[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 rfc2671                                              
   DNSIND Working Group                                         Paul Vixie
   INTERNET-DRAFT                                                      ISC
   <draft-ietf-dnsind-edns0-00.txt>                        September, 1998
   
   
                     Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)
   
   
   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 documents at any
      time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
      material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''
   
      To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the
      "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
      Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Northern
      Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific
      Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
   
   
   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.
   
   1 - Rationale and Scope
   
   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 clients to advertise
   their capabilities to servers.
   
   
   
   
   
   Expires March 1999                                              [Page 1]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                   September 1998
   
   
   1.2. Existing clients 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.  We must however take account of client behaviour
   in the face of extra fields, and design a fallback scheme for
   interoperability with these clients.
   
   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
   types and more possible RCODEs are needed.
   
   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 are
   needed.
   
   2.3. DNS Messages are limited to 512 octets in size when sent over UDP.
   While the minimum maximum reassembly buffer size is still 512 bytes,
   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.
   
   3 - Extended Label Types
   
   3.1. The ``0 1'' label type will now indicate an extended label type,
   whose value is encoded in the lower six bits of the first octet of a
   label.  All subsequently developed label types should be encoded using
   an extended label type.
   
   3.2. The ``1 1 1 1 1 1'' extended label type will be reserved for future
   expansion of the extended label type code space.
   
   4 - OPT pseudo-RR
   
   4.1. The OPT pseudo-RR can be added to the additional data section of
   either a request or a response.  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 shall never be cached, forwarded, or stored in or
   loaded from master files.
   
   
   
   
   Expires March 1999                                              [Page 2]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                   September 1998
   
   
   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.
   
   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 (XXX IANA)
   CLASS        u_int16_t      sender's UDP buffer 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 the IANA.  Value 65535 is reserved for future
                  expansion.
   
   OPTION-LENGTH  Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA.
   
   OPTION-DATA    Varies per OPTION-CODE.
   
   4.5. The sender's UDP buffer size 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.
   
   
   
   
   Expires March 1999                                              [Page 3]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                   September 1998
   
   
   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.  Requestors are advised to retry in such cases.
   
   4.5.2. Both requestors and responders are advised to take account of the
   path's already discovered MTU (if known) when considering message sizes.
   
   4.6. The extended RCODE and flags are structured as follows:
   
                    +0 (MSB)                            +1 (LSB)
         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      0: |         EXTENDED-RCODE        |            VERSION            |
         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      2: |                               Z                               |
         +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   
   
   EXTENDED-RCODE  Forms upper 8 bits of extended 12-bit RCODE.
   
   VERSION         Indicates the implementation level of whoever sets it.
                   Full conformance with the draft standard version of this
                   specification is version ``0.''  Note that both
                   requestors and responders should set this to the highest
                   level they implement, that responders should send back
                   RCODE=BADVERS (XXX IANA) and that requestors should be
                   prepared to probe using lower version numbers if they
                   receive an RCODE=BADVERS.
   
   Z               Set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers, unless
                   modified in a subsequent specification.
   
   5 - Transport Considerations
   
   5.1. 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.
   
   5.2. Lack of use of these features in a request must be taken as an
   indication that the requestor does not implement any part of this
   specification and that the responder may make no use of any protocol
   extension described here in its response.
   
   
   
   
   Expires March 1999                                              [Page 4]


   INTERNET-DRAFT                    EDNS0                   September 1998
   
   
   5.3. Responders who do not understand these protocol extensions are
   expected to send a respose with RCODE NOTIMPL, FORMERR, or SERVFAIL.
   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.  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.
   
   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 - Acknowledgements
   
   Paul Mockapetris, Mark Andrews, Robert Elz, Don Lewis, Bob Halley,
   Donald Eastlake, Rob Austein, Matt Crawford, and Randy Bush were each
   instrumental in creating this specification.
   
   8 - References
   
   [RFC1035]  P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and
              Specification,'' RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences
              Institute, November 1987.
   
   9 - Author's Address
   
                 Paul Vixie
                    Internet Software Consortium
                    950 Charter Street
                    Redwood City, CA 94063
                    +1 650 779 7001
                    <paul@vix.com>
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Expires March 1999                                              [Page 5]