mir/bind
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9 synced 2025-09-01 06:55:30 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

new draft

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mark Andrews
2009-10-28 00:46:15 +00:00
parent c6d2578fd6
commit df4408b77a
1 changed files with 82 additions and 82 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

164
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-00.txt → doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-01.txt
View File

@@ -3,14 +3,14 @@
DNSEXT R. Bellis DNSEXT R. Bellis
Internet-Draft Nominet UK Internet-Draft Nominet UK
Updates: 1123, 1035 October 6, 2009 Updates: 1035, 1123 October 26, 2009
(if approved) (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 9, 2010 Expires: April 29, 2010
DNS Transport over TCP DNS Transport over TCP
draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-00 draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ Status of this Memo
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ Abstract
Bellis Expires April 9, 2010 [Page 1] Bellis Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009 Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ Table of Contents
Bellis Expires April 9, 2010 [Page 2] Bellis Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009 Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
Most DNS [RFC1035] transactions take place over the UDP [RFC0792] Most DNS [RFC1035] transactions take place over the UDP [RFC0792]
protocol. The TCP [RFC0793] protocol is used for zone transfers and protocol. The TCP [RFC0793] protocol is used for zone transfers and
is supported by some implementations for the transfer of other is supported by many implementations for the transfer of other
packets which exceed the protocol's original 512 byte packet-size packets which exceed the protocol's original 512 byte packet-size
limit. limit.
@@ -126,6 +126,9 @@ Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
DNS resolvers and recursive servers MUST support UDP, and SHOULD DNS resolvers and recursive servers MUST support UDP, and SHOULD
support TCP, for sending (non-zone-transfer) queries. support TCP, for sending (non-zone-transfer) queries.
However, some implementors have taken the text quoted above to mean
that TCP support is truly optional for typical DNS operation.
This document normatively updates the core DNS protocol This document normatively updates the core DNS protocol
specifications such that (except in very limited circumstances) specifications such that (except in very limited circumstances)
support for the TCP protocol is henceforth REQUIRED. support for the TCP protocol is henceforth REQUIRED.
@@ -140,36 +143,15 @@ Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
3. Discussion 3. Discussion
Some implementors have taken the [RFC1123] text quoted above to mean
that TCP support is truly optional for typical DNS operation.
However, whilst RFC 1123 predates the current RFC 2119 terminology
document it uses exactly the same text:
SHOULD - This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be
understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different
course.
In the absence of EDNS0 (see below) the normal behaviour of any DNS In the absence of EDNS0 (see below) the normal behaviour of any DNS
server needing to send a UDP response that exceeds that 512 limit is server needing to send a UDP response that exceeds that 512 byte
for the server to truncate the response at the 512 byte limit and set limit is for the server to truncate the response at the 512 byte
the TC flag in the response header. When the client receives such a limit and set the TC flag in the response header. When the client
response it takes the TC flag as notice that it should retry over TCP receives such a response it takes the TC flag as notice that it
instead. should retry over TCP instead.
RFC 1123 also says: RFC 1123 also says:
Bellis Expires April 9, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
... it is also clear that some new DNS record types defined in the ... it is also clear that some new DNS record types defined in the
future will contain information exceeding the 512 byte limit that future will contain information exceeding the 512 byte limit that
applies to UDP, and hence will require TCP. Thus, resolvers and applies to UDP, and hence will require TCP. Thus, resolvers and
@@ -179,11 +161,19 @@ Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
Existing deployments of DNSSEC [RFC4033] have shown that truncation Existing deployments of DNSSEC [RFC4033] have shown that truncation
at the 512 byte boundary is now commonplace. For example an NXDOMAIN at the 512 byte boundary is now commonplace. For example an NXDOMAIN
Bellis Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
(RCODE == 3) response from a DNSSEC signed zone using NSEC3 [RFC5155] (RCODE == 3) response from a DNSSEC signed zone using NSEC3 [RFC5155]
is almost invariably longer than 512 bytes. is almost invariably longer than 512 bytes.
Since the original core specifications for DNS were written the Since the original core specifications for DNS were written, the
Extension Mechanisms for DNS EDNS0 [RFC2671] have been introduced. Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0 [RFC2671]) have been introduced.
These extensions can be used to indicate that the client is prepared These extensions can be used to indicate that the client is prepared
to receive UDP responses longer than 512 bytes. An EDNS0 compatible to receive UDP responses longer than 512 bytes. An EDNS0 compatible
server receiving a request from an EDNS0 compatible client may send server receiving a request from an EDNS0 compatible client may send
@@ -203,30 +193,22 @@ Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
1500 bytes, and even that limit is routinely exceeded by DNSSEC 1500 bytes, and even that limit is routinely exceeded by DNSSEC
signed responses. signed responses.
The future that was anticipated in RFC 1123 is now here, and the only The future that was anticipated in RFC 1123 has arrived, and the only
standardised mechanism which may have resolved the packet size issue standardised mechanism which may have resolved the packet size issue
has been found inadequate. has been found inadequate.
4. Transport Protocol Selection 4. Transport Protocol Selection
All DNS implementations MUST support both UDP and TCP transport
protocols, except as set out below.
On a case by case basis, authoritative DNS server operators MAY elect On a case by case basis, authoritative DNS server operators MAY elect
to disable DNS transport over TCP if all of the conditions below are to disable DNS transport over TCP if all of the following conditions
satisfied: are satisfied:
o the server is authoritative
Bellis Expires April 9, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
o the server is authoritative only
o the server does not support AXFR o the server does not support AXFR
o the server does not support DNSSEC
o all requests and responses are guaranteed to be <= 512 bytes o all requests and responses are guaranteed to be <= 512 bytes
A general purpose stub resolver implementation (e.g. an operating A general purpose stub resolver implementation (e.g. an operating
@@ -235,25 +217,31 @@ Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
with upstream servers. with upstream servers.
A proprietary stub resolver implementation MAY omit support for TCP A proprietary stub resolver implementation MAY omit support for TCP
if it is operating in an environment where truncation will not occur,
or if it is prepared to accept a DNS lookup failure should truncation
occur.
Bellis Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
if it is operating in an environment where truncation can never
occur, or if it is prepared to accept a DNS lookup failure should
truncation occur.
A recursive resolver or forwarder MUST support TCP so that it does A recursive resolver or forwarder MUST support TCP so that it does
not prevent long responses from a TCP-capable server from reaching not prevent long responses from a TCP-capable server from reaching
its TCP-capable clients. its TCP-capable clients.
Otherwise, all DNS implementations MUST support TCP transport.
Regarding the choice of when to use UDP or TCP, RFC 1123 says: Regarding the choice of when to use UDP or TCP, RFC 1123 says:
... a DNS resolver or server that is sending a non-zone-transfer ... a DNS resolver or server that is sending a non-zone-transfer
query MUST send a UDP query first. query MUST send a UDP query first.
This requirement is no longer mandatory. A resolver SHOULD send a That requirement is hereby relaxed. A resolver SHOULD send a UDP
UDP query first, but MAY elect to send a TCP query instead if it has query first, but MAY elect to send a TCP query instead if it has good
good reason to expect the response would be truncated if it were sent reason to expect the response would be truncated if it were sent over
over UDP, or other operational considerations suggest otherwise. UDP (with or without EDNS0) or for other operational reasons.
5. Dormant Connection Handling 5. Dormant Connection Handling
@@ -271,31 +259,42 @@ Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
them dormant can trivially create a "denial of service" attack. them dormant can trivially create a "denial of service" attack.
This document therefore RECOMMENDS that the idle period should be of This document therefore RECOMMENDS that the idle period should be of
the order of TBD seconds. With modern high performance networks 2 to the order of TBD seconds.
4 seconds should be sufficient to allow significant numbers (i.e.
Servers MAY allow dormant connections to remain open for longer
periods, but for the avoidance of doubt persistent DNS connections
should generally be considered to be as much for the server's benefit
as for the client's. Therefore if the server needs to unilaterally
close a dormant TCP connection it MUST be free to do so whenever
required.
Further recommendations for the tuning of TCP parameters to allow
higher throughput or improved resiliency against denial of service
attacks are (currently) outside the scope of this document.
Bellis Expires April 9, 2010 [Page 5]
Bellis Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009 Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
thousands) of concurrent dormant connections without impacting
service performance.
Servers MAY allow idle connections to remain open for longer periods,
but for the avoidance of doubt persistent DNS connections should
generally be considered to be as much for the server's benefit as for
the client's. Therefore if the server needs to unilaterally close a
dormant TCP connection it MUST be free to do so whenever required.
6. Response re-ordering 6. Response re-ordering
[Potential text to be added regarding whether TCP responses can come RFC 1035 is ambiguous on the question of whether TCP queries may be
back in a different order to requests. I'm not aware whether this is re-ordered - the only relevant text is in Section 4.2.1 which relates
specified anywhere] to UDP:
Queries or their responses may be reordered by the network, or by
processing in name servers, so resolvers should not depend on them
being returned in order.
For the avoidance of future doubt, this requirement is clarified.
Client resolvers MUST be able to process responses which arrive in a
different order to that in which the requests were sent, regardless
of the transport protocol in use.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
@@ -329,16 +328,15 @@ Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
RFC 792, September 1981. RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
Bellis Expires April 9, 2010 [Page 6] Bellis Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009 Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
@@ -377,6 +375,10 @@ Appendix A. Change Log
NB: to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication. NB: to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication.
draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-01
Addition of response ordering section
Various minor editorial changes from WG reviewers
draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-00 draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-00
Initial draft Initial draft
@@ -386,9 +388,7 @@ Appendix A. Change Log
Bellis Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Bellis Expires April 9, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009 Internet-Draft DNS Transport over TCP October 2009
@@ -444,5 +444,5 @@ Author's Address
Bellis Expires April 9, 2010 [Page 8] Bellis Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 8]