RFC 6891: Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not allow requestors to advertise their capabilities to responders. This document describes backward-compatible mechanisms for allowing the protocol to grow. This document updates the Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) specification (and obsoletes RFC 2671) based on feedback from deployment experience in several implementations. It also obsoletes RFC 2673 ("Binary Labels in the Domain Name System") and adds considerations on the use of extended labels in the DNS.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6891
- Published
- April 2013
- Authors
- J. Damas; M. Graff; P. Vixie
- Status
- INTERNET STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- int
- Pages
- 16
- Also known as
- STD75
Topics
Standards lineage
This document is one revision in a chain of 3 RFCs, each formally replacing the one before it.
- RFC 2671 (1999)
- RFC 2673 (1999)
- RFC 6891 (2013)
Read the full history of Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) →
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3110RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)Updated
May 2001
- RFC 2672Non-Terminal DNS Name RedirectionObsoleted
August 1999
- RFC 7626DNS Privacy ConsiderationsObsoleted
August 2015
- RFC 7830The EDNS(0) Padding OptionCurrent
May 2016
- RFC 8005Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) ExtensionCurrent
October 2016
- RFC 5205Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) ExtensionsObsoleted
April 2008
- RFC 5155DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of ExistenceUpdated
March 2008
- RFC 4509Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs)Current
May 2006
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?