ComputerSurge/bind9
3
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests 1 Activity

new draft

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mark Andrews
2009-11-19 05:11:47 +00:00
parent f7e3edb15a
commit 9dad3e2710
2 changed files with 616 additions and 480 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

480
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-01.txt
View File

@@ -1,480 +0,0 @@
DNSEXT Working Group Paul Vixie, ISC
INTERNET-DRAFT
<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-01.txt> March 17, 2008
Intended Status: Standards Track
Obsoletes: 2671 (if approved)
Revised extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)
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-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed
fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not
allow clients to advertise their capabilities to servers. This
document describes backward compatible mechanisms for allowing the
protocol to grow.
Expires September 2008 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 March 2008
1 - Introduction
1.1. DNS (see [RFC1035]) specifies a Message Format and within such
messages there are standard formats for encoding options, errors, and
name compression. The maximum allowable size of a DNS Message is fixed.
Many of DNS's protocol limits are too small for uses which are or which
are desired to become common. There is no way for implementations to
advertise their capabilities.
1.2. Unextended agents will not know how to interpret the protocol
extensions detailed here. In practice, these clients will be upgraded
when they have need of a new feature, and only new features will make
use of the extensions. Extended agents must be prepared for behaviour
of unextended clients in the face of new protocol elements, and fall
back gracefully to unextended DNS. RFC 2671 originally has proposed
extensions to the basic DNS protocol to overcome these deficiencies.
This memo refines that specification and obsoletes RFC 2671.
1.3. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2 - Affected Protocol Elements
2.1. The DNS Message Header's (see [RFC1035 4.1.1]) second full 16-bit
word is divided into a 4-bit OPCODE, a 4-bit RCODE, and a number of
1-bit flags. The original reserved Z bits have been allocated to
various purposes, and most of the RCODE values are now in use. More
flags and more possible RCODEs are needed. The OPT pseudo-RR specified
in Section 4 contains subfields that carry a bit field extension of the
RCODE field and additional flag bits, respectively; for details see
Section 4.6 below.
2.2. The first two bits of a wire format domain label are used to denote
the type of the label. [RFC1035 4.1.4] allocates two of the four
possible types and reserves the other two. Proposals for use of the
remaining types far outnumber those available. More label types were
needed, and an extension mechanism was proposed in RFC 2671 [RFC2671
Section 3]. Section 3 of this document reserves DNS labels with a first
octet in the range of 64-127 decimal (label type 01) for future
standardization of Extended DNS Labels.
Expires September 2008 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 March 2008
2.3. DNS Messages are limited to 512 octets in size when sent over UDP.
While the minimum maximum reassembly buffer size still allows a limit of
512 octets of UDP payload, most of the hosts now connected to the
Internet are able to reassemble larger datagrams. Some mechanism must
be created to allow requestors to advertise larger buffer sizes to
responders. To this end, the OPT pseudo-RR specified in Section 4
contains a maximum payload size field; for details see Section 4.5
below.
3 - Extended Label Types
The first octet in the on-the-wire representation of a DNS label
specifies the label type; the basic DNS specification [RFC1035]
dedicates the two most significant bits of that octet for this purpose.
This document reserves DNS label type 0b01 for use as an indication for
Extended Label Types. A specific extended label type is selected by the
6 least significant bits of the first octet. Thus, Extended Label Types
are indicated by the values 64-127 (0b01xxxxxx) in the first octet of
the label.
Allocations from this range are to be made for IETF documents fully
describing the syntax and semantics as well as the applicability of the
particular Extended Label Type.
This document does not describe any specific Extended Label Type.
4 - OPT pseudo-RR
4.1. One OPT pseudo-RR (RR type 41) MAY be added to the additional data
section of a request, and to responses to such requests. An OPT is
called a pseudo-RR because it pertains to a particular transport level
message and not to any actual DNS data. OPT RRs MUST NOT be cached,
forwarded, or stored in or loaded from master files. The quantity of
OPT pseudo-RRs per message MUST be either zero or one, but not greater.
4.2. An OPT RR has a fixed part and a variable set of options expressed
as {attribute, value} pairs. The fixed part holds some DNS meta data
and also a small collection of new protocol elements which we expect to
be so popular that it would be a waste of wire space to encode them as
{attribute, value} pairs.
Expires September 2008 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 March 2008
4.3. The fixed part of an OPT RR is structured as follows:
Field Name Field Type Description
------------------------------------------------------
NAME domain name empty (root domain)
TYPE u_int16_t OPT (41)
CLASS u_int16_t sender's UDP payload size
TTL u_int32_t extended RCODE and flags
RDLEN u_int16_t describes RDATA
RDATA octet stream {attribute,value} pairs
4.4. The variable part of an OPT RR is encoded in its RDATA and is
structured as zero or more of the following:
: +0 (MSB) : +1 (LSB) :
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | OPTION-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4: | |
/ OPTION-DATA /
/ /
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
OPTION-CODE (Assigned by IANA.)
OPTION-LENGTH Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA.
OPTION-DATA Varies per OPTION-CODE.
4.4.1. Order of appearance of option tuples is never relevant. Any
option whose meaning is affected by other options is so affected no
matter which one comes first in the OPT RDATA.
4.4.2. Any OPTION-CODE values not understood by a responder or requestor
MUST be ignored. So, specifications of such options might wish to
include some kind of signalled acknowledgement. For example, an option
specification might say that if a responder sees option XYZ, it SHOULD
include option XYZ in its response.
Expires September 2008 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 March 2008
4.5. The sender's UDP payload size (which OPT stores in the RR CLASS
field) is the number of octets of the largest UDP payload that can be
reassembled and delivered in the sender's network stack. Note that path
MTU, with or without fragmentation, may be smaller than this. Values
lower than 512 are undefined, and may be treated as format errors, or
may be treated as equal to 512, at the implementor's discretion.
4.5.1. Note that a 512-octet UDP payload requires a 576-octet IP
reassembly buffer. Choosing 1280 on an Ethernet connected requestor
would be reasonable. The consequence of choosing too large a value may
be an ICMP message from an intermediate gateway, or even a silent drop
of the response message.
4.5.2. Both requestors and responders are advised to take account of the
path's discovered MTU (if already known) when considering message sizes.
4.5.3. The requestor's maximum payload size can change over time, and
therefore MUST NOT be cached for use beyond the transaction in which it
is advertised.
4.5.4. The responder's maximum payload size can change over time, but
can be reasonably expected to remain constant between two sequential
transactions; for example, a meaningless QUERY to discover a responder's
maximum UDP payload size, followed immediately by an UPDATE which takes
advantage of this size. (This is considered preferrable to the outright
use of TCP for oversized requests, if there is any reason to suspect
that the responder implements EDNS, and if a request will not fit in the
default 512 payload size limit.)
4.5.5. Due to transaction overhead, it is unwise to advertise an
architectural limit as a maximum UDP payload size. Just because your
stack can reassemble 64KB datagrams, don't assume that you want to spend
more than about 4KB of state memory per ongoing transaction.
4.6. The extended RCODE and flags (which OPT stores in the RR TTL field)
are structured as follows:
: +0 (MSB) : +1 (LSB) :
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | EXTENDED-RCODE | VERSION |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | DO| Z |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Expires September 2008 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 March 2008
EXTENDED-RCODE Forms upper 8 bits of extended 12-bit RCODE. Note that
EXTENDED-RCODE value zero (0) indicates that an
unextended RCODE is in use (values zero (0) through
fifteen (15)).
VERSION Indicates the implementation level of whoever sets it.
Full conformance with this specification is indicated by
version zero (0). Requestors are encouraged to set this
to the lowest implemented level capable of expressing a
transaction, to minimize the responder and network load
of discovering the greatest common implementation level
between requestor and responder. A requestor's version
numbering strategy should ideally be a run time
configuration option.
If a responder does not implement the VERSION level of
the request, then it answers with RCODE=BADVERS. All
responses MUST be limited in format to the VERSION level
of the request, but the VERSION of each response MUST be
the highest implementation level of the responder. In
this way a requestor will learn the implementation level
of a responder as a side effect of every response,
including error responses, including RCODE=BADVERS.
DO DNSSEC OK bit [RFC3225].
Z Set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers, unless
modified in a subsequent specification [IANAFLAGS].
5 - Transport Considerations
5.1. The presence of an OPT pseudo-RR in a request is an indication that
the requestor fully implements the given version of EDNS, and can
correctly understand any response that conforms to that feature's
specification.
5.2. Lack of use of these features in a request is an indication that
the requestor does not implement any part of this specification and that
the responder SHOULD NOT use any protocol extension described here in
its response.
5.3. Responders who do not understand these protocol extensions are
expected to send a response with RCODE NOTIMPL, FORMERR, or SERVFAIL, or
to appear to "time out" due to inappropriate action by a "middle box"
such as a NAT, or to ignore extensions and respond only to unextended
Expires September 2008 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 March 2008
protocol elements. Therefore use of extensions SHOULD be "probed" such
that a responder who isn't known to support them be allowed a retry with
no extensions if it responds with such an RCODE, or does not respond.
If a responder's capability level is cached by a requestor, a new probe
SHOULD be sent periodically to test for changes to responder capability.
5.4. If EDNS is used in a request, and the response arrives with TC set
and with no EDNS OPT RR, a requestor should assume that truncation
prevented the OPT RR from being appended by the responder, and further,
that EDNS is not used in the response. Correspondingly, an EDNS
responder who cannot fit all necessary elements (including an OPT RR)
into a response, should respond with a normal (unextended) DNS response,
possibly setting TC if the response will not fit in the unextended
response message's 512-octet size.
6 - Security Considerations
Requestor-side specification of the maximum buffer size may open a new
DNS denial of service attack if responders can be made to send messages
which are too large for intermediate gateways to forward, thus leading
to potential ICMP storms between gateways and responders.
7 - IANA Considerations
IANA has allocated RR type code 41 for OPT.
This document controls the following IANA sub-registries in registry
"DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM PARAMETERS":
"EDNS Extended Label Type"
"EDNS Option Codes"
"EDNS Version Numbers"
"Domain System Response Code"
IANA is advised to re-parent these subregistries to this document.
This document assigns label type 0b01xxxxxx as "EDNS Extended Label
Type." We request that IANA record this assignment.
This document assigns option code 65535 to "Reserved for future
expansion."
This document assigns EDNS Extended RCODE "16" to "BADVERS".
Expires September 2008 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 March 2008
IESG approval is required to create new entries in the EDNS Extended
Label Type or EDNS Version Number registries, while any published RFC
(including Informational, Experimental, or BCP) is grounds for
allocation of an EDNS Option Code.
8 - Acknowledgements
Paul Mockapetris, Mark Andrews, Robert Elz, Don Lewis, Bob Halley,
Donald Eastlake, Rob Austein, Matt Crawford, Randy Bush, Thomas Narten,
Alfred Hoenes and Markku Savela were each instrumental in creating and
refining this specification.
9 - References
[RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification," RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, November 1987.
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119, Harvard University, March
1997.
[RFC2671] P. Vixie, "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)," RFC 2671,
Internet Software Consortium, August 1999.
[RFC3225] D. Conrad, "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC," RFC
3225, Nominum Inc., December 2001.
[IANAFLAGS] IANA, "DNS Header Flags and EDNS Header Flags," web site
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-header-flags, as of
June 2005 or later.
10 - Author's Address
Paul Vixie
Internet Systems Consortium
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
+1 650 423 1301
EMail: vixie@isc.org
Expires September 2008 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT EDNS0 March 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) IETF Trust (2007).
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
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Expires September 2008 [Page 9]

616
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-02.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,616 @@
DNSEXT Working Group M. Graff
Internet-Draft P. Vixie
Obsoletes: 2671 (if approved) Internet Systems Consortium
Intended status: Standards Track July 28, 2009
Expires: January 29, 2010
Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-02
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed
fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
allow requestors to advertise their capabilities to responders. This
document describes backward compatible mechanisms for allowing the
protocol to grow.
This document updates the EDNS0 specification based on 10 years of
operational experience.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. EDNS Support Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Affected Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Message Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Label Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. UDP Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Extended Label Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. OPT pseudo-RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. OPT Record Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. OPT Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. Requestor's Payload Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.4. Responder's Payload Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.5. Payload Size Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.6. Middleware Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.7. Extended RCODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.8. OPT Options Type Allocation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
1. Introduction
DNS [RFC1035] specifies a Message Format and within such messages
there are standard formats for encoding options, errors, and name
compression. The maximum allowable size of a DNS Message is fixed.
Many of DNS's protocol limits are too small for uses which are or
which are desired to become common. There is no way for
implementations to advertise their capabilities.
Unextended agents will not know how to interpret the protocol
extensions detailed here. In practice, these clients will be
upgraded when they have need of a new feature, and only new features
will make use of the extensions. Extended agents must be prepared
for behaviour of unextended clients in the face of new protocol
elements, and fall back gracefully to unextended DNS. [RFC2671]
originally proposed extensions to the basic DNS protocol to overcome
these deficiencies. This memo refines that specification and
obsoletes [RFC2671].
2. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. EDNS Support Requirement
EDNS support is manditory in a modern world. DNSSEC requires EDNS
support, and many other featres are made possible only by EDNS
support to request or advertise them.
4. Affected Protocol Elements
4.1. Message Header
The DNS Message Header's (see , section 4.1.1 [RFC1035]) second full
16-bit word is divided into a 4-bit OPCODE, a 4-bit RCODE, and a
number of 1-bit flags. The original reserved Z bits have been
allocated to various purposes, and most of the RCODE values are now
in use. More flags and more possible RCODEs are needed. The OPT
pseudo-RR specified below contains subfields that carry a bit field
extension of the RCODE field and additional flag bits, respectively.
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
4.2. Label Types
The first two bits of a wire format domain label are used to denote
the type of the label. ,section 4.1.4 [RFC1035] allocates two of the
four possible types and reserves the other two. More label types
were proposed in [RFC2671] section 3.
4.3. UDP Message Size
DNS Messages are limited to 512 octets in size when sent over UDP.
While the minimum maximum reassembly buffer size still allows a limit
of 512 octets of UDP payload, most of the hosts now connected to the
Internet are able to reassemble larger datagrams. Some mechanism
must be created to allow requestors to advertise larger buffer sizes
to responders. To this end, the OPT pseudo-RR specified below
contains a maximum payload size field.
5. Extended Label Types
The first octet in the on-the-wire representation of a DNS label
specifies the label type; the basic DNS specification [RFC1035]
dedicates the two most significant bits of that octet for this
purpose.
This document reserves DNS label type 0b01 for use as an indication
for Extended Label Types. A specific extended label type is selected
by the 6 least significant bits of the first octet. Thus, Extended
Label Types are indicated by the values 64-127 (0b01xxxxxx) in the
first octet of the label.
This document does not describe any specific Extended Label Type.
In practice, Extended Label Types are difficult to use due to support
in clients and intermediate gateways. Therefore, the registry of
Extended Label Types is requested to be closed. They cause
interoperability problems and at present no defined label types are
in use.
6. OPT pseudo-RR
6.1. OPT Record Behavior
One OPT pseudo-RR (RR type 41) MAY be added to the additional data
section of a request. If present in requests, compliant responders
which implement EDNS MUST include an OPT record in non-truncated
responses, and SHOULD attempt to include them in all responses. An
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
OPT is called a pseudo-RR because it pertains to a particular
transport level message and not to any actual DNS data. OPT RRs MUST
NOT be cached, forwarded, or stored in or loaded from master files.
The quantity of OPT pseudo-RRs per message MUST be either zero or
one, but not greater.
6.2. OPT Record Format
An OPT RR has a fixed part and a variable set of options expressed as
{attribute, value} pairs. The fixed part holds some DNS meta data
and also a small collection of basic extension elements which we
expect to be so popular that it would be a waste of wire space to
encode them as {attribute, value} pairs.
The fixed part of an OPT RR is structured as follows:
+------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| Field Name | Field Type | Description |
+------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| NAME | domain name | empty (root domain) |
| TYPE | u_int16_t | OPT |
| CLASS | u_int16_t | requestor's UDP payload size |
| TTL | u_int32_t | extended RCODE and flags |
| RDLEN | u_int16_t | describes RDATA |
| RDATA | octet stream | {attribute,value} pairs |
+------------+--------------+------------------------------+
OPT RR Format
The variable part of an OPT RR is encoded in its RDATA and is
structured as zero or more of the following:
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | OPTION-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4: | |
/ OPTION-DATA /
/ /
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
OPTION-CODE
Assigned by Expert Review.
OPTION-LENGTH
Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA.
OPTION-DATA
Varies per OPTION-CODE.
Order of appearance of option tuples is never relevant. Any option
whose meaning is affected by other options is so affected no matter
which one comes first in the OPT RDATA.
Any OPTION-CODE values not understood by a responder or requestor
MUST be ignored. Specifications of such options might wish to
include some kind of signalled acknowledgement. For example, an
option specification might say that if a responder sees option XYZ,
it SHOULD include option XYZ in its response.
6.3. Requestor's Payload Size
The requestor's UDP payload size (which OPT stores in the RR CLASS
field) is the number of octets of the largest UDP payload that can be
reassembled and delivered in the requestor's network stack. Note
that path MTU, with or without fragmentation, may be smaller than
this. Values lower than 512 MUST be treated as equal to 512.
Note that a 512-octet UDP payload requires a 576-octet IP reassembly
buffer. Choosing 1280 for IPv4 over Ethernet would be reasonable.
The consequence of choosing too large a value may be an ICMP message
from an intermediate gateway, or even a silent drop of the response
message.
The requestor's maximum payload size can change over time, and MUST
therefore not be cached for use beyond the transaction in which it is
advertised.
6.4. Responder's Payload Size
The responder's maximum payload size can change over time, but can be
reasonably expected to remain constant between two sequential
transactions; for example, a meaningless QUERY to discover a
responder's maximum UDP payload size, followed immediately by an
UPDATE which takes advantage of this size. (This is considered
preferrable to the outright use of TCP for oversized requests, if
there is any reason to suspect that the responder implements EDNS,
and if a request will not fit in the default 512 payload size limit.)
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
6.5. Payload Size Selection
Due to transaction overhead, it is unwise to advertise an
architectural limit as a maximum UDP payload size. Just because your
stack can reassemble 64KB datagrams, don't assume that you want to
spend more than about 4KB of state memory per ongoing transaction.
A requestor MAY choose to implement a fallback to smaller advertised
sizes to work around firewall or other network limitations. A
requestor SHOULD choose to use a fallback mechanism which begins with
a large size, such as 4096. If that fails, a fallback around the
1220 byte range SHOULD be tried, as it has a reasonable chance to fit
within a single Ethernet frame. Failing that, a requestor MAY choose
a 512 byte packet, which with large answers may cause a TCP retry.
6.6. Middleware Boxes
Middleware boxes MUST NOT limit DNS messages over UDP to 512 bytes.
Middleware boxes which simply forward requests to a recursive
resolver MUST NOT modify the OPT record contents in either direction.
6.7. Extended RCODE
The extended RCODE and flags (which OPT stores in the RR TTL field)
are structured as follows:
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | EXTENDED-RCODE | VERSION |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | DO| Z |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
EXTENDED-RCODE
Forms upper 8 bits of extended 12-bit RCODE. Note that
EXTENDED-RCODE value "0" indicates that an unextended RCODE is
in use (values "0" through "15").
VERSION
Indicates the implementation level of whoever sets it. Full
conformance with this specification is indicated by version
``0.'' Requestors are encouraged to set this to the lowest
implemented level capable of expressing a transaction, to
minimize the responder and network load of discovering the
greatest common implementation level between requestor and
responder. A requestor's version numbering strategy MAY
ideally be a run time configuration option.
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
If a responder does not implement the VERSION level of the
request, then it answers with RCODE=BADVERS. All responses
MUST be limited in format to the VERSION level of the request,
but the VERSION of each response SHOULD be the highest
implementation level of the responder. In this way a requestor
will learn the implementation level of a responder as a side
effect of every response, including error responses and
including RCODE=BADVERS.
DO
DNSSEC OK bit as defined by [RFC3225].
Z
Set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers, unless
modified in a subsequent specification.
6.8. OPT Options Type Allocation Procedure
Allocations assigned by expert review. TBD
7. Transport Considerations
The presence of an OPT pseudo-RR in a request should be taken as an
indication that the requestor fully implements the given version of
EDNS, and can correctly understand any response that conforms to that
feature's specification.
Lack of presence of an OPT record in a request MUST be taken as an
indication that the requestor does not implement any part of this
specification and that the responder MUST NOT use any protocol
extension described here in its response.
Responders who do not implement these protocol extensions MUST
respond with FORMERR messages without any OPT record.
If there is a problem with processing the OPT record itself, such as
an option value that is badly formatted or includes out of range
values, a FORMERR MAY be retured. If this occurs the response MUST
include an OPT record. This MAY be used to distinguish between
servers whcih do not implement EDNS and format errors within EDNS.
If EDNS is used in a request, and the response arrives with TC set
and with no EDNS OPT RR, a requestor SHOULD assume that truncation
prevented the OPT RR from being appended by the responder, and
further, that EDNS is not used in the response. Correspondingly, an
EDNS responder who cannot fit all necessary elements (including an
OPT RR) into a response, SHOULD respond with a normal (unextended)
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
DNS response, possibly setting TC if the response will not fit in the
unextended response message's 512-octet size.
8. Security Considerations
Requestor-side specification of the maximum buffer size may open a
new DNS denial of service attack if responders can be made to send
messages which are too large for intermediate gateways to forward,
thus leading to potential ICMP storms between gateways and
responders.
Announcing very large UDP buffer sizes may result in dropping by
firewalls. This could cause retransmissions with no hope of success.
Some devices reject fragmented UDP packets.
Announcing too small UDP buffer sizes may result in fallback to TCP.
This is especially important with DNSSEC, where answers are much
larger.
9. IANA Considerations
The IANA has assigned RR type code 41 for OPT.
[RFC2671] specified a number of IANA sub-registries within "DOMAIN
NAME SYSTEM PARAMETERS:" "EDNS Extended Label Type", "EDNS Option
Codes", "EDNS Version Numbers", and "Domain System Response Code."
IANA is advised to re-parent these subregistries to this document.
RFC 2671 created an extended label type registry. We request that
this registry be closed.
This document assigns extended label type 0bxx111111 as "Reserved for
future extended label types." We request that IANA record this
assignment.
This document assigns option code 65535 to "Reserved for future
expansion."
This document expands the RCODE space from 4 bits to 12 bits. This
will allow IANA to assign more than the 16 distinct RCODE values
allowed in RFC 1035 [RFC1035].
This document assigns EDNS Extended RCODE "16" to "BADVERS".
IESG approval should be required to create new entries in the EDNS
Extended Label Type or EDNS Version Number registries, while any
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
published RFC (including Informational, Experimental, or BCP) should
be grounds for allocation of an EDNS Option Code.
10. Acknowledgements
Paul Mockapetris, Mark Andrews, Robert Elz, Don Lewis, Bob Halley,
Donald Eastlake, Rob Austein, Matt Crawford, Randy Bush, and Thomas
Narten were each instrumental in creating and refining this
specification.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, August 1999.
[RFC3225] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC",
RFC 3225, December 2001.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Graff
Internet Systems Consortium
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, California 94063
US
Phone: +1 650.423.1304
Email: mgraff@isc.org
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EDNS0 Extensions July 2009
Paul Vixie
Internet Systems Consortium
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, California 94063
US
Phone: +1 650.423.1301
Email: vixie@isc.org
Graff & Vixie Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 11]