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

Versions: 00 01

dnsext                                                        P. Wouters
Internet-Draft                                                   Red Hat
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 15, 2013
Expires: April 18, 2014


                    TCP chain query requests in DNS
                 draft-wouters-edns-tcp-chain-query-01

Abstract

   This document defines an EDNS0 extension that can be used by a DNSSEC
   enabled Recursive Nameserver configured as a forwarder to send a
   single query over TCP requesting to receive a complete validation
   path along with the regular query answer.

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 April 18, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   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.




Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Protocol Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Discovery of Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Generating a Query  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  Generating a Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Sending the Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Protocol  Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  DNSSEC Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  NS record Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  TCP Session Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.4.  Non-Clean Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.5.  Anycast Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Amplification Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Simple Query for example.com  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Out-of-path query for example.com . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.3.  non-existent data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.1.  EDNS0 option code for edns-tcp-chain-query . . . . . . .  13
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Traditionally, clients operate in stub-mode for DNS.  For each DNS
   question the client needs to resolve, it sends a single query to an
   upstream DNS resolver to obtain a single DNS answer.  When DNSSEC
   [RFC4033] is deployed on such clients, validation requires that the
   client obtains all the (intermediate) information from the DNS root
   down to the queried-for hostname so it can perform DNSSEC validation
   on the complete chain of trust.

   For example, the validated answer for the question of the A record
   for the zone "example.com" requires over a hundred DNS queries.  That
   many queries adds a significant number of round-trip delays that is
   considered unusable by current user expectation.  It especially
   affects web browsers which usually need to lookup dozens of hostnames
   to render a single web page.




Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   This document specifies an EDNS0 extension that allows a validating
   recursive name server running as a forwarder to open a TCP connection
   to another recursive name server and request a DNS chain answer using
   one DNS query/answer pair.  This reduces the number of round-trip
   times ("RTT") to two.  If combined with [TCP-KEEPALIVE] there is only
   1 RTT.  While the upstream DNS resolver still needs to perform all
   these queries, it usually has a much bigger cache and does not
   experience significant slowdown from last-mile latency.

   This EDNS0 extension allows the Forwarder to indicate which part of
   the DNS hierarchy it already contains in its cache.  This reduces the
   amount of data required to be transferred and reduces the work the
   upstream Resolving Nameserver has to perform.

   This EDNS0 extension is only intended for Forwarders.  It can (and
   should be) ignored by Authoritative Nameservers and by Recursive
   Nameservers that do not support this EDNS0 option.

1.1.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Terminology

   Stub Resolver:  A simple DNS protocol implementation on the client
      side as described in [RFC1034] section 5.3.1.

   Authoritative Nameserver:  A nameserver that has authority over one
      or more DNS zones.  These are normally not contacted by clients
      directly but by Recursive Resolvers.  Described in [RFC1035]
      chapter 6.

   Recursive Resolver:  A nameserver that is responsible for resolving
      domain names for clients by following the domain's delegation
      chain, starting at the root.  Recursive Resolvers frequently use
      caches to be able to respond to client queries quickly.  Described
      in [RFC1035] chapter 7.

   Validating Resolver:  A recursive nameserver that also performs
      DNSSEC [RFC4033] validation.

   Forwarder:  A Recursive Resolver that is using another (upstream)
      Recursive Resolver instead of querying Authoritative Nameservers
      directly.  It still performs validation.





Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


3.  Overview

   When DNSSEC is deployed on the client, it can no longer delegate all
   DNS work to the upstream Resolving Nameserer.  Obtaining just the DNS
   answer itself is not enough to validate that answer using DNSSEC.
   For DNSSEC validation, the client requires a locally running
   validating DNS server configured as Resolving Nameserver so it can
   confirm DNSSEC validation of all intermediary DNS answers.  It can
   configure itself as a Forwarder if the DHCP server has indicated that
   one or more Resolving Nameservers are available.  Regardless,
   generating the required queries for validation adds a significant
   delay in answering the DNS question of the locally running
   applications.  The application has to wait while the Forwarder on the
   client is querying for all the intermediate work.  Each round-trip
   adds to the total time waiting on DNS resolving to complete.  This
   makes DNSSEC resolving impractical on networks with a high latency.

   The edns-tcp-chain-query option allows the client to request all
   intermediate DNS data it requires to resolve and validate a
   particular DNS answer in a single round-trip DNS query and answer.

   Since this data is most likely larger than the common maximum UDP
   packet size, the server must only return the additional data when
   using the TCP transport.  Requiring TCP furthermore avoid DNS
   amplification attacks.

   The format of this option is described in Section 4.

   As described in Section 5.3, a recursive nameserver could use this
   EDNS0 option to include additional data required by the client in the
   Authority Section of the DNS answer packet when using the TCP
   transport.  The Answer Section remains unchanged from a traditional
   DNS answer and contains the answer and related DNSSEC entries.

   The edns-tcp-chain-query EDNS0 option MAY be sent over UDP as a
   discovery method.  A DNS server receiving edns-tcp-chain-query over
   UDP MAY add an empty edns-tcp-chain-query option in its answer to
   indicate that it supports edns-tcp-chain-query when the TCP transport
   is used.

   The mechanisms provided by edns-tcp-chain-query raise various
   security related concerns, related to the additional work and
   bandwidth as well as privacy issues with the cache.  These concerns
   are described in Section 8.

4.  Option Format





Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   This draft uses an EDNS0 ([RFC2671]) option to include client IP
   information in DNS messages.  The option is structured as follows:


                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   !         OPTION-CODE           !         OPTION-LENGTH         !
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   ~                Last Known Query Name (FQDN)                   ~
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+



   o  (Defined in [RFC2671]) OPTION-CODE, 2 octets, for edns-tcp-chain-
      query is [TBD].

   o  (Defined in [RFC2671]) OPTION-LENGTH, 2 octets, contains the
      length of the payload (everything after Option-length) in octets.

   o  Last Known Query Name, a variable length FDQN of the requested
      start point of the chain.  This entry is the 'lowest' known entry
      in the DNS chain known by the recursive server seeking a edns-tcp-
      chain-query answer.  The end point of the chain is obtained from
      the DNS Query Section itself.  No compression is allowed for this
      value.

   o  Assigned by IANA in IANA-AFI [1].

5.  Protocol Description

5.1.  Discovery of Support

   A Forwarder may include a zero-length edns-tcp-chain-query option in
   queries over UDP or TCP to discover the DNS server capability for
   edns-tcp-chain-query.  DNS Servers that support and are willing to
   accept chain queries over TCP SHOULD respond to a zero-length edns-
   tcp-chain-query received over UDP or TCP queries by including a zero-
   length edns-tcp-chain-query option in the answer.  A Forwarder MAY
   then switch to the TCP transport and sent a non-zero edns-tcp-chain-
   query value to request a chain-query response from the DNS server.

5.2.  Generating a Query

   The edns-tcp-chain-query option should generally be deployed by
   Forwarders, as described in Section 5.4.





Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   In this option value, the Forwarder sets the last known entry point
   in the chain - furthest from the root - that it already has a DNSSEC
   validated (secure or not) answer for in its cache.  The upstream
   Recursive Resolver does not need to include any part of the chain
   from the root down to this option's FQDN.  A complete example is
   described in Section 9.

5.3.  Generating a Response

   When a query containing a non-zero edns-tcp-chain-query option is
   received over a TCP connection from a Forwarder, the upstream
   Recursive Resolver supporting edns-tcp-chain-query MAY respond by
   confirming that it is returning a DNS Query Chain.  To do so, it MUST
   set the edns-tcp-chain-query option with an OPTION-LENGTH of zero to
   indicate the DNS answer contains a Chain Query.  It extends the
   Authority Section for the DNS answer packet with the required DNS
   RRSets resulting in an Authority Section that contains a complete
   chain of DNS RRsets that start with the first chain element below the
   received Last Known Query Name upto and including the NS and DS
   RRsets that represent the zone cut (authoritative servers) of the
   QNAME.  The actual DNS answer to the question in the Query Section is
   placed in the DNS Answer Section identical to traditional DNS
   answers.  If the received query has the DNSSEC OK flag set, all
   required DNSSEC related records must be added to their appropriate
   sections.  This includes records required for proof of non-existence
   of regular and/or wildcard records, such as NSEC or NSEC3 records.

   Recursive Resolvers that have not implemented or enabled support for
   the edns-tcp-chain-query option, or are otherwise unwilling to
   perform the additional work for a Chain Query due to work load, may
   safely ignore the option in the incoming queries.  Such a server MUST
   NOT include an edns-tcp-chain-query option when sending DNS answer
   replies back, thus indicating it is not able to support Chain Queries
   at this time.

   Requests with wrongly formatted options (i.e. bogus FQDN) MUST be
   rejected and a FORMERR response must be returned to the sender, as
   described by [RFC2671], Transport Considerations.

   Requests resulting in chains that the receiving resolver is unwilling
   to serve can be rejected by sending a REFUSED response to the sender,
   as described by [RFC2671], Transport Considerations.  This refusal
   can be used for chains that would be too big or chains that would
   reveal too much information considered private.

   At any time, a DNS server that has determined that it is running low
   on resources can refuse to acknowledge a Chain Query by omitting the
   edns-tcp-chain-query option.  It may do so even if it conveyed



Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   support to a DNS client previously.  If [TCP-KEEPALIVE] is used, it
   may even change its support for edns-tcp-chain-query within the same
   TCP session.

   If the DNS request results in an CNAME or DNAME for the Answer
   Section, the DNS server MUST return these records in the Answer
   Section similar to regular DNS processing.  It MUST NOT follow the
   CNAME or DNAME.  Otherwise, both the CNAME or DNAME and the followed
   destination would end up in the Answer Section. [is that actually a
   problem?  Jelte thought so, but I am not sure]

   In any case, the response from the receiving resolver to the client
   resolver MUST NOT contain the edns-tcp-chain-query option if none was
   present in the client's resolver original request.

5.4.  Sending the Option

   When edns-tcp-chain-query is available, the downstream Resolving
   Nameserver can adjust its query strategy based on the desired queries
   and its cache contents.

   A Forwarder can request the edns-tcp-chain-query option with every
   outgoing DNS query.  However, it is RECOMMENDED that Forwarders
   remember which upstream Resolving Nameservers did not return the
   option (and additional data) with their response.  The Forwarder
   SHOULD fallback to regular DNS for subsequent queries to those
   Recursive Nameservers.  It MAY switch to another Resolving Nameserver
   that does support the edns-tcp-chain-query option or try again later
   to see if the server has become less loaded and is now willing to
   answer with Query Chains.

6.  Protocol Considerations

6.1.  DNSSEC Considerations

   The presence or absence of an OPT resource record containing an edns-
   tcp-chain-query option in a DNS query does not change the usage of
   those resource records and mechanisms used to provide data origin
   authentication and data integrity to the DNS, as described in
   [RFC4033], [RFC4034] and [RFC4035].

6.2.  NS record Considerations

   When a DNSSEC chain is supplied via edns-tcp-chain-query, the
   Forwarder no longer requires to use the NS RRset, as it can construct
   the validation path via the DNSKEY and DS RRsets without using the NS
   RRset.  However, it is prefered that the Forwarder can populate its
   cache with this information regardless, to avoid requiring queries in



Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   the future just to obtain the missing NS records.  Therefor, edns-
   tcp-chain-query responses MUST include the NS RRset from the child
   zone, which includes DNSSEC RRSIG records required for validation.

6.3.  TCP Session Management

   It is recommended that TCP Chain Queries are used in combination with
   [TCP-KEEPALIVE].

   Both DNS clients and servers are subject to resource constraints
   which will limit the extent to which TCP Chain Queries can be
   executed.  Effective limits for the number of active sessions that
   can be maintained on individual clients and servers should be
   established, either as configuration options or by interrogation of
   process limits imposed by the operating system.

   In the event that there is greater demand for TCP Chain Queries than
   can be accommodated, DNS servers may stop advertising the edns-tcp-
   query-chain option in successive DNS messages.  This allows, for
   example, clients with other candidate servers to query to establish
   new TCP sessions with different servers in expectation that those
   servers might still allow TCP Chain Queries.

6.4.  Non-Clean Paths

   Many paths between DNS clients and servers suffer from poor hygiene,
   limiting the free flow of DNS messages that include particular EDNS0
   options, or messages that exceed a particular size.  A fallback
   strategy similar to that described in [RFC6891] section 6.2.2 SHOULD
   be employed to avoid persistent interference due to non-clean paths.

6.5.  Anycast Considerations

   DNS servers of various types are commonly deployed using anycast
   [RFC4786].

   Successive DNS transactions between a client and server using UDP
   transport may involve responses generated by different anycast nodes,
   and the use of anycast in the implementation of a DNS server is
   effectively undetectable by the client.  The edns-tcp-chain-query
   option SHOULD NOT be included in responses using UDP transport from
   servers provisioned using anycast unless all anycast server nodes are
   capable of processing the edns-tcp-query-chain option.

   Changes in network topology between clients and anycast servers may
   cause disruption to TCP sessions making use of edns-tcp-chain-query
   more often than with TCP sessions that omit it, since the TCP
   sessions are expected to be longer-lived.  Anycast servers MAY make



Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   use of TCP multipath [RFC6824] to anchor the server side of the TCP
   connection to an unambiguously-unicast address in order to avoid
   disruption due to topology changes.

7.  Implementation Status

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

   [While there is some interest, no work has started yet]

8.  Security Considerations

8.1.  Amplification Attacks

   Chain Queries can potentially send very large DNS answers.  A
   recursive nameserver MUST NOT return Query Chain answers to clients
   over UDP.  It is allowed to signal support in response to a Query
   Chain request over UDP by responding using a zero-length edns-tcp-
   chain-query option.  This is to prevent a single spoofed UDP packet
   from causing extremely large UDP response packets from being sent to
   a spoofed IP address.  Such Distributed Denial of Service attacks
   using other DNS amplification mechanisms are fairly common.

9.  Examples









Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


9.1.  Simple Query for example.com

   1.   A web browser on a client machine asks the Forwarder running on
        localhost to resolve the A record of "www.example.com." by
        sending a regular DNS UDP query on port 53 to 127.0.0.1.

   2.   The Forwarder on the client machine checks its cache, and
        notices it already has a validated entry of "com." in its cache.
        This includes the DNSKEY RRset with its RRSIG records.  In other
        words, according to its cache, ".com" is DNSSEC validated as
        "secure" and can be used to continue a DNSSEC validated chain
        on.

   3.   The Forwarder on the client opens a TCP connection to its
        upstream Recursive Resolver on port 53.  It adds the edns-tcp-
        chain-query option as follows:

        *  Option-code, set to [TBD]

        *  Option-length, set to 0x00 0x04

        *  Last Known Query Name set to "com."

   4.   The upstream Recursive Resolver receives a DNS query over TCP
        with the edns-tcp-chain-query Last Known Query Name set to
        "com.".  After accepting the query it starts constructing a DNS
        reply packet over TCP.

   5.   The upstream Recursive Resolver performs all the regular work to
        ensure it has all the answers to the query for the A record of
        "www.example.com.".  It does so without using the edns-tcp-
        chain-query option - unless it is also configured as a
        Forwarder.  The answer to the original DNS question could be the
        actual A record, the DNSSEC proof of non-existence, or an
        insecure NXDOMAIN response.

   6.   The upstream Recursive Resolver adds the edns-tcp-chain-query
        option to the DNS answer reply as follows:

        *  Option-code, set to [TBD]

        *  Option-length, set to 0x00 0x00

        *  The Last Known Query Name is ommited (zero length)

   7.   The upstream Recursive Resolver constructs the DNS Authority
        Section and fills it with:




Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


        *  The DS RRset for "example.com." and its corresponding RRSIGs
           (made by the "com."  DNSKEY(s))

        *  The DNSKEY RRset for "example.com." and its corresponding
           RRSIGs (made by the "example.com" DNSKEY(s))

        *  The authoritative NS RRset for "example.com." and its
           corresponding RRSIGs (from the child zone)

        If the answer does not exist, and the zone uses DNSSEC, it also
        adds the proof of non-existance, such as NSEC or NSEC3 records,
        to the Authority Section.

   8.   The upstream Recursive Resolver constructs the DNS Answer
        Section and fills it with:

        *  The A record of "www.example.com." and its corresponding
           RRSIGs

        If the answer does not exist (no-data or NXDOMAIN), the Answer
        Section remains empty.  For the NXDOMAIN case, the RCode of the
        DNS answer packet is set to NXDOMAIN.  Otherwise it remains
        NOERROR.

   9.   The upstream Recursive Resolver returns the DNS answer over the
        existing TCP connection.  When all data is sent, it SHOULD keep
        the TCP connection open to allow for additional incoming DNS
        queries - provided it has enough resources to do so.

   10.  The Forwarder receives the DNS answer over TCP.  It processes
        the Authority Section and the Answer Section and places the
        information in its local cache.  If it is a DNSSEC validating
        resolver, it ensures that no unvalidated data or out of baliwick
        data is accepted into the cache without having proper DNSSEC
        validation.  It MAY do so by looping over the entries in the
        Authority and Answer Sections.  When an entry is validated for
        its cache, it is removed from the processing list.  If an entry
        cannot be validated it is left in the process list.  When the
        end of the list is reached, the list is processed again until
        either all entries are placed in the cache, or the remaining
        items cannot be placed in the cache due to lack of validation.
        Those entries are then disgarded.









Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   11.  If the cache contains a valid answer to the application's query,
        this answer is returned to the application via a regular DNS
        answer packet.  This packet MUST NOT contain an edns-tcp-chain-
        query option.  If no valid answer can be returned, normal error
        processing is done.  For example, an NXDOMAIN or an empty Answer
        Section could be returned depending on the error condition.

9.2.  Out-of-path query for example.com

   A Recursive Resolver receives a query for the A record for
   example.com.  It includes the edns-tcp-chain-query option with the
   following parameters:

   o  Option-code, set to [TBD]

   o  Option-length, set to 0x00 0x0D

   o  The Last Known Query Name set to 'unrelated.ca.'

   As there is no chain that leads from "unrelated.ca." to
   "example.com", the Resolving Nameserver answers with RCODE "FormErr".
   It includes the edns-tcp-chain-query with the following parameters:

   o  Option-code, set to [TBD]

   o  Option-length, set to 0x00 0x00

   o  The Last Known Query Name is ommited (zero length)

9.3.  non-existent data

   A Recursive Resolver receives a query for the A record for
   "ipv6.toronto.redhat.ca".  It includes the edns-tcp-chain-query
   option with the following parameters:

   o  Option-code, set to [TBD]

   o  Option-length, set to 0x00 0x03

   o  The Last Known Query Name set to 'ca.'

   Using regular UDP queries towards Authoritative Nameservers, it
   locates the NS RRset for "toronto.redhat.ca.".  When querying for the
   A record it receives a reply with RCODE "NoError" and an empty Answer
   Section.  The Authority Section contains NSEC3 and RRSIG records
   proving there is no A RRtype for the QNAME "ipv6.toronto.redhat.ca".





Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   The Recursive Resolver constructs a DNS reply with the following
   edns-tcp-chain-query option parameters:

   o  Option-code, set to [TBD]

   o  Option-length, set to 0x00 0x00

   o  The Last Known Query Name is ommited (zero length)

   The RCODE is set to "NoError".  The Authority Section is filled in
   with:

   o  The DS RRset for "redhat.ca." plus RRSIGs

   o  The DNSKEY RRset for "redhat.ca." plus RRSIGs

   o  The NS RRset for "redhat.ca." plus RRSIGs (eg ns[01].redhat.ca)

   o  The A RRset for "ns0.redhat.ca." and "ns1.redhat.ca." plus RRSIGs

   o  The DS RRset for "toronto.redhat.ca." plus RRSIGs

   o  The NS RRset for "toronto.redhat.ca." plus RRSIGs (eg
      ns[01].toronto.redhat.ca)

   o  The DNSKEY RRset for "toronto.redhat.ca." plus RRSIGs

   o  The A RRset and/or AAAA RRset for "ns0.toronto.redhat.ca." and
      "ns1.toronto.redhat.ca." plus RRSIGs

   o  The NSEC record for "ipv6.toronto.redhat.ca." (proves what RRTYPEs
      do exist, does not include A)

   o  The NSEC record for "toronto.redhat.ca." (proves no wildcard
      exists)

   The Answer Section is empty.  The RCode is set to NOERROR.

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  EDNS0 option code for edns-tcp-chain-query

   IANA has assigned option code [TBD] in the "DNS EDNS0 Option Codes
   (OPT)" registry to edns-tcp-chain-query.

11.  Acknowledgements





Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


   Andrew Sullivan pointed out that we do not need any new data formats
   to support DNS chains.  Olafur Gudmundsson ensured the RRsets are
   returned in the proper Sections.

12.  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.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

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

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, 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.

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

   [RFC6824]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
              "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
              Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.

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

   [RFC6982]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, July
              2013.

   [TCP-KEEPALIVE]
              Wouters, P., "The edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS0 Option", draft-
              wouters-edns-tcp-keeaplive (work in progress), October
              2013.



Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       TCP chain query requests in DNS        October 2013


Author's Address

   Paul Wouters
   Red Hat

   Email: pwouters@redhat.com













































Wouters                  Expires April 18, 2014                [Page 15]


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