upstream/bind9
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/isc-projects/bind9.git synced 2026-06-10 21:20:00 -04:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 2

added draft-ietf-dnsext-message-size-00.txt;

Browse source 
updated draft-ietf-dnsext-iana-dns* from -00 to -01
This commit is contained in:
Andreas Gustafsson 2000-07-07 23:24:06 +00:00
parent 722cac3cdc
commit 5178281071
2 changed files with 506 additions and 167 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

391
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-iana-dns-00.txt → doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-iana-dns-01.txt
View file

@ -1,23 +1,22 @@
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Eric Brunner
Bill Manning
Expires: June 2000 February 2000
Expires: December 2000 June 2000
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
------ ---- ------ ----- ---- --------------
<draft-ietf-dnsext-iana-dns-01.txt>
Status of This Document
Distribution of this draft <draft-ietf-dnsext-iana-dns-00.txt>, which
is intended to become a Best Current Practice, is unlimited. Comments
should be sent to the DNS Working Group mailing list
<namedroppers@internic.net> or to the authors.
Distribution of this draft, which is intended to become a Best
Current Practice, is unlimited. Comments should be sent to the DNS
Working Group mailing list <namedroppers@internic.net> or to the
authors.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
@ -25,11 +24,10 @@ Status of This Document
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. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
``working draft'' or ``work in progress.''
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
@ -54,10 +52,11 @@ Abstract
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
Table of Contents
@ -72,17 +71,17 @@ Table of Contents
2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4
2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4
2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5
3. DNS Resource Records....................................5
3. DNS Resource Records....................................6
3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations............................7
3.1.1 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................8
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations...........................8
3.3 RR NAME Considerations.................................9
4. Designated Expert......................................10
5. Security Considerations................................10
References................................................10
4. Security Considerations................................10
Authors Addresses.........................................12
Expiration and File Name..................................12
References................................................11
Authors Addresses.........................................13
Expiration and File Name..................................13
@ -115,7 +114,7 @@ Table of Contents
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
1. Introduction
@ -136,8 +135,8 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been
defined.
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters at
<http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/dns-parameters>.
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See
<http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>.
"IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required",
and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC 2434].
@ -173,7 +172,7 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.
@ -231,7 +230,7 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
2.3 RCODE Assignment
@ -239,34 +238,43 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of
RCODE, or response/error code are available. However, RCODEs can
appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside
TSIG RRs [RFC XXX3] and OPT RRs [RFC 2671]. The OPT RR provides an
eight bit extension resulting in a 12 bit RCODE field and the TSIG RR
has a 16 bit RCODE field.
OPT RRs [RFC 2671], TSIG RRs [RFC 2845], and TKEY RRs [draft-ietf-
dnsext-tkey-*.txt]. The OPT RR provides an eight bit extension
resulting in a 12 bit RCODE field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16
bit RCODE field.
RCODE Name Description Reference
Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types
all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of
error code 16 which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its
meaning in other contexts. See table below.
RCODE Name Description Reference
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0 NoError No Error [RFC 1035]
1 FormErr Format Error [RFC 1035]
2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC 1035]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC 1035]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC 1035]
5 Refused Query Refused [RFC 1035]
6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC 2136]
7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC 2136]
8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC 2136]
9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC 2136]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC 2136]
11-15 available for assignment
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC 2671]
16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC XXX3]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC XXX3]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC XXX3]
19-3840 available for assignment
0x0013-0x0F00
3841-4095 Private Use
0 NoError No Error [RFC 1035]
1 FormErr Format Error [RFC 1035]
2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC 1035]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC 1035]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC 1035]
5 Refused Query Refused [RFC 1035]
6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC 2136]
7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC 2136]
8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC 2136]
9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC 2136]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC 2136]
11-15 available for assignment
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC 2671]
16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC 2845]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC 2845]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC 2845]
19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-*.txt]
20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-*.txt]
21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-*.txt]
22-3840 available for assignment
0x0016-0x0F00
3841-4095 Private Use
0x0F01-0x0FFF
4096-65535 available for assignment
4096-65535 available for assignment
0x1000-0xFFFF
Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
@ -275,23 +283,19 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
3. DNS Resource Records
All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below
taken from [RFC 1035]:
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
3. DNS Resource Records
All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below
taken from [RFC 1035]:
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
@ -339,15 +343,10 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations
@ -366,7 +365,7 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
TYPE.
There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC 2671], TSIG
[RFC XXX3], and TKEY [work in progress].
[RFC 2845], and TKEY [draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-*.txt].
There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (all), MAILA, MAILB,
AXFR, and IXFR.
@ -405,7 +404,7 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
3.1.1 Special Note on the OPT RR
@ -448,10 +447,10 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
0x0002 - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS.
3
0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon 81].
0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon 1981].
4
0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 87].
0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 1987].
5 - 127
0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as data
@ -463,7 +462,7 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
128 - 253
@ -501,37 +500,34 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to
data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to
shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. The two existing data label
types are frequently referred to as ASCII and Binary. ASCII labels
can, in fact, include any octet value including zero octets but most
current uses involve only [US-ASCII] For retrieval ASCII labels are
defined to treat upper and lower case letters the same. Binary
labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673].
types are sometimes referred to as Text and Binary. Text labels can,
in fact, include any octet value including zero octets but most
current uses involve only [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are
defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching.
Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673].
IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC 2671].
NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer 87] and Chaos [Moon 81]
CLASSes are essentially for local use. The IN or Internet CLASS is
thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at this time.
NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer 1987] and Chaos [Moon
1981] CLASSes are essentially for local use. The IN or Internet
CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at
this time.
A somewhat dated description of name allocation in the IN Class is
given in [RFC 1591]. Some information on reserved top level domain
names is in Best Current Practice 32 [RFC 2606].
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
4. Designated Expert
To provide additional support to IANA in the DNS area, the IESG MAY
appoint a designed expert.
names is in Best Current Practice 32 [RFC 2606].
5. Security Considerations
4. Security Considerations
This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of
general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC 2535] for secure DNS
@ -539,12 +535,58 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
References
[Dyer 87] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
Plan - Name Service, April 1987,
[Dyer 1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena
Technical Plan - Name Service, April 1987,
[Moon 81] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
[Moon 1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June
1981.
@ -575,106 +617,63 @@ References
[RFC 2606] - D. Eastlake, A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names",
June 1999.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
[RFC 2671] - P. Vixie, "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", August
1999.
[RFC 2672] - M. Crawford, " Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection",
August 1999.
[RFC 2672] - M. Crawford, "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection", August
1999.
[RFC 2673] - M. Crawford, "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
August 1999.
[RFC XXX3] - P. Vixie, O. Gudmundsson, D. Eastlake, B. Wellington,
"Secret Key Transaction Signatures for DNS (TSIG)", xxx 2000 (draft-
ietf-dnsind-tsig-*.txt).
[US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information
Interchange", X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York,
1968.
[RFC 2845] - P. Vixie, O. Gudmundsson, D. Eastlake, B. Wellington,
"Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", May 2000.
[draft-ietf-dnsext-tkey-*.txt] - D. Eastlake, "Secret Key
Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)", xxx 2000.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations February 2000
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
[US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968.
Authors Addresses
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola
65 Shindegan Hill Road
Carmel, NY 10512 USA
Telephone: +1-914-276-2668 (h)
+1-508-261-5434 (w)
email: dee3@torque.pothole.com
Eric Brunner
1415 Forest Avenue
Portland, ME 04103 USA
Telephone: +1 207-797-0525
email: brunner@world.std.com
Bill Manning
USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way, #1001
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
Telephone: +1 310 822 1511
email: bmanning@isi.edu
Expiration and File Name
This draft expires August 2000.
Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-iana-dns-00.txt.
@ -694,3 +693,61 @@ Expiration and File Name
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations June 2000
Authors Addresses
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola
140 Forest Avenue
Hudson, MA 01749 USA
Telephone: +1-978-562-2827 (h)
+1-508-261-5434 (w)
fax: +1-508-261-4447 (w)
email: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
Eric Brunner
Engage Technologies
100 Brickstone Square, 2nd Floor
Andover, MA 01810
Telephone: +1-978-684-7796 (voice)
+1-978-684-3636 (fax)
email: brunner@engage.com
Bill Manning
USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way, #1001
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
Telephone: +1 310 822 1511
email: bmanning@isi.edu
Expiration and File Name
This draft expires December 2000.
Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-iana-dns-02.txt.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 13]

282
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-message-size-00.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
DNSEXT Working Group Olafur Gudmundsson (NAI Labs)
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
<draft-ietf-dnsext-message-size-00.txt>
Updates: RFC 2535
DNSSEC and IPv6 A6 aware server/resolver message size requirements
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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
Comments should be sent to the authors or the DNSEXT WG mailing list
namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
This draft expires on December 29, 2000.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All rights reserved.
Expires December 2000 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNSSEC and IPng message size requirement June 2000
Abstract
This document mandates support for EDNS0 in DNS entities claiming to
support DNS Security Extensions and A6 records. This requirement is
necessary because these new features increase the size of DNS
messages. If EDNS0 is not supported fallback to TCP will happen,
having a detrimental impact on query latency and DNS server load.
1 - Introduction
Familiarity with the DNS [RFC1034, RFC1035], DNS Security Extensions
[RFC2535], EDNS0[RFC2671] and A6 [RFCA6] is helpful.
RFC 1035[RFC1035] Section 2.3.4 requires that DNS messages over UDP
have a data payload of 512 octets or less. Most DNS software today
will not accept larger size UDP datagrams. Thus, any answer that
requires more than 512 octets will result in a partial and probably
useless reply with the Truncation Bit set; in most cases the
requester will then retry using TCP. Some DNS servers send back an
answer truncating the message at the last RR boundary before
truncation, other servers truncate at the previous set, some send
back empty answer with TC bit set.
Compared to UDP, TCP is an expensive protocol to use for a simple
transaction like DNS: a TCP connection requires 5 packets for setup
and teardown, excluding data packets, thus requiring at least 3
round trips on top of the one for the original UDP query. The DNS
server also needs to keep a state of the connection during this
transaction. As many DNS servers answer thousands of queries per
second, requiring them to use TCP will cause significant overhead and
delays.
DNSSEC[RFC2535] secures DNS by adding a Public Key signature on each
RR set. These signatures range in size from about 80 octets to 800
octets most are going to be in the range of 80..200 octets. The
addition of these signatures on each or most RR sets in an answer
will significantly increase the size of DNS answers from secure
zones.
TSIG[RFC2845] allows for the light weight authentication of DNS
messages, but increases the size of the messages by at least 70
octets. DNSSEC allows for computationally expensive message
authentication with a standard public key signature. As only one TSIG
or SIG(0) can be attached to each DNS answer the size increase of
Expires December 2000 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNSSEC and IPng message size requirement June 2000
message authentication is not significant.
IPv6 addresses[A6] are 128 bits and are represented in the DNS by
multiple A6 records, each consisting of a domain name and a bit
field. The domain name refers to an address prefix that may require
additional A6 RRs to be included in the answer. Answers where
queried name has multiple A6 addresses may overflow a 512-octet UDP
packet size.
The current number of root servers is limited to 13 as that is the
maximum number of name servers and their address records that fit in
one 512-octet DNS message. If root servers start advertising A6 or
KEY records then the root zone answer for NS records will not fit in
an single 512-octet DNS message. Resulting in a large number of TCP
connections to the root servers.
Given all these factors, it is essential that any implementations
that supports DNSSEC and or A6 be able to use larger DNS messages
than 512 octets.
EDNS0[RFC2671] allows clients to declare the maximum size of UDP
message they are willing to handle. Thus, if the expected answer is
between 512 octets and the maximum size that the client can accept,
the additional overhead of a TCP connection can be avoided.
1.2 - Requirements
The key words "MUST", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
2 - Protocol changes:
This document updates [RFC2535] and [A6].
All RFC2535-compliant servers and resolvers MUST support EDNS0 and
advertise message size of at least 1280 octets.
All [A6] compliant servers and resolver MUST support EDNS0 and
advertise message size of at least 1280 octets.
Expires December 2000 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNSSEC and IPng message size requirement June 2000
3 Acknowledgments
Harald Alvestrand, Rob Austein, Randy Bush, David Conrad, Andreas
Gustafsson, Bob Halley and Edward Lewis where instrumental in
motivating and shaping this document.
4 - Security Considerations:
There are no additional security considerations other than those in
RFC2671.
5 - IANA Considerations:
None
References:
[RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification'', STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2535] D. Eastlake, ``Domain Name System Security Extensions'', RFC
2535, March 1999.
[RFC2671] P. Vixie, ``Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)'', RFC
2671, August 1999.
[RFC2845] P. Vixie, O. Gudmundsson, D. Eastlake, B. Wellington,
``Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)'', RFC
2845, May 2000.
[A6] M. Crawford, C. Huitema, S. Thompson, ``DNS Extensions to
Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering'', RFCxxx,
Sometime 2000.
Expires December 2000 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNSSEC and IPng message size requirement June 2000
Author Address
Olafur Gudmundsson
NAI Labs
Network Associates
3060 Washington Road (Rt. 97)
Glenwood, MD 21738
USA
+1 443 259 2389
<ogud@tislabs.com>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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."
Expires December 2000 [Page 5]