641 lines
25 KiB
Plaintext
641 lines
25 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
DNSOP Working Group Paul Vixie, ISC
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT Akira Kato, WIDE
|
||
<draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-06.txt> August 2006
|
||
|
||
DNS Referral Response Size Issues
|
||
|
||
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 Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
With a mandated default minimum maximum message size of 512 octets,
|
||
the DNS protocol presents some special problems for zones wishing to
|
||
expose a moderate or high number of authority servers (NS RRs). This
|
||
document explains the operational issues caused by, or related to
|
||
this response size limit, and suggests ways to optimize the use of
|
||
this limited space. Guidance is offered to DNS server implementors
|
||
and to DNS zone operators.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 1]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 - Introduction and Overview
|
||
|
||
1.1. The DNS standard (see [RFC1035 4.2.1]) limits message size to 512
|
||
octets. Even though this limitation was due to the required minimum IP
|
||
reassembly limit for IPv4, it became a hard DNS protocol limit and is
|
||
not implicitly relaxed by changes in transport, for example to IPv6.
|
||
|
||
1.2. The EDNS0 protocol extension (see [RFC2671 2.3, 4.5]) permits
|
||
larger responses by mutual agreement of the requester and responder.
|
||
The 512 octet message size limit will remain in practical effect until
|
||
there is widespread deployment of EDNS0 in DNS resolvers on the
|
||
Internet.
|
||
|
||
1.3. Since DNS responses include a copy of the request, the space
|
||
available for response data is somewhat less than the full 512 octets.
|
||
Negative responses are quite small, but for positive and delegation
|
||
responses, every octet must be carefully and sparingly allocated. This
|
||
document specifically addresses delegation response sizes.
|
||
|
||
2 - Delegation Details
|
||
|
||
2.1. RELEVANT PROTOCOL ELEMENTS
|
||
|
||
2.1.1. A delegation response will include the following elements:
|
||
|
||
Header Section: fixed length (12 octets)
|
||
Question Section: original query (name, class, type)
|
||
Answer Section: empty, or a CNAME/DNAME chain
|
||
Authority Section: NS RRset (nameserver names)
|
||
Additional Section: A and AAAA RRsets (nameserver addresses)
|
||
|
||
2.1.2. If the total response size exceeds 512 octets, and if the data
|
||
that does not fit was "required", then the TC bit will be set
|
||
(indicating truncation). This will usually cause the requester to retry
|
||
using TCP, depending on what information was desired and what
|
||
information was omitted. For example, truncation in the authority
|
||
section is of no interest to a stub resolver who only plans to consume
|
||
the answer section. If a retry using TCP is needed, the total cost of
|
||
the transaction is much higher. See [RFC1123 6.1.3.2] for details on
|
||
the requirement that UDP be attempted before falling back to TCP.
|
||
|
||
2.1.3. RRsets are never sent partially unless TC bit set to indicate
|
||
truncation. When TC bit is set, the final apparent RRset in the final
|
||
non-empty section must be considered "possibly damaged" (see [RFC1035
|
||
6.2], [RFC2181 9]).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 2]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
2.1.4. With or without truncation, the glue present in the additional
|
||
data section should be considered "possibly incomplete", and requesters
|
||
should be prepared to re-query for any damaged or missing RRsets. Note
|
||
that truncation of the additional data section might not be signalled
|
||
via the TC bit since additional data is often optional (see discussion
|
||
in [RFC4472 B]).
|
||
|
||
2.1.5. DNS label compression allows a domain name to be instantiated
|
||
only once per DNS message, and then referenced with a two-octet
|
||
"pointer" from other locations in that same DNS message (see [RFC1035
|
||
4.1.4]). If all nameserver names in a message share a common parent
|
||
(for example, all ending in ".ROOT-SERVERS.NET"), then more space will
|
||
be available for incompressable data (such as nameserver addresses).
|
||
|
||
2.1.6. The query name can be as long as 255 octets of network data. In
|
||
this worst case scenario, the question section will be 259 octets in
|
||
size, which would leave only 240 octets for the authority and additional
|
||
sections (after deducting 12 octets for the fixed length header.)
|
||
|
||
2.2. ADVICE TO ZONE OWNERS
|
||
|
||
2.2.1. Average and maximum question section sizes can be predicted by
|
||
the zone owner, since they will know what names actually exist, and can
|
||
measure which ones are queried for most often. Note that if the zone
|
||
contains any wildcards, it is possible for maximum length queries to
|
||
require positive responses, but that it is reasonable to expect
|
||
truncation and TCP retry in that case. For cost and performance
|
||
reasons, the majority of requests should be satisfied without truncation
|
||
or TCP retry.
|
||
|
||
2.2.2. Some queries to non-existing names can be large, but this is not
|
||
a problem because negative responses need not contain any answer,
|
||
authority or additional records. See [RFC2308 2.1] for more information
|
||
about the format of negative responses.
|
||
|
||
2.2.3. The minimum useful number of name servers is two, for redundancy
|
||
(see [RFC1034 4.1]). A zone's name servers should be reachable by all
|
||
IP transport protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.
|
||
|
||
2.2.4. The best case is no truncation at all. This is because many
|
||
requesters will retry using TCP immediately, or will automatically re-
|
||
query for RRsets that are possibly truncated, without considering
|
||
whether the omitted data was actually necessary.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 3]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
2.3. ADVICE TO SERVER IMPLEMENTORS
|
||
|
||
2.3.1. In case of multi-homed name servers, it is advantageous to
|
||
include an address record from each of several name servers before
|
||
including several address records for any one name server. If address
|
||
records for more than one transport (for example, A and AAAA) are
|
||
available, then it is advantageous to include records of both types
|
||
early on, before the message is full.
|
||
|
||
2.3.2. Each added NS RR for a zone will add 12 fixed octets (name, type,
|
||
class, ttl, and rdlen) plus 2 to 255 variable octets (for the NSDNAME).
|
||
Each A RR will require 16 octets, and each AAAA RR will require 28
|
||
octets.
|
||
|
||
2.3.3. While DNS distinguishes between necessary and optional resource
|
||
records, this distinction is according to protocol elements necessary to
|
||
signify facts, and takes no official notice of protocol content
|
||
necessary to ensure correct operation. For example, a nameserver name
|
||
that is in or below the zone cut being described by a delegation is
|
||
"necessary content," since there is no way to reach that zone unless the
|
||
parent zone's delegation includes "glue records" describing that name
|
||
server's addresses.
|
||
|
||
2.3.4. It is also necessary to distinguish between "explicit truncation"
|
||
where a message could not contain enough records to convey its intended
|
||
meaning, and so the TC bit has been set, and "silent truncation", where
|
||
the message was not large enough to contain some records which were "not
|
||
required", and so the TC bit was not set.
|
||
|
||
2.3.5. A delegation response should prioritize glue records as follows.
|
||
|
||
first
|
||
All glue RRsets for one name server whose name is in or below the
|
||
zone being delegated, or which has multiple address RRsets (currently
|
||
A and AAAA), or preferably both;
|
||
|
||
second
|
||
Alternate between adding all glue RRsets for any name servers whose
|
||
names are in or below the zone being delegated, and all glue RRsets
|
||
for any name servers who have multiple address RRsets (currently A
|
||
and AAAA);
|
||
|
||
thence
|
||
All other glue RRsets, in any order.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 4]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
Whenever there are multiple candidates for a position in this priority
|
||
scheme, one should be chosen on a round-robin or fully random basis.
|
||
|
||
The goal of this priority scheme is to offer "necessary" glue first,
|
||
avoiding silent truncation for this glue if possible.
|
||
|
||
2.3.6. If any "necessary content" is silently truncated, then it is
|
||
advisable that the TC bit be set in order to force a TCP retry, rather
|
||
than have the zone be unreachable. Note that a parent server's proper
|
||
response to a query for in-child glue or below-child glue is a referral
|
||
rather than an answer, and that this referral MUST be able to contain
|
||
the in-child or below-child glue, and that in outlying cases, only EDNS
|
||
or TCP will be large enough to contain that data.
|
||
|
||
3 - Analysis
|
||
|
||
3.1. An instrumented protocol trace of a best case delegation response
|
||
follows. Note that 13 servers are named, and 13 addresses are given.
|
||
This query was artificially designed to exactly reach the 512 octet
|
||
limit.
|
||
|
||
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANS: 0, AUTH: 13, ADDIT: 13
|
||
;; QUERY SECTION:
|
||
;; [23456789.123456789.123456789.\
|
||
123456789.123456789.123456789.com A IN] ;; @80
|
||
|
||
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
|
||
com. 86400 NS E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @112
|
||
com. 86400 NS F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @128
|
||
com. 86400 NS G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @144
|
||
com. 86400 NS H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @160
|
||
com. 86400 NS I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @176
|
||
com. 86400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @192
|
||
com. 86400 NS K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @208
|
||
com. 86400 NS L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @224
|
||
com. 86400 NS M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @240
|
||
com. 86400 NS A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @256
|
||
com. 86400 NS B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @272
|
||
com. 86400 NS C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @288
|
||
com. 86400 NS D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @304
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 5]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
|
||
A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.5.6.30 ;; @320
|
||
B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.33.14.30 ;; @336
|
||
C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.26.92.30 ;; @352
|
||
D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.31.80.30 ;; @368
|
||
E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.12.94.30 ;; @384
|
||
F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.35.51.30 ;; @400
|
||
G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.42.93.30 ;; @416
|
||
H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.54.112.30 ;; @432
|
||
I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.43.172.30 ;; @448
|
||
J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.48.79.30 ;; @464
|
||
K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.52.178.30 ;; @480
|
||
L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.41.162.30 ;; @496
|
||
M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.55.83.30 ;; @512
|
||
|
||
;; MSG SIZE sent: 80 rcvd: 512
|
||
|
||
3.2. For longer query names, the number of address records supplied will
|
||
be lower. Furthermore, it is only by using a common parent name (which
|
||
is GTLD-SERVERS.NET in this example) that all 13 addresses are able to
|
||
fit, due to the use of DNS compression pointers in the last 12
|
||
occurances of the parent domain name. The following output from a
|
||
response simulator demonstrates these properties.
|
||
|
||
% perl respsize.pl a.dns.br b.dns.br c.dns.br d.dns.br
|
||
a.dns.br requires 10 bytes
|
||
b.dns.br requires 4 bytes
|
||
c.dns.br requires 4 bytes
|
||
d.dns.br requires 4 bytes
|
||
# of NS: 4
|
||
For maximum size query (255 byte):
|
||
only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
|
||
A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow)
|
||
preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 3 (yellow)
|
||
For average size query (64 byte):
|
||
only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
|
||
A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 4 (green)
|
||
preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 6]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
% perl respsize.pl ns-ext.isc.org ns.psg.com ns.ripe.net ns.eu.int
|
||
ns-ext.isc.org requires 16 bytes
|
||
ns.psg.com requires 12 bytes
|
||
ns.ripe.net requires 13 bytes
|
||
ns.eu.int requires 11 bytes
|
||
# of NS: 4
|
||
For maximum size query (255 byte):
|
||
only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
|
||
A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow)
|
||
preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 2 (yellow)
|
||
For average size query (64 byte):
|
||
only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
|
||
A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 4 (green)
|
||
preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green)
|
||
|
||
(Note: The response simulator program is shown in Section 5.)
|
||
|
||
Here we use the term "green" if all address records could fit, or
|
||
"yellow" if two or more could fit, or "orange" if only one could fit, or
|
||
"red" if no address record could fit. It's clear that without a common
|
||
parent for nameserver names, much space would be lost. For these
|
||
examples we use an average/common name size of 15 octets, befitting our
|
||
assumption of GTLD-SERVERS.NET as our common parent name.
|
||
|
||
We're assuming a medium query name size of 64 since that is the typical
|
||
size seen in trace data at the time of this writing. If
|
||
Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) or any other technology which
|
||
results in larger query names be deployed significantly in advance of
|
||
EDNS, then new measurements and new estimates will have to be made.
|
||
|
||
4 - Conclusions
|
||
|
||
4.1. The current practice of giving all nameserver names a common parent
|
||
(such as GTLD-SERVERS.NET or ROOT-SERVERS.NET) saves space in DNS
|
||
responses and allows for more nameservers to be enumerated than would
|
||
otherwise be possible, since the common parent domain name only appears
|
||
once in a DNS message and is referred to via "compression pointers"
|
||
thereafter.
|
||
|
||
4.2. If all nameserver names for a zone share a common parent, then it
|
||
is operationally advisable to make all servers for the zone thus served
|
||
also be authoritative for the zone of that common parent. For example,
|
||
the root name servers (?.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) can answer authoritatively
|
||
for the ROOT-SERVERS.NET. This is to ensure that the zone's servers
|
||
always have the zone's nameservers' glue available when delegating, and
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 7]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
will be able to respond with answers rather than referrals if a
|
||
requester who wants that glue comes back asking for it. In this case
|
||
the name server will likely be a "stealth server" -- authoritative but
|
||
unadvertised in the glue zone's NS RRset. See [RFC1996 2] for more
|
||
information about stealth servers.
|
||
|
||
4.3. Thirteen (13) is the effective maximum number of nameserver names
|
||
usable traditional (non-extended) DNS, assuming a common parent domain
|
||
name, and given that implicit referral response truncation is
|
||
undesirable in the average case.
|
||
|
||
4.4. Multi-homing of name servers within a protocol family is
|
||
inadvisable since the necessary glue RRsets (A or AAAA) are atomically
|
||
indivisible, and will be larger than a single resource record. Larger
|
||
RRsets are more likely to lead to or encounter truncation.
|
||
|
||
4.5. Multi-homing of name servers across protocol families is less
|
||
likely to lead to or encounter truncation, partly because multiprotocol
|
||
clients are more likely to speak EDNS which can use a larger response
|
||
size limit, and partly because the resource records (A and AAAA) are in
|
||
different RRsets and are therefore divisible from each other.
|
||
|
||
4.6. Name server names which are at or below the zone they serve are
|
||
more sensitive to referral response truncation, and glue records for
|
||
them should be considered "less optional" than other glue records, in
|
||
the assembly of referral responses.
|
||
|
||
4.7. If a zone is served by thirteen (13) name servers having a common
|
||
parent name (such as ?.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) and each such name server has a
|
||
single address record in some protocol family (e.g., an A RR), then all
|
||
thirteen name servers or any subset thereof could multi-home in a second
|
||
protocol family by adding a second address record (e.g., an AAAA RR)
|
||
without reducing the reachability of the zone thus served.
|
||
|
||
5 - Source Code
|
||
|
||
#!/usr/bin/perl
|
||
#
|
||
# SYNOPSIS
|
||
# repsize.pl [ -z zone ] fqdn_ns1 fqdn_ns2 ...
|
||
# if all queries are assumed to have a same zone suffix,
|
||
# such as "jp" in JP TLD servers, specify it in -z option
|
||
#
|
||
use strict;
|
||
use Getopt::Std;
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 8]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
my ($sz_msg) = (512);
|
||
my ($sz_header, $sz_ptr, $sz_rr_a, $sz_rr_aaaa) = (12, 2, 16, 28);
|
||
my ($sz_type, $sz_class, $sz_ttl, $sz_rdlen) = (2, 2, 4, 2);
|
||
my (%namedb, $name, $nssect, %opts, $optz);
|
||
my $n_ns = 0;
|
||
|
||
getopt('z', %opts);
|
||
if (defined($opts{'z'})) {
|
||
server_name_len($opts{'z'}); # just register it
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
foreach $name (@ARGV) {
|
||
my $len;
|
||
$n_ns++;
|
||
$len = server_name_len($name);
|
||
print "$name requires $len bytes\n";
|
||
$nssect += $sz_ptr + $sz_type + $sz_class + $sz_ttl
|
||
+ $sz_rdlen + $len;
|
||
}
|
||
print "# of NS: $n_ns\n";
|
||
arsect(255, $nssect, $n_ns, "maximum");
|
||
arsect(64, $nssect, $n_ns, "average");
|
||
|
||
sub server_name_len {
|
||
my ($name) = @_;
|
||
my (@labels, $len, $n, $suffix);
|
||
|
||
$name =~ tr/A-Z/a-z/;
|
||
@labels = split(/\./, $name);
|
||
$len = length(join('.', @labels)) + 2;
|
||
for ($n = 0; $#labels >= 0; $n++, shift @labels) {
|
||
$suffix = join('.', @labels);
|
||
return length($name) - length($suffix) + $sz_ptr
|
||
if (defined($namedb{$suffix}));
|
||
$namedb{$suffix} = 1;
|
||
}
|
||
return $len;
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
sub arsect {
|
||
my ($sz_query, $nssect, $n_ns, $cond) = @_;
|
||
my ($space, $n_a, $n_a_aaaa, $n_p_aaaa, $ansect);
|
||
$ansect = $sz_query + 1 + $sz_type + $sz_class;
|
||
$space = $sz_msg - $sz_header - $ansect - $nssect;
|
||
$n_a = atmost(int($space / $sz_rr_a), $n_ns);
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 9]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
$n_a_aaaa = atmost(int($space
|
||
/ ($sz_rr_a + $sz_rr_aaaa)), $n_ns);
|
||
$n_p_aaaa = atmost(int(($space - $sz_rr_a * $n_ns)
|
||
/ $sz_rr_aaaa), $n_ns);
|
||
printf "For %s size query (%d byte):\n", $cond, $sz_query;
|
||
printf " only A is considered: ";
|
||
printf "# of A is %d (%s)\n", $n_a, &judge($n_a, $n_ns);
|
||
printf " A and AAAA are considered: ";
|
||
printf "# of A+AAAA is %d (%s)\n",
|
||
$n_a_aaaa, &judge($n_a_aaaa, $n_ns);
|
||
printf " preferred-glue A is assumed: ";
|
||
printf "# of A is %d, # of AAAA is %d (%s)\n",
|
||
$n_a, $n_p_aaaa, &judge($n_p_aaaa, $n_ns);
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
sub judge {
|
||
my ($n, $n_ns) = @_;
|
||
return "green" if ($n >= $n_ns);
|
||
return "yellow" if ($n >= 2);
|
||
return "orange" if ($n == 1);
|
||
return "red";
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
sub atmost {
|
||
my ($a, $b) = @_;
|
||
return 0 if ($a < 0);
|
||
return $b if ($a > $b);
|
||
return $a;
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
6 - Security Considerations
|
||
|
||
The recommendations contained in this document have no known security
|
||
implications.
|
||
|
||
7 - IANA Considerations
|
||
|
||
This document does not call for changes or additions to any IANA
|
||
registry.
|
||
|
||
8 - Acknowledgement
|
||
|
||
The authors thank Peter Koch, Rob Austein, Joe Abley, and Mark Andrews
|
||
for their valuable comments and suggestions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 10]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation (research
|
||
grant SCI-0427144) and DNS-OARC.
|
||
|
||
9 - References
|
||
|
||
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P.V., "Domain names - Concepts and Facilities",
|
||
RFC1034, November 1987.
|
||
|
||
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P.V., "Domain names - Implementation and
|
||
Specification", RFC1035, November 1987.
|
||
|
||
[RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
|
||
Application and Support", RFC1123, October 1989.
|
||
|
||
[RFC1996] Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
|
||
Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC1996, August 1996.
|
||
|
||
[RFC2181] Elz, R., Bush, R., "Clarifications to the DNS Specification",
|
||
RFC2181, July 1997.
|
||
|
||
[RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)",
|
||
RFC2308, March 1998.
|
||
|
||
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC2671,
|
||
August 1999.
|
||
|
||
[RFC4472] Durand, A., Ihren, J., Savola, P., "Operational Consideration
|
||
and Issues with IPV6 DNS", April 2006.
|
||
|
||
10 - Authors' Addresses
|
||
|
||
Paul Vixie
|
||
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
|
||
950 Charter Street
|
||
Redwood City, CA 94063
|
||
+1 650 423 1301
|
||
vixie@isc.org
|
||
|
||
Akira Kato
|
||
University of Tokyo, Information Technology Center
|
||
2-11-16 Yayoi Bunkyo
|
||
Tokyo 113-8658, JAPAN
|
||
+81 3 5841 2750
|
||
kato@wide.ad.jp
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expires January 2007 [Page 11]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
|
||
|
||
|
||
Full Copyright Statement
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
|
||
|
||
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
|
||
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain
|
||
all their rights.
|
||
|
||
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
|
||
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR
|
||
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY 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 January 2007 [Page 12]
|
||
|
||
|