DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines

Bellis, Ray

doi:10.17487/rfc5625

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite their wide deployment, few standards exist that regulate what functions home gateways should perform and how they should perform them. The relevant standards bodies have ignored home gateways in the past, and only recently begun to document best current practices for some of the functions they perform, such as translating various protocols [3,11,29] or DNS proxying [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An experimental study of home gateway characteristics

Hatonen

Nyrhinen

Eggert

et al. 2010

Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many residential and small business users connect to the Internet via home gateways, such as DSL and cable modems. The characteristics of these devices heavily influence the quality and performance of the Internet service that these users receive. Anecdotal evidence suggests that an extremely diverse set of behaviors exists in the deployed base, forcing application developers to design for the lowest common denominator. This paper experimentally analyzes some characteristics of a substantial number of different home gateways: binding timeouts, queuing delays, throughput, protocol support and others.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An experimental study of home gateway characteristics

Hatonen

Nyrhinen

Eggert

et al. 2010

Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Worse still, some network devices deliberately refuse to handle DNS packets containing EDNS0 options. Other issues relating to UDP transport and packet size are discussed in [RFC5625].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are many "middleboxes" in use today that interfere with TCP over port 53 [RFC5625]. This document does not propose any solutions, other than to make it absolutely clear that TCP is a valid transport for DNS and support for it is a requirement for all implementations.…”

Section: Appendix a Summary Of Advantages And Disadvantages To Usingmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements

Dickinson¹,

Dickinson²,

Bellis³

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To minimize these types of attacks when using a restricted port set, the MAP CE's NAT44 filtering behavior SHOULD be "Address-Dependent Filtering" as described in Section 5 of [RFC4787]. Furthermore, the MAP CEs SHOULD use a DNS transport proxy [RFC5625] function to handle DNS traffic and source such traffic from IPv6 interfaces not assigned to MAP.…”

Section: Nat44 Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%