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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05                                             
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                Peter Koch
Expires: February 1999                            Universitaet Bielefeld
Updates: RFC 1035                                            August 1998

            A New Scheme for the Compression of Domain Names
               draft-ietf-dnsind-local-compression-02.txt


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).

   Comments should be sent to the author or the DNSIND WG mailing list
   <namedroppers@internic.net>.

Abstract

   The compression of domain names in DNS messages was introduced in
   [RFC1035].  Although some remarks were made about applicability to
   future defined resource record types, no method has been deployed yet
   to support interoperable DNS compression for RR types specified since
   then.

   This document summarizes current problems and proposes a new
   compression scheme to be applied to future RR types which supports
   interoperability.  Also, suggestions are made how to deal with RR
   types defined so far.

1. Conventions used in this document

   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 in [RFC2119].




Koch                     Expires February 1999                  [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT              DNS Compression                  August 1998


   Domain names herein are for explanatory purposes only and should not
   be expected to lead to useful information in real life.

2. Background

   Domain name compression was introduced in [RFC1035], section 4.1.4,
   as an optional protocol feature and later mandated by [RFC1123],
   section 6.1.2.4.  The intent was to reduce the message length,
   especially that of UDP datagrams, by avoiding repetition of domain
   names or even parts thereof.

   A domain name is internally represented by the concatenation of label
   strings, where the first octet denotes the string length, not
   including itself.  The null string, consisting of a single octet of
   zeroes, is the representation of the root domain name and also
   terminates every domain name.

   As labels may be at most 63 characters long, the two most significant
   bits in the length octet will always be zero. Compression works by
   overloading the length octet with a second meaning. If the two MSB
   have the value '1', the remainder of the length octet and the next
   octet form a compression pointer, which denotes the position of the
   next label of the current domain name in the message:

          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
          | 1  1|                OFFSET                   |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   It is important that these pointers always point backwards.

   Compression may occur in several places. First, the owner name of an
   RR may be compressed. The compression target may be another owner
   name or a domain name in the RDATA section of a previous RR.  Second,
   any domain name within the RDATA section may be compressed and the
   target may be part of the same RR, being the owner name or another
   domain name in the RDATA section, or it may live in a previous RR,
   either as its owner or as a domain name in its RDATA section.  In
   fact, due to the chaining feature, combinations of the above may
   occur.

3. Problems

   While implementations shall use and must understand compressed domain
   names in the RDATA section of those "well known" RR types initially
   defined, there is no interoperable way of applying compression to the
   RDATA section of newer RRs:

   Quote from [RFC1123], section 6.1.3.5:



Koch                     Expires February 1999                  [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT              DNS Compression                  August 1998


        Compression relies on knowledge of the format of data inside a
        particular RR.  Hence compression must only be used for the
        contents of well-known, class-independent RRs, and must never be
        used for class-specific RRs or RR types that are not well-known.
        The owner name of an RR is always eligible for compression.

   DNS records in messages may travel through caching resolvers not
   aware of the particular RR type. These caches cannot rearrange
   compression pointers in the RDATA section simply because they do not
   recognize them. Handing out these RRs in a different context later
   will lead to confusion if the target resolver tries to uncompress the
   domain names using wrong information.  This is not restricted to
   intermediate caching but affects any modification to the order of RRs
   in the DNS message.

4. Local Compression

   We often observe a certain locality in the domain names used as owner
   and occuring in the RDATA section, e.g. in MX or NS RRs but also in
   newer RR types [RFC1183]:

         host.foo.bar.xz   RP      adm.foo.bar.xz  adm.persons.bar.xz

   So, to still profit from compression without putting interoperability
   at risk, a new scheme is defined which limits the effect of
   compression to a single RR.

   In contrast to the usual method we start counting at the RR owner or
   calculate pointers relative to the start of the RDATA to avoid
   context sensitivity.  We use an additional compression indicator for
   a two octet local pointer:

          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
          | 1  0|                OFFSET                   |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   The "10" bits will indicate the use of local compression and
   distinguish it from conventional compression, plain labels and EDNS
   label codes [EXT2DNS].  Two types of pointers need to be specified:
   those pointing into the owner name and those pointing into RDATA.

   A) Pointers into the owner name are interpreted as the ordinal label
      number (starting at 0 for the first, least significant label).
      This way we avoid the need for extra decompression of the owner
      name during message composition or decomposition.

      The internal representation of a domain name has a maximum length
      of 255 [RFC 1035].  Any label consists of at least two octets,



Koch                     Expires February 1999                  [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT              DNS Compression                  August 1998


      leading to at most 127 labels per domain name plus the terminating
      zero octet, which does not qualify as a compression target. The
      highest possible value of a compression pointer pointing into the
      owner name is 126. The value 127 is reserved for future use.

   B) Pointers into the RDATA section start at the fixed value 128 for
      the first octet and have a maximum value of 16383 limiting
      possible targets to the first 16256 octets.

   Local pointers MUST point to a previous occurence of the same name in
   the same RR.  Even domain names in another RR of the same type cannot
   serve as compression targets since the order in an RRSet is not
   necessary stable.  The length of the compressed name(s) MUST be used
   in the length calculation for the RDLENGTH field.

Example

   Consider a DNS message containing two resource records, one CNAME RR
   and one XX RR, undefined and meaningless so far, with an RDATA
   section consisting of two domain names:

         a.foo.xz   IN  CNAME  bar.xz
         bar.xz     IN  XX     a.foo.xz  foo.xz

   In a message this appears as follows (randomly starting at octet 12):

          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       12 |           1           |           a           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       14 |           3           |           f           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       16 |           o           |           o           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       18 |           2           |           x           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       20 |           z           |           0           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

       10 octets skipped (TYPE, CLASS, TTL, RDLENGTH)

          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       32 |           3           |           b           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       34 |           a           |           r           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       36 | 1  1|                 18                      |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+




Koch                     Expires February 1999                  [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT              DNS Compression                  August 1998


   The XX RR with local compression applied:

          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       38 | 1 1 |                 32                      |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

       10 octets skipped (TYPE, CLASS, TTL, RDLENGTH)

          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       50 |           1           |           a           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       52 |           3           |           f           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       54 |           o           |           o           |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       56 | 1  0|                 1                       |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       58 | 1  0|               130                       |
          +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   The first local pointer at position 56 points to the second label of
   the XX RR's owner.

   The second local pointer at position 58 represents the "foo.xz" and
   points backwards into the RDATA section, third octet, at absolute
   position 52.  Note that with conventional compression this example
   message would have occupied less space.

5. Old RR types and deployment

   Although differences in RDATA sections by class have not yet been
   reported and the concept of classes did not really spread, we are
   just considering the IN class here.

   The following RR types with domain names in the RDATA section have
   been defined since [RFC1035] (Standards Track, Experimental and
   Informational RFCs, ignoring withdrawn types):  RP [RFC1183], AFSDB
   [RFC1183], RT [RFC1183], SIG [RFC2065], PX [RFC2163], NXT [RFC2065],
   SRV [RFC2052], NAPTR [RFC2168], KX [RFC2230].  Some specifications do
   not mention DNS compression at all, others explicitly suggest it and
   only in part identify interoperability issues.  The KX RR is safe as
   the specification prohibits compression.

   The specification of RP, AFSDB, RT, PX, SRV, and NAPTR is hereby
   changed in that domain names in the RDATA section SHOULD NOT be
   compressed and SHOULD NOT be compression targets.

   Local compression MUST NOT be used for owner names and it MUST NOT be



Koch                     Expires February 1999                  [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT              DNS Compression                  August 1998


   applied to domain names in RDATA sections of any RR type defined so
   far.

   The specification of future RR types should explicitly select the use
   of local compression or forbid RDATA domain name compression at all.
   The AAAA [IPV6ARR] and ERR [ERRORRR] record types should be subject
   to local compression.

6. Security Considerations

   The usual caveats for using unauthenticated DNS apply. This scheme is
   believed not to introduce any new security problems.  However,
   implementors should be aware of problems caused by blindly following
   compression pointers of any kind. [RFC1035] and this document limit
   compression targets to previous occurences and this MUST be followed
   in constructing and decoding messages. Otherwise applications might
   be vulnerable to denial of service attacks launched by sending DNS
   messages with infinite compression pointer loops. In addition,
   pointers should be verified to really point to the start of a label
   (for conventional and local RDATA pointers) and not beyond the end of
   the domain name (for local owner name pointers).

   The maximum length of 255 applies to domain names in uncompressed
   wire format, so care must be taken during decompression not to exceed
   this limit to avoid buffer overruns.

7. References

   [EXT2DNS] Vixie,P., "Extensions to DNS (EDNS)", draft-ietf-dnsind-
             edns-02.txt, work in progress

   [ERRORRR] Watson,R., Gudmundsson,O., "Error Record (ERR) for DNS",
             draft-ietf-dnsind-dns-error-01.txt, work in progress

   [IPV6ARR] Huitema,Ch., Thomson,S., "DNS Extensions to support IP
             version 6", draft-ietf-ipngwg-aaaa-03.txt, work in progress

   [RFC1034] Mockapetris,P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities",
             RFC 1034, STD 13, November 1987

   [RFC1035] Mockapetris,P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
             Specification", RFC 1035, STD 13, November 1987

   [RFC1123] Braden,R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application
             and Support", RFC 1123, STD 3, October 1989

   [RFC1183] Everhart,C., Mamakos,L., Ullmann,R., Mockapetris,P., "New
             DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990



Koch                     Expires February 1999                  [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT              DNS Compression                  August 1998


   [RFC2052] Gulbrandsen,A., Vixie,P. "A DNS RR for specifying the
             location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2052, October 1996

   [RFC2065] Eastlake,D., Kaufman,C. "Domain Name System Security
             Extensions" RFC 2065, January 1997

   [RFC2119] Bradner,S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997

   [RFC2163] Allocchio,C., "Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER
             Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM)", RFC 2163,
             January 1998

   [RFC2168] Daniel,R., Mealling,M., "Resolution of Uniform Resource
             Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFC 2168, June
             1997

   [RFC2230] Atkinson,R., "Key Exchange Delegation Record for the DNS",
             RFC 2230, November 1997

8. Author's Address

   Peter Koch
   Universitaet Bielefeld
   Technische Fakultaet
   Postfach 10 01 31
   D-33501 Bielefeld
   Germany
   +49 521 106 2902
   <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>





















Koch                     Expires February 1999                  [Page 7]