< draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-01.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-02.txt >
DNSOP Working Group D. Lawrence DNSOP Working Group D. Lawrence
Internet-Draft Akamai Technologies Internet-Draft Oracle + Dyn
Updates: 1034, 1035 (if approved) W. Kumari Updates: 1034, 1035 (if approved) W. Kumari
Intended status: Standards Track P. Sood Intended status: Standards Track P. Sood
Expires: April 1, 2019 Google Expires: April 17, 2019 Google
September 28, 2018 October 14, 2018
Serving Stale Data to Improve DNS Resiliency Serving Stale Data to Improve DNS Resiliency
draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-01 draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-02
Abstract Abstract
This draft defines a method for recursive resolvers to use stale DNS This draft defines a method for recursive resolvers to use stale DNS
data to avoid outages when authoritative nameservers cannot be data to avoid outages when authoritative nameservers cannot be
reached to refresh expired data. reached to refresh expired data. It updates the definition of TTL
from [RFC1034] and [RFC1035] to make it clear that data can be kept
in the cache beyond the TTL expiry and used for responses when a
refreshed answer is not readily available.
Ed note Ed note
Text inside square brackets ([]) is additional background Text inside square brackets ([]) is additional background
information, answers to frequently asked questions, general musings, information, answers to frequently asked questions, general musings,
etc. They will be removed before publication. This document is etc. They will be removed before publication. This document is
being collaborated on in GitHub at <https://github.com/vttale/serve- being collaborated on in GitHub at <https://github.com/vttale/serve-
stale>. The most recent version of the document, open issues, etc stale>. The most recent version of the document, open issues, etc
should all be available here. The authors gratefully accept pull should all be available here. The authors gratefully accept pull
requests. requests.
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 April 1, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Notes to readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. EDNS Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. EDNS Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Option Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Option Format Proposal 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Example Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Option Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Implementation Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.3. Option Format Proposal 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Example Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Implementation Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. NAT Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12. NAT Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Traditionally the Time To Live (TTL) of a DNS resource record has Traditionally the Time To Live (TTL) of a DNS resource record has
been understood to represent the maximum number of seconds that a been understood to represent the maximum number of seconds that a
record can be used before it must be discarded, based on its record can be used before it must be discarded, based on its
description and usage in [RFC1035] and clarifications in [RFC2181]. description and usage in [RFC1035] and clarifications in [RFC2181].
This document proposes that the definition of the TTL be explicitly This document proposes that the definition of the TTL be explicitly
expanded to allow for expired data to be used in the exceptional expanded to allow for expired data to be used in the exceptional
circumstance that a recursive resolver is unable to refresh the circumstance that a recursive resolver is unable to refresh the
information. It is predicated on the observation that authoritative information. It is predicated on the observation that authoritative
server unavailability can cause outages even when the underlying data server unavailability can cause outages even when the underlying data
those servers would return is typically unchanged. those servers would return is typically unchanged.
A method is described for this use of stale data, balancing the We describe a method below for this use of stale data, balancing the
competing needs of resiliency and freshness. While this intended to competing needs of resiliency and freshness. While this is intended
be immediately useful to the installed base of DNS software, an to be immediately useful to the installed base of DNS software, we
[RFC6891] EDNS option is also proposed for enhanced signalling around also propose an [RFC6891] EDNS option for enhanced signalling around
the use of stale data by implementations that understand it. the use of stale data by implementations that understand it.
2. Terminology 2. Notes to readers
[ RFC Editor, please remove this section before publication!
Readers: This is conversational text to describe what we've done, and
will be removed, please don't bother sending editorial nits. :-) ]
Due to circumstances, the authors of this document got sidetracked,
and we lost focus. We are now reviving it, and are trying to address
and incorporate comments. There has also been more deployment and
implementation recently, and so this document is now more describing
what is known to work instead of simply proposing a concept.
Open questions:
o The EDNS option that we propose for debugging is relatively full-
featured to identify which RRsets are stale. It could be
simplified to just indicate that an answer is stale, or even
removed entirely in favour of an Extended Error result that
indicates staleness.
o What TTL value to recommend be set in stale answers returned by
recursive resolvers.
3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown [RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
here. here.
For a comprehensive treatment of DNS terms, please see [RFC7719]. For a comprehensive treatment of DNS terms, please see [RFC7719].
3. Background 4. Background
There are a number of reasons why an authoritative server may become There are a number of reasons why an authoritative server may become
unreachable, including Denial of Service (DoS) attacks, network unreachable, including Denial of Service (DoS) attacks, network
issues, and so on. If the recursive server is unable to contact the issues, and so on. If the recursive server is unable to contact the
authoritative servers for a name but still has relevant data that has authoritative servers for a name but still has relevant data that has
aged past its TTL, that information can still be useful for aged past its TTL, that information can still be useful for
generating an answer under the metaphorical assumption that, "stale generating an answer under the metaphorical assumption that, "stale
bread is better than no bread." bread is better than no bread."
[RFC1035] Section 3.2.1 says that the TTL "specifies the time [RFC1035] Section 3.2.1 says that the TTL "specifies the time
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
[RFC2181] aimed to provide "the precise definition of the Time to [RFC2181] aimed to provide "the precise definition of the Time to
Live" but in Section 8 was mostly concerned with the numeric range of Live" but in Section 8 was mostly concerned with the numeric range of
values and the possibility that very large values should be capped. values and the possibility that very large values should be capped.
(It also has the curious suggestion that a value in the range (It also has the curious suggestion that a value in the range
2147483648 to 4294967295 should be treated as zero.) It closes that 2147483648 to 4294967295 should be treated as zero.) It closes that
section by noting, "The TTL specifies a maximum time to live, not a section by noting, "The TTL specifies a maximum time to live, not a
mandatory time to live." This is again not [RFC2119]-normative mandatory time to live." This is again not [RFC2119]-normative
language, but does convey the natural language connotation that data language, but does convey the natural language connotation that data
becomes unusable past TTL expiry. becomes unusable past TTL expiry.
Several major recursive resolver operations currently use stale data Several major recursive resolver operators currently use stale data
for answers in some way, including Akamai, OpenDNS, Xerocole, and for answers in some way, including Akamai (via both Nomimum and
Nominum. Their collective operational experience is that it provides Xerocole), Knot, OpenDNS, and Unbound. Apple can also use stale data
significant benefit with minimal downside. as part of the Happy Eyeballs algorithms in mDNSResponder. The
collective operational experience is that it provides significant
benefit with minimal downside.
4. Standards Action 5. Standards Action
The definition of TTL in [RFC1035] Sections 3.2.1 and 4.1.3 is The definition of TTL in [RFC1035] Sections 3.2.1 and 4.1.3 is
amended to read: amended to read:
TTL a 32 bit unsigned integer number of seconds in the range 0 - TTL a 32 bit unsigned integer number of seconds in the range 0 -
2147483647 that specifies the time interval that the resource 2147483647 that specifies the time interval that the resource
record MAY be cached before the source of the information MUST record MAY be cached before the source of the information MUST
again be consulted. Zero values are interpreted to mean that the again be consulted. Zero values are interpreted to mean that the
RR can only be used for the transaction in progress, and should RR can only be used for the transaction in progress, and should
not be cached. Values with the high order bit set SHOULD be not be cached. Values with the high order bit set SHOULD be
capped at no more than 2147483647. If the authority for the data capped at no more than 2147483647. If the authority for the data
is unavailable when attempting to refresh the data past the given is unavailable when attempting to refresh the data past the given
interval, the record MAY be used as though it has a remaining TTL interval, the record MAY be used as though it is unexpired.
of 1 second.
5. EDNS Option [ Discussion point: capping values with the high order bit as being
max positive, rather than 0, is a change from [RFC2181]. Also, we
could use this opportunity to recommend a much more sane maximum
value like 604800 seconds, one week, instead of the literal maximum
of 68 years. ]
6. EDNS Option
While the basic behaviour of this answer-of-last-resort can be While the basic behaviour of this answer-of-last-resort can be
achieved with changes only to resolvers, explicit signalling about achieved with changes only to resolvers, explicit signalling about
the use of stale data can be done with an EDNS [RFC6891] option. the use of stale data can be done with an EDNS [RFC6891] option.
This option can be included from a stub or forwarding resolver to a
recursive resolver, explicitly signalling that it does not want stale
answers, or for learning that stale data was in use. It is expected
that this could be useful for debugging.
[ This section will be fleshed out a bit more thoroughly if there is [ NOTE: This section will be fleshed out a bit more thoroughly if
interest in pursuing the option. ] there is interest in pursuing the option. Here are two potential
options that could be used, one more fully-featured to indicate which
RRsets are stale and one much more simple to indicate that stale data
is present. These are proposed as mutually exclusive; the final
document will have one or zero such options. We're especially
soliciting feedback on this from the working group. ]
5.1. Option Format 6.1. Option Format Proposal 1
The option is structured as follows: The option is structured as follows:
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB) +0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | OPTION-CODE | 0: | OPTION-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | OPTION-LENGTH | 2: | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4: | STALE-RRSET-INDEX 1 | 4: | STALE-RRSET-INDEX 1 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
6: | | 6: | |
8: | TTL-EXPIRY 1 | 8: | TTL-EXPIRY 1 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
: ... additional STALE-RRSET-INDEX / TTL-EXPIRY pairs ... : : ... additional STALE-RRSET-INDEX / TTL-EXPIRY pairs ... :
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
OPTION-CODE 2 octets per [RFC6891]. For Serve-Stale the code is TBD OPTION-CODE: 2 octets per [RFC6891]. For Serve-Stale the code is
by IANA. TBD by IANA.
OPTION-LENGTH: 2 octets per [RFC6891]. Contains the length of the OPTION-LENGTH: 2 octets per [RFC6891]. Contains the length of the
payload following OPTION-LENGTH, in octets. payload following OPTION-LENGTH, in octets.
STALE-RRSET-INDEX Two octets as a signed integer, indicating the STALE-RRSET-INDEX: Two octets as a signed integer, indicating the
first RRSet in the message which is beyond its TTL, with RRSet first RRSet in the message which is beyond its TTL, with RRSet
counting starting at 1 and spanning message sections. counting starting at 1 and spanning message sections.
TTL-EXPIRY Four octets as an unsigned integer, representing the TTL-EXPIRY: Four octets as an unsigned integer, representing the
number of seconds that have passed since the TTL for the RRset number of seconds that have passed since the TTL for the RRset
expired. expired.
5.2. Option Usage 6.2. Option Usage
Software making a DNS request can signal that it understands Serve- Software making a DNS request can signal that it understands Serve-
Stale by including the option with one STALE-RRSET-INDEX initialized Stale by including the option with one STALE-RRSET-INDEX initialized
to any negative value and TTY-EXPIRY initialized to 0. The index is to any negative value and TTY-EXPIRY initialized to 0. The index is
set to a negative value to detect mere reflection of the option by set to a negative value to detect mere reflection of the option by
responders that don't really understand it. responders that don't really understand it.
If the request is made to a recursive resolver which used any stale If the request is made to a recursive resolver which used any stale
RRsets in its reply, it then fills in the corresponding indices and RRsets in its reply, it then fills in the corresponding indices and
staleness values. If no records are stale, STALE-RRSET-INDEX and staleness values. If no records are stale, STALE-RRSET-INDEX and
skipping to change at page 6, line 12 skipping to change at page 6, line 47
INDEX values overriding the default. A TTL-EXPIRY value of 0 means INDEX values overriding the default. A TTL-EXPIRY value of 0 means
to never serve the RRset as stale, while non-zero values represent to never serve the RRset as stale, while non-zero values represent
the maximum amount of time it can be used before it MUST be evicted. the maximum amount of time it can be used before it MUST be evicted.
[ Does anyone really want to do this? It adds more state into [ Does anyone really want to do this? It adds more state into
resolvers. Is the idea only for purists, or is there a practical resolvers. Is the idea only for purists, or is there a practical
application? ] application? ]
No facility is made for a client of a resolver to signal that it No facility is made for a client of a resolver to signal that it
doesn't want stale answers, because if a client has knowledge of doesn't want stale answers, because if a client has knowledge of
Serve-Stale as an option, it also has enough knowledge to just ignore Serve-Stale as an option, it also has enough knowledge to just ignore
any records that come back stale. [ There is admittedly the issue any records that come back stale. [ There is admittedly the issue
that the client might just want to wait out the whole attempted that the client might just want to wait out the whole attempted
resolution, which there's currently no way to indicate. The absolute resolution, which there's currently no way to indicate. The absolute
value of STALE-RRSET-INDEX could be taken as a timer the requester is value of STALE-RRSET-INDEX could be taken as a timer the requester is
willing to wait for an answer, but that's kind of gross overloading willing to wait for an answer, but that's kind of gross overloading
it like that Shame to burn another field on that though, but on the it like that. Shame to burn another field on that, but on the other
other hand it would be nice if a client could always signal its hand it might also be nice if a client could always signal its
impatience level - "I must have an answer within 900 milliseconds!" ] impatience level - "I must have an answer within 900 milliseconds!" ]
6. Example Method 6.3. Option Format Proposal 2
The option is structured as follows:
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | OPTION-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4: | D | U | S | RESERVED |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
OPTION-CODE: 2 octets per [RFC6891]. For Serve-Stale the code is
TBD by IANA.
OPTION-LENGTH: 2 octets per [RFC6891]. Contains the length of the
payload following OPTION-LENGTH, in octets.
D Flag: If set, the client explicitly does NOT want stale answers.
If clear, the client would like an indication of whether any data
in the response is stale.
U Flag: This indicates that the server understands the Serve-Stale
EDNS option, and more information is communicated via the S flag.
It exists to get around the issue of some authorative servers
simply echoing back ENDS options it does not understand.
S Flag: If set, this indicates that the response contains stale
data. If clear, no data in the response has reached its TTL
expiry.
RESERVED: Reserved for future use. Should be set to zero on send
and ignored on receipt.
7. Example Method
There is conceivably more than one way a recursive resolver could There is conceivably more than one way a recursive resolver could
responsibly implement this resiliency feature while still respecting responsibly implement this resiliency feature while still respecting
the intent of the TTL as a signal for when data is to be refreshed. the intent of the TTL as a signal for when data is to be refreshed.
In this example method three notable timers drive considerations for In this example method three notable timers drive considerations for
the use of stale data, as follows: the use of stale data, as follows:
o A client response timer, which is the maximum amount of time a o A client response timer, which is the maximum amount of time a
recursive resolver should allow between the receipt of a recursive resolver should allow between the receipt of a
skipping to change at page 7, line 13 skipping to change at page 8, line 36
cache for expired records. cache for expired records.
If iterative lookups will be done, it SHOULD start the query If iterative lookups will be done, it SHOULD start the query
resolution timer. This timer bounds the work done by the resolver, resolution timer. This timer bounds the work done by the resolver,
and is commonly around 10 to 30 seconds. and is commonly around 10 to 30 seconds.
If the answer has not been completely determined by the time the If the answer has not been completely determined by the time the
client response timer has elapsed, the resolver SHOULD then check its client response timer has elapsed, the resolver SHOULD then check its
cache to see whether there is expired data that would satisfy the cache to see whether there is expired data that would satisfy the
request. If so, it adds that data to the response message and SHOULD request. If so, it adds that data to the response message and SHOULD
set the TTL of each expired record in the message to 1 second. The set the TTL of each expired record in the message to 30 seconds. The
response is then sent to the client while the resolver continues its response is then sent to the client while the resolver continues its
attempt to refresh the data. 1 second was chosen because historically attempt to refresh the data. 30 second was chosen because
0 second TTLs have been problematic for some implementations. It not historically 0 second TTLs have been problematic for some
only sidesteps those potential problems with no practical negative implementations, and similarly very short TTLs could lead to
consequence, it would also rate limit further queries from any client congestive collapse as TTL-respecting clients rapidly try to refresh.
that is honoring the TTL, such as a forwarding resolver. 30 seconds not only sidesteps those potential problems with no
practical negative consequence, it would also rate limit further
queries from any client that is honoring the TTL, such as a
forwarding resolver. [ NOTE: we're looking for further working group
feedback on this value. ]
The maximum stale timer is used for cache management and is The maximum stale timer is used for cache management and is
independent of the query resolution process. This timer is independent of the query resolution process. This timer is
conceptually different from the maximum cache TTL that exists in many conceptually different from the maximum cache TTL that exists in many
resolvers, the latter being a clamp on the value of TTLs as received resolvers, the latter being a clamp on the value of TTLs as received
from authoritative servers. The maximum stale timer SHOULD be from authoritative servers. The maximum stale timer SHOULD be
configurable, and defines the length of time after a record expires configurable, and defines the length of time after a record expires
that it SHOULD be retained in the cache. The suggested value is 7 that it SHOULD be retained in the cache. The suggested value is 7
days, which gives time to notice the resolution problem and for human days, which gives time to notice the resolution problem and for human
intervention to fix it. intervention to fix it.
This same basic technique MAY be used to handle stale data associated This same basic technique MAY be used to handle stale data associated
with delegations. If authoritative server addresses are not able to with delegations. If authoritative server addresses are not able to
be refreshed, resolution can possibly still be successful if the be refreshed, resolution can possibly still be successful if the
authoritative servers themselves are still up. authoritative servers themselves are still up.
7. Implementation Caveats 8. Implementation Caveats
Answers from authoritative servers that have a DNS Response Code of Answers from authoritative servers that have a DNS Response Code of
either 0 (NOERROR) or 3 (NXDOMAIN) MUST be considered to have either 0 (NOERROR) or 3 (NXDOMAIN) MUST be considered to have
refreshed the data at the resolver. In particular, this means that refreshed the data at the resolver. In particular, this means that
this method is not meant to protect against operator error at the this method is not meant to protect against operator error at the
authoritative server that turns a name that is intended to be valid authoritative server that turns a name that is intended to be valid
into one that is non-existent, because there is no way for a resolver into one that is non-existent, because there is no way for a resolver
to know intent. to know intent.
Resolution is given a chance to succeed before stale data is used to Resolution is given a chance to succeed before stale data is used to
adhere to the original intent of the design of the DNS. This adhere to the original intent of the design of the DNS. This
mechanism is only intended to add robustness to failures, and to be mechanism is only intended to add robustness to failures, and to be
enabled all the time. If stale data were used immediately and then a enabled all the time. If stale data were used immediately and then a
cache refresh attempted after the client response has been sent, the cache refresh attempted after the client response has been sent, the
resolver would frequently be sending data that it would have had no resolver would frequently be sending data that it would have had no
trouble refreshing. trouble refreshing. As modern resolvers use techniques like pre-
fetching and request coalescing for efficiency, it is not necessary
that every client request needs to trigger a new lookup flow in the
presence of stale data, but rather than a good-faith effort have been
recently made to refresh the stale data before it is delivered to any
client. The recommended period between attempting refreshes is 30
seconds.
It is important to continue the resolution attempt after the stale It is important to continue the resolution attempt after the stale
response has been sent, until the query resolution timeout, because response has been sent, until the query resolution timeout, because
some pathological resolutions can take many seconds to succeed as some pathological resolutions can take many seconds to succeed as
they cope with unavailable servers, bad networks, and other problems. they cope with unavailable servers, bad networks, and other problems.
Stopping the resolution attempt when the response with expired data Stopping the resolution attempt when the response with expired data
has been sent would mean that answers in these pathological cases has been sent would mean that answers in these pathological cases
would never be refreshed. would never be refreshed.
Canonical Name (CNAME) records mingled in the expired cache with Canonical Name (CNAME) records mingled in the expired cache with
skipping to change at page 8, line 34 skipping to change at page 10, line 19
should be given to the overall issue. ] should be given to the overall issue. ]
Keeping records around after their normal expiration will of course Keeping records around after their normal expiration will of course
cause caches to grow larger than if records were removed at their cause caches to grow larger than if records were removed at their
TTL. Specific guidance on managing cache sizes is outside the scope TTL. Specific guidance on managing cache sizes is outside the scope
of this document. Some areas for consideration include whether to of this document. Some areas for consideration include whether to
track the popularity of names in client requests versus evicting by track the popularity of names in client requests versus evicting by
maximum age, and whether to provide a feature for manually flushing maximum age, and whether to provide a feature for manually flushing
only stale records. only stale records.
8. Implementation Status 9. Implementation Status
[RFC Editor: per RFC 6982 this section should be removed prior to [RFC Editor: per RFC 6982 this section should be removed prior to
publication.] publication.]
The algorithm described in the Section 6 section was originally The algorithm described in the Section 7 section was originally
implemented as a patch to BIND 9.7.0. It has been in production on implemented as a patch to BIND 9.7.0. It has been in production on
Akamai's production network since 2011, and effectively smoothed over Akamai's production network since 2011, and effectively smoothed over
transient failures and longer outages that would have resulted in transient failures and longer outages that would have resulted in
major incidents. The patch was contributed to the Internet Systems major incidents. The patch was contributed to Internet Systems
Consortium and is now distributed with BIND 9.12. Consortium and the functionality is now available in BIND 9.12 via
the options stale-answer-enable, stale-answer-ttl, and max-stale-ttl.
Unbound has a similar feature for serving stale answers, but it works Unbound has a similar feature for serving stale answers, but it works
in a very different way by returning whatever cached answer it has in a very different way by returning whatever cached answer it has
before trying to refresh expired records. This is unfortunately not before trying to refresh expired records. This is unfortunately not
faithful to the ideal that data past expiry should attempt to be faithful to the ideal that data past expiry should attempt to be
refreshed before being served. refreshed before being served.
9. Security Considerations Knot Resolver has an demo module here: https://knot-
resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/modules.html#serve-stale
Details of Apple's implementation are not currently known.
In the research paper "When the Dike Breaks: Dissecting DNS Defenses
During DDoS" [DikeBreaks], the authors detected some use of stale
answers by resolvers when authorities came under attack. Their
research results suggest that more widespread adoption of the
technique would significantly improve resiliency for the large number
of requests that fail or experience abnormally long resolution times
during an attack.
10. Security Considerations
The most obvious security issue is the increased likelihood of DNSSEC The most obvious security issue is the increased likelihood of DNSSEC
validation failures when using stale data because signatures could be validation failures when using stale data because signatures could be
returned outside their validity period. This would only be an issue returned outside their validity period. This would only be an issue
if the authoritative servers are unreachable, the only time the if the authoritative servers are unreachable, the only time the
techniques in this document are used, and thus does not introduce a techniques in this document are used, and thus does not introduce a
new failure in place of what would have otherwise been success. new failure in place of what would have otherwise been success.
Additionally, bad actors have been known to use DNS caches to keep Additionally, bad actors have been known to use DNS caches to keep
records alive even after their authorities have gone away. This records alive even after their authorities have gone away. This
potentially makes that easier, although without introducing a new potentially makes that easier, although without introducing a new
risk. risk.
10. Privacy Considerations 11. Privacy Considerations
This document does not add any practical new privacy issues. This document does not add any practical new privacy issues.
11. NAT Considerations 12. NAT Considerations
The method described here is not affected by the use of NAT devices. The method described here is not affected by the use of NAT devices.
12. IANA Considerations 13. IANA Considerations
This document contains no actions for IANA. This section will be This document contains no actions for IANA. This section will be
removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC editor. removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC editor.
13. Acknowledgements 14. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Matti Klock, Mukund Sivaraman, Jean Roy, The authors wish to thank Matti Klock, Mukund Sivaraman, Jean Roy,
and Jason Moreau for initial review. Feedback from Robert Edmonds and Jason Moreau for initial review. Feedback from Robert Edmonds,
and Davey Song has also been incorporated. Giovane Moura, Davey Song, and Ralf Weber has also been incorporated.
14. References 15. References
14.1. Normative References 15.1. 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>.
[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>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS [RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997, Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms [RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
14.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[DikeBreaks]
Moura, G., Heidemann, J., Mueller, M., Schmidt, R., and M.
Davids, "When the Dike Breaks: Dissecting DNS Defenses
During DDos", ACM 2018 Internet Measurement Conference,
DOI 10.1145/3278532.3278534, October 2018,
<https://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Moura18b.pdf>.
[RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS [RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
David C Lawrence David C Lawrence
Akamai Technologies Oracle + Dyn
150 Broadway
Cambridge MA 02142-1054
USA
Email: tale@akamai.com Email: tale@dd.org
Warren Kumari Warren Kumari
Google Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View CA 94043 Mountain View CA 94043
USA USA
Email: warren@kumari.net Email: warren@kumari.net
Puneet Sood Puneet Sood
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
77 lines changed or deleted 188 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/