DNSOP M. Andrews
Internet-Draft ISC
Updates: 1034 (if approved) S. Huque
Intended status: Standards Track Salesforce
Expires: 14 December 2023 P. Wouters
Aiven
D. Wessels
Verisign
12 June 2023
DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses
draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-09
Abstract
The DNS uses glue records to allow iterative clients to find the
addresses of name servers that are contained within a delegated zone.
Authoritative Servers are expected to return all available glue
records for in-domain name servers in a referral response. If
message size constraints prevent the inclusion of all glue records
for in-domain name servers, the server must set the TC flag to inform
the client that the response is incomplete, and that the client
should use another transport to retrieve the full response. This
document updates RFC 1034 to clarify correct server behavior.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 December 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Types of Glue in Referral Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Glue for In-Domain Name Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Glue for Sibling Domain Name Servers . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Glue for Cyclic Sibling Domain Name Servers . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Missing Glue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Glue for In-Domain Name Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Glue for Sibling Domain Name Servers . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Updates to RFC 1034 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034], [RFC1035] uses glue records
to allow iterative clients to find the addresses of name servers that
are contained within a delegated zone. Glue records are added to the
parent zone as part of the delegation process and returned in
referral responses, otherwise a resolver following the referral has
no way of finding these addresses. Authoritative servers are
expected to return all available glue records for in-domain name
servers in a referral response. If message size constraints prevent
the inclusion of all glue records for in-domain name servers over the
chosen transport, the server MUST set the TC (Truncated) flag to
inform the client that the response is incomplete, and that the
client SHOULD use another transport to retrieve the full response.
This document clarifies that expectation.
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
DNS responses sometimes contain optional data in the additional
section. In-domain glue records, however, are not optional. Several
other protocol extensions, when used, are also not optional. This
includes TSIG [RFC8945], OPT [RFC6891], and SIG(0) [RFC2931].
At the time of this writing, addresses (A or AAAA records) for a
delegation's authoritative name servers are the only type of glue
defined for the DNS.
Note that this document only clarifies requirements of name server
software implementations. It does not introduce or change any
requirements on data placed in DNS zones or registries. In other
words, this document only makes requirements on "available glue
records" (i.e., those given in a zone), but does not make
requirements regarding their presence in a zone. If some glue
records are absent from a given zone, an authoritative name server
may be unable to return a useful referral response for the
corresponding domain. The IETF may want to consider a separate
update to the requirements for including glue in zone data, beyond
those given in [RFC1034] and [RFC1035].
This document assumes a reasonable level of familiarity with DNS
operations and protocol terms. Much of the terminology is explained
in further detail in "DNS Terminology" [RFC8499].
1.1. Reserved Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Types of Glue in Referral Responses
This section describes different types of glue that may be found in
DNS referral responses. Note that the type of glue depends on the
QNAME. A particular name server (and its corresponding glue record)
can be in-domain for one response and in a sibling domain for
another.
2.1. Glue for In-Domain Name Servers
The following is a simple example of glue records present in the
delegating zone "test" for the child zone "foo.test". The name
servers for foo.test (ns1.foo.test and ns2.foo.test) are both below
the delegation point. They are configured as glue records in the
"test" zone:
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns1.foo.test.
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns2.foo.test.
ns1.foo.test. 86400 IN A 192.0.2.1
ns2.foo.test. 86400 IN AAAA 2001:db8::2:2
A referral response from "test" for "foo.test" with glue for in-
domain name servers looks like this:
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.foo.test. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns1.foo.test.
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns2.foo.test.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.foo.test. 86400 IN A 192.0.2.1
ns2.foo.test. 86400 IN AAAA 2001:db8::2:2
2.2. Glue for Sibling Domain Name Servers
Sibling domain name servers are NS records that are not contained in
the delegated zone itself, but in another zone delegated from the
same parent. In many cases, glue for sibling domain name servers are
not strictly required for resolution, since the resolver can make
follow-on queries to the sibling zone to resolve the name server
addresses (after following the referral to the sibling zone).
However, most name server implementations today provide them as an
optimization to obviate the need for extra traffic from iterative
resolvers.
Here the delegating zone "test" contains two delegations for the
child zones "bar.test" and "foo.test":
bar.test. 86400 IN NS ns1.bar.test.
bar.test. 86400 IN NS ns2.bar.test.
ns1.bar.test. 86400 IN A 192.0.2.1
ns2.bar.test. 86400 IN AAAA 2001:db8::2:2
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns1.bar.test.
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns2.bar.test.
A referral response from "test" for "foo.test" with glue for sibling
domain name servers looks like this:
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.foo.test. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns1.bar.test.
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns2.bar.test.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.bar.test. 86400 IN A 192.0.2.1
ns2.bar.test. 86400 IN AAAA 2001:db8::2:2
2.3. Glue for Cyclic Sibling Domain Name Servers
The use of sibling domain name servers can introduce cyclic
dependencies. This happens when one domain specifies name servers
from a sibling domain, and vice versa. This type of cyclic
dependency can only be broken when the delegating name server
includes glue for the sibling domain in a referral response.
Here the delegating zone "test" contains two delegations for the
child zones "bar.test" and "foo.test", and each use name servers
under the other:
bar.test. 86400 IN NS ns1.foo.test.
bar.test. 86400 IN NS ns2.foo.test.
ns1.bar.test. 86400 IN A 192.0.2.1
ns2.bar.test. 86400 IN AAAA 2001:db8::2:2
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns1.bar.test.
foo.test. 86400 IN NS ns2.bar.test.
ns1.foo.test. 86400 IN A 192.0.2.3
ns2.foo.test. 86400 IN AAAA 2001:db8::2:4
A referral response from "test" for "bar.test" with glue for sibling
domain name servers looks like this:
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.bar.test. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
bar.test. 86400 IN NS ns1.foo.test.
bar.test. 86400 IN NS ns2.foo.test.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.foo.test. 86400 IN A 192.0.2.3
ns2.foo.test. 86400 IN AAAA 2001:db8::2:4
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
In late 2021 the authors analyzed zone file data available from
ICANN's Centralized Zone Data Service [CZDS] and found 222 out of
approximately 209,000,000 total delegations that had only sibling
domain NS RRs in a cyclic dependency as above.
2.4. Missing Glue
An example of missing glue is included here, even though it can not
be considered as a type of glue. While not common, real examples of
responses that lack required glue, and with TC=0, have been shown to
occur and cause resolution failures.
The example below, from the dig command [DIG], is based on a response
observed in June 2020. The names have been altered to fall under
documentation domains. It shows a case where none of the glue
records present in the zone fit into the available space of the UDP
response, and the TC flag was not set. While this example shows a
referral with DNSSEC records [RFC4033], [RFC4034], [RFC4035], this
behavior has been seen with plain DNS responses as well. Some
records have been truncated for display purposes. Note that at the
time of this writing, the servers originally responsible for this
example have been updated and now correctly set the TC flag.
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
% dig +norec +dnssec +bufsize=512 +ignore @ns.example.net \
rh202ns2.355.foo.example
; <<>> DiG 9.15.4 <<>> +norec +dnssec +bufsize +ignore \
@ns.example.net rh202ns2.355.foo.example
; (2 servers found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 8798
;; flags: qr; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 9, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;rh202ns2.355.foo.example. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
foo.example. 86400 IN NS rh120ns2.368.foo.example.
foo.example. 86400 IN NS rh202ns2.355.foo.example.
foo.example. 86400 IN NS rh120ns1.368.foo.example.
foo.example. 86400 IN NS rh202ns1.355.foo.example.
foo.example. 3600 IN DS 51937 8 1 ...
foo.example. 3600 IN DS 635 8 2 ...
foo.example. 3600 IN DS 51937 8 2 ...
foo.example. 3600 IN DS 635 8 1 ...
foo.example. 3600 IN RRSIG DS 8 2 3600 ...
3. Requirements
This section describes updated requirements for including glue in DNS
referral responses.
3.1. Glue for In-Domain Name Servers
This document clarifies that when a name server generates a referral
response, it MUST include all available glue records for in-domain
name servers in the additional section, or MUST set TC=1 if
constrained by message size.
At the time of writing, most iterative clients send initial queries
over UDP and retry over TCP upon receiving a response with the TC
flag set. UDP responses are generally limited to between 1232 and
4096 bytes, due to values commonly used for the EDNS0 UDP Message
Size field [RFC6891], [FLAGDAY2020]. TCP responses are limited to
65,535 bytes.
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
3.2. Glue for Sibling Domain Name Servers
This document clarifies that when a name server generates a referral
response, it SHOULD include all available glue records in the
additional section. If, after adding glue for all in-domain name
servers, the glue for all sibling domain name servers does not fit
due to message size constraints, the name server MAY set TC=1 but is
not obligated to do so.
Note that users may experience resolution failures for domains with
cyclically-dependent sibling name servers when the delegating name
server chooses to omit the corresponding glue in a referral response.
As described in Section 2.3, such domains are rare.
3.3. Updates to RFC 1034
Replace
"Copy the NS RRs for the subzone into the authority section of the
reply. Put whatever addresses are available into the additional
section, using glue RRs if the addresses are not available from
authoritative data or the cache. Go to step 4."
with
"Copy the NS RRs for the subzone into the authority section of the
reply. Put whatever NS addresses are available into the additional
section, using glue RRs if the addresses are not available from
authoritative data or the cache. If all glue RRs for in-domain name
servers do not fit, set TC=1 in the header. Go to step 4."
4. Security Considerations
This document clarifies correct DNS server behavior and does not
introduce any changes or new security considerations.
5. Operational Considerations
At the time of this writing, the behavior of most DNS server
implementations is to set the TC flag only if none of the available
glue records fit in a response over UDP transport. The updated
requirements in this document might lead to an increase in the
fraction of UDP responses with the TC flag set, and consequently an
increase in the number of queries received over TCP transport.
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
6. IANA Considerations
There are no actions for IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Joe Abley, David Blacka, Brian Dickson,
Kazunori Fujiwara, Paul Hoffman, Geoff Huston, Jared Mauch, George
Michaelson, Yasuhiro Orange Morishita, Benno Overeinder, John R
Levine, Hugo Salgado, Shinta Sato, Puneet Sood, Petr Spacek, Ralf
Weber, Tim Wicinski, Suzanne Woolf, and other members of the DNSOP
working group for their input.
8. Changes
RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.
This section lists substantial changes to the document as it is being
worked on.
From -01 to -02:
* Clarified that "servers" means "authoritative servers".
* Clarified that "available glue" means "all available glue".
* Updated examples and placed before RFC 1034 update.
From -02 to -03:
* Clarified scope to focus only on name server responses, and not
zone/registry data.
* Reorganized with section 2 as Types of Glue and section 3 as
Requirements.
* Removed any discussion of promoted / orphan glue.
* Use appropriate documentation addresses and domain names.
* Added Sibling Cyclic Glue example.
From -03 to -04:
* Use "referral glue" on the assumption that other types of glue may
be defined in the future.
* Added Operational Considerations section.
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
* Note many current implementations set TC=1 only when no glue RRs
fit. New requirements may lead to more truncation and TCP.
* Sibling glue can be optional. Only require TC=1 when all in-
domain glue RRs don't fit.
* Avoid talking about requirements for UDP/TCP specifically, and
talk more generically about message size constraints regardless of
transport.
From -04 to -05:
* Reverting the -04 change to use the phrase "referral glue".
* Rephrase "in-domain glue" as "glue for in-domain name servers".
* Rephrase "sibling glue" as "glue for sibling domain name servers".
* Expand paragraph noting this document does not make requirements
about presence of glue in zones.
From -05 to -06:
* More instances of rephrasing "in-domain glue" as "glue for in-
domain name servers" (and for sibling glue).
From -06 to -07:
* Change "NOT REQUIRED to set TC=1" to "MAY set TC=1 but is not
obligated to do so."
From -07 to -08:
* Update TSIG reference to RFC8945.
From -08 to -09:
* Lowercase RFC2119 keywords in abstract
* Add informative reference to DNS terminology RFC
* Add informative reference to dig
9. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10. Informative References
[CZDS] ICANN, "Centralized Zone Data Service", January 2022,
<https://czds.icann.org/>.
[DIG] Wikipedia, "dig (command)", June 2023,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_(command)>.
[FLAGDAY2020]
Various DNS software and service providers, "DNS Flag Day
2020", October 2020, <https://dnsflagday.net/2020/>.
[RFC2931] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, DOI 10.17487/RFC2931, September
2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2931>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Respon June 2023
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[RFC8945] Dupont, F., Morris, S., Vixie, P., Eastlake 3rd, D.,
Gudmundsson, O., and B. Wellington, "Secret Key
Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", STD 93,
RFC 8945, DOI 10.17487/RFC8945, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8945>.
Authors' Addresses
M. Andrews
ISC
Email: marka@isc.org
Shumon Huque
Salesforce
Email: shuque@gmail.com
Paul Wouters
Aiven
Email: paul.wouters@aiven.io
Duane Wessels
Verisign
Email: dwessels@verisign.com
Andrews, et al. Expires 14 December 2023 [Page 12]
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Folders and files
Name | Name | Last commit message | Last commit date | |
---|---|---|---|---|
 |  | |||
 |  | |||
 |  | |||
 |  | |||
 |  | |||
 |  | |||
 |  | |||
Repository files navigation
About
No description, website, or topics provided.
Resources
Stars
Watchers
Forks
Packages 0
No packages published