RFC 4697: Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This memo describes DNS iterative resolver behavior that results in a significant query volume sent to the root and top-level domain (TLD) name servers. We offer implementation advice to iterative resolver developers to alleviate these unnecessary queries. The recommendations made in this document are a direct byproduct of observation and analysis of abnormal query traffic patterns seen at two of the thirteen root name servers and all thirteen com/net TLD name servers. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4697
- Published
- October 2006
- Authors
- M. Larson; P. Barber
- Status
- BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 18
- Also known as
- BCP123
- Updated by:
- RFC 9520
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4472Operational Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNSCurrent
April 2006
- RFC 3901DNS IPv6 Transport Operational GuidelinesObsoleted
September 2004
- RFC 6168Requirements for Management of Name Servers for the DNSCurrent
May 2011
- RFC 6382Unique Origin Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) per Node for Globally Anycasted ServicesCurrent
October 2011
- RFC 8499DNS TerminologyObsoleted
January 2019
- RFC 8552Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute LeavesCurrent
March 2019
- RFC 8553DNS Attrleaf Changes: Fixing Specifications That Use Underscored Node NamesCurrent
March 2019
- RFC 9499DNS TerminologyCurrent
March 2024
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?