Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
2012-03-08 21:04:39
In message
<201203090107(_dot_)q2917ctH001003(_at_)fs4113(_dot_)wdf(_dot_)sap(_dot_)corp>,
Martin Rex writes
:
Martin Rex wrote:
So if the behaviour (how to exactly respond to queries for unknown
QTYPEs) is neither explicitly specified, nor likely have been part of
the usual/common interop tests performed by the vendor,
what you're left with might be "ureflected&untested guessing"
on part of the implementors to fill those gaps.
What you typically have is a certain amount of code processing a query,
and some 3-4 conditions under which this code fails, and where the
implementor will have to decide which RCODE to return. The choices
available in rfc1035 are:
RCODE Response code - this 4 bit field is set as part of
responses. The values have the following
interpretation:
0 No error condition
1 Format error - The name server was
unable to interpret the query.
2 Server failure - The name server was
unable to process this query due to a
problem with the name server.
3 Name Error - Meaningful only for
responses from an authoritative name
server, this code signifies that the
domain name referenced in the query does
not exist.
4 Not Implemented - The name server does
not support the requested kind of query.
5 Refused - The name server refuses to
perform the specified operation for
policy reasons. For example, a name
server may not wish to provide the
information to the particular requester,
or a name server may not wish to perform
a particular operation (e.g., zone
transfer) for particular data.
6-15 Reserved for future use.
The choice between RCODEs 1, 2 and 4 for failed AAAA queries
might be fairly random, the description for 3 is slightly confusing
in whether a DNS server might use this RCODE "creatively" by
returning it without AA.
For an implementor that is being told "do not use use RCODE 4 for
unknown QTYPES", not sending any response at all to an unsupported
AAAA query seems like a reasonable choice.
They are much more likely to have been told "you should be sending
NOERROR or NXDOMAIN not NOTIMP" rather than just "you should not
be sending NOTIMP".
There are nameservers that don't respond to EDNS queries for type
A, class IN. FORMERR, NOTIMP, REFUSED all trigger a retry with
plain DNS. Silence is much harder to work out what to do with and
it takes muuuuuuuuuch loooooooooooonger. As silence can be caused
by lots of things not just EDNS so you can't infer anything if you
succeed with plain DNS. Success after FORMERR, NOTIMP or REFUSED,
for an otherwise identical query, is a reasonable indication that
EDNS is not supported.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, (continued)
- RE: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Tony Finch
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with,
Mark Andrews <=
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Donald Eastlake
- Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
- Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews |
Next by Date: |
Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex |
Next by Thread: |
Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|