Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-dns-common-errors


INTERNET DRAFT						Anant Kumar
Expiration Date: January 6, 1994			Jon Postel
							Cliff Neuman

							Peter Danzig
							Steve Miller
							July 1993

		Common DNS Errors and Suggested Fixes

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft.  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.
Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use
Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than
as a ``working draft'' or ``work in progress.''

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
Shadow Directories on,,, or

This Internet Draft expires January 6, 1994.


This memo describes common errors seen in DNS implementations and
suggests some fixes. Where applicable, violations of recommendations
from RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 are mentioned. The memo also describes,
where relevant, the algorithms followed in BIND (versions 4.8.3 and
4.9 which the authors referred to) to serve as an example.


The last few years have seen, virtually, an explosion of DNS traffic
on the NSFnet backbone. Various DNS implementations and various
versions of these implementations interact with each other, producing
huge amounts of unnecessary traffic. Attempts are being made by
researchers all over the internet, to document the nature of these
interactions, the symptomatic traffic patterns and to devise remedies
for the sick pieces of software.

This draft is an attempt to document fixes for known DNS problems so
people know what problems to watch out for and how to repair broken

							     [Page 1]
USC/ISI 					Kumar, Postel, Neuman
						Danzig, Miller

1. Fast Retransmissions.

DNS implements the classic request-response scheme of client-server
interaction. UDP is, therefore, the chosen protocol for communication
though TCP is used for zone transfers. The onus of requerying in case
no response is seen in a "reasonable" period of time, lies with the
client. Although RFC 1034 and 1035 do not recommend any retransmission
policy, RFC1035 does recommend that the resolvers should cycle through
a list of servers. Both name servers and stub resolvers should,
therefore, implement some kind of a retransmission policy based on
round trip time estimates of the name servers. The client should
back-off exponentially, probably to a maximum timeout value.
However, clients might not implement either of the two. They might
not wait a sufficient amount of time before retransmitting or they
might not back-off their inter-query times sufficiently.

Thus, what the server would see will be a series of queries from the
same querying entity, spaced very close together. Of course, a
correctly implemented server discards all duplicate queries but the
queries contribute to wide-area traffic, nevertheless.

We classify a retransmission of a query as a pure Fast retry timeout
problem when a series of query packets meet the following conditions.

 a. Query packets are seen within a time less than a "reasonable
    waiting period" of each other.
 b. No response to the original query was seen i.e. we see two or
    more queries, back to back.
 c. The query packets share the same query identifier.
 d. The server eventually reponds to the query.


BIND (we looked at versions 4.8.3 and 4.9) implements a good
retransmission algorithm which solves or limits all of these problems.
The Berkeley resolver queries servers at an interval that starts at
the greater of 4 seconds and 5 seconds divided by the number of
servers the resolver queries. The resolver cycles through servers and
at the end of a cycle, backs off the time out exponentially.

The Berkeley name-server starts with a time-out equal to the greater
of 4 seconds and two times the round-trip time estimate of the server.
The time-out is backed off with each cycle, exponentially, to a
ceiling value of 45 seconds.

							     [Page 2]
USC/ISI						Kumar, Postel, Neuman
						Danzig, Miller


  a. Estimate round-trip times or set a reasonably high initial

  b. Back-off timeout periods exponentially.

  c. Yet another fundamental though difficult fix is to send the client
     an acknowledgement of a query, with a round-trip time estimate.

Since UDP is used, no response is expected by the client until the
query is complete.  Thus, it is less likely to have information about
previous packets on which to estimate its back-off time.  Unless, you
maintain state across queries, so subsequent queries to the same
server use information from previous queries.  Unfortunately, such
estimates are likely to be inaccurate for chained requests since the
variance is likely to be high.

The fix chosen in the ARDP library used by Prospero is that the
server will send an initial acknowledgement to the client in those
cases where the server expects the query to take a long time (as might
be the case for chained queries).  This initial acknowledgement can
include an expected time to wait before retrying.

This fix is more difficult since it requires that the client software
also be trained to expect the acknowledgement packet. This, in an
internet of millions of hosts is at best a hard problem.

2. Recursion Bugs

When a server receives a client request, it first looks up its zone
data and the cache to check if the query can be answered. If the
answer is unavailable in either place, the server seeks names of
servers that are more likely to have the information, in its cache or
zone data. It then does one of two things. If the client desires the
server to recurse and the server architecture allows recursion, the
server chains this request to these known servers closest to the
queried name. If the client doesn't seek recursion or if the server
cannot handle recursion, it returns the list of name servers to the
client assuming the client knows what to do with these records.

The client queries this new list of name servers to get either the
answer, or names of another set of name servers to query. This process
repeats until the client is satisfied. Servers might also go through
this chaining process if the server returns a CNAME record for the
queried name. Some servers reprocess this name to try and get the
desired record type.
							     [Page 3]
USC/ISI						Kumar, Postel, Neuman
						Danzig, Miller

However, in certain cases, this chain of events may not be good. For
example, a broken or malicious name server might list itself as one of
the name servers to query again. The unsuspecting client resends the
same query to the same server.

In another situation, more difficult to detect, a set of servers
might form a loop wherein A refers to B and B refers to A. This loop
might involve more than two servers.

Yet another error is where the client does not know how to process
the list of name servers returned, and requeries the same server since
that is one (of the few) servers it knows.

We, therefore, classify recursion bugs into three distinct categories:

 a. Ignored referral: Client did not know how to handle NS records in
    the AUTHORITY section.

 b. Too many referrals: Client called on a server too many times,
    beyond a "reasonable" number, with same query. This is different
    from a Fast retransmission problem and a Server Failure
    detection problem in that a response is seen for every query.
    Also, the identifiers are always different. It implies client is
    in a loop and should have detected that and broken it. (RFC 1035
    mentions that client should not recurse beyond a certain depth)
 c. Malicious Server: a server refers to itself in the authority
    section. If a server does not have an answer now, it is very
    unlikely it will be any better the next time you query it,
    specially when it claims to be authoritative over a domain.

 RFC 1034 warns against such situations, on page 35.

 "Bound the amount of work (packets sent, parallel processes
  started) so that a request can't get into an infinite loop or
  start off a chain reaction of requests or queries with other


BIND fixes at least one of these problems. It places an upper limit
on the number of recursive queries it will make, to answer a question.
It chases a maximum of 20 referral links and 8 canonical name

							     [Page 4]
USC/ISI 				 	Kumar, Postel, Neuman
					 	Danzig, Miller


 a. Set an upper limit on the number of referral links and CNAME links
    you are willing to chase.

    Note that this is not guaranteed to break only recursion loops. It
    could, in a rare case, prune off a very long search path,
    prematurely.  We know, however, with high probability, that if
    the number of links cross a certain metric (two times the depth
    of the DNS tree), it is a recursion problem.

 b. Watch out for self-referring servers. Avoid them whenever

 c. Make sure you never pass off an authority NS record with your own
    name on it!

 d. Fix clients to accept iterative answers from servers not built to
    provide recursion. Such clients should either be happy with the
    non-authoritative answer or be willing to chase the referral links

3. Zero Answer Bugs:

Name servers sometimes return an authoritative NOERROR with no
ANSWER, AUTHORITY or ADDITIONAL records. This happens when the queried
name is valid but it does not have a record of the desired type. Of
course, the server has authority over the domain.

However, once again, some implementations of resolvers do not
interpret this kind of a response reasonably. They always expect an
answer record when they see an authoritative NOERROR. These entities
continue to resend their queries, possibly endlessly.


BIND resolver code does not query a server more than 3 times. If it
is unable to get an answer from 4 servers, querying them three times
each, it returns error.

Of course, it treats a zero-answer response the way it should be
treated; with respect!


 a. Set an upper limit on the number of retransmissions for a given
    query, at the very least.

							     [Page 5]
USC/ISI 				 	Kumar, Postel, Neuman
					 	Danzig, Miller

 b. Fix resolvers to interpret such a response as an authoritative
    statement of non-existence of the record type for the given name.

4. Inability to detect server failure:

Servers in the internet are not very reliable (they go down every
once in a while) and resolvers are expected to adapt to the changed
scenario by not querying the server for a while. Thus, when a server
does not respond to a query, resolvers should try another server.
Also, non-stub resolvers should update their round trip time estimate
for the server to a large value so that server is not tried again
before other, faster servers.

Stub resolvers, however, cycle through a fixed set of servers and if,
unfortunately, a server is down while others do not respond for other
reasons (high load, recursive resolution of query is taking more time
than the resolver's time-out, ....), the resolver queries the dead
server again! In fact, some resolvers might not set an upper limit on
the number of query retransmissions they will send and continue to
query dead servers indefinitely.

Name servers running system or chained queries might also suffer from
the same problem. They store names of servers they should query for a
given domain. They cycle through these names and in case none of them
answers, hit each one more than one. It is, once again, important that
there be an upper limit on the number of retransmissions, to prevent
network overload.

This behavior is clearly in violation of the dictum in RFC1035 (p 46)
 "If a resolver gets a server error or other bizarre response
  from a name server, it should remove it from SLIST, and may
  wish to schedule an immediate transmission to the next
  candidate server address."

Removal from SLIST implies that the server is not queried again for 
some time.

Correctly implemented name servers should, as pointed out before,
update round trip time values for servers that do not respond and
query them only after other, good servers. Servers might, however, not
follow any of these common sense directives. They query dead servers,
and they query them endlessly.

							     [Page 6]
USC/ISI 				 	Kumar, Postel, Neuman
					 	Danzig, Miller


BIND places an upper limit on the number of times it queries a
server. Both the resolver and the name server code do this. Also,
since the server estimates round-trip times and sorts name server
addresses by these estimates, it does not query a dead server again,
until and unless all the other servers in the list are dead too!
Further, BIND implements exponential back-off too.


 a. Set an upper limit on number of retransmissions.

 b. Measure round-trip time from servers (some estimate is better than
    none). Treat no response as a "very large" round-trip time.

 c. Maintain a weighted rtt estimate and decay the "large" value
    slowly, with time, so that the server is eventually tested again,
    but not after an indefinitely long period.

 d. Follow an exponential back-off scheme so that even if you do not
    restrict the number of queries, you do not overload the net

5. Cache Leaks:

Every resource record returned by a server is cached for TTL seconds,
where the TTL value is returned with the RR. Servers (not
stub-resolvers) cache the RR and answer any queries based on this
cached information, in the future, until the TTL expires. After that,
one more query to the wide-area network gets the RR in cache again.

Servers might not implement this caching mechanism well. They might
impose a limit on the cache size or might not interpret the TTL value
correctly. In either case, queries repeated within a TTL period of a
RR constitute a cache leak.


BIND has no restriction on the cache size and the size is governed by
the limits on the virtual address space of the machine it is running
on. BIND caches RRs for the duration of the TTL returned with each

It does, however, not follow the RFCs with respect to interpretation
of a 0 TTL value. If a record has a TTL value of 0 seconds, BIND uses
the minimum TTL value, for that zone, from the SOA record and caches
it for that duration. This, though it saves some traffic on the
wide-area network, is not correct behavior.

							     [Page 7]
USC/ISI 				 	Kumar, Postel, Neuman
					 	Danzig, Miller


 a. Look over your caching mechanism to ensure TTLs are interpreted

 b. Do not restrict cache sizes (come on, memory is cheap!). Expired
    entries are reclaimed periodically, anyway. Of course, the cache
    size is bound to have some physical limit. But, when possible,
    this limit should be large (run your name server on a machine
    with large amount of physical memory).

 c. Possibly, a mechanism is needed to flush the cache, when it is
    known that the information has changed.
6. Name Error Bugs:

This bug is very similar to the Zero Answer bug. A server returns an
authoritative NXDOMAIN when the queried name is known to be bad,
obviously by the server authoritative for the domain. This
authoritative NXDOMAIN response is usually accompanied by the SOA
record for the domain, in the authority section.

Resolvers should recognize that the name they queried for was a bad
name and should stop querying further.

Some resolvers might, however, not interpret this correctly and
continue to query servers, expecting an answer record.


Some local versions of BIND already implement negative caching. They
typically cache negative answers with a very small TTL, sufficient to
answer a burst of queries spaced close together, as is typically seen.

The next official public release of BIND (4.9.2) will most probably
have negative caching as an ifdef'd feature.


 a. Fix the resolver code.

 b. Negative Caching. Negative caching servers will restrict the
    traffic seen on the wide-area network, even if not curb it altogether.

Associated with the name error bug is another problem where a server
might return an authoritative NXDOMAIN, although the name is valid. A
secondary server, on start-up, reads the zone information from the

							     [Page 8]
USC/ISI 				 	Kumar, Postel, Neuman
					 	Danzig, Miller

primary, through a zone transfer. While it is in the process of
loading the zones, it does not have information about them, although
it is authoritative for them.  Thus, any query for a name in that
domain is answered with an NXDOMAIN response code. This problem might
not be disastrous were it not for negative caching servers that cache
this answer and so propagate incorrect information over the internet.


 BIND apparently suffers from this problem.


 a. Servers should start answering only after loading all the zone
    data. A failed server is better than a server handing out
    incorrect information.

 b. Negative cache records for a very small time, sufficient only to
    ward off a burst of requests for the same bad name.

7. Format Errors:
Some resolvers issue query packets that do not necessarily conform to
standards as laid out in the relevant rfcs. This unnecessarily
increases net traffic and wastes server time.


 a. Fix resolvers.

 b. Each resolver verify format of packets before sending them out,
    using a mechanism outside of the resolver. This is, obviously,
    needed only if step 1 cannot be followed.

Authors' Addresses:

Anant Kumar, Jon Postel, Cliff Neuman    Peter Danzig, Steve Miller
<anant, postel, bcn>			 <danzig, smiller> 

USC Information Sciences Institute       Computer Science Department
4676 Admiralty Way		         Univ. of Southern California
Marina Del Rey CA 90292-6695		 University Park
					 Los Angeles CA 90089
Phone:(310) 822-1511
FAX:  (310) 823-6714

This Internet Draft expires January 6, 1994. 

							     [Page 9]