1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Damas
Request for Comments: 6891 Bond Internet Systems
STD: 75 M. Graff
Obsoletes: <a href="./rfc2671">2671</a>, <a href="./rfc2673">2673</a>
Category: Standards Track P. Vixie
ISSN: 2070-1721 Internet Systems Consortium
April 2013
<span class="h1">Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))</span>
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 requestors to advertise their capabilities to responders. This
document describes backward-compatible mechanisms for allowing the
protocol to grow.
This document updates the Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))
specification (and obsoletes <a href="./rfc2671">RFC 2671</a>) based on feedback from
deployment experience in several implementations. It also obsoletes
<a href="./rfc2673">RFC 2673</a> ("Binary Labels in the Domain Name System") and adds
considerations on the use of extended labels in the DNS.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891</a>.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. EDNS Support Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. DNS Message Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Message Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Label Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. UDP Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Extended Label Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. The OPT Pseudo-RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. OPT Record Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.1.1">6.1.1</a>. Basic Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.1.2">6.1.2</a>. Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-6.1.3">6.1.3</a>. OPT Record TTL Field Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-6.1.4">6.1.4</a>. Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-6.2.1">6.2.1</a>. Cache Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-6.2.2">6.2.2</a>. Fallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-6.2.3">6.2.3</a>. Requestor's Payload Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-6.2.4">6.2.4</a>. Responder's Payload Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-6.2.5">6.2.5</a>. Payload Size Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-6.2.6">6.2.6</a>. Support in Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. OPT Option Code Allocation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Changes since RFCs 2671 and 2673 . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-16">16</a>
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
DNS [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>] 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 over UDP
not using the extensions described in this document is 512 bytes.
Many of DNS's protocol limits, such as the maximum message size over
UDP, are too small to efficiently support the additional information
that can be conveyed in the DNS (e.g., several IPv6 addresses or DNS
Security (DNSSEC) signatures). Finally, <a href="./rfc1035">RFC 1035</a> does not define any
way for implementations to advertise their capabilities to any of the
other actors they interact with.
[<a id="ref-RFC2671">RFC2671</a>] added extension mechanisms to DNS. These mechanisms are
widely supported, and a number of new DNS uses and protocol
extensions depend on the presence of these extensions. This memo
refines and obsoletes [<a href="./rfc2671" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)"">RFC2671</a>].
Unextended agents will not know how to interpret the protocol
extensions defined in [<a href="./rfc2671" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)"">RFC2671</a>] and restated here. Extended agents
need to be prepared for handling the interactions with unextended
clients in the face of new protocol elements and fall back gracefully
to unextended DNS.
EDNS is a hop-by-hop extension to DNS. This means the use of EDNS is
negotiated between each pair of hosts in a DNS resolution process,
for instance, the stub resolver communicating with the recursive
resolver or the recursive resolver communicating with an
authoritative server.
[<a id="ref-RFC2671">RFC2671</a>] specified extended label types. The only such label
proposed was in [<a href="./rfc2673" title=""Binary Labels in the Domain Name System"">RFC2673</a>] for a label type called "Bit-String Label"
or "Binary Labels", with this latest term being the one in common
use. For various reasons, introducing a new label type was found to
be extremely difficult, and [<a href="./rfc2673" title=""Binary Labels in the Domain Name System"">RFC2673</a>] was moved to Experimental.
This document obsoletes [<a href="./rfc2673" title=""Binary Labels in the Domain Name System"">RFC2673</a>], deprecating Binary Labels.
Extended labels remain defined, but their use is discouraged due to
practical difficulties with deployment; their use in the future
SHOULD only be considered after careful evaluation of the deployment
hindrances.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
"Requestor" refers to the side that sends a request. "Responder"
refers to an authoritative, recursive resolver or other DNS component
that responds to questions. Other terminology is used here as
defined in the RFCs cited by this document.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
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 <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. EDNS Support Requirement</span>
EDNS provides a mechanism to improve the scalability of DNS as its
uses get more diverse on the Internet. It does this by enabling the
use of UDP transport for DNS messages with sizes beyond the limits
specified in <a href="./rfc1035">RFC 1035</a> as well as providing extra data space for
additional flags and return codes (RCODEs). However, implementation
experience indicates that adding new RCODEs should be avoided due to
the difficulty in upgrading the installed base. Flags SHOULD be used
only when necessary for DNS resolution to function.
For many uses, an EDNS Option Code may be preferred.
Over time, some applications of DNS have made EDNS a requirement for
their deployment. For instance, DNSSEC uses the additional flag
space introduced in EDNS to signal the request to include DNSSEC data
in a DNS response.
Given the increase in DNS response sizes when including larger data
items such as AAAA records, DNSSEC information (e.g., RRSIG or
DNSKEY), or large TXT records, the additional UDP payload
capabilities provided by EDNS can help improve the scalability of the
DNS by avoiding widespread use of TCP for DNS transport.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. DNS Message Changes</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Message Header</span>
The DNS message header's second full 16-bit word is divided into a
4-bit OPCODE, a 4-bit RCODE, and a number of 1-bit flags (see <a href="./rfc1035#section-4.1.1">Section</a>
<a href="./rfc1035#section-4.1.1">4.1.1 of [RFC1035]</a>). Some of these flag values were marked for
future use, and most of these have since been allocated. Also, most
of the RCODE values are now in use. The OPT pseudo-RR specified
below contains extensions to the RCODE bit field as well as
additional flag bits.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Label Types</span>
The first 2 bits of a wire format domain label are used to denote the
type of the label. [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>] allocates 2 of the 4 possible types and
reserves the other 2. More label types were defined in [<a href="./rfc2671" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)"">RFC2671</a>].
The use of the 2-bit combination defined by [<a href="./rfc2671" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)"">RFC2671</a>] to identify
extended label types remains valid. However, it has been found that
deployment of new label types is noticeably difficult and so is only
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
recommended after careful evaluation of alternatives and the need for
deployment.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. UDP Message Size</span>
Traditional DNS messages are limited to 512 octets in size when sent
over UDP [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]. Fitting the increasing amounts of data that can
be transported in DNS in this 512-byte limit is becoming more
difficult. For instance, inclusion of DNSSEC records frequently
requires a much larger response than a 512-byte message can hold.
EDNS(0) specifies a way to advertise additional features such as
larger response size capability, which is intended to help avoid
truncated UDP responses, which in turn cause retry over TCP. It
therefore provides support for transporting these larger packet sizes
without needing to resort to TCP for transport.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Extended Label Types</span>
The first octet in the on-the-wire representation of a DNS label
specifies the label type; the basic DNS specification [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
dedicates the 2 most significant bits of that octet for this purpose.
[<a id="ref-RFC2671">RFC2671</a>] defined DNS label type 0b01 for use as an indication for
extended label types. A specific extended label type was selected by
the 6 least significant bits of the first octet. Thus, extended
label types were indicated by the values 64-127 (0b01xxxxxx) in the
first octet of the label.
Extended label types are extremely difficult to deploy due to lack of
support in clients and intermediate gateways, as described in
[<a href="./rfc3363" title=""Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)"">RFC3363</a>], which moved [<a href="./rfc2673" title=""Binary Labels in the Domain Name System"">RFC2673</a>] to Experimental status; and
[<a href="./rfc3364" title=""Tradeoffs in Domain Name System (DNS) Support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)"">RFC3364</a>], which describes the pros and cons. As such, proposals
that contemplate extended labels SHOULD weigh this deployment cost
against the possibility of implementing functionality in other ways.
Finally, implementations MUST NOT generate or pass Binary Labels in
their communications, as they are now deprecated.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. The OPT Pseudo-RR</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. OPT Record Definition</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1.1" href="#section-6.1.1">6.1.1</a>. Basic Elements</span>
An OPT pseudo-RR (sometimes called a meta-RR) MAY be added to the
additional data section of a request.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
The OPT RR has RR type 41.
If an OPT record is present in a received request, compliant
responders MUST include an OPT record in their respective responses.
An OPT record does not carry any DNS data. It is used only to
contain control information pertaining to the question-and-answer
sequence of a specific transaction. OPT RRs MUST NOT be cached,
forwarded, or stored in or loaded from master files.
The OPT RR MAY be placed anywhere within the additional data section.
When an OPT RR is included within any DNS message, it MUST be the
only OPT RR in that message. If a query message with more than one
OPT RR is received, a FORMERR (RCODE=1) MUST be returned. The
placement flexibility for the OPT RR does not override the need for
the TSIG or SIG(0) RRs to be the last in the additional section
whenever they are present.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1.2" href="#section-6.1.2">6.1.2</a>. Wire Format</span>
An OPT RR has a fixed part and a variable set of options expressed as
{attribute, value} pairs. The fixed part holds some DNS metadata,
and also a small collection of basic extension elements that we
expect to be so popular that it would be a waste of wire space to
encode them as {attribute, value} pairs.
The fixed part of an OPT RR is structured as follows:
+------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| Field Name | Field Type | Description |
+------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| NAME | domain name | MUST be 0 (root domain) |
| TYPE | u_int16_t | OPT (41) |
| CLASS | u_int16_t | requestor's UDP payload size |
| TTL | u_int32_t | extended RCODE and flags |
| RDLEN | u_int16_t | length of all RDATA |
| RDATA | octet stream | {attribute,value} pairs |
+------------+--------------+------------------------------+
OPT RR Format
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
The variable part of an OPT RR may contain zero or more options in
the RDATA. Each option MUST be treated as a bit field. Each option
is encoded as:
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | OPTION-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4: | |
/ OPTION-DATA /
/ /
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
OPTION-CODE
Assigned by the Expert Review process as defined by the DNSEXT
working group and the IESG.
OPTION-LENGTH
Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA.
OPTION-DATA
Varies per OPTION-CODE. MUST be treated as a bit field.
The order of appearance of option tuples is not defined. If one
option modifies the behaviour of another or multiple options are
related to one another in some way, they have the same effect
regardless of ordering in the RDATA wire encoding.
Any OPTION-CODE values not understood by a responder or requestor
MUST be ignored. Specifications of such options might wish to
include some kind of signaled acknowledgement. For example, an
option specification might say that if a responder sees and supports
option XYZ, it MUST include option XYZ in its response.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1.3" href="#section-6.1.3">6.1.3</a>. OPT Record TTL Field Use</span>
The extended RCODE and flags, which OPT stores in the RR Time to Live
(TTL) field, are structured as follows:
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | EXTENDED-RCODE | VERSION |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | DO| Z |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
EXTENDED-RCODE
Forms the upper 8 bits of extended 12-bit RCODE (together with the
4 bits defined in [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]. Note that EXTENDED-RCODE value 0
indicates that an unextended RCODE is in use (values 0 through
15).
VERSION
Indicates the implementation level of the setter. 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 minimise the
responder and network load of discovering the greatest common
implementation level between requestor and responder. A
requestor's version numbering strategy MAY ideally be a run-time
configuration option.
If a responder does not implement the VERSION level of the
request, then it MUST respond with RCODE=BADVERS. All responses
MUST be limited in format to the VERSION level of the request, but
the VERSION of each response SHOULD 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 and including RCODE=BADVERS.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1.4" href="#section-6.1.4">6.1.4</a>. Flags</span>
DO
DNSSEC OK bit as defined by [<a href="./rfc3225" title=""Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC"">RFC3225</a>].
Z
Set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers, unless modified
in a subsequent specification.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Behaviour</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2.1" href="#section-6.2.1">6.2.1</a>. Cache Behaviour</span>
The OPT record MUST NOT be cached.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2.2" href="#section-6.2.2">6.2.2</a>. Fallback</span>
If a requestor detects that the remote end does not support EDNS(0),
it MAY issue queries without an OPT record. It MAY cache this
knowledge for a brief time in order to avoid fallback delays in the
future. However, if DNSSEC or any future option using EDNS is
required, no fallback should be performed, as these options are only
signaled through EDNS. If an implementation detects that some
servers for the zone support EDNS(0) while others would force the use
of TCP to fetch all data, preference MAY be given to servers that
support EDNS(0). Implementers SHOULD analyse this choice and the
impact on both endpoints.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2.3" href="#section-6.2.3">6.2.3</a>. Requestor's Payload Size</span>
The requestor's UDP payload size (encoded in the RR CLASS field) is
the number of octets of the largest UDP payload that can be
reassembled and delivered in the requestor's network stack. Note
that path MTU, with or without fragmentation, could be smaller than
this.
Values lower than 512 MUST be treated as equal to 512.
The requestor SHOULD place a value in this field that it can actually
receive. For example, if a requestor sits behind a firewall that
will block fragmented IP packets, a requestor SHOULD NOT choose a
value that will cause fragmentation. Doing so will prevent large
responses from being received and can cause fallback to occur. This
knowledge may be auto-detected by the implementation or provided by a
human administrator.
Note that a 512-octet UDP payload requires a 576-octet IP reassembly
buffer. Choosing between 1280 and 1410 bytes for IP (v4 or v6) over
Ethernet would be reasonable.
Where fragmentation is not a concern, use of bigger values SHOULD be
considered by implementers. Implementations SHOULD use their largest
configured or implemented values as a starting point in an EDNS
transaction in the absence of previous knowledge about the
destination server.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
Choosing a very large value will guarantee fragmentation at the IP
layer, and may prevent answers from being received due to loss of a
single fragment or to misconfigured firewalls.
The requestor's maximum payload size can change over time. It MUST
NOT be cached for use beyond the transaction in which it is
advertised.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2.4" href="#section-6.2.4">6.2.4</a>. Responder's Payload Size</span>
The responder's maximum payload size can change over time but can
reasonably be expected to remain constant between two closely spaced
sequential transactions, for example, an arbitrary QUERY used as a
probe to discover a responder's maximum UDP payload size, followed
immediately by an UPDATE that takes advantage of this size. This is
considered preferable 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-byte payload size limit.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2.5" href="#section-6.2.5">6.2.5</a>. Payload Size Selection</span>
Due to transaction overhead, it is not recommended to advertise an
architectural limit as a maximum UDP payload size. Even on system
stacks capable of reassembling 64 KB datagrams, memory usage at low
levels in the system will be a concern. A good compromise may be the
use of an EDNS maximum payload size of 4096 octets as a starting
point.
A requestor MAY choose to implement a fallback to smaller advertised
sizes to work around firewall or other network limitations. A
requestor SHOULD choose to use a fallback mechanism that begins with
a large size, such as 4096. If that fails, a fallback around the
range of 1280-1410 bytes SHOULD be tried, as it has a reasonable
chance to fit within a single Ethernet frame. Failing that, a
requestor MAY choose a 512-byte packet, which with large answers may
cause a TCP retry.
Values of less than 512 bytes MUST be treated as equal to 512 bytes.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2.6" href="#section-6.2.6">6.2.6</a>. Support in Middleboxes</span>
In a network that carries DNS traffic, there could be active
equipment other than that participating directly in the DNS
resolution process (stub and caching resolvers, authoritative
servers) that affects the transmission of DNS messages (e.g.,
firewalls, load balancers, proxies, etc.), referred to here as
"middleboxes".
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
Conformant middleboxes MUST NOT limit DNS messages over UDP to 512
bytes.
Middleboxes that simply forward requests to a recursive resolver MUST
NOT modify and MUST NOT delete the OPT record contents in either
direction.
Middleboxes that have additional functionality, such as answering
queries or acting as intelligent forwarders, SHOULD be able to
process the OPT record and act based on its contents. These
middleboxes MUST consider the incoming request and any outgoing
requests as separate transactions if the characteristics of the
messages are different.
A more in-depth discussion of this type of equipment and other
considerations regarding their interaction with DNS traffic is found
in [<a href="./rfc5625" title=""DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines"">RFC5625</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Transport Considerations</span>
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.
Lack of presence of an OPT record in a request MUST be taken as an
indication that the requestor does not implement any part of this
specification and that the responder MUST NOT include an OPT record
in its response.
Extended agents MUST be prepared for handling interactions with
unextended clients in the face of new protocol elements and fall back
gracefully to unextended DNS when needed.
Responders that choose not to implement the protocol extensions
defined in this document MUST respond with a return code (RCODE) of
FORMERR to messages containing an OPT record in the additional
section and MUST NOT include an OPT record in the response.
If there is a problem with processing the OPT record itself, such as
an option value that is badly formatted or that includes out-of-range
values, a FORMERR MUST be returned. If this occurs, the response
MUST include an OPT record. This is intended to allow the requestor
to distinguish between servers that do not implement EDNS and format
errors within EDNS.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
The minimal response MUST be the DNS header, question section, and an
OPT record. This MUST also occur when a truncated response (using
the DNS header's TC bit) is returned.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations</span>
Requestor-side specification of the maximum buffer size may open a
DNS denial-of-service attack if responders can be made to send
messages that are too large for intermediate gateways to forward,
thus leading to potential ICMP storms between gateways and
responders.
Announcing very large UDP buffer sizes may result in dropping of DNS
messages by middleboxes (see <a href="#section-6.2.6">Section 6.2.6</a>). This could cause
retransmissions with no hope of success. Some devices have been
found to reject fragmented UDP packets.
Announcing UDP buffer sizes that are too small may result in fallback
to TCP with a corresponding load impact on DNS servers. This is
especially important with DNSSEC, where answers are much larger.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
The IANA has assigned RR type code 41 for OPT.
[<a id="ref-RFC2671">RFC2671</a>] specified a number of IANA subregistries within "DOMAIN
NAME SYSTEM PARAMETERS":
o DNS EDNS(0) Options
o EDNS Version Number
o EDNS Header Flags
Additionally, two entries were generated in existing registries:
o EDNS Extended Label Type in the DNS Label Types registry
o Bad OPT Version in the DNS RCODES registry
IANA has updated references to [<a href="./rfc2671" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)"">RFC2671</a>] in these entries and
subregistries to this document.
[<a id="ref-RFC2671">RFC2671</a>] created the DNS Label Types registry. This registry is to
remain open.
The registration procedure for the DNS Label Types registry is
Standards Action.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
This document assigns option code 65535 in the DNS EDNS0 Options
registry to "Reserved for future expansion".
The current status of the IANA registry for EDNS Option Codes at the
time of publication of this document is
o 0-4 assigned, per references in the registry
o 5-65000 Available for assignment, unassigned
o 65001-65534 Local/Experimental use
o 65535 Reserved for future expansion
[<a id="ref-RFC2671">RFC2671</a>] expands the RCODE space from 4 bits to 12 bits. This
allows more than the 16 distinct RCODE values allowed in [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>].
IETF Review is required to add a new RCODE.
This document assigns EDNS Extended RCODE 16 to "BADVERS" in the DNS
RCODES registry.
[<a id="ref-RFC2671">RFC2671</a>] called for the recording of assignment of extended label
types 0bxx111111 as "Reserved for future extended label types"; the
IANA registry currently contains "Reserved for future expansion".
This request implied, at that time, a request to open a new registry
for extended label types, but due to the possibility of ambiguity,
new text registrations were instead made within the general DNS Label
Types registry, which also registers entries originally defined by
[<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]. There is therefore no Extended Label Types registry, with
all label types registered in the DNS Label Types registry.
This document deprecates Binary Labels. Therefore, the status for
the DNS Label Types registration "Binary Labels" is now "Historic".
IETF Standards Action is required for assignments of new EDNS(0)
flags. Flags SHOULD be used only when necessary for DNS resolution
to function. For many uses, an EDNS Option Code may be preferred.
IETF Standards Action is required to create new entries in the EDNS
Version Number registry. Within the EDNS Option Code space, Expert
Review is required for allocation of an EDNS Option Code. Per this
document, IANA maintains a registry for the EDNS Option Code space.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. OPT Option Code Allocation Procedure</span>
OPT Option Codes are assigned by Expert Review.
Assignment of Option Codes should be liberal, but duplicate
functionality is to be avoided.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.1" href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1035">RFC1035</a>] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, <a href="./rfc1035">RFC 1035</a>, November 1987.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC2671">RFC2671</a>] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
<a href="./rfc2671">RFC 2671</a>, August 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC3225">RFC3225</a>] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC",
<a href="./rfc3225">RFC 3225</a>, December 2001.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.2" href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2673">RFC2673</a>] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
<a href="./rfc2673">RFC 2673</a>, August 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC3363">RFC3363</a>] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", <a href="./rfc3363">RFC 3363</a>,
August 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC3364">RFC3364</a>] Austein, R., "Tradeoffs in Domain Name System (DNS)
Support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", <a href="./rfc3364">RFC 3364</a>,
August 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC5625">RFC5625</a>] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp152">BCP 152</a>, <a href="./rfc5625">RFC 5625</a>, August 2009.
<span class="grey">Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a> EDNS(0) Extensions April 2013</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Changes since RFCs 2671 and 2673</span>
Following is a list of high-level changes to RFCs 2671 and 2673.
o Support for the OPT record is now mandatory.
o Extended label types remain available, but their use is
discouraged as a general solution due to observed difficulties in
their deployment on the Internet, as illustrated by the work with
the "Binary Labels" type.
o <a href="./rfc2673">RFC 2673</a>, which defined the "Binary Labels" type and is currently
Experimental, is requested to be moved to Historic.
o Made changes in how EDNS buffer sizes are selected, and provided
recommendations on how to select them.
Authors' Addresses
Joao Damas
Bond Internet Systems
Av Albufera 14
S.S. Reyes, Madrid 28701
ES
Phone: +1 650.423.1312
EMail: joao@bondis.org
Michael Graff
EMail: explorer@flame.org
Paul Vixie
Internet Systems Consortium
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, California 94063
US
Phone: +1 650.423.1301
EMail: vixie@isc.org
Damas, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
</pre>
|
