-Network Working Group M. Andrews
-Internet-Draft ISC
-Intended status: BCP March 25, 2010
-Expires: September 26, 2010
- Locally-served DNS Zones
- draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-10
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Andrews
+Request for Comments: 6303 ISC
+BCP: 163 July 2011
+Category: Best Current Practice
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ Locally Served DNS Zones
Abstract
Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS) has shown that there are
- a number of DNS zones all iterative resolvers and recursive
+ a number of DNS zones that all iterative resolvers and recursive
nameservers should automatically serve, unless configured otherwise.
RFC 4193 specifies that this should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This
document extends the practice to cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC
- 1918 address space and other well known zones with similar
+ 1918 address space and other well-known zones with similar
characteristics.
-Status of this Memo
-
- This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
- provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+Status of This Memo
- 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.
+ This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
- 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 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
+ BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
- 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 September 26, 2010.
+ Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+ and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+ http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6303.
Copyright Notice
- Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ Copyright (c) 2011 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
-
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 1]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
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 BSD License.
+ described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+
+
+
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 1]
+\f
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
+
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 2]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
- 1.1. Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
- 2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses. . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 4. Lists Of Zones Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 4.1. RFC1918 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 4.2. RFC3330 and RFC5737 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 4.6. IPv6 Example Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication] . . . . 10
- A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-10.txt . . . . . . . 10
- A.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-09.txt . . . . . . . 10
- A.3. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-08.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.4. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-07.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.5. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-06.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.6. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-05.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.7. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-04.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.8. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-03.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.9. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-02.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.10. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.11. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt . . . . . . . 11
- A.12. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt . . . . . . . 12
- A.13. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt . . . . . . . 12
- Appendix B. Proposed Status [To Be Removed on Publication] . . . 12
- Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
-
-
-
-
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................2
+ 1.1. Reserved Words .............................................3
+ 2. Effects on Sites Using RFC 1918 Addresses .......................3
+ 3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour .........................4
+ 4. Lists Of Zones Covered ..........................................5
+ 4.1. RFC 1918 Zones .............................................5
+ 4.2. RFC 5735 and RFC 5737 Zones ................................5
+ 4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses ...............................6
+ 4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses ......................6
+ 4.5. IPv6 Link-Local Addresses ..................................7
+ 4.6. IPv6 Example Prefix ........................................7
+ 5. Zones That Are Out of Scope .....................................7
+ 6. IANA Considerations .............................................8
+ 7. Security Considerations .........................................8
+ 8. Acknowledgements ................................................9
+ 9. References ......................................................9
+ 9.1. Normative References .......................................9
+ 9.2. Informative References ....................................10
+1. Introduction
+ Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS, [RFC1034] and [RFC1035])
+ has shown that there are a number of DNS zones that all iterative
+ resolvers and recursive nameservers SHOULD automatically serve,
+ unless intentionally configured otherwise. These zones include, but
+ are not limited to, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for the address space
+ allocated by [RFC1918] and the IP6.ARPA zones for locally assigned
+ unique local IPv6 addresses defined in [RFC4193].
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 3]
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 2]
\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
-1. Introduction
-
- Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS, [RFC1034] and [RFC1035])
- has shown that there are a number of DNS zones that all iterative
- resolvers and recursive nameservers SHOULD automatically serve,
- unless intentionally configured otherwise. These zones include, but
- are not limited to, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for the address space
- allocated by [RFC1918] and the IP6.ARPA zones for locally assigned
- unique local IPv6 addresses defined in [RFC4193].
-
This recommendation is made because data has shown that significant
- leakage of queries for these name spaces is occurring, despite
+ leakage of queries for these namespaces is occurring, despite
instructions to restrict them, and because it has therefore become
- necessary to deploy sacrificial name servers to protect the immediate
- parent name servers for these zones from excessive, unintentional,
- query load [AS112] [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops]
- [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help]. There is every
- expectation that the query load will continue to increase unless
- steps are taken as outlined here.
+ necessary to deploy sacrificial nameservers to protect the immediate
+ parent nameservers for these zones from excessive, unintentional
+ query load [AS112] [RFC6304] [RFC6305]. There is every expectation
+ that the query load will continue to increase unless steps are taken
+ as outlined here.
Additionally, queries from clients behind badly configured firewalls
- that allow outgoing queries for these name spaces but drop the
- responses, put a significant load on the root servers (forward but no
- reverse zones configured). They also cause operational load for the
- root server operators as they have to reply to enquiries about why
- the root servers are "attacking" these clients. Changing the default
- configuration will address all these issues for the zones listed in
- Section 4.
+ that allow outgoing queries for these namespaces, but drop the
+ responses, put a significant load on the root servers (forward zones
+ but not reverse zones are configured). They also cause operational
+ load for the root server operators, as they have to reply to
+ enquiries about why the root servers are "attacking" these clients.
+ Changing the default configuration will address all these issues for
+ the zones listed in Section 4.
[RFC4193] recommends that queries for D.F.IP6.ARPA be handled
- locally. This document extends the recommendation to cover the IN-
- ADDR.ARPA zones for [RFC1918] and other well known IN-ADDR.ARPA and
- IP6.ARPA zones for which queries should not appear on the public
+ locally. This document extends the recommendation to cover the
+ IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for [RFC1918] and other well-known IN-ADDR.ARPA
+ and IP6.ARPA zones for which queries should not appear on the public
Internet.
It is hoped that by doing this the number of sacrificial servers
[AS112] will not have to be increased, and may in time be reduced.
This recommendation should also help DNS responsiveness for sites
- which are using [RFC1918] addresses but do not follow the last
+ that are using [RFC1918] addresses but do not follow the last
paragraph in Section 3 of [RFC1918].
1.1. Reserved Words
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
-
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 4]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
-2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses.
+2. Effects on Sites Using RFC 1918 Addresses
For most sites using [RFC1918] addresses, the changes here will have
little or no detrimental effect. If the site does not already have
- the reverse tree populated the only effect will be that the name
+ the reverse tree populated, the only effect will be that the name
error responses will be generated locally rather than remotely.
For sites that do have the reverse tree populated, most will either
have a local copy of the zones or will be forwarding the queries to
- servers which have local copies of the zone. Therefore this
+ servers that have local copies of the zone. Therefore, this
recommendation will not be relevant.
+
+
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 3]
+\f
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
+
+
The most significant impact will be felt at sites that make use of
delegations for [RFC1918] addresses and have populated these zones.
These sites will need to override the default configuration expressed
sites will be fully disconnected from the Internet and have their own
root servers for their own non-Internet DNS tree.
-
-3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour.
+3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour
Unless configured otherwise, an iterative resolver will now return
- authoritatively (aa=1) name errors (RCODE=3) for queries within the
+ authoritatively (AA=1) name errors (RCODE=3) for queries within the
zones in Section 4, with the obvious exception of queries for the
- zone name itself where SOA, NS and "no data" responses will be
+ zone name itself where SOA, NS, and "no data" responses will be
returned as appropriate to the query type. One common way to do this
all at once is to serve empty (SOA and NS only) zones.
An implementation of this recommendation MUST provide a mechanism to
- disable this new behaviour, and SHOULD allow this decision on a zone
- by zone basis.
+ disable this new behaviour, and SHOULD allow this decision on a zone-
+ by-zone basis.
If using empty zones one SHOULD NOT use the same NS and SOA records
- as used on the public Internet servers as that will make it harder to
- detect the origin of the responses and thus any leakage to the public
- Internet servers. This document recommends that the NS record
+ as used on the public Internet servers, as that will make it harder
+ to detect the origin of the responses and thus any leakage to the
+ public Internet servers. It is RECOMMENDED that the NS record
defaults to the name of the zone and the SOA MNAME defaults to the
- name of the only NS RR's target. The SOA RNAME should default to
- "nobody.invalid." [RFC2606]. Implementations SHOULD provide a
- mechanism to set these values. No address records need to be
- provided for the name server.
+ name of the only NS RR's (Resource Record's) target. The SOA RNAME
+ SHOULD default to "nobody.invalid." [RFC2606]. Implementations
+ SHOULD provide a mechanism to set these values. No address records
+ need to be provided for the nameserver.
Below is an example of a generic empty zone in master file format.
- It will produce a negative cache TTL of 3 hours.
+ It will produce a negative cache Time to Live (TTL) of 3 hours.
@ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800
@ 10800 IN NS @
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 5]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
The SOA RR is needed to support negative caching [RFC2308] of name
error responses and to point clients to the primary master for DNS
dynamic updates.
- SOA values of particular importance are the MNAME, the SOA RR's TTL
+ SOA values of particular importance are the MNAME, the SOA RR's TTL,
and the negTTL value. Both TTL values SHOULD match. The rest of the
SOA timer values MAY be chosen arbitrarily since they are not
intended to control any zone transfer activity.
The NS RR is needed as some UPDATE [RFC2136] clients use NS queries
to discover the zone to be updated. Having no address records for
- the name server is expected to abort UPDATE processing in the client.
+ the nameserver is expected to abort UPDATE processing in the client.
+
+
+
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 4]
+\f
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
4. Lists Of Zones Covered
- The following subsections are intended to seed the IANA registry as
- requested in the IANA Considerations Section. The zone name is the
- entity to be registered.
+ The following subsections are the initial contents of the IANA
+ registry as described in the IANA Considerations section. Following
+ the caveat in that section, the list contains only reverse zones
+ corresponding to permanently assigned address space. The zone name
+ is the entity to be registered.
-4.1. RFC1918 Zones
+4.1. RFC 1918 Zones
The following zones correspond to the IPv4 address space reserved in
[RFC1918].
| 168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA |
+----------------------+
+4.2. RFC 5735 and RFC 5737 Zones
+
+ The following zones correspond to those address ranges from [RFC5735]
+ and [RFC5737] that are not expected to appear as source or
+ destination addresses on the public Internet; as such, there are no
+ globally unique names associated with the addresses in these ranges.
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 6]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-4.2. RFC3330 and RFC5737 Zones
- The following zones correspond to those address ranges from [RFC3330]
- and [RFC5737] that are not expected to appear as source or
- destination addresses on the public Internet and to not have a unique
- name to associate with.
- The recommendation to serve an empty zone 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA is not a
+
+
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 5]
+\f
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
+
+
+ The recommendation to serve an empty zone 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA is not an
attempt to discourage any practice to provide a PTR RR for
1.0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA locally. In fact, a meaningful reverse
mapping should exist, but the exact setup is out of the scope of this
document. Similar logic applies to the reverse mapping for ::1
- (Section 4.3). The recommendations made here simply assume no other
- coverage for these domains exists.
-
- +------------------------------+------------------------+
- | Zone | Description |
- +------------------------------+------------------------+
- | 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK |
- | 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK |
- | 254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 LINK LOCAL |
- | 2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 1 |
- | 100.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 2 |
- | 113.0.203.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 3 |
- | 255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 BROADCAST |
- +------------------------------+------------------------+
+ (Section 4.3). The recommendations made here simply assume that no
+ other coverage for these domains exists.
+
+ +------------------------------+-----------------------+
+ | Zone | Description |
+ +------------------------------+-----------------------+
+ | 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK |
+ | 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 Loopback NETWORK |
+ | 254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 LINK LOCAL |
+ | 2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST-NET-1 |
+ | 100.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST-NET-2 |
+ | 113.0.203.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST-NET-3 |
+ | 255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 BROADCAST |
+ +------------------------------+-----------------------+
4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
- The reverse mappings ([RFC3596], Section 2.5 IP6.ARPA Domain) for the
- IPv6 Unspecified (::) and Loopback (::1) addresses ([RFC4291],
- Sections 2.4, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) are covered by these two zones:
+ The reverse mappings ([RFC3596], Section 2.5 ("IP6.ARPA Domain")) for
+ the IPv6 Unspecified (::) and Loopback (::1) addresses ([RFC4291],
+ Sections 2.4, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3) are covered by these two zones:
+-------------------------------------------+
| Zone |
| 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA |
+-------------------------------------------+
- Note: Line breaks and a escapes '\' have been inserted above for
+ Note: Line breaks and escapes ('\') have been inserted above for
readability and to adhere to line width constraints. They are not
parts of the zone names.
-
-
-
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 7]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses
Section 4.4 of [RFC4193] already required special treatment of:
| D.F.IP6.ARPA |
+--------------+
-4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses
- IPv6 Link-Local Addresses as of [RFC4291], Section 2.5.6 are covered
- by four distinct reverse DNS zones:
+
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 6]
+\f
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
+
+
+4.5. IPv6 Link-Local Addresses
+
+ IPv6 Link-Local Addresses as described in [RFC4291], Section 2.5.6
+ are covered by four distinct reverse DNS zones:
+----------------+
| Zone |
| 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA |
+--------------------------+
- Note: 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA is not being used as a example here.
+ Note: 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA is not being used as an example here.
-
-5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope
+5. Zones That Are Out of Scope
IPv6 site-local addresses (deprecated, see [RFC4291] Sections 2.4 and
- 2.5.7), and IPv6 Non-Locally Assigned Local addresses ([RFC4193]) are
+ 2.5.7), and IPv6 non-locally assigned local addresses ([RFC4193]) are
not covered here.
It is expected that IPv6 site-local addresses will be self correcting
F.E.F.IP6.ARPA may still need to be deployed in the short term if the
traffic becomes excessive.
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 8]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
- For IPv6 Non-Locally Assigned Local addresses (L = 0) [RFC4193],
+ For IPv6 non-locally assigned local addresses (L = 0) [RFC4193],
there has been no decision made about whether the Regional Internet
Registries (RIRs) will provide delegations in this space or not. If
they don't, then C.F.IP6.ARPA will need to be added to the list in
Section 4.4. If they do, then registries will need to take steps to
- ensure that name servers are provided for these addresses.
+ ensure that nameservers are provided for these addresses.
+
+
- This document also ignores IP6.INT. IP6.INT has been wound up with
- only legacy resolvers now generating reverse queries under IP6.INT
- [RFC4159].
- This document has also deliberately ignored names immediately under
- the root domain. While there is a subset of queries to the root name
- servers which could be addressed using the techniques described here
- (e.g. .local, .workgroup and IPv4 addresses), there is also a vast
- amount of traffic that requires a different strategy (e.g. lookups
- for unqualified hostnames, IPv6 addresses).
+
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 7]
+\f
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
+
+
+ IP6.INT was once used to provide reverse mapping for IPv6. IP6.INT
+ was deprecated in [RFC4159] and the delegation removed from the INT
+ zone in June 2006. While it is possible that legacy software
+ continues to send queries for names under the IP6.INT domain, this
+ document does not specify that IP6.INT be considered a local zone.
+
+ This document has also deliberately ignored names immediately under
+ the root domain. While there is a subset of queries to the root
+ nameservers that could be addressed using the techniques described
+ here (e.g., .local, .workgroup, and IPv4 addresses), there is also a
+ vast amount of traffic that requires a different strategy (e.g.,
+ lookups for unqualified hostnames, IPv6 addresses).
+
6. IANA Considerations
- This document requests that IANA establish a registry of zones which
- require this default behaviour. The initial contents of this
- registry are defined in Section 4. Implementors are encouraged to
- periodically check this registry and adjust their implementations to
- reflect changes therein.
+ IANA has established a registry of zones that require this default
+ behaviour. The initial contents of this registry are defined in
+ Section 4. Implementors are encouraged to periodically check this
+ registry and adjust their implementations to reflect changes therein.
This registry can be amended through "IETF Review" as per [RFC5226].
+ As part of this review process, it should be noted that once a zone
+ is added it is effectively added permanently; once an address range
+ starts being configured as a local zone in systems on the Internet,
+ it will be impossible to reverse those changes.
- IANA should co-ordinate with the RIRs to ensure that, as DNSSEC is
- deployed in the reverse tree, delegations for these zones are made in
- the manner described in Section 7.
-
+ IANA should coordinate with the RIRs to ensure that, as DNS Security
+ (DNSSEC) is deployed in the reverse tree, delegations for these zones
+ are made in the manner described in Section 7.
7. Security Considerations
During the initial deployment phase, particularly where [RFC1918]
addresses are in use, there may be some clients that unexpectedly
receive a name error rather than a PTR record. This may cause some
- service disruption until their recursive name server(s) have been re-
- configured.
+ service disruption until their recursive nameserver(s) have been
+ re-configured.
As DNSSEC is deployed within the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA
namespaces, the zones listed above will need to be delegated as
DNSSEC validation to succeed for queries in these spaces despite not
being answered from the delegated servers.
-
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 9]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
It is recommended that sites actively using these namespaces secure
them using DNSSEC [RFC4035] by publishing and using DNSSEC trust
anchors. This will protect the clients from accidental import of
unsigned responses from the Internet.
+
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 8]
+\f
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
+
+
8. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation
(research grant SCI-0427144) and DNS-OARC.
-
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
- [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, A., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
+ [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, April 1997.
[RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
- NCACHE)", RFC 2398, March 1998.
+ NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998.
- [RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
+ [RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
- "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6", RFC 3596, October 2003.
+ "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
+ October 2003.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
[RFC4159] Huston, G., "Deprecation of "ip6.int"", BCP 109, RFC 4159,
August 2005.
+ [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
+ Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 10]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
- [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
- Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
+
+
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 9]
+\f
+RFC 6303 Locally Served DNS Zones July 2011
+
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
- October 2008.
+ May 2008.
9.2. Informative References
[AS112] "AS112 Project", <http://www.as112.net/>.
- [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops]
- Abley, J. and W. Maton, "AS112 Nameserver Operations",
- draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-01 (work in progress),
- November 2007.
-
- [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help]
- Abley, J. and W. Maton, "I'm Being Attacked by
- PRISONER.IANA.ORG!",
- draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-01 (work in
- progress), November 2007.
-
- [RFC3330] "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, September 2002.
-
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
- [RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vergoda, "IPv4 Address
- Blocks Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737,
- January 2010.
-
-
-Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication]
-
-A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-10.txt
-
- added RFC 5737 zones
+ [RFC5735] Cotton, M. and L. Vegoda, "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",
+ BCP 153, RFC 5735, January 2010.
-A.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-09.txt
+ [RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
+ Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.
- refresh awaiting writeup
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 11]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
-A.3. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-08.txt
-
- editorial, reference updates
-
-A.4. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-07.txt
-
- none, expiry prevention
-
-A.5. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-06.txt
-
- add IPv6 example prefix
-
-A.6. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-05.txt
-
- none, expiry prevention
-
-A.7. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-04.txt
-
- Centrally Assigned Local addresses -> Non-Locally Assigned Local
- address
-
-A.8. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-03.txt
-
- expanded section 4 descriptions
-
- Added references [RFC2136], [RFC3596],
- [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops] and
- [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help].
-
- Revised language.
-
-A.9. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-02.txt
-
- RNAME now "nobody.invalid."
-
- Revised language.
-
-A.10. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt
-
- Revised impact description.
-
- Updated to reflect change in IP6.INT status.
-
-A.11. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt
-
- Adopted by DNSOP.
-
- "Author's Note" re-titled "Zones that are Out-Of-Scope"
-
-
-
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 12]
-\f
-Internet-Draft Locally-served DNS Zones March 2010
-
-
- Add note that these zone are expected to seed the IANA registry.
-
- Title changed.
-
-A.12. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt
-
- Added "Proposed Status".
-
-A.13. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt
-
- Added 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA.
-
-
-Appendix B. Proposed Status [To Be Removed on Publication]
-
- This Internet-Draft is being submitted for eventual publication as an
- RFC with a proposed status of Best Current Practice.
+ [RFC6304] Abley, J. and W. Maton, "AS112 Nameserver Operations",
+ RFC 6304, July 2011.
+ [RFC6305] Abley, J. and W. Maton, "I'm Being Attacked by
+ PRISONER.IANA.ORG!", RFC 6305, July 2011.
Author's Address
Redwood City, CA 94063
US
- Email: marka@isc.org
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+ EMail: marka@isc.org
-Andrews Expires September 26, 2010 [Page 13]
+Andrews Best Current Practice [Page 10]
\f
projects / thirdparty / bind9.git / commitdiff
