bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-00.txt

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            David Conrad
draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-00.txt                         Nominum, Inc.
                                                             May, 2002

                Identifying an Authoritative Name Server

Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.

Abstract

   A standardized mechanism to determine the identity of a name server
   responding to a particular query would be useful, particularly as a
   diagnostic aid.  This document describes an identification convention
   used in one widely deployed implementation of the DNS protocol and
   proposes a slight modification to that convention aimed at addressing
   some implementation concerns.

1. Introduction

   Determining the identity of the name server responding to a query has
   become more complex due primarily to the proliferation of various
   load balancing techniques.  This document describes a convention used
   by one particular DNS server implementation to provide identifying
   information and proposes a slight modification to that convention to
   address concerns regarding implementation neutrality.

   Note that this document makes no value judgements as to whether or
   not the convention in current use is good or bad; it merely documents



Expires November, 2002                                          [Page 1]

draft-ietf-dnsops-serverid-00.txt                              May, 2002


   the covention's existence and proposes a slight redefinition of the
   convention to address non-technical implementation concerns.

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.

   This proposal makes the assumption that 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.

3. Historical 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.

4. An Implementation Neutral Convention

   The previously described use of the CHAOS class "BIND." domain has



Expires November, 2002                                          [Page 2]

draft-ietf-dnsops-serverid-00.txt                              May, 2002


   rightly been viewed by many implementors as not being standardized
   nor being implementation neutral.  As such, a standard mechanism to
   identify a particular machine among a shared unicast set of machines
   serving the same DNS data does not currently exist.

   Since a name server conforming to [RFC1034] and [RFC1035] should
   support the CHAOS class and the use of TXT resource record queries in
   the CHAOS class to derive information about a name server has been
   used in several independent name server implementations, the quickest
   way of supporting the identification of a particular name server out
   of a set of name servers all sharing the same unicast prefix would
   likely be to standardize on the BIND convention, albeit with a slight
   modification to address implementation neutrality concerns.

   The convention proposed here simply redefines the top level CHAOS
   domain to be "SERVER." instead of "BIND.".  Since using the actual
   hostname may be considered an information leakage security risk, the
   use of the actual hostname of the server is discouraged and instead a
   unique per-server identifier should be used.  As the BIND convention
   of "HOSTNAME" implies the use of a hostname, the domain name
   "ID.SERVER" is proposed.  That is, a TXT RR query for "ID.SERVER." in
   the CHAOS class will return an administratively defined string that
   can be used to differentiate among multiple servers.

   To make this convention useful, DNS operators wishing to identify
   their servers MUST put a unique string for the RDATA of the TXT
   record associated with the "ID.SERVER." domain in class CHAOS.
   Implementors MUST provide a way to disable returning identifying
   information.  Implementors SHOULD provide a way to limit who can
   query for the identifying information.

   The use of other names in the CHAOS class "SERVER." domain are beyond
   the scope of this document.

IANA Considerations

   The "SERVER." domain in the CHAOS class should be reserved by IANA
   and a registry should be created that reserves the "ID" name.  In the
   future, requests may be submitted for other sub-domains of "SERVER.",
   e.g., "VERSION.SERVER." and the IANA should take appropriate action.

Security Considerations

   Providing identifying information as to which server is responding
   can be seen as information leakage and thus a security risk.  It may
   be appropriate to restrict who can query for the "ID.SERVER."
   domain.  Filtering on source address would be one way in which
   restrictions can be applied.



Expires November, 2002                                          [Page 3]

draft-ietf-dnsops-serverid-00.txt                              May, 2002


   The identifer returned via an "ID.SERVER." query SHOULD NOT contain
   the hostname or other information that could be considered sensitive.

Acknowledgements

   The technique for host identification documented here derive from
   practices implemented by Paul Vixie of the Internet Software
   Consortium in the Berkeley Internet Name Domain package.  Useful
   comments on earlier drafts were provided by Bob Halley, Brian
   Wellington, Andreas Gustafsson, Ted Hardie, Chris Yarnell, and
   members of the ICANN Root Server System Advisory Council.

References

   [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities",
   RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
   Specifications", RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3258] Hardie, T., "Distributing Authoritative Name Servers via
   Shared Unicast Addresses", RFC 3258, April, 2002.

Author's Address

   David Conrad
   Nominum, Inc.
   2385 Bay Road
   Redwood City, CA 94063
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 381 6003
   Fax:   +1 650 381 6055
   Email: david.conrad@nominum.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
   distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
   provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this



Expires November, 2002                                          [Page 4]

draft-ietf-dnsops-serverid-00.txt                              May, 2002


   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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."


































Expires November, 2002                                          [Page 5]