[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4892

Network Working Group                                           S. Woolf
Internet-Draft                         Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
Expires: January 16, 2005                                      D. Conrad
                                                           Nominum, Inc.
                                                           July 18, 2004


               Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server
                      draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-02

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   With the increased use of DNS anycast, load balancing, and other
   mechanisms allowing more than one DNS name server to share a single
   IP address, it is sometimes difficult to tell which of a pool of name
   servers has answered a particular query.  A standardized mechanism to
   determine the identity of a name server responding to a particular
   query would be useful, particularly as a diagnostic aid.  Existing ad



Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


   hoc mechanisms for addressing this concern are not adequate.  This
   document attempts to describe the common ad hoc solution to this
   problem, including its advantages and disadvantasges, and to
   characterize an improved mechanism.















































Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


1.  Introduction

   With the increased use of DNS anycast, load balancing, and other
   mechanisms allowing more than one DNS name server to share a single
   IP address, it is sometimes difficult to tell which of a pool of name
   servers has answered a particular query.  A standardized mechanism to
   determine the identity of a name server responding to a particular
   query would be useful, particularly as a diagnostic aid.

   Unfortunately, existing ad-hoc mechanisms for providing such
   identification have some shortcomings, not the least of which is the
   lack of prior analysis of exactly how such a mechanism should be
   designed and deployed.  This document describes the existing
   convention used in one widely deployed implementation of the DNS
   protocol and discusses requirements for an improved solution to the
   problem.



































Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


2.  Rationale

   Identifying which name server is responding to queries is often
   useful, particularly in attempting to diagnose name server
   difficulties.  However, relying on the IP address of the name server
   has become more problematic due the deployment of various load
   balancing solutions, including the use of shared unicast addresses as
   documented in [RFC3258].

   An unfortunate side effect of these load balancing solutions is that
   traditional methods of determining which server is responding can be
   unreliable.  Specifically, non-DNS methods such as ICMP ping, TCP
   connections, or non-DNS UDP packets (e.g., as generated by tools such
   as "traceroute"), etc., can end up going to a different server than
   that which receives the DNS queries.

   The widespread use of the existing convention suggests a need for a
   documented, interoperable means of querying the identity of a
   nameserver that may be part of an anycast or load-balancing cluster.
   At the same time, however, it also has some drawbacks that argue
   against standardizing it as it's been practiced so far.






























Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


3.  Existing Conventions

   Recent versions of the commonly deployed Berkeley Internet Name
   Domain implementation of the DNS protocol suite from the Internet
   Software Consortium [BIND] support a way of identifying a particular
   server via the use of a standard, if somewhat unusual, DNS query.
   Specifically, a query to a late model BIND server for a TXT resource
   record in class 3 (CHAOS) for the domain name "HOSTNAME.BIND." will
   return a string that can be configured by the name server
   administrator to provide a unique identifier for the responding
   server (defaulting to the value of a gethostname() call).  This
   mechanism, which is an extension of the BIND convention of using
   CHAOS class TXT RR queries to sub-domains of the "BIND." domain for
   version information, has been copied by several name server vendors.

   For reference, the other well-known name used by recent versions of
   BIND within the CHAOS class "BIND." domain is "VERSION.BIND."  A
   query for a TXT RR for this name will return an administratively re-
   definable string which defaults to the version of the server
   responding.

3.1  Advantages

   There are several valuable attributes to this mechanism, which
   account for its usefulness.
   1.  This mechanism is within the DNS protocol itself.  An
       identification mechanism that relies on the DNS protocol is more
       likely to be successful (although not guaranteed) in going to the
       same machine as a "normal" DNS query.
   2.  It is simple to configure.  An administrator can easily turn on
       this feature and control the results of the relevant query.
   3.  It allows the administrator complete control of what information
       is given out in the response, minimizing passive leakage of
       implementation or configuration details.  Such details are often
       considered sensitive by infrastructure operators.

3.2  Disadvantages

   At the same time, there are some forbidding drawbacks to the
   VERSION.BIND mechanism that argue against standardizing it as it
   currently operates.
   1.  It requires an additional query to correlate between the answer
       to a DNS query under normal conditions and the supposed identity
       of the server receiving the query.  There are a number of
       situations in which this simply isn't reliable.
   2.  It reserves an entire class in the DNS (CHAOS) for what amounts
       to one zone.  While CHAOS class is defined in [RFC1034] and
       [RFC1035], it's not clear that supporting it solely for this



Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


       purpose is a good use of the namespace or of implementation
       effort.
   3.  It is implementation specific.  BIND is one DNS implementation.
       At the time of this writing, it is probably the most prevalent,
       for authoritative servers anyway.  This does not justify
       standardizing on its ad hoc solution to a problem shared across
       many operators and implementors.

   The first of the listed disadvantages is technically the most
   serious.  It argues for an attempt to design a good answer to the
   problem that "I need to know what nameserver is answering my
   queries", not simply a convenient one.







































Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


4.  Characteristics of an Implementation Neutral Convention

   The discussion above of advantages and disadvantages to the
   HOSTNAME.BIND mechanism suggest some requirements for a better
   solution to the server identification problem.  These are summarized
   here as guidelines for any effort to provide appropriate protocol
   extensions:
   1.  The mechanism adopted MUST be in-band for the DNS protocol.  That
       is, it needs to allow the query for the server's identifying
       information to be part of a normal, operational query.  It SHOULD
       also permit a separate, dedicated query for the server's
       identifying information.
   2.  The new mechanism should not require dedicated namespaces or
       other reserved values outside of the existing protocol mechanisms
       for these, i.e.  the OPT pseudo-RR.
   3.  Support for the identification functionality SHOULD be easy to
       implement and easy to enable.  It MUST be easy to disable and
       SHOULD lend itself to access controls on who can query for it.
   4.  It should be possible to return a unique identifier for a server
       without requiring the exposure of information that may be
       non-public and considered sensitive by the operator, such as a
       hostname or unicast IP address maintained for administrative
       purposes.
   5.  The identification mechanism SHOULD NOT be
       implementation-specific.


























Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document proposes no specific IANA action.  Protocol extensions,
   if any, to meet the requirements described are out of scope for this
   document.  Should such extensions be specified and adopted by normal
   IETF process, the specification will include appropriate guidance to
   IANA.












































Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


6.  Security Considerations

   Providing identifying information as to which server is responding
   can be seen as information leakage and thus a security risk.  This
   motivates the suggestion above that a new mechanism for server
   identification allow the administrator to disable the functionality
   altogether or partially restrict availability of the data.  It also
   suggests that the serverid data should not be readily correlated with
   a hostname or unicast IP address that may be considered private to
   the nameserver operator's management infrastructure.

   Propagation of protocol or service meta-data can sometimes expose the
   application to denial of service or other attack.  As DNS is a
   critically important infrastructure service for the production
   Internet, extra care needs to be taken against this risk for
   designers, implementors, and operators of a new mechanism for server
   identification.


































Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


7.  Acknowledgements

   The technique for host identification documented here was initially
   implemented by Paul Vixie of the Internet Software Consortium in the
   Berkeley Internet Name Daemon package.  Comments and questions on
   earlier drafts were provided by Bob Halley, Brian Wellington, Andreas
   Gustafsson, Ted Hardie, Chris Yarnell, Randy Bush, and members of the
   ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee.  The newest draft takes
   a significantly different direction from previous versions, owing to
   discussion among contributors to the DNSOP working group and others,
   particularly Olafur Gudmundsson, Ed Lewis, Bill Manning, Sam Weiler,
   and Rob Austein.







































Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Identifying an Authoritative Name `Server    July 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Woolf & Conrad          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/