5. リゾルバ RESOLVERS

5.1. はじめに Introduction

Resolvers are programs that interface user programs to domain name servers. In the simplest case, a resolver receives a request from a user program (e.g., mail programs, TELNET, FTP) in the form of a subroutine call, system call etc., and returns the desired information in a form compatible with the local host's data formats.

The resolver is located on the same machine as the program that requests the resolver's services, but it may need to consult name servers on other hosts. Because a resolver may need to consult several name servers, or may have the requested information in a local cache, the amount of time that a resolver will take to complete can vary quite a bit, from milliseconds to several seconds.

A very important goal of the resolver is to eliminate network delay and name server load from most requests by answering them from its cache of prior results. It follows that caches which are shared by multiple processes, users, machines, etc., are more efficient than non-shared caches.

5.2. クライアント−リゾルバインターフェース Client-resolver interface

The client interface to the resolver is influenced by the local host's conventions, but the typical resolver-client interface has three functions:

1. ホスト名からホストアドレスへの変換 Host name to host address translation.

This function is often defined to mimic a previous HOSTS.TXT based function. Given a character string, the caller wants one or more 32 bit IP addresses. Under the DNS, it translates into a request for type A RRs. Since the DNS does not preserve the order of RRs, this function may choose to sort the returned addresses or select the "best" address if the service returns only one choice to the client. Note that a multiple address return is recommended, but a single address may be the only way to emulate prior HOSTS.TXT services.

2. ホストアドレスからホスト名への変換 Host address to host name translation

This function will often follow the form of previous functions. Given a 32 bit IP address, the caller wants a character string. The octets of the IP address are reversed, used as name components, and suffixed with "IN-ADDR.ARPA". A type PTR query is used to get the RR with the primary name of the host. For example, a request for the host name corresponding to IP address 1.2.3.4 looks for PTR RRs for domain name "4.3.2.1.IN-ADDR.ARPA".

3. 一般的な検索機能 General lookup function

This function retrieves arbitrary information from the DNS, and has no counterpart in previous systems. The caller supplies a QNAME, QTYPE, and QCLASS, and wants all of the matching RRs. This function will often use the DNS format for all RR data instead of the local host's, and returns all RR content (e.g., TTL) instead of a processed form with local quoting conventions.

When the resolver performs the indicated function, it usually has one of the following results to pass back to the client:

- One or more RRs giving the requested data.

In this case the resolver returns the answer in the appropriate format.

- A name error (NE).

This happens when the referenced name does not exist. For example, a user may have mistyped a host name.

- A data not found error.

This happens when the referenced name exists, but data of the appropriate type does not. For example, a host address function applied to a mailbox name would return this error since the name exists, but no address RR is present.

It is important to note that the functions for translating between host names and addresses may combine the "name error" and "data not found" error conditions into a single type of error return, but the general function should not. One reason for this is that applications may ask first for one type of information about a name followed by a second request to the same name for some other type of information; if the two errors are combined, then useless queries may slow the application.

5.2.2. 別名 Aliases

While attempting to resolve a particular request, the resolver may find that the name in question is an alias. For example, the resolver might find that the name given for host name to address translation is an alias when it finds the CNAME RR. If possible, the alias condition should be signalled back from the resolver to the client.

In most cases a resolver simply restarts the query at the new name when it encounters a CNAME. However, when performing the general function, the resolver should not pursue aliases when the CNAME RR matches the query type. This allows queries which ask whether an alias is present. For example, if the query type is CNAME, the user is interested in the CNAME RR itself, and not the RRs at the name it points to.

Several special conditions can occur with aliases. Multiple levels of aliases should be avoided due to their lack of efficiency, but should not be signalled as an error. Alias loops and aliases which point to non-existent names should be caught and an error condition passed back to the client.

5.2.3. 一時的障害 Temporary failures

In a less than perfect world, all resolvers will occasionally be unable to resolve a particular request. This condition can be caused by a resolver which becomes separated from the rest of the network due to a link failure or gateway problem, or less often by coincident failure or unavailability of all servers for a particular domain.

It is essential that this sort of condition should not be signalled as a name or data not present error to applications. This sort of behavior is annoying to humans, and can wreak havoc when mail systems use the DNS.

While in some cases it is possible to deal with such a temporary problem by blocking the request indefinitely, this is usually not a good choice, particularly when the client is a server process that could move on to other tasks. The recommended solution is to always have temporary failure as one of the possible results of a resolver function, even though this may make emulation of existing HOSTS.TXT functions more difficult.

5.3. リゾルバの内部動作 Resolver internals

Every resolver implementation uses slightly different algorithms, and typically spends much more logic dealing with errors of various sorts than typical occurances. This section outlines a recommended basic strategy for resolver operation, but leaves details to [RFC-1035].

5.3.1. つなぎリゾルバ Stub resolvers

One option for implementing a resolver is to move the resolution function out of the local machine and into a name server which supports recursive queries. This can provide an easy method of providing domain service in a PC which lacks the resources to perform the resolver function, or can centralize the cache for a whole local network or organization.

All that the remaining stub needs is a list of name server addresses that will perform the recursive requests. This type of resolver presumably needs the information in a configuration file, since it probably lacks the sophistication to locate it in the domain database. The user also needs to verify that the listed servers will perform the recursive service; a name server is free to refuse to perform recursive services for any or all clients. The user should consult the local system administrator to find name servers willing to perform the service.

This type of service suffers from some drawbacks. Since the recursive requests may take an arbitrary amount of time to perform, the stub may have difficulty optimizing retransmission intervals to deal with both lost UDP packets and dead servers; the name server can be easily overloaded by too zealous a stub if it interprets retransmissions as new requests. Use of TCP may be an answer, but TCP may well place burdens on the host's capabilities which are similar to those of a real resolver.

5.3.2. 資源 Resources

In addition to its own resources, the resolver may also have shared access to zones maintained by a local name server. This gives the resolver the advantage of more rapid access, but the resolver must be careful to never let cached information override zone data. In this discussion the term "local information" is meant to mean the union of the cache and such shared zones, with the understanding that authoritative data is always used in preference to cached data when both are present.

The following resolver algorithm assumes that all functions have been converted to a general lookup function, and uses the following data structures to represent the state of a request in progress in the resolver:

SNAME the domain name we are searching for.

STYPE the QTYPE of the search request.

SCLASS the QCLASS of the search request.

SLIST a structure which describes the name servers and the zone which the resolver is currently trying to query. This structure keeps track of the resolver's current best guess about which name servers hold the desired information; it is updated when arriving information changes the guess. This structure includes the equivalent of a zone name, the known name servers for the zone, the known addresses for the name servers, and history information which can be used to suggest which server is likely to be the best one to try next. The zone name equivalent is a match count of the number of labels from the root down which SNAME has in common with the zone being queried; this is used as a measure of how "close" the resolver is to SNAME.

SBELT a "safety belt" structure of the same form as SLIST, which is initialized from a configuration file, and lists servers which should be used when the resolver doesn't have any local information to guide name server selection. The match count will be -1 to indicate that no labels are known to match.

CACHE A structure which stores the results from previous responses. Since resolvers are responsible for discarding old RRs whose TTL has expired, most implementations convert the interval specified in arriving RRs to some sort of absolute time when the RR is stored in the cache. Instead of counting the TTLs down individually, the resolver just ignores or discards old RRs when it runs across them in the course of a search, or discards them during periodic sweeps to reclaim the memory consumed by old RRs.

5.3.3. アルゴリズム Algorithm

The top level algorithm has four steps:

1. See if the answer is in local information, and if so return it to the client.

2. Find the best servers to ask.

3. Send them queries until one returns a response.

4. Analyze the response, either:

a. if the response answers the question or contains a name error, cache the data as well as returning it back to the client.

b. if the response contains a better delegation to other servers, cache the delegation information, and go to step 2.

c. if the response shows a CNAME and that is not the answer itself, cache the CNAME, change the SNAME to the canonical name in the CNAME RR and go to step 1.

d. if the response shows a servers failure or other bizarre contents, delete the server from the SLIST and go back to step 3.

Step 1 searches the cache for the desired data. If the data is in the cache, it is assumed to be good enough for normal use. Some resolvers have an option at the user interface which will force the resolver to ignore the cached data and consult with an authoritative server. This is not recommended as the default. If the resolver has direct access to a name server's zones, it should check to see if the desired data is present in authoritative form, and if so, use the authoritative data in preference to cached data.

Step 2 looks for a name server to ask for the required data. The general strategy is to look for locally-available name server RRs, starting at SNAME, then the parent domain name of SNAME, the grandparent, and so on toward the root. Thus if SNAME were Mockapetris.ISI.EDU, this step would look for NS RRs for Mockapetris.ISI.EDU, then ISI.EDU, then EDU, and then . (the root). These NS RRs list the names of hosts for a zone at or above SNAME. Copy the names into SLIST. Set up their addresses using local data. It may be the case that the addresses are not available. The resolver has many choices here; the best is to start parallel resolver processes looking for the addresses while continuing onward with the addresses which are available. Obviously, the design choices and options are complicated and a function of the local host's capabilities. The recommended priorities for the resolver designer are:

1. 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 implementations EVEN IF SOMEONE HAS INCORRECTLY CONFIGURED SOME DATA.

2. Get back an answer if at all possible.

3. Avoid unnecessary transmissions.

4. Get the answer as quickly as possible.

If the search for NS RRs fails, then the resolver initializes SLIST from the safety belt SBELT. The basic idea is that when the resolver has no idea what servers to ask, it should use information from a configuration file that lists several servers which are expected to be helpful. Although there are special situations, the usual choice is two of the root servers and two of the servers for the host's domain. The reason for two of each is for redundancy. The root servers will provide eventual access to all of the domain space. The two local servers will allow the resolver to continue to resolve local names if the local network becomes isolated from the internet due to gateway or link failure.

In addition to the names and addresses of the servers, the SLIST data structure can be sorted to use the best servers first, and to insure that all addresses of all servers are used in a round-robin manner. The sorting can be a simple function of preferring addresses on the local network over others, or may involve statistics from past events, such as previous response times and batting averages.

Step 3 sends out queries until a response is received. The strategy is to cycle around all of the addresses for all of the servers with a timeout between each transmission. In practice it is important to use all addresses of a multihomed host, and too aggressive a retransmission policy actually slows response when used by multiple resolvers contending for the same name server and even occasionally for a single resolver. SLIST typically contains data values to control the timeouts and keep track of previous transmissions.

Step 4 involves analyzing responses. The resolver should be highly paranoid in its parsing of responses. It should also check that the response matches the query it sent using the ID field in the response. The ideal answer is one from a server authoritative for the query which either gives the required data or a name error. The data is passed back to the user and entered in the cache for future use if its TTL is greater than zero.

If the response shows a delegation, the resolver should check to see that the delegation is "closer" to the answer than the servers in SLIST are. This can be done by comparing the match count in SLIST with that computed from SNAME and the NS RRs in the delegation. If not, the reply is bogus and should be ignored. If the delegation is valid the NS delegation RRs and any address RRs for the servers should be cached. The name servers are entered in the SLIST, and the search is restarted.

If the response contains a CNAME, the search is restarted at the CNAME unless the response has the data for the canonical name or if the CNAME is the answer itself.

Details and implementation hints can be found in [RFC-1035].