Internet DRAFT - draft-eastlake-dnsop-expressing-qos-requirements
draft-eastlake-dnsop-expressing-qos-requirements
DNSOP D. Eastlake
Internet-Draft H. Song
Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Expires: 18 August 2023 14 February 2023
Expressing Quality of Service Requirements (QoS) in Domain Name System
(DNS) Queries
draft-eastlake-dnsop-expressing-qos-requirements-02
Abstract
A method of encoding quality of communication service (QoS)
requirements in a Domain Name System (DNS) query is specified through
inclusion of the requirements in one or more labels of the name being
queried. This enables DNS responses that are dependent on such
requirements without changes in the format of DNS protocol messages
or DNS application program interfaces (APIs).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 Internet-Draft will expire on 18 August 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Including Service Requirements in DNS Queries . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Including Information in DNS Queries . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Encoding Service Requirements in DNS Names . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Requirement TLV Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Requirements Types and Value Encoding . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3. Complete QoS DNS Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Restricted LDH Label Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. R-LDH Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Requirements Label Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. R-LDH Expert Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS, [RFC1034] [RFC1035]) is a distributed
database that stores data under hierarchical domain names and
supports redundant servers, data caching, and security features. The
data is formatted into resource records (RRs) whose content type and
structure are indicated by the RR Type field. A typical use of DNS
is that, by running the DNS protocol, a host gets the IP addresses
stored at a domain name from DNS servers through a DNS resolver.
Many other types of data besides IP addresses can be stored in and
returned by the DNS.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
There are instances where different DNS answers are desired depending
on the type of destination service to be connected to and/or the
communication protocol to be used for that communication. This can
be indicated in a query through the use of designated initial labels
beginning with the underscore codepoint ("_", 0x5F). This was
initially specified for the SRV RR Type [RFC2782]. It has been
extended with additional types of leading-underscore labels for use
with the TLSA, URI, TXT, and other RR Types [RFC8552].
Similarly, there is a need to encode different communication service
quality requirements in DNS queries. Then different DNS answers can
be returned depending, for example, on whether high bandwidth or low
delay is the most important factor in the communication. Different
answers could cause packets to be differently handled, constructed,
or addressed which in turn could affect the path taken and/or the
behavior of network switches along the communications path so as to
make the communications more likely to satisfy the desired
communication service requirements.
Such encoding into the name being queried ensures that requirements
will be forwarded by any recursive DNS servers between the querying
application and the responding authoritative server. It also avoids
any change in DNS protocol messages or application program interfaces
(APIs).
This document specifies how quality of communication service
requirements may be encoded in DNS queries through inclusion of the
requirements in one or more labels of the name being queried enabling
an authoritative server to take such requirements into account in
determining its answers.
1.1. Terminology and Acronyms
The following terminology and acronyms are used in this document.
General familiarity with DNS terminology [RFC8499] is assumed.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
ABNF - Augmented Backus-Naur Form [RFC5234].
API - Application Program Interface.
DNS - Domain Name System.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
LDH - Letters, Digits, and Hyphen (DNS label) [RFC5890].
R-LDH - Restricted LDH (DNS label) [RFC5890].
RR - Resource Record [RFC8499]. Ths unit of data stored in the DNS.
TLV - Type, Length, Value.
2. Including Service Requirements in DNS Queries
This section specifies how to encode quality of communication service
requirements in one or more domain name labels and discusses why some
alternatives methods of including requirements in a DNS query are
less desirable.
2.1. Including Information in DNS Queries
There exist methods to include information in a DNS request that are
conveyed only from a resolver to a server, that is one DNS hop.
These are primarily through the inclusion of "meta-RRs" in the
Additional Information section of a DNS request [RFC1035] including
the OPT meta-RR [RFC6891] which can carry an extensible set of
options. These methods are generally not suitable to use for the
inclusion of QoS requirements for two reasons:
* Typical APIs do not provide for meta-RRs to be specified on a
query or retrieved from a response.
* Because meta-RRs designate transient data associated with a
particular DNS message. Thus, if a query is forwarded by a
recursive DNS server, such requirements will be lost.
Other methods of including information in a DNS query that are
preserved when a query is forwarded are the Name, Class, and RR Type.
Class is an additional dimension of DNS data besides Name and RR
Type. However, only the "IN" or Internet Class has significant
deployment or utilization and DNS messages specifying other Classes
are frequently blocked by middle-boxes. Thus this dimension is not
useful in practice.
RR Type is only 16-bits and is already used to indicate the type of
RRs being requested.
This leaves only the name being queried for the encoding of service
requirement as specified below.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
2.2. Encoding Service Requirements in DNS Names
Domain names consist of a sequence of labels, with labels further to
the right being a higher level in the name hierarchy and labels to
the left of a particular label identifying nodes in the hierarchical
tree below that particular label. Each label is limited to 63 octets
in length and the zero length null label is reserved to identify the
root node. In a complete valid domain name, the sum of the length of
each label in the name plus one octet of overhead per label
(including the terminating null label) may not exceed 255 octets.
Communication service requirements are encoded into names being
queried. This is done by including a QoS label, constructed as
described below, in the name, usually as the left most label. A QoS
label consist of a special prefix followed by a sequence of one or
more encoded TLVs indicating the QoS requirements. The use of such a
special prefix which affects the interpretation of the remainder of
the label is similar to the "xn--" prefix to indicate
internationalized domain names [RFC5890].
2.2.1. Requirement TLV Encoding
Each TLV expressing a service requirement can be thought of as being
binarily encoded as shown in Figure 1.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Type | Length |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Value (Length Bytes Long) .
. .
. .
.................................
Figure 1: Service Requirement TLV Structure
Type: 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the type of service
requirement.
Length: 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the value
associated with the service requirement in bytes. The presence of
an explicit length makes it possible to skip unknown /
unimplemented service requirements.
Value: The value associated with the service requirement.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
Although the DNS does not constraint the octet values within a label,
for ease of use and due to user interface restrictions, label octets
are commonly limited to a subset of printing ASCII [RFC0020]
character values. Furthermore, for name matching purposes, the DNS
does not distinguish between octets having the upper case and lower
case codes for an ASCII letter and in some cases the storage of a
label in the DNS and/or its later retrieval may change the value of
an octet in that label between the values for upper and lower case
version of an ASCII letter [RFC4343]. To avoid possible problems
with this DNS case insensitivity or possibly problematic byte values
such as zero, the TLV or sequence of TLVs is included in the DNS name
label in hexadecimal notation. There are more compact encoding that
avoid these problems, such as a customization of Bootstring similar
to Punycode [RFC3492] or Base32 [RFC4648] but for simplicity and to
make the encoding into names more easily readable for debugging and
other purposes, hexdecimal is used.
2.2.2. Requirements Types and Value Encoding
The following types of QoS requirements are initially defined:
Coarse: A general indication of the most important service being
sought encoded as a one byte integer patterned after the IPv4 ToS
(Type of Service) value specified in [RFC1349]. (This is "coarse"
in contrast with the more precise service requirements defined
further below.) The following coarse values are defined:
0x00 - Normal service.
0x01 - Minimize cost.
0x02 - Maximize reliability.
0x04 - Maximize throughput.
0x08 - Minimize delay.
0x10 - Minimize jitter.
Bandwidth: The bandwidth requirement is encoded as a float32
(32-bit IEEE floating point format [ieee754] number). The unit is
bits per second. If more than one TLV of this type occurs in a
DNS name, all but the first (leftmost) are ignored.
Delay: The delay requirement is encoded in 24-bit integer format.
The unit is microseconds. If more than one TLV of this type
occurs in a DNS name, all but the first (leftmost) are ignored.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
Jitter: The jitter (i.e., delay variation) is encoded in 24-bit
integer format. The unit is microseconds. If more than one TLV
of this type occurs in a DNS name, all but the first (leftmost)
are ignored.
Loss Rate: This lost rate (i.e., the percentage of packet loss) is
encoded in 24-bit integer format. The basic unit is 0.0000001%
(i.e., one packet drop per 1 billion packets), where (2^24 - 2) =
1.6777214% is the largest loss rate defined, 2^24-1 means no loss
rate requirement, and 0 means the drop rate should be smaller than
0.0000001%. If more than one TLV of this type occurs in a DNS
name, all but the first (leftmost) are ignored.
Using IEEE 32-bit floating point for the values when appropriate
provides a compact notation that can encode up to approximately 10^38
and down to approximately 10^-38 with 6 to 9 significant digits of
precision [ieee754].
2.2.3. Complete QoS DNS Names
The on-the-wire encoding of a domain name beginning with a service
requirement label would be as shown in Figure 2 below. (In the DNS
wire encoding, each label is preceded by a length.)
+-------+-------+-----+ +-----+--------------------------------+
|length |prefix |TLV1 |...|TLVn |Encoded Remainder of Domain Name|
+-------+-------+-----+ +-----+--------------------------------+
Figure 2: Name Wire Encoding Style 1
Alternatively, service requirements could split among a sequence of
two or more labels in a DNS name to be queried, as shown in Figure 3.
+-------+------+----+ +-------+------+----+-----------------+
|length |prefix|TLV1|...|length |prefix|TLVn|Remainder of Name|
+-------+------+----+ +-------+------+----+-----------------+
Figure 3: Name Encoding Style 2
The display presentation of a DNS name requesting a coarse QoS
requirement for minimum delay for communication with example.com
would be as shown in Figure 4.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
qs-- Prefix
1 TLV Type
1 TLV Length
08 TLV Value
example.com Remainder of domain name
qs--1108.example.com. Complete domain name
Figure 4: Example DNS Name
3. Security Considerations
TBD
4. IANA Considerations
This section conforms to [RFC8126].
IANA is requested to create the following registries.
4.1. Restricted LDH Label Prefixes
LDH labels are specified in [RFC5890] as consisting of letters,
digits, and hyphen but not beginning or ending with a hyphen. That
is, strings of length from 1 through 63 that match the ABNF
(Augmented Backus-Naur Form [RFC5234]) expression for LDH below.
* LD = ( a-z / 0-9 ) ;letter or digit (case insensitive)
* HYPH = %x2D ;hyphen / minus
* LDH = LD / HYPH
* LDH-LABEL = LD / LD 0*61LDH LD
R-LDH (Restricted LDH) labels are specified in [RFC5890] as the
subset of LDH-LABELs that begin with two letters/digits followed by
two hyphens. That is, they are LDH-LABELs that match the ABNF
regular expression [RFC5234] below.
* R-LDH-LABEL = 2LD HYPH HYPH 0*58LDH LD
4.1.1. R-LDH Registry
IANA is requested to create a registry on the Domain Name System
(DNS) Parameters webpage as follows:
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
Name: DNS Restricted LDH (R-LDH) Label Prefixes
Registration Procedure: IETF review
Reference: [this document]
Prefix Description Reference
------ --------------------- -----------
qs-- QoS Requirements [this document]
xn-- Internationalization [RFC5890]
Figure 5
4.1.2. Requirements Label Type Codes
IANA is requested to create a registry on the Domain Name System
(DNS) Parameters webpage as follows:
Name: DNS QoS Requirements Label Type Codes
Registration Procedure: Expert review
Reference: [this document]
Code Description Reference
------ ------------- -----------------
0 reserved
1 Coarse QoS [this document]
2 Bandwidth [this document]
3 Delay [this document]
4 Jitter [this document]
5 Loss Rate [this document]
6-14 unassigned
15 reserved
Figure 6
4.1.3. R-LDH Expert Guidance
In reviewing applications for the assignment of an R-LDH prefix, the
Expert should keep in mind the following guidance:
The use of labels with the requested prefix must meet the
following criteria:
1. be documented in an Internet Draft,
2. not significantly duplicate the use of any other R-LDH prefix,
3. not require any changes to DNS protocol messages or DNS
mechanisms such as the handling of CNAME or DNAME RRs or
wildcards, and
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
4. provide a substanial additional capability.
Assignment of more than one R-LDH for a purpose is prohibited. If
it is necessary to distinguish sub-uses under an R-LDH prefix,
this should be done by encoding within the R-LDH label after the
prefix or by a further label or labels before and/or after the
R-LDH label, such as a label beginning with underscore ("_").
Prefixes where the first or second character is any of the digits
"0", "1", and "5" or the letters "O", "I", and "L" should not be
assigned, due to the possibilities of confusion, unless there are
strong reasons to use these characters.
5. Acknowledgments
The suggestions of the following are gratefully acknowledged:
* TBD
6. Normative References
[ieee754] IEEE 754 WG, IEEE., "IEEE 754-2019 - IEEE Standard for
Floating-Point Arithmetic", 2019,
<https://standards.ieee.org/standard/754-2019.html>.
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4343] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4343, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4343>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7. Informative 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
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC1349] Almquist, P., "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol
Suite", RFC 1349, DOI 10.17487/RFC1349, July 1992,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1349>.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2782>.
[RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 3492, DOI 10.17487/RFC3492, March 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3492>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8499>.
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft QoS Requirements in DNS Queries February 2023
[RFC8552] Crocker, D., "Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource
Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves",
BCP 222, RFC 8552, DOI 10.17487/RFC8552, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8552>.
Authors' Addresses
Donald Eastlake
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
2386 Panoramic Circle
Apopka, FL 32703
United States of America
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email: donald.eastlake@futurewei.com
Haoyu Song
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
2220 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Eastlake & Song Expires 18 August 2023 [Page 12]
