Re: [dnsext] RFC3596: A/AAAA records and additional section processing

Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net> Fri, 04 March 2011 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <colm@allcosts.net>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F64D3A6843 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:49:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z4KriI6mlnQ3 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:49:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1683A672F for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:49:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1979436fxm.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:50:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.79.78 with SMTP id o14mr281834fak.110.1299221446232; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.95.203 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:50:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik6zTfBcq129pX_uQC-adruhVGnk=CjRn29=fpt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik6zTfBcq129pX_uQC-adruhVGnk=CjRn29=fpt@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:50:46 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTin_GMbCxTV8XTqMKM5RE=+3uwYSWp2Di_mBwZjU@mail.gmail.com>
From: Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net>
To: Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmottard@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] RFC3596: A/AAAA records and additional section processing
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:49:41 -0000

The good news is that it is standard - section 3 of the same RFC says;

"3. Modifications to existing query types

   All existing query types that perform type A additional section
   processing, i.e., name server (NS), location of services (SRV) and
   mail exchange (MX) query types, must be redefined to perform both
   type A and type AAAA additional section processing.  These
   definitions mean that a name server must add any relevant IPv4
   addresses and any relevant IPv6 addresses available locally to the
   additional section of a response when processing any one of the above
   queries."

(e.g. dig MX example.stdlib.net @ns-191.awsdns-23.com.) .

The section you've quoted is just pointing out that a query for a
q-tuple of type AAAA would not normally by itself trigger any
additional-section processing. As worded, I think it's actually wrong.
A query of type AAAA might trigger additional section processing if
the query arrives at the parent of a delegated zone. For example the
query;

dig AAAA www.google.com @a.root-servers.net.

plainly does trigger additional section processing. (though one might
argue it was the name, not the type, that pulled the trigger).

2011/3/3 Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmottard@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a small question about the IPv6 resource records extension (RFC3596).
> As section 2.3 states:
> « A type AAAA query does not trigger additional section processing. ». Fine.
>
> But I noticed that some DNS servers (like the one installed on my
> server, a bind 9.7.2) would return the A records in additional section
> on a AAAA query and AAAA records in additional on A queries.
> And when I thought about this, I realized it was a pretty good logics.
> Usually when people will try to contact a server, they will want both
> A and AAAA records.
> So the question is: why wouldn't this be standard?
> Thanks.
>
> Jehan
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>



-- 
Colm