Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)
draft-graff-dnsext-edns0bis-00

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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.

This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2010.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.

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.

This document is a starting point to update the EDNS0 RFC after 10 years of operational experience.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  Requirements Language
3.  Affected Protocol Elements
    3.1.  Message Header
    3.2.  Label Types
    3.3.  UDP Message Size
4.  Extended Label Types
    4.1.  Extended Label Type
    4.2.  Reserved Label Type
5.  OPT pseudo-RR
    5.1.  OPT Record Behavior
    5.2.  OPT Record Format
        5.2.1.  Fixed Content
        5.2.2.  Variable Content
    5.3.  Sender's Payload Size
        5.3.1.  Reassembly Considerations
        5.3.2.  Path MTU
        5.3.3.  No Caching
        5.3.4.  Oversize Requests
        5.3.5.  Be Reasonable
    5.4.  Extended RCODE
6.  Transport Considerations
    6.1.  Meaning of OPT Presense
    6.2.  Meaning of OPT Absence
    6.3.  Refusing Message with OPT Records
7.  Security Considerations
8.  IANA Considerations
9.  Acknowledgements
10.  References
    10.1.  Normative References
    10.2.  Informative References
§  Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

DNS [RFC1035] (Mockapetris, P., “Domain names - implementation and specification,” November 1987.) 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 implementations to advertise their capabilities.

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.  Requirements Language

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 RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].

3.  Affected Protocol Elements

3.1.  Message Header

The DNS Message Header's (see RFC 1035, section 4.1.1 (Mockapetris, P., “Domain names - implementation and specification,” November 1987.) [RFC1035]) 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 flags and more possible RCODEs are needed.

3.2.  Label Types

The first two bits of a wire format domain label are used to denote the type of the label. RFC 1035, 4.1.4 (Mockapetris, P., “Domain names - implementation and specification,” November 1987.) [RFC1035] 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.

3.3.  UDP Message Size

DNS Messages are limited to 512 octets in size when sent over UDP. While the minimum maximum reassembly buffer size still allows a limit of 512 octets of UDP payload, 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.

4.  Extended Label Types

4.1.  Extended Label Type

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.

4.2.  Reserved Label Type

The "1 1 1 1 1 1" extended label type will be reserved for future expansion of the extended label type code space.

5.  OPT pseudo-RR

5.1.  OPT Record Behavior

One 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. The quantity of OPT pseudo-RRs per message shall be either zero or one, but not greater.

5.2.  OPT Record Format

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.

5.2.1.  Fixed Content

The fixed part of an OPT RR is structured as follows:

5.2.2.  Variable Content

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 IANA.

OPTION-LENGTH

Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA.

OPTION-DATA

Varies per OPTION-CODE.

5.3.  Sender's Payload Size

The sender's UDP payload size (which OPT stores in the RR CLASS field) 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.

5.3.1.  Reassembly Considerations

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.

5.3.2.  Path MTU

Both requestors and responders are advised to take account of the path's discovered MTU (if already known) when considering message sizes.

5.3.3.  No Caching

4.5.3. The requestor's maximum payload size can change over time, and should therefore not be cached for use beyond the transaction in which it is advertised.

5.3.4.  Oversize Requests

4.5.4. The responder's maximum payload size can change over time, but can be reasonably expected to remain constant between two sequential transactions; for example, a meaningless QUERY to discover a responder's maximum UDP payload size, followed immediately by an UPDATE which takes advantage of this size. (This is considered preferrable to the outright use of TCP for oversized requests, if there is any reason to suspect that the responder implements EDNS, and if a request will not fit in the default 512 payload size limit.)

5.3.5.  Be Reasonable

4.5.5. Due to transaction overhead, it is unwise to advertise an architectural limit as a maximum UDP payload size. Just because your stack can reassemble 64KB datagrams, don't assume that you want to spend more than about 4KB of state memory per ongoing transaction.

5.4.  Extended RCODE

4.6. The extended RCODE and flags (which OPT stores in the RR TTL field) 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. Note that EXTENDED-RCODE value "0" indicates that an unextended RCODE is in use (values "0" through "15").

VERSION

Indicates the implementation level of whoever sets it. Full conformance with this specification is indicated by version ``0.'' Requestors are encouraged to set this to the lowest implemented level capable of expressing a transaction, to minimize the responder and network load of discovering the greatest common implementation level between requestor and responder. A requestor's version numbering strategy should ideally be a run time configuration option.
If a responder does not implement the VERSION level of the request, then it answers with RCODE=BADVERS. All responses will be limited in format to the VERSION level of the request, but the VERSION of each response will be the highest implementation level of the responder. In this way a requestor will learn the implementation level of a responder as a side effect of every response, including error responses, including RCODE=BADVERS.

Z

Set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers, unless modified in a subsequent specification.

6.  Transport Considerations

6.1.  Meaning of OPT Presense

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.

6.2.  Meaning of OPT Absence

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.

6.3.  Refusing Message with OPT Records

Responders who do not understand these protocol extensions are expected to send a response 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.

7.  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.

8.  IANA Considerations

The IANA has assigned RR type code 41 for OPT.

It is the recommendation of this document and its working group that IANA create a registry for EDNS Extended Label Types, for EDNS Option Codes, and for EDNS Version Numbers.

This document assigns label type 0b01xxxxxx as "EDNS Extended Label Type." We request that IANA record this assignment.

This document assigns extended label type 0bxx111111 as "Reserved for future extended label types." We request that IANA record this assignment.

This document assigns option code 65535 to "Reserved for future expansion."

This document expands the RCODE space from 4 bits to 12 bits. This will allow IANA to assign more than the 16 distinct RCODE values allowed in RFC 1035 (Mockapetris, P., “Domain names - implementation and specification,” November 1987.) [RFC1035].

This document assigns EDNS Extended RCODE "16" to "BADVERS".

IESG approval should be required to create new entries in the EDNS Extended Label Type or EDNS Version Number registries, while any published RFC (including Informational, Experimental, or BCP) should be grounds for allocation of an EDNS Option Code.

9.  Acknowledgements

Paul Mockapetris, Mark Andrews, Robert Elz, Don Lewis, Bob Halley, Donald Eastlake, Rob Austein, Matt Crawford, Randy Bush, and Thomas Narten were each instrumental in creating and refining this specification.

10.  References

10.1. Normative References

10.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses