----+
                         +-----+    +-----+
                           ^           ^
                           |           |
                           | +------+  |
                           +-| stub |--+

       Figure 1: Relationship between recursive resolvers (Re_n) and
                     authoritative name servers (ATn)

   DNS queries/responses contribute to user's perceived latency and
   affect user experience [Sigla2014], and the DNS system has been
   subject to repeated Denial of Service (DoS) attacks (for example, in
   November 2015 [Moura16b]) in order to degrade user experience.

   To reduce latency and improve resiliency against DoS attacks, DNS
   uses several types of server replication.  Replication at the
   authoritative server level can be achieved with (i) the deployment of
   multiple servers for the same zone [RFC1035] (AT1--AT4 in Figure 1),
   (ii) the use of IP anycast [RFC1546][RFC4786][RFC7094] that allows
   the same IP address to be announced from multiple locations (each of
   them referred to as anycast instance [RFC8499]) and (iii) by using
   load balancers to support multiple servers inside a single
   (potentially anycasted) instance.  As a consequence, there are many
   possible ways an authoritative DNS provider can engineer its
   production authoritative server network, with multiple viable choices
   and no single optimal design.

   In the next sections we cover specific considerations (C1-C5) for
   large authoritative DNS servers operators.

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

3.  C1: Use equally strong IP anycast in every authoritative server (NS)
    for better load distribution

   Authoritative DNS servers operators announce their authoritative
   servers as NS records[RFC1034].  Different authoritatives for a given
   zone should return the same content, typically by staying
   synchronized using DNS zone transfers (AXFR[RFC5936] and
   IXFR[RFC1995]) to coordinate the authoritative zone data to return to
   their clients.

   DNS heavily relies upon replication to support high reliability,
   capacity and to reduce latency [Moura16b].  DNS has two complementary
   mechanisms to replicate the service.  First, the protocol itself
   supports nameserver replication of DNS service for a DNS zone through
   the use of multiple nameservers that each operate on different IP
   addresses, listed by a zone's NS records.  Second, each of these
   network addresses can run from multiple physical locations through
   the use of IP anycast[RFC1546][RFC4786][RFC7094], by announcing the
   same IP address from each instance and allowing Internet routing
   (BGP[RFC4271]) to associate clients with their topologically nearest
   anycast instance.  Outside the DNS protocol, replication can be
   achieved by deploying load balancers at each physical location.
   Nameserver replication is recommended for all zones (multiple NS
   records), and IP anycast is used by most large zones such as the DNS
   Root, most top-level domains[Moura16b] and large commercial
   enterprises, governments and other organizations.

   Most DNS operators strive to reduce latency for users of their
   service.  However, because they control only their authoritative
   servers, and not the recursive resolvers communicating with those
   servers, it is difficult to ensure that recursives will be served by
   the closest authoritative server.  Server selection is up to the
   recursive resolver's software implementation, and different software
   vendors and releases employ different criteria to chose which
   authoritative servers with which to communicate.

   Knowing how recursives choose authoritative servers is a key step to
   better engineer the deployment of authoritative servers.
   [Mueller17b] evaluates this with a measurement study in which they
   deployed seven unicast authoritative name servers in different global
   locations and queried these authoritative servers from more than 9k
   RIPE Atlas probes and and their respective recursive resolvers.

   In the wild, [Mueller17b] found that recursives query all available
   authoritative servers, regardless of the observed latency.  But the
   distribution of queries tend to be skewed towards authoritatives with
   lower latency: the lower the latency between a recursive resolver and
   an authoritative server, the more often the recursive will send

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   queries to that authoritative.  These results were obtained by
   aggregating results from all vantage points and not specific to any

   The hypothesis is that this behavior is a consequence of two main
   criteria employed by resolvers when choosing authoritatives:
   performance (lower latency) and diversity of authoritatives, where a
   resolver checks all authoritative servers to determine which is
   closer and to provide alternatives if one is unavailable.

   For a DNS operator, this policy means that latency of all
   authoritatives (NS records [RF:SJa-01]) matter, so all must be
   similarly capable, since all available authoritatives will be queried
   by most recursive resolvers.  Since unicast cannot deliver good
   latency worldwide (a unicast authoritative server in Europe will
   always have high latency to resolvers in California, for example,
   given its geographical distance), [Mueller17b] recommends to DNS
   operators that they deploy equally strong IP anycast in every
   authoritative server (ie.e, on each NS record [RF:SJa-01]), in terms
   of number of instances and peering, and, consequently, to phase out
   unicast, so they can deliver good latency values to global clients.
   However, [Mueller17b] also notes that DNS operators should also take
   architectural considerations into account when planning for deploying
   anycast [RFC1546].

   This consideration was deployed at the ".nl" TLD zone, which
   originally had seven authoritative severs (mixed unicast/anycast
   setup). .nl has moved in early 2018 to a setup with 4 anycast
   authoritative name servers.  This is not to say that .nl was the
   first - other zones, have been running anycast only authoritatives
   (e.g., .be since 2013).  [Mueller17b] contribution is to show that
   unicast cannot deliver good latency worldwide, and that anycast has
   to be deployed to deliver good latency worldwide.

4.  C2: Routing Can Matter More Than Locations

   A common metric when choosing an anycast DNS provider or setting up
   an anycast service is the number of anycast instances[RFC4786], i.e.,
   the number of global locations from which the same address is
   announced with BGP.  Intuitively, one could think that more instances
   will lead to shorter response times.

   However, this is not necessarily true.  In fact, [Schmidt17a] found
   that routing can matter more than the total number of locations.
   They analyzed the relationship between the number of anycast
   instances and the performance of a service (latency-wise, RTT) and
   measured the overall performance of four DNS Root servers, namely C,
   F, K and L, from more than 7.9k RIPE Atlas probes.

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   [Schmidt17a] found that C-Root, a smaller anycast deployment
   consisting of only 8 instances (they refer to anycast instance as
   anycast site), provided a very similar overall performance than that
   of the much larger deployments of K and L, with 33 and 144 instances
   respectively.  The median RTT for C, K and L Root was between

   Given that Atlas has better coverage in Europe than other regions,
   the authors specifically analyzed results per region and per country
   (Figure 5 in [Schmidt17a]), and show that Atlas bias to Europe does
   not change the conclusion that location of anycast instances
   dominates latency.  [RF:Issue12]

   [Schmidt17a] consideration for DNS operators when engineering anycast
   services is consider factors other than just the number of instances
   (such as local routing connectivity) when designing for performance.
   They showed that 12 instances can provide reasonable latency, given
   they are globally distributed and have good local interconnectivity.
   However, more instances can be useful for other reasons, such as when
   handling DDoS attacks [Moura16b].

5.  C3: Collecting Detailed Anycast Catchment Maps Ahead of Actual
    Deployment Can Improve Engineering Designs

   An anycast DNS service may have several dozens or even more than one
   hundred instances (such as L-Root does).  Anycast leverages Internet
   routing to distribute the incoming queries to a service's distributed
   anycast instances; in theory, BGP (the Internet's defacto routing
   protocol) forwards incoming queries to a nearby anycast instance (in
   terms of BGP distance).  However, usually queries are not evenly
   distributed across all anycast instances, as found in the case of
   L-Root [IcannHedge18].

   Adding new instances to an anycast service may change the load
   distribution across all instances, leading to suboptimal usage of the
   service or even stressing some instances while others remain
   underutilized.  This is a scenario that operators constantly face
   when expanding an anycast service.  Besides, when setting up a new
   anycast service instance, operators cannot directly estimate the
   query distribution among the instances in advance of enabling the new

   To estimate the query loads across instances of an expanding service
   or a when setting up an entirely new service, operators need detailed
   anycast maps and catchment estimates (i.e., operators need to know
   which prefixes will be matched to which anycast instance).  To do
   that, [Vries17b] developed a new technique enabling operators to
   carry out active measurements, using an open-source tool called

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   Verfploeter (available at [VerfSrc]).  Verfploeter maps a large
   portion of the IPv4 address space, allowing DNS operators to predict
   both query distribution and clients catchment before deploying new
   anycast instances.

   [Vries17b] shows how this technique was used to predict both the
   catchment and query load distribution for the new anycast service of
   B-Root.  Using two anycast instances in Miami (MIA) and Los Angeles
   (LAX) from the operational B-Root server, they sent ICMP echo packets
   to IP addresses to each IPv4 /24 on the Internet using a source
   address within the anycast prefix.  Then, they recorded which
   instance the ICMP echo replies arrived at based on the Internet's BGP
   routing.  This analysis resulted in an Internet wide catchment map.
   Weighting was then applied to the incoming traffic prefixes based on
   of 1 day of B-Root traffic (2017-04-12, DITL datasets [Ditl17]).  The
   combination of the created catchment mapping and the load per prefix
   created an estimate predicting that 81.6% of the traffic would go to
   the LAX instance.  The actual value was 81.4% of traffic going to
   LAX, showing that the estimation was pretty close and the Verfploeter
   technique was a excellent method of predicting traffic loads in
   advance of a new anycast instance deployment ([Vries17b] also uses
   the term anycast site to refer to anycast instance).

   Besides that, Verfploeter can also be used to estimate how traffic
   shifts among instances when BGP manipulations are executed, such as
   AS Path prepending that is frequently used by production networks
   during DDoS attacks.  A new catchment mapping for each prepending
   configuration configuration: no prepending, and prepending with 1, 2
   or 3 hops at each instance.  Then, [Vries17b] shows that this mapping
   can accurately estimate the load distribution for each configuration.

   An important operational takeaway from [Vries17b] is that DNS
   operators can make informed choices when engineering new anycast
   instances or when expending new ones by carrying out active
   measurements using Verfploeter in advance of operationally enabling
   the fully anycast service.  Operators can spot sub-optimal routing
   situations early, with a fine granularity, and with significantly
   better coverage than using traditional measurement platforms such as
   RIPE Atlas.

   To date, Verfploeter has been deployed on B-Root[Vries17b], on a
   operational testbed (Anycast testbed) [AnyTest], and on a large
   unnamed operator.

   The consideration is therefore to deploy a small test Verfploeter-
   enabled platform in advance at a potential anycast instance may
   reveal the realizable benefits of using that instance as an anycast
   interest, potentially saving significant financial and labor costs of

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   deploying hardware to a new instance that was less effective than as
   had been hoped.

6.  C4: When under stress, employ two strategies

   DDoS attacks are becoming bigger, cheaper, and more frequent
   [Moura16b].  The most powerful recorded DDoS attack to DNS servers to
   date reached 1.2 Tbps, by using IoT devices [Perlroth16].  Such
   attacks call for an answer for the following question: how should a
   DNS operator engineer its anycast authoritative DNS server react to
   the stress of a DDoS attack?  This question is investigated in study
   [Moura16b] in which empirical observations are grounded with the
   following theoretical evaluation of options.

   An authoritative DNS server deployed using anycast will have many
   server instances distributed over many networks.  Ultimately, the
   relationship between the DNS provider's network and a client's ISP
   will determine which anycast instance will answer queries for a given
   client, given that BGP is the protocol that maps clients to specific
   anycast instances by using routing information [RF:KDar02].  As a
   consequence, when an anycast authoritative server is under attack,
   the load that each anycast instance receives is likely to be unevenly
   distributed (a function of the source of the attacks), thus some
   instances may be more overloaded than others which is what was
   observed analyzing the Root DNS events of Nov. 2015 [Moura16b].
   Given the fact that different instances may have different capacity
   (bandwidth, CPU, etc.), making a decision about how to react to
   stress becomes even more difficult.

   In practice, an anycast instance under stress, overloaded with
   incoming traffic, has two options:

   o  It can withdraw or pre-prepend its route to some or to all of its
      neighbors, ([RF:Issue3]) perform other traffic shifting tricks
      (such as reducing the propagation of its announcements using BGP
      communities[RFC1997]) which shrinks portions of its catchment),
      use FlowSpec [RFC5575] or other upstream communication mechanisms
      to deploy upstream filtering.  The goals of these techniques is to
      perform some combination of shifting of both legitimate and attack
      traffic to other anycast instances (with hopefully greater
      capacity) or to block the traffic entirely.

   o  Alternatively, it can be become a degraded absorber, continuing to
      operate, but with overloaded ingress routers, dropping some
      incoming legitimate requests due to queue overflow.  However,
      continued operation will also absorb traffic from attackers in its
      catchment, protecting the other anycast instances.

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   [Moura16b] saw both of these behaviors in practice in the Root DNS
   events, observed through instance reachability and route-trip time
   (RTTs).  These options represent different uses of an anycast
   deployment.  The withdrawal strategy causes anycast to respond as a
   waterbed, with stress displacing queries from one instance to others.
   The absorption strategy behaves as a conventional mattress,
   compressing under load, with some queries getting delayed or dropped.

   Although described as strategies and policies, these outcomes are the
   result of several factors: the combination of operator and host ISP
   routing policies, routing implementations withdrawing under load, the
   nature of the attack, and the locations of the instances and the
   attackers.  Some policies are explicit, such as the choice of local-
   only anycast instances, or operators removing an instance for
   maintenance or modifying routing to manage load.  However, under
   stress, the choices of withdrawal and absorption can also be results
   that emerge from a mix of explicit choices and implementation
   details, such as BGP timeout values.

   [Moura16b] speculates that more careful, explicit, and automated
   management of policies may provide stronger defenses to overload, an
   area currently under study.  For DNS operators, that means that
   besides traditional filtering, two other options are available
   (withdraw/prepend/communities or isolate instances), and the best
   choice depends on the specifics of the attack.

   Note that this consideration refers to the operation of one anycast
   service, i.e., one anycast NS record.  However, DNS zones with
   multiple NS anycast services may expect load to spill from one
   anycast server to another,as resolvers switch from authoritative to
   authoritative when attempting to resolve a name [Mueller17b].

7.  C5: Consider longer time-to-live values whenever possible

   [RF:Issue7]: this section has been completely rewritten.

   Caching is the cornerstone of good DNS performance and reliability.
   A 15 ms response to a new DNS query is fast, but a 1 ms cache hit to
   a repeat query is far faster.  Caching also protects users from short
   outages and can mute even significant DDoS attacks [Moura18b].

   DNS record TTLs (time-to-live values) directly control cache
   durations [RFC1034][RFC1035] and, therefore, affect latency,
   resilience, and the role of DNS in CDN server selection.  Some early
   work modeled caches as a function of their TTLs [Jung03a], and recent
   work examined their interaction with DNS[Moura18b], but no research
   provides considerations about what TTL values are good.  With this

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   goal Moura et. al.  [Moura19a] carried out a measurement study
   investigating TTL choices and its impact on user experience.

   First, they identified several reasons why operators/zone owners may
   want to choose longer or shorter TTLs:

   o  Longer caching results in faster responses, given that cache hits
      are faster than cache misses in resolvers.  [Moura19a] shows that
      the change in TTL for .uy TLD from 1 day to 5 minutes reduced the
      RTT from 15k Atlas vantage points significantly: the median was
      reduced from 28.7ms to 8ms, while the 75%ile decreased from 183ms
      to 21ms.

   o  Longer caching results in lower DNS traffic: authoritative servers
      will experience less traffic if TTLs are extended, given that
      repeated queries will be answered by resolver caches.

   o  Longer caching results in lower cost if DNS is metered: some DNS-
      As-A-Service providers charges are metered, with a per query cost
      (often added to a fixed monthly cost).

   o  Longer caching is more robust to DDoS attacks on DNS: DDoS attacks
      on a DNS service provider harmed several prominent websites
      [Perlroth16].  Recent work has shown that DNS caching can greatly
      reduce the effects of DDoS on DNS, provided caches last longer
      than the attack [Moura18b].

   o  Shorter caching supports operational changes: An easy way to
      transition from an old server to a new one is to change the DNS
      records.  Since there is no method to remove cached DNS records,
      the TTL duration represents a necessary transition delay to fully
      shift to a new server, so low TTLs allow more rapid transition.
      However, when deployments are planned in advance (that is, longer
      than the TTL), then TTLs can be lowered ''just-before'' a major
      operational change, and raised again once accomplished.

   o  Shorter caching can with DNS-based load balancing: Some DDoS-
      scrubbing services use DNS to redirect traffic during an attack.
      Since DDoS attacks arrive unannounced, DNS-based traffic
      redirection requires the TTL be kept quite low at all times to be
      ready to respond to a potential attack.

   As such, choice of TTL depends in part on external factors so no
   single recommendation is appropriate for all.  Organizations must
   weigh these trade-offs to find a good balance.  Still, some
   guidelines can be used when choosing TTLs:

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   o  For general users, [Moura19a] recommends longer TTLs, of at least
      one hour, and ideally 4, 8, 12, or 24 hours.  Assuming planned
      maintenance can be scheduled at least a day in advance, long TTLs
      have little cost.

   o  For TLD operators: TLD operators that allow public registration of
      domains (such as most ccTLDs and .com, .net, .org) host, in their
      zone files, NS records (and glues if in-bailiwick) of their
      respective domains.  [Moura19a] shows that most resolvers will use
      TTL values provided by the child delegations, but some will choose
      the TTL provided by the parents.  As such, similarly to general
      users, [Moura19a] recommends longer TTLs for NS records of their
      delegations (at least one hour, preferably more).

   o  Users of DNS-based load balancing or DDoS-prevention may require
      short TTLs: TTLs may be as short as 5 minutes, although 15 minutes
      may provide sufficient agility for many operators.  Shorter TTLs
      here help agility; they are are an exception to the consideration
      for longer TTLs.

   o  Use A/AAAA and NS records: TTLs of A/AAAA records should be
      shorter or equal to the TTL for NS records for in-bailiwick
      authoritative DNS servers, given that the authors [Moura19a] found
      that, for such scenarios, once NS record expires, their associated
      A/AAAA will also be updated (glue is sent by the parents).  For
      out-of-bailiwick servers, A and NS records are usually cached
      independently, so different TTLs, if desired, will be effective.
      In either case, short A and AAAA records may be desired if DDoS-
      mitigation services are an option.

8.  Security considerations

   This document suggests the use of [I-D.ietf-dnsop-serve-stale].  It
   be noted that usage of such methods may affect data integrity of DNS
   information.  This document describes methods of mitigating changes
   of a denial of service threat within a DNS service.

   As this document discusses research, there are no further security
   considerations, other than the ones mentioned in the normative

9.  Privacy Considerations

   This document does not add any practical new privacy issues.

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

10.  IANA considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

11.  Acknowledgements

   This document is a summary of the main considerations of six research
   works referred in this document.  As such, they were only possible
   thanks to the hard work of the authors of these research works.

   The authors of this document are also co-authors of these research
   works.  However, not all thirteen authors of these research papers
   are also authors of this document.  We would like to thank those not
   included in this document's author list for their work: Ricardo de O.
   Schmidt, Wouter B de Vries, Moritz Mueller, Lan Wei, Cristian
   Hesselman, Jan Harm Kuipers, Pieter-Tjerk de Boer and Aiko Pras.

   We would like also to thank the various reviewers of different
   versions of this draft: Duane Wessels, Joe Abley, Toema Gavrichenkov,
   John Levine, Michael StJohns, Kristof Tuyteleers, Stefan Ubbink,
   Klaus Darilion and Samir Jafferali, and comments provided at the IETF
   DNSOP session (IETF104).

   Besides those, we would like thank those who have been individually
   thanked in each research work, RIPE NCC and DNS OARC for their tools
   and datasets used in this research, as well as the funding agencies
   sponsoring the individual research works.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

              Lawrence, D., Kumari, W., and P. Sood, "Serving Stale Data
              to Improve DNS Resiliency", draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-
              stale-05 (work in progress), April 2019.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC1546]  Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host
              Anycasting Service", RFC 1546, DOI 10.17487/RFC1546,
              November 1993, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1546>.

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   [RFC1995]  Ohta, M., "Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS", RFC 1995,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1995, August 1996,

   [RFC1997]  Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
              Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,

   [RFC4786]  Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast
              Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, DOI 10.17487/RFC4786,
              December 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4786>.

   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,

   [RFC5936]  Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, Ed., "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol
              (AXFR)", RFC 5936, DOI 10.17487/RFC5936, June 2010,

   [RFC7094]  McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D., and E. Osterweil,
              "Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014,

   [RFC8499]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
              January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [AnyTest]  Schmidt, R., "Anycast Testbed", December 2018,

   [Ditl17]   OARC, D., "2017 DITL data", October 2018,

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

              ICANN, ., "DNS-STATS - Hedgehog 2.4.1", October 2018,

   [Jung03a]  Jung, J., Berger, A., and H. Balakrishnan, "Modeling TTL-
              based Internet caches", ACM 2003 IEEE INFOCOM,
              DOI 10.1109/INFCOM.2003.1208693, July 2003,

              Moura, G., Schmidt, R., Heidemann, J., Mueller, M., Wei,
              L., and C. Hesselman, "Anycast vs DDoS Evaluating the
              November 2015 Root DNS Events.", ACM 2016 Internet
              Measurement Conference, DOI /10.1145/2987443.2987446,
              October 2016,

              Moura, G., Heidemann, J., Mueller, M., Schmidt, R., and M.
              Davids, "When the Dike Breaks: Dissecting DNS Defenses
              During DDos", ACM 2018 Internet Measurement Conference,
              DOI 10.1145/3278532.3278534, October 2018,

              Moura, G., Heidemann, J., Schmidt, R., and W. Hardaker,
              "TBA", June 2019,

              Mueller, M., Moura, G., Schmidt, R., and J. Heidemann,
              "Recursives in the Wild- Engineering Authoritative DNS
              Servers.", ACM 2017 Internet Measurement Conference,
              DOI 10.1145/3131365.3131366, October 2017,

              Perlroth, N., "Hackers Used New Weapons to Disrupt Major
              Websites Across U.S.", October 2016,

              Schmidt, R., Heidemann, J., and J. Kuipers, "Anycast
              Latency - How Many Sites Are Enough. In Proceedings of the
              Passive and Active Measurement Workshop", PAM Passive and
              Active Measurement Conference, March 2017,

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

              Singla, A., Chandrasekaran, B., Godfrey, P., and B. Maggs,
              "The Internet at the speed of light. In Proceedings of the
              13th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (Oct 2014)",
              ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, October 2014,

   [VerfSrc]  Vries, W., "Verfploeter source code", November 2018,

              Vries, W., Schmidt, R., Hardaker, W., Heidemann, J., Boer,
              P., and A. Pras, "Verfploeter - Broad and Load-Aware
              Anycast Mapping", ACM 2017 Internet Measurement
              Conference, DOI 10.1145/3131365.3131371, October 2017,

Authors' Addresses

   Giovane C. M. Moura
   SIDN Labs/TU Delft
   Meander 501
   Arnhem  6825 MD
   The Netherlands

   Phone: +31 26 352 5500
   Email: giovane.moura@sidn.nl

   Wes Hardaker
   USC/Information Sciences Institute
   PO Box 382
   Davis  95617-0382

   Phone: +1 (530) 404-0099
   Email: ietf@hardakers.net

   John Heidemann
   USC/Information Sciences Institute
   4676 Admiralty Way
   Marina Del Rey  90292-6695

   Phone: +1 (310) 448-8708
   Email: johnh@isi.edu

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Considerations-Large-Auth-DNS-Ops          June 2019

   Marco Davids
   SIDN Labs
   Meander 501
   Arnhem  6825 MD
   The Netherlands

   Phone: +31 26 352 5500
   Email: marco.davids@sidn.nl

Moura, et al.           Expires December 13, 2019              [Page 17]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/