draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-16.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-17.txt 
Network Working Group M. Andrews Network Working Group M. Andrews
Internet-Draft R. Bellis Internet-Draft R. Bellis
Intended status: Best Current Practice ISC Intended status: Best Current Practice ISC
Expires: September 9, 2020 March 8, 2020 Expires: September 12, 2020 March 11, 2020
A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To Communicate. A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To Communicate.
draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-16 draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-17
Abstract Abstract
The DNS is a query / response protocol. Failing to respond to The DNS is a query / response protocol. Failing to respond to
queries, or responding incorrectly, causes both immediate operational queries, or responding incorrectly, causes both immediate operational
problems and long term problems with protocol development. problems and long term problems with protocol development.
This document identifies a number of common kinds of queries to which This document identifies a number of common kinds of queries to which
some servers either fail to respond or else respond incorrectly. some servers either fail to respond or else respond incorrectly.
This document also suggests procedures for zone operators to apply to This document also suggests procedures for zone operators to apply to
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
8.2.6. Testing EDNS Version Negotiation With Unknown EDNS 8.2.6. Testing EDNS Version Negotiation With Unknown EDNS
Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2.7. Testing Truncated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.2.7. Testing Truncated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2.8. Testing DO=1 Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.2.8. Testing DO=1 Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2.9. Testing EDNS Version Negotiation With DO=1 . . . . . 21 8.2.9. Testing EDNS Version Negotiation With DO=1 . . . . . 21
8.2.10. Testing With Multiple Defined EDNS Options . . . . . 22 8.2.10. Testing With Multiple Defined EDNS Options . . . . . 22
8.3. When EDNS Is Not Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.3. When EDNS Is Not Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9. Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The DNS [RFC1034], [RFC1035] is a query / response protocol. Failing The DNS [RFC1034], [RFC1035] is a query / response protocol. Failing
to respond to queries, or responding incorrectly, causes both to respond to queries, or responding incorrectly, causes both
immediate operational problems and long term problems with protocol immediate operational problems and long term problems with protocol
development. development.
Failure to respond to a query is indistinguishable from packet loss Failure to respond to a query is indistinguishable from packet loss
without doing an analysis of query-response patterns. Additionally without doing an analysis of query-response patterns. Additionally
skipping to change at page 11, line 30 skipping to change at page 11, line 30
zone. zone.
It is advisable to run all of the tests below in parallel so as to It is advisable to run all of the tests below in parallel so as to
minimise the delays due to multiple timeouts when the servers do not minimise the delays due to multiple timeouts when the servers do not
respond. There are 16 queries directed to each nameserver (assuming respond. There are 16 queries directed to each nameserver (assuming
no packet loss) testing different aspects of Basic DNS and Extended no packet loss) testing different aspects of Basic DNS and Extended
DNS. DNS.
The tests below use dig from BIND 9.11.0. The tests below use dig from BIND 9.11.0.
When testing recursive servers set RD=1 and choose a zone name that
is know to exist and is not being served by the recursive server.
The root zone (".") is often a good candidate as it is DNSSEC signed.
RD=1, rather than RD=0, should be present in the responses for all
test involving the opcode QUERY. Non-authoritative answers (AA=0)
are expected when talking to a recursive server. AD=1 is only
expected if the server is validating responses and one or both AD=1
or DO=1 is set in the request otherwise AD=0 is expected.
8.1. Testing - Basic DNS 8.1. Testing - Basic DNS
This first set of tests cover basic DNS server behaviour and all This first set of tests cover basic DNS server behaviour and all
servers should pass these tests. servers should pass these tests.
8.1.1. Is The Server Configured For The Zone? 8.1.1. Is The Server Configured For The Zone?
Ask for the SOA record of the configured zone. This query is made Ask for the SOA record of the configured zone. This query is made
with no DNS flag bits set and without EDNS. with no DNS flag bits set and without EDNS.
skipping to change at page 24, line 26 skipping to change at page 24, line 26
settings. settings.
When removing delegations for non-compliant servers there can be a When removing delegations for non-compliant servers there can be a
knock on effect on other zones that require these zones to be knock on effect on other zones that require these zones to be
operational for the nameservers addresses to be resolved. operational for the nameservers addresses to be resolved.
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
There are no actions for IANA. There are no actions for IANA.
12. References 12. Acknowledgements
12.1. Normative References The contributions of the following are gratefully acknowledged:
Matthew Pounsett, Tim Wicinski.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC3225] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC", [RFC3225] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC",
skipping to change at page 25, line 19 skipping to change at page 25, line 24
[RFC6895] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA [RFC6895] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895, Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895,
April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>. April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>.
[RFC7766] Dickinson, J., Dickinson, S., Bellis, R., Mankin, A., and [RFC7766] Dickinson, J., Dickinson, S., Bellis, R., Mankin, A., and
D. Wessels, "DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation D. Wessels, "DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation
Requirements", RFC 7766, DOI 10.17487/RFC7766, March 2016, Requirements", RFC 7766, DOI 10.17487/RFC7766, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7766>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7766>.
12.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, DOI 10.17487/RFC2671, August 1999, RFC 2671, DOI 10.17487/RFC2671, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2671>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2671>.
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record [RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, DOI 10.17487/RFC3597, September (RR) Types", RFC 3597, DOI 10.17487/RFC3597, September
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3597>. 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3597>.
[RFC5001] Austein, R., "DNS Name Server Identifier (NSID) Option", [RFC5001] Austein, R., "DNS Name Server Identifier (NSID) Option",
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 26 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/