DNS Resource Records for ILNP
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 6742.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ran Atkinson , SN Bhatti , Scott Rose | ||
| Last updated | 2012-03-26 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | IRTF state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 6742 (Experimental) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-01
Internet Draft RJ Atkinson
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-01.txt Consultant
Expires: 26 OCT 2012 SN Bhatti
Category: Experimental U. St Andrews
Scott Rose
US NIST
March 26, 2012
DNS Resource Records for ILNP
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-01.txt
STATUS OF THIS MEMO
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or
IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before
before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the
IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material
outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an
adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright
in such materials, this document may not be modified outside
the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not
be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages
other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 1]
Internet Draft -2-26 MAR 2012
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This document is not on the IETF standards-track and does not
specify any level of standard. This document merely provides
information for the Internet community.
This document is part of the ILNP document set, which has had
extensive review within the IRTF Routing Research Group. ILNP is
one of the recommendations made by the RG Chairs. Separately,
various refereed research papers on ILNP have also been published
during this decade. So the ideas contained herein have had much
broader review than the IRTF Routing RG. The views in this
document were considered controversial by the Routing RG, but the
RG reached a consensus that the document still should be
published. The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on
anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered
controversial.
ABSTRACT
This note describes additional optional Resource Records for use
with the Domain Name System (DNS). These optional resource
records are for use with the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
(ILNP). This document is a product of the IRTF Routing RG.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction.............................2
2. New Resource Records.....................3
2.1 ID Resource Record......................3
2.2 L32 Resource Record......................5
2.3 L64 Resource Record......................6
2.4 LP Resource Record.......................7
3. Usage Example............................8
4. Security Considerations..................9
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 2]
Internet Draft -3-26 MAR 2012
5. IANA Considerations......................9
6. References...............................9
1. INTRODUCTION
The Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) was developed to
explore a possible evolutionary direction for the Internet
Architecture. An description of the ILNP architecture is
available in a separate document [ILNP-ARCH]. Implementation and
engineering details are largely isolated into a second document
[ILNP-ENG].
The Domain Name System (DNS) is the standard way that Internet
nodes locate information about addresses, mail exchangers, and
other data relating to remote Internet nodes [RFC1034] [RFC1035].
More recently, the IETF have defined standards-track security
extensions to the DNS. [RFC4033] These security extensions can
be used to authenticate signed DNS data records and can also be
used to store signed public keys in the DNS. Further, the IETF
have defined a standards-track approach to enable secure dynamic
update of DNS records over the network [RFC3007].
This document defines several new optional data Resource
Records. This note specifies the syntax and other items
required for independent implementations of these DNS resource
records. The reader is assumed to be familiar with the basics
of DNS, including familiarity with [RFC1034] [RFC1035].
The concept of using DNS to support mobile nodes or mobile
networks has been proposed earlier, more than once,
independently, by several other researchers; for example,
please see [SB00] [SBK01] and [PHG02].
1.1 Terminology
In this document, the term "ILNP-enabled" applied to a DNS
component (either authoritative server or cache) is used to
indicate that the component attempts to include other ILNP
RRTypes to the Additional section of a DNS response to
increase performance and reduce the number of follow-up
queries for other ILNP RRTypes. These other RRsets are added
to the Additional section if space permits and only when the
QTYPE equals ID, L64, L32, or LP. There is no method for a
server to signal that it is ILNP-enabled.
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
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 3]
Internet Draft -4-26 MAR 2012
in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. NEW RESOURCE RECORDS
This document specifies several new and closely related DNS data
Resource Records (RRs). These new RR types have the mnemonics
"ID", "L32", "L64", and "LP". These resource record types are
associated with a Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN), that is
hereafter called the "owner name". These are part of work on the
Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [ILNP-ARCH].
2.1 "ID" Resource Record
An ID record has the following logical components:
<owner name> IN ID <preference> <I>
In the above <owner name> is the owner name string, <preference>
is an unsigned 16-bit value, while <I> is an unsigned 64-bit
value.
The <preference> field indicates the owner name's relative
preference for this ID record among other ID records associated
with this owner name. Lower preference values are preferred over
higher preference values.
The <I> field complies with the syntactic rules of IPv6 Interface
Identifiers. Unlike IPv6 Interface Identifiers, which are bound
to a specific *interface* of a specific node, <I> values are
bound to a specific *node* -- and may be used with *any
interface* of that node.
An "ID" record has the DNS TYPE of ID and a numeric value of
<to be assigned by IANA>. An ID record is a member of the
Internet ("IN") CLASS in the DNS. Each ID record is associated
with a owner name entry in the DNS.
ID records are present only for owner name values that are
ILNP-capable nodes. This restriction is important; ILNP-capable
nodes use the presence of ID records in the DNS to learn that a
correspondent node is also ILNP-capable. While erroneous ID
records in the DNS for an owner name that is not ILNP-capable
would not prevent communication, such erroneous DNS records could
increase the delay at the start of an IP communications session.
Of course, a particular node's owner name might have an ID record
in the DNS and yet that node might be temporarily disconnected
from the Internet.
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 4]
Internet Draft -5-26 MAR 2012
A given owner name may have zero or more ID records at a given
time. In normal operation, nodes that support the Identifier-
Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) will have at least one valid ID
record.
The ID DNS record has the following RDATA format:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Preference |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
| ID |
| |
| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
where:
Preference A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies the
preference given to this RR among others at
the same owner. Lower Preference values are
preferred over higher Preference values.
ID A 64-bit unsigned integer.
ILNP-enabled DNS servers and DNS caches SHOULD attempt to return
all L32, L64, and LP records associated with the owner name of
the ID RRset in the Additional section of the response if space
permits.
2.2 "L32" Resource Record
An "L32" record has the DNS TYPE of "L32" and a numeric value of
<to be assigned by IANA>. An L32 record is a member of the
Internet ("IN") CLASS in the DNS. Each L32 record is associated
with an owner name entry in the DNS. The Preference field
indicates the owner name's relative preference for this
particular L32 record among other L32 records for the same owner
name.
An L32 record has the following logical components:
<owner name> IN L32 <preference> <L>
In the above, <owner name> is the owner name, <preference> is an
unsigned 16-bit value, while <L> is an unsigned 32-bit value that
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 5]
Internet Draft -6-26 MAR 2012
names a subnetwork where the owner is directly attached.
The Preference field indicates the owner name's relative
preference for this L32 record among other L32, L64, and LP
records associated with this owner name. Lower values are
preferred over higher values.
A given owner name might have zero or more L32 values at a given
time. An ILNP-capable IPv4 host SHOULD have at least 1 Locator
(i.e., L32 or LP) DNS resource record while it is connected to
the Internet. An ILNP-capable multi-homed IPv4 host normally
will have multiple Locator values while multi-homed. An IPv4
host that is NOT ILNP-capable MUST NOT have an L32 or LP record
in its DNS entries. A node that is not currently connected to
the Internet might not have any L32 values in the DNS associated
with its <owner name>.
A DNS owner name that is naming a subnetwork, rather than naming
a host, MAY have an L32 record as a wild-card entry, thereby
applying to entries under that DNS owner name. This deployment
scenario probably is most common if the named subnetwork is, was,
or might become, mobile.
The L32 DNS record has the following RDATA format:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Preference |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
| L32 |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
where:
Preference A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies the
preference given to this RR among others at
the same owner. Lower Preference values are
preferred over higher Preference values.
L32 A 32-bit unsigned integer that names a
subnetwork.
ILNP-enabled DNS servers and DNS caches SHOULD attempt to return
all ID, L64, and LP records for the same owner name of the L32
RRset in the Additional section of the response if space permits.
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 6]
Internet Draft -7-26 MAR 2012
2.3 "L64" Resource Record
An "L64" record has the DNS TYPE of "L64" and a numeric value of
<to be assigned by IANA>. An L64 record is a member of the
Internet ("IN") CLASS in the DNS. Each L64 record is associated
with an owner name entry in the DNS.
An L64 record has the following logical components:
<owner name> IN L64 <preference> <L>
In the above, <owner name> is the owner name, <preference> is an
unsigned 16-bit value, while <L> is an unsigned 64-bit value that
names a subnetwork where <owner name> is directly attached.
The Preference field indicates the owner name's relative
preference for this L64 record among other L32, L64, and LP
records associated with this owner name. Lower Preference values
are preferred over higher Preference values.
A given owner name may have zero or more L64 values at a given
time. An ILNP-capable multi-homed host connected to the Internet
will normally have multiple Locator (i.e., L64 or LP) values
while multi-homed.
A DNS owner name that is naming a subnetwork, rather than naming
a host, MAY have an L64 record as a wild-card entry, thereby
applying to all entries under that DNS owner name. This
deployment scenario is most common if the named subnetwork is,
was, or might become, mobile.
A DNS owner name that names a single node that is NOT ILNP-
capable MUST NOT have an L64 record in the DNS. A node that is
not currently connected to the Internet commonly might not have
any L64 or LP values in the DNS associated with its owner name.
The L64 DNS record has the following RDATA format:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Preference |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
| L64 |
| |
| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 7]
Internet Draft -8-26 MAR 2012
where:
Preference A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies the
preference given to this RR among others at
the same owner. Lower Preference values are
preferred over higher Preference values.
L64 A 64-bit unsigned integer that names a
subnetwork.
The Preference field indicates the owner name's relative
preference for this LP record among other L32, L64, and LP
records associated with this owner name. Lower values are
preferred over higher values.
ILNP-enabled DNS servers and DNS caches SHOULD attempt to
return all ID, L32, and LP RRsets associated with the owner
name of the L64 RRset in the Additional section of the
response if space permits.
2.4 "LP" Resource Record
As described in [ILNP-ARCH], the LP resource record provides
one level of indirection within the DNS in naming a Locator
value. This is useful in several deployment scenarios, such as
for a multi-homed site where the multi-homing is handled entirely
by the site's border routers (e.g. via Locator rewriting)
or in some mobile network deployment scenarios [ILNP-ADV].
An "LP" record has the following logical components:
<owner name> IN LP <preference> <target-name>
An LP record has the DNS TYPE of LP and a numeric value of <to be
assigned by IANA>. An LP record is a member of the Internet
("IN") CLASS in the DNS. Each LP record is associated with an
owner name entry in the DNS, and points to a second Fully-
Qualified Domain Name (shown above as <target-name>).
LP records MUST NOT be present for owner name values that are not
ILNP-capable nodes. This restriction is important; ILNP-capable
nodes use the presence of "LP" records in the DNS to infer that
a correspondent node is also ILNP-capable. While erroneous "LP"
records in the DNS for an owner name would not prevent
communication, presence of such erroneous DNS records could
increase the delay at the start of a communications session.
Of course, a particular node might have an LP record in the DNS
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 8]
Internet Draft -9-26 MAR 2012
and yet temporarily be disconnected from the Internet.
In the above <owner name> is the owner name, while <target-name>
is any other valid domain name string. It is invalid to have an
LP record with the same value in both the <owner name> and
<target-name> values. A given owner name will have zero or more
LP records at a given time.
The LP DNS record has the following RDATA format:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Preference |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
/ FQDN /
/ /
| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
where:
Preference A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies the
preference given to this RR among others at
the same owner. Lower Preference values are
preferred over higher Preference values.
FQDN A Fully-Qualified Domain Name that has one
or more L64 records in the DNS. This is
referred to as the <target-name> above.
The Preference field indicates the owner name's relative
preference for this LP record among other L32, L64, and LP
records associated with this owner name. Lower values are
preferred.
ILNP-enabled DNS servers and DNS caches SHOULD attempt to
return all ID, L32, and L64 RRsets associated with the owner
name of the LP RRset in the Additional section of the response
if space permits.
3. USAGE EXAMPLE
Given a domain name, one can use the Domain Name System (DNS) to
discover the set of ID records, the set of L32 records, the set
of L64 records, and the set of LP records that are associated
with that owner name.
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 9]
Internet Draft -10-26 MAR 2012
As these DNS records are only used with the Identifier-Locator
Network Protocol (ILNP), these records MUST NOT be present for a
node that does not support ILNP. This lookup process is
considered to be in the "forward" direction.
The Preference fields associated with the ID, L32, L64, and LP
records are used to indicate the owner name's preference for
others to use one particular ID, L32, L64, or LP record, rather
than use another ID, L32, L64, or LP record also associated with
that owner name. Lower Preference field values are preferred
over higher Preference field values.
It is possible that a client querying for one of these record
types will not receive all ID, L32, L64, and LP RR's in a single
response. Credible anecdotal reports indicate at least one DNS
recursive cache implementation actively drops all Additional Data
records that were not expected by that DNS recursive cache. So
even if the authoritative DNS server includes all the relevant
records in the Additional Data section of the DNS response, the
querying client might not receive all of those Additional Data
records. DNS caches also might purge some ILNP RRsets before
others, for example if ID RRsets have a longer DNS TTL value than
Locator-related (e.g. LP, L32, L64) RRsets. So a client sending
queries toa DNS cache cannot be certain if they have obtained all
available RRtypes for a given owner name. Therefore, the DNS
client SHOULD send follow-up DNS queries for RRTYPE values that
were missing and are desired, to ensure that the client receives
all the necessary information.
Note that for nodes likely either to be mobile or to be multi-
homed, the DNS TTL values for L32 and L64 records normally will
be very low, as those values might change frequently. However,
the DNS TTL values for ID and LP records normally will be quite
long, as those values are not normally impacted by node location
changes. Previous trace-driven DNS simulations from MIT [JSBM02]
and more recent experimental DNS validation from U. of St Andrews
[BA11] both indicate use of very short DNS TTL values is not
problematic.
Any ID value associated with a DNS owner name can be used with
any or all Locator values associated with that same DNS owner
name.
4. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
These new DNS resource record types do not create any new
vulnerabilities in the Domain Name System.
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 10]
Internet Draft -11-26 MAR 2012
Existing mechanisms for DNS security can be used unchanged with
these record types [RFC4033] [RFC3007]. As of this writing, those
mechanisms are believed to be widely implemented in currently
available DNS servers.
In situations where authentication of DNS data is a concern, the
DNS Security extensions SHOULD be used [RFC4033].
If these DNS records are updated dynamically over the network,
then the Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC3007] mechanism SHOULD be
used to secure such transactions.
5. IANA CONSIDERATIONS
IANA is requested to allocate each of these DNS Resource Records
(enumerated above in Section 2) a Data RRTYPE value according to
the procedures of Section 3.1 and 3.1.1 on pages 7 through 9 of
RFC 6195 [RFC6195].
6. REFERENCES
6.1 Normative References
[RFC1034] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - Concepts and
Facilities", RFC-1034, 1 November 1987
[RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - Implementation and
Specification", RFC-1035, 1 November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
March 1997.
[RFC3007] B. Wellington, "Secure Domain Name System Dynamic
Update", RFC 3007, RFC Editor, November 2000.
[RFC3597] A. Gustafsson, "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource
Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[RFC4033] R. Arends, R. Austein, M. Larson, D. Massey, &
S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction & Requirements",
RFC 4033, RFC Editor, March 2005.
[RFC6195] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Domain Name System IANA
Considerations", RFC 6195, March 2011.
[ILNP-ARCH] R. Atkinson & S. Bhatti, "ILNP Architecture",
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 11]
Internet Draft -12-26 MAR 2012
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch, January 2012.
[ILNP-ADV] R. Atkinson & S. N. Bhatti,
"Optional Advanced Deployment Scenarios for ILNP",
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv, March 2012
[ILNP-ENG] R. Atkinson & S. Bhatti, "ILNP Engineering and
Implementation Considerations",
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng, March 2012.
6.2 INFORMATIVE REFERENCES
[BA11] S. Bhatti & R. Atkinson,
"Reducing DNS Caching",
Proc. GI2011 - 14th IEEE Global Internet Symposium,
Shanghai, China. 15 Apr 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2011.5928919
[JSBM02] J. Jung, E. Sit, H. Balakrishnan, and R. Morris,
DNS performance and the effectiveness of caching.
IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 10, 5 (October 2002), 589-603.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2002.803905
[PHG02] Andreas Pappas, Stephen Hailes, Raffaele Giaffreda,
"Mobile Host Location Tracking through DNS",
IEEE London Communications Symposium,
London, England, UK, September 2002.
<http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/lcs/papers2002/LCS072.pdf>
[SB00] Alex C. Snoeren and Hari Balakrishnan. 2000.
"An End-To-End Approach To Host Mobility", Proc.
6th Conference on Mobile Computing And Networking
(MobiCom), ACM, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 155-166,
August 2000.
[SBK01] Alex C. Snoeren, Hari Balakrishnan, & M. Frans
Kaashoek, "Reconsidering Internet Mobility",
Proceedings of 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in
Operating Systems (HotOS), IEEE Computer Society,
Washington, DC, USA, May 2001.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Steve Blake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Mohamed Boucadair, Noel
Chiappa, Wes George, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley,
Volker Hilt, Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter,
Bruce Simpson, Robin Whittle and John Wroclawski (in alphabetical
order) provided review and feedback on earlier versions of this
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 12]
Internet Draft -13-26 MAR 2012
document. Steve Blake provided an especially thorough review of
an early version of the entire ILNP document set, which was
extremely helpful. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers
of the various ILNP papers for their feedback.
RFC EDITOR NOTE
This section is to be removed prior to publication.
This document is written in English, not American. So English
spelling is used throughout, rather than American spelling.
This is consistent with existing practice in several other RFCs,
for example RFC-5887.
This document tries to be very careful with history, in the
interest of correctly crediting ideas to their earliest
identifiable author(s). So in several places the first published
RFC about a topic is cited rather than the most recent published
RFC about that topic.
Authors' Addresses:
RJ Atkinson
Consultant
San Jose, CA
95125 USA
Email: rja.lists@gmail.com
SN Bhatti
School of Computer Science
University of St Andrews
North Haugh, St Andrews
Fife, Scotland, UK
KY16 9SX
Email: saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk
Scott Rose
US National Institute for Standards & Technology
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, MD
20899 USA
Email: scottr.nist@gmail.com
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 13]
Internet Draft -14-26 MAR 2012
[NOTE: Appendix A is to be removed by the
RFC Editor prior to publication.]
Appendix A:
DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
When ready for formal consideration, this template is
to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing the
template to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.
A. Submission Date: To be determined.
B. Submission Type:
[X] New RRTYPE
C. Contact Information for submitter:
Name: R. Atkinson
Email Address: rja.lists@gmail.com
International telephone number: unlisted
Other contact handles:
D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
Support for an experimental set of IP extensions
that replace the concept of an "IP Address" with
distinct "Locator" and "Identifier" values.
E. Description of the proposed RR type.
Please see draft-rja-ilnp-dns-07.txt for a full
description.
F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
need and why are they unsatisfactory?
The AAAA record combines both Locator and Identifier,
so has significantly different semantics than having
separate L64 and ID record values. The AAAA record also
lacks scalability and flexibility in the context of the
experimental protocol extensions that will use the ID
and L64 records, as any valid ID record value for a node
can be used on the wire with any valid L64 record value
for the same node.
The CNAME record is closest conceptually to an "LP"
record, but a CNAME is a node name referral scheme,
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 14]
Internet Draft -15-26 MAR 2012
while the LP record is indicating that the given node
has the same routing prefix as some other domain name,
but does not necessarily have any other values that are
the same.
Lastly, the AAA and CNAME RR Types lack a preference
field to rank responses. Such preference information
is useful with ILNP.
G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
As described in this draft, "ID", "L32", "L64", and "LP".
H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
Registry or require the creation of a new IANA
sub-registry in DNS Parameters?
Existing registry of DNS Resource Record (RR) data TYPE
values should be used.
I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597]) ?
No.
J. Comments:
This document defines "ILNP-enabled" DNS servers
or DNS caches as a DNS server (authoritative or recursive)
that include other ILNP RRTypes in the Additional
section of a DNS response that match a QNAME (if
size permits). This is to reduce the number of
client follow-up DNS queries and only applies when the
QTYPE is either ID, L32, L64, or LP. There is no
signalling mechanism for this Additional section
processing, and this is believed to be compatible
with existing non-ILNP-enabled DNS servers and clients.
No changes are required for existing deployed
DNS servers or DNS caches.
Expires: 26 OCT 2012
Atkinson et alia Expires in 6 months [Page 15]