[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
                                                       Mark Andrews (CSIRO)
   INTERNET-DRAFT                                          Paul Vixie (ISC)
   <draft-andrews-dns-more-01.txt>                                June 1996
   Updates: RFC 1035
                  Large Responses to DNS Queries (DNS MORE)
   Status of This Memo
           This document is an Internet-Draft.  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 docu-
           ments at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
           as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in
           To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
           the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
           Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
           nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
           ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
           DNS messages are limited to 64 kilobytes in size. At times it is
           necessary to send a message that is greater that 64 kilobytes.
           This is currently not possible. AXFR is the one exception. This
           document describes how to send a sequence of messages, the total
           length which may be greater than 64 kilobytes, by extending the
           In addition average message sizes are increasing and the 512
           byte payload limit for UDP is now too small. This document
           describes how servers can identify when they can send bigger
           messages without necessarily resorting to TCP.
   Expires December 1996                                          [Page 1]

   INTERNET-DRAFT                  DNS MORE                       June 1996
   1 - Protocol
   This extension uses one of the RESERVED flags bits from DNS header
   [RFC1035 4.1.1] to indicate when a server can send the extended
   response.  This flag bit shall be known as MORE.
   The MORE flag's semantics depend upon the underlying transport protocol.
   This document only defines the use of the MORE flag with the opcode
   1.1 - TCP Usage
   When using TCP a resolver sets the MORE flag to indicate that it is
   capable of receiving a multi message response (which we call a ``message
   To indicate that the message sequence is not complete the server shall
   set the RCODE to CONTINUED (TBA) in all but the last message of the mes-
   sage sequence.
   The order of resource records in a multi message response MUST be the
   same as if the response could have been sent is a single response. The
   Questions first followed by, the Answer RRs, Authority RRs and Addi-
   tional RRs.
   Each message in a sequence will contain a header with the same ID value,
   flags, opcode.  Only the count fields and the rcode are permitted to
   change.  The counts shall represent the number of resource records in
   this message.  MORE MUST cleared in the response.
   1.1.1 - TCP Example
   The following example show how to send an answer with one question, 10
   answer records, 14 authority records and 5 additional records. The
   answer is split up across 3 messages.
           MESSAGE 1: QCOUNT=1, ANCOUNT=10, AUCOUNT=0,
                      ADCOUNT=0, RCODE=CONTINUED
           MESSAGE 2: QCOUNT=0, ANCOUNT=0, AUCOUNT=11,
                      ADCOUNT=0. RCODE=CONTINUED
                      ADCOUNT=5, RCODE=NOERROR
   Expires December 1996                                          [Page 2]

   INTERNET-DRAFT                  DNS MORE                       June 1996
   1.2 - UDP Usage
   When using UDP, a resolver may set the MORE flag in a QUERY request to
   indicate that its receive buffer is greater than 512 bytes in size,
   rather than the 512 byte size given in [RFC1035 3.2.4].  The resolver is
   expected to set this flag only if it knows that the host's reassembly
   buffer is large enough to accommodate datagrams of the size indicated.
   The new size is indicated by the RCODE is the query. The receive buffer
   is 512 * (2 ^ RCODE) bytes in size.
           RCODE      SIZE
               0       512
               1      1024
               2      2048
               3      4096
               4      8192
               5     16384
               6     32768
               7     65536
               8    131072
               9    262144
              10    524288
              11   1048576
              12   2097152
              13   4194304
              14   8388608
              15  16777216
   A server receiving a QUERY request with the MORE flag set is allowed to
   transmit a response of up to the size indicated.  If the response will
   not fit in size indicated, then the rules given in [RFC1035 4.1.1,
   4.2.1, 6.2] apply.
   The server MUST clear the MORE flag in the response.
   The server SHOULD disable path MTU discovery on the UDP response packet
   resulting in host fragmentation.
   Expires December 1996                                          [Page 3]

   INTERNET-DRAFT                  DNS MORE                       June 1996
   2 - Header Format
   The header format is that described in [RFC1035 4.1.1] with the MORE
   flag added:
                                           1  1  1  1  1  1
             0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5
           |                      ID                       |
           |QR|   Opcode  |AA|TC|RD|RA|MO|  Z  |   RCODE   |
           |                    QDCOUNT                    |
           |                    ANCOUNT                    |
           |                    NSCOUNT                    |
           |                    ARCOUNT                    |
   Where MO is the MORE flag.
   3 - Security Considerations
   Though DNS is related to several security problems, no attempt is made
   to fix them in this document.
   This document is believed to introduce no additional security problems
   to the current DNS protocol.
   [RFC1035]P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and Specifica-
           tion,'' RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November
   Expires December 1996                                          [Page 4]

   INTERNET-DRAFT                  DNS MORE                       June 1996
   Authors' Addresses
           Mark Andrews
              CSIRO - Division of Mathematics and Statistics
              Locked Bag 17
              North Ryde NSW 2113
              +61 2 325 3148
           Paul Vixie
              Internet Software Consortium
              Star Route Box 159A
              Woodside, CA 94062
              +1 415 747 0204
   Expires December 1996                                          [Page 5]