[dnsext] How well supported are unknown RRs in modern resolvers?

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Tue, 08 March 2011 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 8BAA43A6765 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:30:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 buu0evBXujVa for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5F83A6774 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 10883 invoked by uid 399); 8 Mar 2011 21:31:11 -0000
Received: from router.ka9q.net (HELO doug-optiplex.ka9q.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@75.60.237.91) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 8 Mar 2011 21:31:11 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 75.60.237.91
X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: <4D76A01E.5000005@dougbarton.us>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:31:10 -0800
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110304 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [dnsext] How well supported are unknown RRs in modern resolvers?
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: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 21:30:03 -0000

The point Nicholas made about moving the CLONE logic to the stub is 
something I'm interested in pursuing, but my understanding is that "a 
lot" of resolving name servers still have problems dealing with RR types 
they don't understand. Is this still true?

Imagine the following scenario:

1. stub requests clone1.example.org A
2. Old resolving name server (RNS) which doesn't understand the CLONE RR 
does it's thing, and gets back the A record, plus "clone1.example.org 
CLONE preferred.example.org" in the ANSWER section.

Does the RNS pass the unknown RR back to the stub? And sorry for my 
ignorance, but are there references to this that I can dig into?


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/