fuquan/android_mt6572_jiabo
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
android_mt6572_jiabo/external/avahi/specs/draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-03.txt
FuQuan 3ff2876a30 first commit
2025-09-05 16:56:03 +08:00

2494 lines
106 KiB
Text
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Document: draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-03.txt Stuart Cheshire
Category: Standards Track Apple Computer, Inc.
Expires 29th July 2004 Marc Krochmal
Apple Computer, Inc.
29th January 2003
Multicast DNS
<draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-03.txt>
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
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
As networked devices become smaller, more portable, and more
ubiquitous, the ability to operate with less configured
infrastructure is increasingly important. In particular, the ability
to look up DNS resource record data types (including, but not limited
to, host names) in the absence of a conventional managed DNS server,
is becoming essential.
Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to do DNS-like operations
on the local link in the absense of any conventional unicast DNS
server. In addition, mDNS designates a portion of the DNS namespace
to be free for local use, without the need to pay any annual fee, and
without the need to set up delegations or otherwise configure a
conventional DNS server to answer for those names.
The primary benefits of mDNS names are that (i) they require little
or no administration or configuration to set them up, (ii) they work
when no infrastructure is present, and (iii) they work during
infrastructure failures.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 1]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Conventions and Terminology Used in this Document..............4
3. Multicast DNS Names............................................4
4. IP TTL Checks..................................................8
5. Reverse Address Mapping........................................8
6. Querying.......................................................9
7. Duplicate Suppression.........................................13
8. Responding....................................................15
9. Probing and Announcing on Startup.............................17
10. Conflict Resolution...........................................21
11. Special Characteristics of Multicast DNS Domains..............23
12. Multicast DNS for Service Discovery...........................24
13. Resource Record TTL Values and Cache Coherency................25
14. Enabling and Disabling Multicast DNS..........................30
15. Considerations for Multiple Interfaces........................30
16. Multicast DNS and Power Management............................31
17. Multicast DNS Character Set...................................32
18. Multicast DNS Message Size....................................33
19. Multicast DNS Message Format..................................33
20. Choice of UDP Port Number.....................................36
21. Summary of Differences Between Multicast DNS and Unicast DNS..37
22. Benefits of Multicast Responses...............................38
23. IPv6 Considerations...........................................39
24. Security Considerations.......................................40
25. IANA Considerations...........................................41
26. Acknowledgements..............................................41
27. Copyright.....................................................41
28. Normative References..........................................42
29. Informative References........................................42
30. Author's Addresses............................................43
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 2]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
1. Introduction
When reading this document, familiarity with the concepts of Zero
Configuration Networking [ZC] and automatic link-local addressing
[v4LL] [RFC 2462] is helpful.
This document proposes no change to the structure of DNS messages,
and no new operation codes, response codes, or resource record types.
This document simply discusses what needs to happen if DNS clients
start sending DNS queries to a multicast address, and how a
collection of hosts can cooperate to collectively answer those
queries in a useful manner.
There has been discussion of how much burden Multicast DNS might
impose on a network. It should be remembered that whenever IPv4 hosts
communicate, they broadcast ARP packets on the network on a regular
basis, and this is not disastrous. The approximate amount of
multicast traffic generated by hosts making conventional use of
Multicast DNS is anticipated to be roughly the same order of
magnitude as the amount of broadcast ARP traffic those hosts already
generate.
New applications making new use of Multicast DNS capabilities for
unconventional purposes may generate more traffic. If some of those
new applications are "chatty", then work will be needed to help them
become less chatty. When performing any analysis, it is important to
make a distinction between the application behavior and the
underlying protocol behavior. If a chatty application uses UDP, that
doesn't mean that UDP is chatty, or that IP is chatty, or that
Ethernet is chatty. What it means is that the application is chatty.
The same applies to any future applications that may decide to layer
increasing portions of their functionality over Multicast DNS.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 3]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
2. Conventions and Terminology Used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in "Key words for use in
RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC 2119].
This document uses the term "host name" in the strict sense to mean a
fully qualified domain name that has an address record. It does not
use the term "host name" in the commonly used but incorrect sense to
mean just the first DNS label of a host's fully qualified domain
name.
A DNS (or mDNS) packet contains an IP TTL in the IP header, which
is effectively a hop-count limit for the packet, to guard against
routing loops. Each Resource Record also contains a TTL, which is
the number of seconds for which the Resource Record may be cached.
In any place where there may be potential confusion between these two
types of TTL, the term "IP TTL" is used to refer to the IP header TTL
(hop limit), and the term "RR TTL" is used to refer to the Resource
Record TTL (cache lifetime).
When this document uses the term "Multicast DNS", it should be taken
to mean: Clients performing DNS-like queries for DNS-like resource
records by sending DNS-like UDP query and response packets over IP
Multicast to UDP port 5353."
3. Multicast DNS Names
This document proposes that the DNS top-level domain ".local." be
designated a special domain with special semantics, namely that any
fully-qualified name ending in ".local." is link-local, and names
within this domain are meaningful only on the link where they
originate. This is analogous to IPv4 addresses in the 169.254/16
prefix, which are link-local and meaningful only on the link where
they originate.
Any DNS query for a name ending with ".local." MUST be sent
to the mDNS multicast address (224.0.0.251 or its IPv6 equivalent
FF02::FB).
It is unimportant whether a name ending with ".local." occurred
because the user explicitly typed in a fully qualified domain name
ending in ".local.", or because the user entered an unqualified
domain name and the host software appended the suffix ".local."
because that suffix appears in the user's search list. The ".local."
suffix could appear in the search list because the user manually
configured it, or because it was received in a DHCP option, or via
any other valid mechanism for configuring the DNS search list. In
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 4]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
this respect the ".local." suffix is treated no differently to any
other search domain that might appear in the DNS search list.
DNS queries for names that do not end with ".local." MAY be sent to
the mDNS multicast address, if no other conventional DNS server is
available. This can allow hosts on the same link to continue
communicating using each other's globally unique DNS names during
network outages which disrupt communication with the greater
Internet. When resolving global names via local multicast, it is even
more important to use DNSSEC or other security mechanisms to ensure
that the response is trustworthy. Resolving global names via local
multicast is a contentious issue, and this document does not discuss
it in detail, instead concentrating on the issue of resolving local
names using DNS packets sent to a multicast address.
A host which belongs to an organization or individual who has control
over some portion of the DNS namespace can be assigned a globally
unique name within that portion of the DNS namespace, for example,
"cheshire.apple.com." For those of us who have this luxury, this
works very well. However, the majority of home customers do not have
easy access to any portion of the global DNS namespace within which
they have the authority to create names as they wish. This leaves the
majority of home computers effectively anonymous for practical
purposes.
To remedy this problem, this document allows any computer user to
elect to give their computers link-local Multicast DNS host names of
the form: "single-dns-label.local." For example, my Titanium
PowerBook laptop computer answers to the name "sctibook.local." Any
computer user is granted the authority to name their computer this
way, providing that the chosen host name is not already in use on
that link. Having named their computer this way, the user has the
authority to continue using that name until such time as a name
conflict occurs on the link which is not resolved in the user's
favour. If this happens, the computer (or its human user) SHOULD
cease using the name, and may choose to attempt to allocate a new
unique name for use on that link. Like law suits over global DNS
names, these conflicts are expected to be relatively rare for people
who choose reasonably imaginative names, but it is still important
to have a mechanism in place to handle them when they happen.
The point made in the previous paragraph is very important and bears
repeating. It is easy for those of us in the IETF community who run
our own name servers at home to forget that the majority of computer
users do not run their own name server and have no easy way to create
their own host names. When these users wish to transfer files between
two laptop computers, they are frequently reduced to typing in
dotted-decimal IP addresses because they simply have no other way for
one host to refer to the other by name. This is a sorry state of
affairs. What is worse, most users don't even bother trying to use
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 5]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
dotted-decimal IP addresses. Most users still move data between
machines by copying it onto a floppy disk or similar removable media.
In a world of gigabit Ethernet and ubiquitous wireless networking it
is a sad indictment of the networking community that the preferred
communication medium for most computer users is still the floppy
disk.
Allowing ad-hoc allocation of single-label names in a single flat
".local." namespace may seem to invite chaos. However, operational
experience with AppleTalk NBP names, which on any given link are also
effectively single-label names in a flat namespace, shows that in
practice name collisions happen extremely rarely and are not a
problem. Groups of computer users from disparate organizations bring
Macintosh laptop computers to events such as IETF Meetings, the Mac
Hack conference, the Apple World Wide Developer Conference, etc., and
complaints at these events about users suffering conflicts and being
forced to rename their machines have never been an issue.
Enforcing uniqueness of host names (i.e. the names of DNS address
records mapping names to IP addresses) is probably desirable in the
common case, but this document does not mandate that. It is
permissible for a collection of coordinated hosts to agree to
maintain multiple DNS address records with the same name, possibly
for load balancing or fault-tolerance reasons. This document does not
take a position on whether that is sensible. It is important that
both modes of operation are supported. The Multicast DNS protocol
allows hosts to verify and maintain unique names for resource records
where that behaviour is desired, and it also allows hosts to maintain
multiple resource records with a single shared name where that
behaviour is desired. This consideration applies to all resource
records, not just address records (host names). In summary: It is
required that the protocol have the ability to detect and handle name
conflicts, but it is not required that this ability be used for every
record.
3.1 Governing Standards Body
Note that this use of the ".local." suffix falls under IETF
jurisdiction, not ICANN jurisdiction. DNS is an IETF network
protocol, governed by protocol rules defined by the IETF. These IETF
protocol rules dictate character set, maximum name length, packet
format, etc. ICANN determines additional rules that apply when the
IETF's DNS protocol is used on the public Internet. In contrast,
private uses of the DNS protocol on isolated private networks are not
governed by ICANN. Since this proposed change is a change to the core
DNS protocol rules, it affects everyone, not just those machines
using the ICANN-governed Internet. Hence this change falls into the
category of an IETF protocol rule, not an ICANN usage rule.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 6]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
3.2 Private DNS Namespaces
Note also that the special treatment of names ending in ".local." has
been implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9,
and continues today in Mac OS X. There are also implementations for
Linux and other platforms [dotlocal]. Operators setting up private
internal networks ("intranets") are advised that their lives may be
easier if they avoid using the suffix ".local." in names in their
private internal DNS server. Alternative possibilities include:
.intranet
.internal
.private
.corp
.home
Another alternative naming scheme, advocated by Professor D. J.
Bernstein, is to use a numerical suffix, such as ".6." [djbdl].
3.3 Maximum Multicast DNS Name Length
RFC 1034 says:
"the total number of octets that represent a domain name (i.e.,
the sum of all label octets and label lengths) is limited to 255."
This text implies that the final root label at the end of every name
is included in this count (a name can't be represented without it),
but the text does not explicitly state that. Implementations of
Multicast DNS MUST include the label length byte of the final root
label at the end of every name when enforcing the rule that no name
may be longer than 255 bytes. For example, the length of the name
"apple.com." is considered to be 11, which is the number of bytes it
takes to represent that name in a packet without using name
compression:
------------------------------------------------------
| 0x05 | a | p | p | l | e | 0x03 | c | o | m | 0x00 |
------------------------------------------------------
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 7]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
4. IP TTL Checks
All Multicast DNS responses (including responses sent via unicast)
MUST be sent with IP TTL set to 255.
A host sending Multicast DNS queries to a link-local destination
address (including the 224.0.0.251 link-local multicast address) MUST
verify that the IP TTL in response packets is 255, and silently
discard any response packets where the IP TTL is not 255. Without
this check, it could be possible for remote rogue hosts to send
spoof answer packets (perhaps unicast to the victim host) which the
receiving machine could misinterpret as having originated on the
local link.
The authors have heard complaints that some older network stack
implementations do not implement the IP_RECVTTL socket option
(or equivalent API) for obtaining the IP TTL of received packets.
This is unfortunate, and these old network stacks would benefit
from adding this API support so that they may benefit from this
enhanced protection against spoof packets arriving from off-link.
Note that Multicast DNS Responders SHOULD NOT discard queries with
TTLs other than 255. There may be valid future applications of
Multicast DNS where hosts issue unicast queries directed at Multicast
DNS Responders more than one hop away, if Multicast DNS Responders
were to discard queries where the TTL is not 255, they would not
answer these queries.
5. Reverse Address Mapping
Like ".local.", the IPv4 and IPv6 reverse-mapping domains are also
defined to be link-local.
Any DNS query for a name ending with "254.169.in-addr.arpa." MUST
be sent to the mDNS multicast address 224.0.0.251. Since names under
this domain correspond to IPv4 link-local addresses, it is logical
that the local link is the best place to find information pertaining
to those names. As an optimization, these queries MAY be first
unicast directly to the address in question, but if this query is not
answered, the query MUST also be sent via multicast, to accommodate
the case where the machine in question is not answering for itself
(for example, because it is currently sleeping).
Likewise, any DNS query for a name ending with "0.8.e.f.ip6.arpa."
MUST be sent to the IPv6 mDNS link-local multicast address FF02::FB,
with or without an optional initial query unicast directly to the
address in question.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 8]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
6. Querying
There are three kinds of Multicast DNS Queries, one-shot queries of
the kind made by today's conventional DNS clients, one-shot queries
accumulating multiple responses made by multicast-aware DNS clients,
and continuous ongoing Multicast DNS Queries used by IP network
browser software.
A Multicast DNS Responder that is offering records that are intended
to be unique on the local link MUST also implement a Multicast DNS
Querier so that it can first verify the uniqueness of those records
before it begins answering queries for them.
6.1 One-Shot Queries
An unsophisticated DNS client may simply send its DNS queries
blindly to the 224.0.0.251 multicast address, without necessarily
even being aware what a multicast address is.
Such an unsophisticated DNS client may not get ideal behaviour. Such
a client may simply take the first response it receives and fail to
wait to see if there are more, but in many instances this may not be
a serious problem. If a user types "http://stu.local." into their Web
browser and gets to see the page they were hoping for, then the
protocol has met the user's needs in this case.
6.2 One-Shot Queries, Accumulating Multiple Responses
A more sophisticated DNS client should understand that Multicast DNS
is not exactly the same as unicast DNS, and should modify its
behaviour in some simple ways.
As described above, there are some cases, such as looking up the
address associated with a unique host name, where a single response
is sufficient, and moreover may be all that is expected. However,
there are other DNS queries where more than one response is
possible, and for these queries a more sophisticated Multicast DNS
client should include the ability to wait for an appropriate period
of time to collect multiple responses.
A naive DNS client retransmits its query only so long as it has
received no response. A more sophisticated Multicast DNS client is
aware that having received one response is not necessarily an
indication that it might not receive others, and has the ability to
retransmit its query an appropriate number of times at appropriate
intervals until it is satisfied with the collection of responses it
has gathered.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 9]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
A more sophisticated Multicast DNS client that is retransmitting
a query for which it has already received some responses, MUST
implement Known Answer Suppression, as described below in Section
7.1. This indicates to responders who have already replied that their
responses have been received, and they don't need to send them again
in response to this repeated query. In addition, the interval between
the first two queries MUST be at least one second, and the
intervals between subsequent queries MUST double.
6.3 Continuous Querying
In One-Shot Queries, with either a single or multiple responses,
the underlying assumption is that the transaction begins when the
application issues a query, and ends when all the desired responses
have been received. There is another type of operation which is more
akin to continuous monitoring.
Macintosh users are accustomed to opening the "Chooser" window,
selecting a desired printer, and then closing the Chooser window.
However, when the desired printer does not appear in the list, the
user will typically leave the "Chooser" window open while they go and
check to verify that the printer is plugged in, powered on, connected
to the Ethernet, etc. While the user jiggles the wires, hits the
Ethernet hub, and so forth, they keep an eye on the Chooser window,
and when the printer name appears, they know they have fixed whatever
the problem was. This can be a useful and intuitive troubleshooting
technique, but a user who goes home for the weekend leaving the
Chooser window open places a non-trivial burden on the network.
With continuous querying, multiple queries are sent over a long
period of time, until the user terminates the operation. It is
important that an IP network browser window displaying live
information from the network using Multicast DNS, if left running for
an extended period of time, should generate significantly less
multicast traffic on the network than the old AppleTalk Chooser.
Therefore, the interval between the first two queries MUST be at
least one second, the intervals between subsequent queries MUST
double, and the querier MUST implement Known Answer Suppression, as
described below in Section 7.1.
When a Multicast DNS Querier receives an answer, the answer contains
a TTL value that indicates for how many seconds this answer is valid.
After this interval has passed, the answer will no longer be valid
and should be deleted from the cache. Before this time is reached, a
Multicast DNS Querier with an ongoing interest in that record SHOULD
re-issue its query to determine whether the record is still valid,
and if so update its expiry time.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 10]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
To perform this cache maintenance, a Multicast DNS Querier should
plan to issue a query at 80% of the record lifetime, and then if no
answer is received, at 85%, 90% and 95%. If an answer is received,
then the remaining TTL is reset to the value given in the answer, and
this process repeats for as long as the Multicast DNS Querier has an
ongoing interest in the record. If after four queries no answer is
received, the record is deleted when it reaches 100% of its lifetime.
To avoid the case where multiple Multicast DNS Queriers on a network
all issue their queries simultaneously, a random variation of 2% of
the record TTL should be added, so that queries are scheduled to be
performed at 80-82%, 85-87%, 90-92% and then 95-97% of the TTL.
6.4 Multiple Questions per Query
Multicast DNS allows a querier to place multiple questions in the
question section of a single Multicast DNS query packet.
The semantics of a Multicast DNS query packet containing multiple
questions is identical to a series of individual DNS query packets
containing one question each. Combining multiple questions into a
single packet is purely an efficiency optimization, and has no other
semantic significance.
A useful technique for adaptively combining multiple questions into a
single query is to use a Nagle-style algorithm: When a client issues
its first question, a Query packet is immediately built and sent,
without delay. If the client then continues issuing a rapid series of
questions they are held until either the first query receives at
least one answer, or 100ms has passed, or there are enough questions
to fill the question section of a Multicast DNS query packet. At this
time, all the held questions are placed into a Multicast DNS query
packet and sent.
6.5 Questions Requesting Unicast Responses
Sending Multicast DNS responses via multicast has the benefit that
all the other hosts on the network get to see those responses, and
can keep their caches up to date, and detect conflicting responses.
However, there are situations where all the other hosts on the
network don't need to see every response. One example is a laptop
computer waking from sleep. At that instant it is a brand new
participant on a new network. Its Multicast DNS cache is empty, and
it has no knowledge of its surroundings. It may have a significant
number of queries that it wants answered right away to discover
information about its new surroundings and present that information
to the user. As a new participant on the network, it has no idea
whether the exact same questions may have been asked and answered
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 11]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
just seconds ago. In this case, trigging a large sudden flood of
multicast responses may impose an unreasonable burden on the network.
To avoid this, the Multicast DNS Querier SHOULD set the top bit in
the class field of its DNS question(s), to indicate that it is
willing to accept unicast responses instead of the usual multicast
responses. These questions requesting unicast responses are referred
to as "QU" questions, to distinguish them from the more usual
questions requesting multicast responses ("QM" questions).
When retransmitting a question more than once, the 'unicast response'
bit SHOULD be set only for the first question of the series. After
the first question has received its responses, the querier should
have a large known-answer list (see "Known Answer Suppression" below)
so that subsequent queries should elicit few, if any, further
responses. Reverting to multicast responses as soon as possible is
important because of the benefits that multicast responses provide
(see "Benefits of Multicast Responses" below).
When receiving a question with the 'unicast response' bit set, a
responder SHOULD usually respond with a unicast packet directed back
to the querier. If the responder has not multicast that record
recently (within one quarter of its TTL), then the responder SHOULD
instead multicast the response so as to keep all the peer caches up
to date, and to permit passive conflict detection.
6.6 Suppressing Initial Query
If a query is issued for which there already exist one or more
records in the local cache, and those record(s) were received with
the cache flush bit set, indicating that they form a unique RRSet,
then the host SHOULD suppress its initial "QU" query, and proceed to
issue a "QM" query. To avoid the situation where a group of hosts
are synchronized by some external event and all perform the same
query simultaneously, a host suppressing its initial "QU" query
SHOULD impose a random delay from 500-1000ms before transmitting its
first "QM" query for this question. This means that when the first
host (selected randomly by this algorithm) transmits its "QM" query,
all the other hosts that were about to transmit the same query can
suppress their superfluous query, as described in "Duplicate
Question Suppression" below.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 12]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
7. Duplicate Suppression
A variety of techniques are used to reduce the amount of redundant
traffic on the network.
7.1 Known Answer Suppression
When a Multicast DNS Querier sends a query to which it already knows
some answers, it populates the Answer Section of the DNS message with
those answers.
A Multicast DNS Responder SHOULD NOT answer a Multicast DNS Query if
the answer it would give is already included in the Answer Section
with an RR TTL at least half the correct value. If the RR TTL of the
answer as given in the Answer Section is less than half of the true
RR TTL as known by the Multicast DNS Responder, the responder MUST
send an answer so as to update the Querier's cache before the record
becomes in danger of expiration.
Because a Multicast DNS Responder will respond if the remaining TTL
given in the known answer list is less than half the true TTL, it is
superfluous for the Querier to include such records in the known
answer list. Therefore a Multicast DNS Querier SHOULD NOT include
records in the known answer list whose remaining TTL is less than
half their original TTL. Doing so would simply consume space in the
packet without achieving the goal of suppressing responses, and would
therefore be a pointless waste of network bandwidth.
A Multicast DNS Querier MUST NOT cache resource records observed in
the Known Answer Section of other Multicast DNS Queries. The Answer
Section of Multicast DNS Queries is not authoritative. By placing
information in the Answer Section of a Multicast DNS Query the
querier is stating that it *believes* the information to be true.
It is not asserting that the information *is* true. Some of those
records may have come from other hosts that are no longer on the
network. Propagating that stale information to other Multicast DNS
Queriers on the network would not be helpful.
7.2 Multi-Packet Known Answer Suppression
Sometimes a Multicast DNS Querier will already have too many answers
to fit in the Known Answer section of its query packets. In this
case, it should issue a Multicast DNS Query containing a question and
as many Known Answer records as will fit. It should then set the TC
(Truncated) bit in the header before sending the Query. It should
then immediately follow the packet with another query containing no
questions, and as many more Known Answer records as will fit. If
there are still too many records remaining to fit in the packet, it
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 13]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
again sets the TC bit and continues until all the Known Answer
records have been sent.
A Multicast DNS Responder seeing a Multicast DNS Query with the TC
bit set defers its response for a time period randomly selected in
the interval 20-120ms. This gives the Multicast DNS Querier time to
send additional Known Answer packets before the Responder responds.
If the Responder sees any of its answers listed in the Known Answer
lists of subsequent packets from the querying host, it should delete
that answer from the list of answers it is planning to give, provided
that no other host on the network is also waiting to receive the same
answer record.
7.3 Duplicate Question Suppression
If a host is planning to send a query, and it sees another host on
the network send a query containing the same question, and the Known
Answer section of that query does not contain any records which this
host would not also put in its own Known Answer section, then this
host should treat its own query as having been sent. When multiple
clients on the network are querying for the same resource records,
there is no need for them to all be repeatedly asking the same
question.
7.4 Duplicate Answer Suppression
If a host is planning to send an answer, and it sees another host on
the network send a response packet containing the same answer record,
and the TTL in that record is not less than the TTL this host would
have given, then this host should treat its own answer as having been
sent. When multiple responders on the network have the same data,
there is no need for all of them to respond.
This feature is particularly useful when multiple Sleep Proxy Servers
are deployed (see Section 16. "Multicast DNS and Power Management").
In the future it is possible that every general-purpose OS (Mac,
Windows, Linux, etc.) will implement Sleep Proxy Service as a matter
of course. In this case there could be a large number of Sleep Proxy
Servers on any given network, which is good for reliability and
fault-tolerance, but would be bad for the network if every Sleep
Proxy Server were to answer every query.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 14]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
8. Responding
A Multicast DNS Responder MUST only respond when it has a positive
non-null response to send. Error responses must never be sent. The
non-existence of any name in a Multicast DNS Domain is ascertained by
the failure of any machine to respond to the Multicast DNS query, not
by NXDOMAIN errors.
Multicast DNS Responses MUST NOT contain any questions in the
Question Section. Any questions in the Question Section of a received
Multicast DNS Response MUST be silently ignored. Multicast DNS
Queriers receiving Multicast DNS Responses do not care what question
elicited the response; they care only that the information in the
response is true and accurate.
A Multicast DNS Responder on Ethernet [IEEE802] and similar shared
multiple access networks SHOULD delay its responses by a random
amount of time selected with uniform random distribution in the range
20-120ms. If multiple Multicast DNS Responders were all to respond
immediately to a particular query, a collision would be virtually
guaranteed. By imposing a small random delay, the number of
collisions is dramatically reduced. 120ms is a short enough time that
it is almost imperceptible to a human user, but long enough to
significantly reduce the risk of Ethernet collisions. On a full-sized
Ethernet using the maximum cable lengths allowed and the maximum
number of repeaters allowed, an Ethernet frame is vulnerable to
collisions during the transmission of its first 256 bits. On 10Mb/s
Ethernet, this equates to a vulnerable time window of 25.6us.
In the case where a Multicast DNS Responder has good reason to
believe that it will be the only responder on the link with a
positive non-null response, it SHOULD NOT impose the random delay
before responding, and SHOULD normally generate its response within
10ms. To do this safely, it MUST have previously verified that the
requested name, type and class in the DNS query are unique on this
link. Responding immediately without delay is appropriate for things
like looking up the address record for a particular host name, when
the host name has been previously verified unique. Responding
immediately without delay is *not* appropriate for things like
looking up PTR records used for DNS Service Discovery [DNS-SD], where
a large number of responses may be anticipated.
Except when a unicast reply has been explicitly requested via the
"unicast reply" bit, Multicast DNS Responses MUST be sent to UDP port
5353 (the well-known port assigned to mDNS) on the 224.0.0.251
multicast address (or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB). Operating in a
Zeroconf environment requires constant vigilance. Just because a name
has been previously verified unique does not mean it will continue to
be so indefinitely. By allowing all Multicast DNS Responders to
constantly monitor their peers' responses, conflicts arising out of
network topology changes can be promptly detected and resolved.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 15]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
Sending all responses by multicast also facilitates opportunistic
caching by other hosts on the network.
To protect the network against excessive packet flooding due to
software bugs or malicious attack, a Multicast DNS Responder MUST NOT
multicast a given record on a given interface if it has previously
multicast that record on that interface within the last second. A
legitimate client on the network should have seen the previous
transmission and cached it. A client that did not receive and cache
the previous transmission will retry its request and receive a
subsequent response. Under no circumstances is there any legitimate
reason for a Multicast DNS Responder to multicast a given record more
than once per second on any given interface.
8.1 Legacy Unicast Responses
If the source UDP port in a received Multicast DNS Query is not port
5353, this indicates that the client originating the query is a
simple client that does not fully implement all of Multicast DNS. In
this case, the Multicast DNS Responder MUST send a UDP response
directly back to the client, via unicast, to the query packet's
source IP address and port. This unicast response MUST be a
conventional unicast response as would be generated by a conventional
unicast DNS server; for example, it must repeat the query ID and the
question given in the query packet.
The resource record TTL given in a unicast response SHOULD NOT be
greater than ten seconds, even if the true TTL of the Multicast DNS
resource record is higher. This is because Multicast DNS Responders
that fully participate in the protocol use the cache coherency
mechanisms described in Section 13 to update and invalidate stale
data. Were unicast responses sent to legacy clients to use the same
high TTLs, these legacy clients, which do not implement these cache
coherency mechanisms, could retain stale cached resource record data
long after it is no longer valid.
Having sent this unicast response, if the Responder has not sent this
record in any multicast response recently, it SHOULD schedule the
record to be sent via multicast as well, to facilitate passive
conflict detection. "Recently" in this context means "if the time
since the record was last sent via multicast is less than one quarter
of the record's TTL".
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 16]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
8.2 Multi-Question Queries
Multicast DNS Responders MUST correctly handle DNS query packets
containing more than one question, by answering any or all of the
questions to which they have answers. Any answers generated
in response to query packets containing more than one question
MUST be randomly delayed in the range 20-120ms, as described above.
8.3 Response Aggregation
Having delayed one or more multicast responses by 20-120ms as
described above in Section 8 "Responding", a Multicast DNS Responder
SHOULD, for the sake of network efficiency, aggregate as many of its
pending responses as possible into a single Multicast DNS response
packet.
9. Probing and Announcing on Startup
Typically a Multicast DNS Responder should have, at the very least,
address records for all of its active interfaces. Creating and
advertising an HINFO record on each interface as well can be useful
to network administrators.
Whenever a Multicast DNS Responder starts up, wakes up from sleep,
receives an indication of an Ethernet "Link Change" event, or has any
other reason to believe that its network connectivity may have
changed in some relevant way, it MUST perform the two startup steps
below.
9.1 Probing
The first startup step is that for all those resource records that a
Multicast DNS Responder desires to be unique on the local link, it
MUST send a Multicast DNS Query asking for those resource records, to
see if any of them are already in use. The primary example of this is
its address record which maps its unique host name to its unique IP
address. All Probe Queries SHOULD be done using the desired resource
record name and query type T_ANY (255), to elicit answers for all
types of records with that name. This allows a single question to be
used in place of several questions, which is more efficient on the
network. It also allows a host to verify exclusive ownership of a
name, which is desirable in most cases. It would be confusing, for
example, if one host owned the "A" record for "myhost.local.", but a
different host owned the HINFO record for that name.
The ability to place more than one question in a Multicast DNS Query
is useful here, because it can allow a host to use a single packet
for all of its resource records instead of needing a separate packet
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 17]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
for each. For example, a host can simultaneously probe for uniqueness
of its "A" record and all its SRV records [DNS-SD] in the same query
packet.
When ready to send its mDNS probe packet(s) the host should first
wait for a short random delay time, uniformly distributed in the
range 0-250ms. This random delay is to guard against the case where a
group of devices are powered on simultaneously, or a group of devices
are connected to an Ethernet hub which is then powered on, or some
other external event happens that might cause a group of hosts to all
send synchronized probes.
250ms after the first query the host should send a second, then
250ms after that a third. If, by 250ms after the third probe, no
conflicting Multicast DNS responses have been received, the host may
move to the next step, announcing.
If any conflicting Multicast DNS responses are received, then the
probing host MUST defer to the existing host, and must choose new
names for some or all of its resource records as appropriate, to
avoid conflict with pre-existing hosts on the network. In the case
of a host probing using query type T_ANY as recommended above, any
answer containing a record with that name, of any type, MUST be
considered a conflicting response and handled accordingly.
If ten failures occur within any ten-second period, then the host
MUST wait at least five seconds before each successive additional
probe attempt. This is to help ensure that in the event of software
bugs or other unanticipated problems, errant hosts do not flood the
network with a continuous stream of multicast traffic. For very
simple devices, a valid way to comply with this requirement is to
always wait five seconds after any failed probe attempt.
9.2 Simultaneous Probe Tie-Breaking
The astute reader will observe that there is a race condition
inherent in the previous description. If two hosts are probing for
the same name simultaneously, neither will receive any response to
the probe, and the hosts could incorrectly conclude that they may
both proceed to use the name. To break this symmetry, each host
populates the Authority Section of its queries with records giving
the rdata that it would be proposing to use, should its probing be
successful. The Authority Section is being used here in a way
analogous to the Update section of a DNS Update packet [RFC 2136].
When a host that is probing for a record sees another host issue a
query for the same record, it consults the Authority Section of that
query. If it finds any resource record there which answers the query,
then it compares the data of that resource record with its own
tentative data. The lexicographically later data wins. This means
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 18]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
that if the host finds that its own data is lexicographically later,
it simply ignores the other host's probe. If the host finds that its
own data is lexicographically earlier, then it treats this exactly
as if it had received a positive answer to its query, and concludes
that it may not use the desired name.
The determination of 'lexicographically later' is performed by first
comparing the record class, then the record type, then raw comparison
of the binary content of the rdata without regard for meaning or
structure. If the record classes differ, then the numerically greater
class is considered 'lexicographically later'. Otherwise, if the
record types differ, then the numerically greater type is considered
'lexicographically later'. If the type and class both match then the
rdata is compared.
In the case of resource records containing rdata that is subject to
name compression, the names must be uncompressed before comparison.
(The details of how a particular name is compressed is an artifact of
how and where the record is written into the DNS message; it is not
an intrinsic property of the resource record itself.)
The bytes of the raw uncompressed rdata are compared in turn,
interpreting the bytes as eight-bit UNSIGNED values, until a byte
is found whose value is greater than that of its counterpart (in
which case the rdata whose byte has the greater value is deemed
lexicographically later) or one of the resource records runs out
of rdata (in which case the resource record which still has
remaining data first is deemed lexicographically later).
The following is an example of a conflict:
sctibook.local. A 196.254.100.200
sctibook.local. A 196.254.200.100
In this case 196.254.200.100 is lexicographically later, so it is
deemed the winner.
Note that it is vital that the bytes are interpreted as UNSIGNED
values, or the wrong outcome may result. In the example above, if
the byte with value 200 had been incorrectly interpreted as a
signed value then it would be interpreted as value -56, and the
wrong address record would be deemed the winner.
9.3 Announcing
The second startup step is that the Multicast DNS Responder MUST send
a gratuitous Multicast DNS Response containing, in the Answer
Section, all of its resource records. If there are too many resource
records to fit in a single packet, multiple packets should be used.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 19]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
In the case of shared records (e.g. the PTR records used by DNS
Service Discovery [DNS-SD]), the records are simply placed as-is
into the answer section of the DNS Response.
In the case of records that have been verified to be unique in the
previous step, they are placed into the answer section of the DNS
Response with the most significant bit of the rrclass set to one. The
most significant bit of the rrclass is the mDNS "cache flush" bit and
is discussed in more detail below in Section 13.3 "Announcements to
Flush Outdated Cache Entries".
The Multicast DNS Responder MUST send at least two gratuitous
responses, one second apart. A Responder MAY send up to ten
gratuitous Responses, providing that the interval between gratuitous
responses doubles with every response sent.
A Multicast DNS Responder SHOULD NOT continue sending gratuitous
Responses for longer than the TTL of the record. The purpose of
announcing new records via gratuitous Responses is to ensure that
peer caches are up to date. After a time interval equal to the TTL of
the record has passed, it is very likely that old stale copies of
that record in peer caches will have expired naturally, so subsequent
announcements serve little purpose.
Whenever a Multicast DNS Responder receives any Multicast DNS
response (gratuitous or otherwise) containing a conflicting resource
record, the conflict MUST be resolved as described below in "Conflict
Resolution".
A Multicast DNS Responder MUST NOT send announcements in the absence
of information that its network connectivity may have changed in some
relevant way. In particular, a Multicast DNS Responder MUST NOT send
regular periodic announcements as a matter of course.
9.4 Updating
At any time, if the rdata of any of a host's Multicast DNS records
changes, the host MUST repeat the Announcing step described above to
update neighbouring caches. For example, if any of a host's IP
addresses change, it must re-announce those address records.
A host may update the contents of any of its records at any time,
though a host SHOULD NOT update records more frequently than ten
times per minute. Frequent rapid updates impose a burden on the
network. If a host has information to disseminate which changes more
frequently than ten times per minute, then Multicast DNS may not be
the appropriate protocol to disseminate that information.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 20]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
10. Conflict Resolution
A conflict occurs when two resource records with the same name, type
and class have inconsistent rdata. What may be considered
inconsistent is context sensitive, except that resource records with
identical rdata are never considered inconsistent, even if they
originate from different hosts. A common example of a resource record
type that is intended to be unique, not shared between hosts, is the
address record that maps a host's name to its IP address. Should a
host witness another host announce an address record with the same
name but a different IP address, then that is considered
inconsistent, and that address record is considered to be in
conflict.
Whenever a Multicast DNS Responder receives any Multicast DNS
response (gratuitous or otherwise) containing a conflicting resource
record, the Multicast DNS Responder MUST immediately reset that
record to probing state, and go through the startup steps described
above in Section 9. "Probing and Announcing on Startup". The
protocol used in the Probing phase will determine a winner and a
loser, and the loser must cease using the name, and reconfigure.
It is very important that any host that observes an apparent conflict
MUST take action. In the case of two hosts using the same host name,
where one has been configured to require a unique host name and the
other has not, the one that has not been configured to require a
unique host name will not perceive any conflict, and will not take
any action. By reverting to Probing state, the host that desires a
unique host name will go through the necessary steps to ensure that a
unique host is obtained.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 21]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
The recommended course of action after probing and failing is as
follows:
o Programmatically change the resource record name in an attempt to
find a new name that is unique. This could be done by adding some
further identifying information (e.g. the model name of the
hardware) if it is not already present in the name, appending the
digit "2" to the name, or incrementing a number at the end of the
name if one is already present.
o Probe again, and repeat until a unique name is found.
o Record this newly chosen name in persistent storage so that the
device will use the same name the next time it is power-cycled.
o Display a message to the user or operator informing them of the
name change. For example:
The name "Bob's Music" is in use by another iTunes music
server on the network. Your music has been renamed to
"Bob's Music (G4 Cube)". If you want to change this name,
use [describe appropriate menu item or preference dialog].
How the user or operator is informed depends on context. A desktop
computer with a screen might put up a dialog box. A headless server
in the closet may write a message to a log file, or use whatever
mechanism (email, SNMP trap, etc.) it uses to inform the
administrator of other error conditions. On the other hand a headless
server in the closet may not inform the user at all -- if the user
cares, they will notice the name has changed, and connect to the
server in the usual way (e.g. via Web Browser) to configure a new
name.
The examples in this section focus on address records (i.e. host
names), but the same considerations apply to all resource records
where uniqueness (or maintenance of some other defined constraint) is
desired.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 22]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
11. Special Characteristics of Multicast DNS Domains
Unlike conventional DNS names, names that end in ".local.",
"254.169.in-addr.arpa." or "0.8.e.f.ip6.arpa." have only local
significance. Conventional DNS seeks to provide a single unified
namespace, where a given DNS query yields the same answer no matter
where on the planet it is performed or to which recursive DNS server
the query is sent. (However, split views, firewalls, intranets and
the like have somewhat interfered with this goal of DNS representing
a single universal truth.) In contrast, each IP link has its own
private ".local.", "254.169.in-addr.arpa." and "0.8.e.f.ip6.arpa."
namespaces, and the answer to any query for a name within those
domains depends on where that query is asked.
Multicast DNS Domains are not delegated from their parent domain via
use of NS records. There are no NS records anywhere in Multicast DNS
Domains. Instead, all Multicast DNS Domains are delegated to the IP
addresses 224.0.0.251 and FF02::FB by virtue of the individual
organizations producing DNS client software deciding how to handle
those names. It would be extremely valuable for the industry if this
special handling were ratified and recorded by IANA, since otherwise
the special handling provided by each vendor is likely to be
inconsistent.
The IPv4 name server for a Multicast DNS Domain is 224.0.0.251. The
IPv6 name server for a Multicast DNS Domain is FF02::FB. These are
multicast addresses; therefore they identify not a single host but a
collection of hosts, working in cooperation to maintain some
reasonable facsimile of a competently managed DNS zone. Conceptually
a Multicast DNS Domain is a single DNS zone, however its server is
implemented as a distributed process running on a cluster of loosely
cooperating CPUs rather than as a single process running on a single
CPU.
No delegation is performed within Multicast DNS Domains. Because the
cluster of loosely coordinated CPUs is cooperating to administer a
single zone, delegation is neither necessary nor desirable. Just
because a particular host on the network may answer queries for a
particular record type with the name "example.local." does not imply
anything about whether that host will answer for the name
"child.example.local.", or indeed for other record types with the
name "example.local."
Multicast DNS Zones have no SOA record. A conventional DNS zone's
SOA record contains information such as the email address of the zone
administrator and the monotonically increasing serial number of the
last zone modification. There is no single human administrator for
any given Multicast DNS Zone, so there is no email address. Because
the hosts managing any given Multicast DNS Zone are only loosely
coordinated, there is no readily available monotonically increasing
serial number to determine whether or not the zone contents have
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 23]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
changed. A host holding part of the shared zone could crash or be
disconnected from the network at any time without informing the other
hosts. There is no reliable way to provide a zone serial number that
would, whenever such a crash or disconnection occurred, immediately
change to indicate that the contents of the shared zone had changed.
Zone transfers are not possible for any Multicast DNS Zone.
12. Multicast DNS for Service Discovery
This document does not describe using Multicast DNS for network
browsing or service discovery. However, the mechanisms this document
describes are compatible with (and support) the browsing and service
discovery mechanisms proposed in "DNS-Based Service Discovery"
[DNS-SD].
This document places few limitations on what DNS record types may be
looked up using local multicast. One particular kind of Multicast DNS
query that might be useful is a query for the SRV record named
"_domain._udp.local.", yielding the port number and IP address of a
conventional DNS server willing to perform general recursive DNS
lookups. This could solve a particular problem facing the IPv6
community, which is that IPv6 is able to self-configure almost all of
the information it needs to operate [RFC 2462], except for the
address of the DNS server. Bringing in all of the mechanisms of DHCP
just for that one little additional piece of information is not an
attractive solution. Using DNS-format messages and DNS-format
resource records to find the address of the DNS server has an elegant
self-sufficiency about it. Any host that needs to know the address of
the DNS server must already have code to generate and parse DNS
packets, so using that same code and those same packets to find the
DNS server in the first place is a simple self-reliant solution that
avoids taking external dependencies on other protocols.
13. Resource Record TTL Values and Cache Coherency
The recommended TTL value for Multicast DNS resource records is
120 minutes.
A client with an active outstanding query will issue a query packet
when one or more of the resource record(s) in its cache is (are) 80%
of the way to expiry. If the TTL on those records is 120 minutes,
this ongoing cache maintenance process yields a steady-state query
rate of one query every 96 minutes.
Any distributed cache needs a cache coherency protocol. If Multicast
DNS resource records follow the recommendation and have a TTL of 120
minutes, that means that stale data could persist in the system for
up to two hours. Making the default TTL significantly lower would
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 24]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
reduce the lifetime of stale data, but would produce too much extra
traffic on the network. Various techniques are available to minimize
the impact of such stale data.
13.1 Cooperating Multicast DNS Responders
If a Multicast DNS Responder ("A") observes some other Multicast DNS
Responder ("B") send a Multicast DNS Response packet containing a
resource record with the same name type and class as one of A's
resource records, but different rdata, then:
o If A's resource record is intended to be a shared resource record,
then this is no conflict, and no action is required.
o If A's resource record is intended to be a unique resource record
then this is a conflict and MUST be handled as described in Section
10 "Conflict Resolution".
If a Multicast DNS Responder ("A") observes some other Multicast DNS
Responder ("B") send a Multicast DNS Response packet containing a
resource record with the same name type and class as one of A's
resource records, and identical rdata, then:
o If the TTL of B's resource record given in the packet is at least
half the true TTL from A's point of view, then no action is
required.
o If the TTL of B's resource record given in the packet is less than
half the true TTL from A's point of view, then A MUST mark its
record to be announced via multicast. Clients receiving the record
from B would use the TTL given by B, and hence may delete the
record sooner than A expects. By sending its own multicast response
correcting the TTL, A ensures that the record will be retained for
the desired time.
These rules allow multiple Multicast DNS Responders to offer the same
data on the network (perhaps for fault tolerance reasons) without
conflicting with each other.
13.2 Goodbye Packets
In the case where a host knows that certain resource record data is
about to become invalid (for example when the host is undergoing a
clean shutdown) the host SHOULD send a gratuitous announcement mDNS
response packet, giving the same resource record name, type, class
and rdata, but an RR TTL of zero. This has the effect of updating the
TTL stored in neighbouring hosts' cache entries to zero, causing that
cache entry to be promptly deleted.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 25]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
Clients receiving a Multicast DNS Response with a TTL of zero SHOULD
NOT immediately delete the record from the cache, but instead record
a TTL of 1 and then delete the record one second later. In the case
of multiple Multicast DNS Responders on the network described in
Section 13.1 above, if one of the Responders shuts down and
incorrectly sends goodbye packets for its records, it gives the other
cooperating Responders one second to send out their own response to
"rescue" the records before they expire and are deleted.
Generally speaking, it is more important to send goodbye packets for
shared records than unique records. A given shared record name (such
as a PTR record used for DNS Service Discovery [DNS-SD]) by its
nature often has many representatives from many different hosts, and
tends to be the subject of long-lived ongoing queries. Those
long-lived queries are often concerned not just about being informed
when records appear, but also about being informed if those records
vanish again. In contrast, a unique record set (such as an SRV
record, or a host address record), by its nature, often has far fewer
members than a shared record set, and is usually the subject of
one-shot queries which simply retrieve the data and then cease
querying once they have the answer they are seeking. Therefore,
sending a goodbye packet for a unique record set is likely to offer
less benefit, because it is likely at any given moment that no one
has an active query running for that record set. One example where
goodbye packets for SRV and address records are useful is when
transferring control to a Sleep Proxy Server (see Section 16.
"Multicast DNS and Power Management").
13.3 Announcements to Flush Outdated Cache Entries
Whenever a host has a resource record with potentially new data (e.g.
after rebooting, waking from sleep, connecting to a new network link,
changing IP address, etc.), the host MUST send a series of gratuitous
announcements to update cache entries in its neighbour hosts. In
these gratuitous announcements, if the record is one that is intended
to be unique, the host sets the most significant bit of the rrclass
field of the resource record. This bit, the "cache flush" bit, tells
neighbouring hosts that this is not a shared record type. Instead of
merging this new record additively into the cache in addition to any
previous records with the same name, type and class, all old records
with that name, type and class that were received more than one
second ago are declared invalid, and marked to expire from the cache
in one second.
The semantics of the cache flush bit are as follows: Normally when a
resource record appears in the answer section of the DNS Response, it
means, "This is an assertion that this information is true." When a
resource record appears in the answer section of the DNS Response
with the "cache flush" bit set, it means, "This is an assertion that
this information is the truth and the whole truth, and anything you
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 26]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
may have heard more than a second ago regarding records of this
name/type/class is no longer valid".
To accommodate the case where the set of records from one host
constituting a single unique RRSet is too large to fit in a single
packet, only cache records that are more than one second old are
flushed. This allows the announcing host to generate a quick burst of
packets back-to-back on the wire containing all the members
of the RRSet. When receiving records with the "cache flush" bit set,
all records older than one second are marked to be deleted one second
in the future. One second after the end of the little packet burst,
any records not represented within that packet burst will then be
expired from all peer caches.
Any time a host sends a response packet containing some members of a
unique RRSet, it SHOULD send the entire RRSet, preferably in a single
packet, or if the entire RRSet will not fit in a single packet, in a
quick burst of packets sent as close together as possible. The host
SHOULD set the cache flush bit on all members of the unique RRSet.
In the event that for some reason the host chooses not to send the
entire unique RRSet in a single packet or a rapid packet burst,
it MUST NOT set the cache flush bit on any of those records.
The reason for waiting one second before deleting stale records from
the cache is to accommodate bridged networks. For example, a host's
address record announcement on a wireless interface may be bridged
onto a wired Ethernet, and cause that same host's Ethernet address
records to be flushed from peer caches. The one-second delay gives
the host the chance to see its own announcement arrive on the wired
Ethernet, and immediately re-announce its Ethernet address records
so that both sets remain valid and live in peer caches.
These rules apply regardless of *why* the response packet is being
generated. They apply to startup announcements as described in
Section 9.3, and to responses generated as a result of receiving
query packets.
The "cache flush" bit is only set in Multicast DNS responses sent to
UDP port 5353. The "cache flush" bit MUST NOT be set in any resource
records in a response packet sent in legacy unicast responses to UDP
ports other than 5353.
The "cache flush" bit MUST NOT be set in any resource records in the
known-answer list of any query packet.
The "cache flush" bit MUST NOT ever be set in any shared resource
record. To do so would cause all the other shared versions of this
resource record with different rdata from different Responders to be
immediately deleted from all the caches on the network.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 27]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
Note that the "cache flush" bit is NOT part of the resource record
class. The "cache flush" bit is the most significant bit of the
second 16-bit word of a resource record in an mDNS packet (the field
conventionally referred to as the rrclass field), and the actual
resource record class is the least-significant fifteen bits of this
field. There is no mDNS resource record class 0x8001. The value
0x8001 in the rrclass field of a resource record in an mDNS response
packet indicates a resource record with class 1, with the "cache
flush" bit set. When receiving a resource record with the "cache
flush" bit set, implementations should take care to mask off that bit
before storing the resource record in memory.
13.4 Cache Flush on Topology change
If the hardware on a given host is able to indicate physical changes
of connectivity, then when the hardware indicates such a change, the
host should take this information into account in its mDNS cache
management strategy. For example, a host may choose to immediately
flush all cache records received on a particular interface when that
cable is disconnected. Alternatively, a host may choose to adjust the
remaining TTL on all those records to a few seconds so that if the
cable is not reconnected quickly, those records will expire from the
cache.
Likewise, when a host reboots, or wakes from sleep, or undergoes some
other similar discontinuous state change, the cache management
strategy should take that information into account.
13.5 Cache Flush on Failure Indication
Sometimes a cache record can be determined to be stale when a client
attempts to use the rdata it contains, and finds that rdata to be
incorrect.
For example, the rdata in an address record can be determined to be
incorrect if attempts to contact that host fail, either because
ARP/ND requests for that address go unanswered (for an address on a
local subnet) or because a router returns an ICMP "Host Unreachable"
error (for an address on a remote subnet).
The rdata in an SRV record can be determined to be incorrect if
attempts to communicate with the indicated service at the host and
port number indicated are not successful.
The rdata in a DNS-SD PTR record can be determined to be incorrect if
attempts to look up the SRV record it references are not successful.
In any such case, the software implementing the mDNS resource record
cache should provide a mechanism so that clients detecting stale
rdata can inform the cache.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 28]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
When the cache receives this hint that it should reconfirm some
record, it MUST issue two or more queries for the resource record in
question. If no response is received in a reasonable amount of time,
then, even though its TTL may indicate that it is not yet due to
expire, that record SHOULD be promptly flushed from the cache.
The end result of this is that if a printer suffers a sudden power
failure or other abrupt disconnection from the network, its name may
continue to appear in DNS-SD browser lists displayed on users'
screens. Eventually that entry will expire from the cache naturally,
but if a user tries to access the printer before that happens, the
failure to successfully contact the printer will trigger the more
hasty demise of its cache entries. This is a sensible trade-off
between good user-experience and good network efficiency. If we were
to insist that printers should disappear from the printer list within
30 seconds of becoming unavailable, for all failure modes, the only
way to achieve this would be for the client to poll the printer at
least every 30 seconds, or for the printer to announce its presence
at least every 30 seconds, both of which would be an unreasonable
burden on most networks.
13.6 Passive Observation of Failures
A host observes the multicast queries issued by the other hosts on
the network. One of the major benefits of also sending responses
using multicast is that it allows all hosts to see the responses (or
lack thereof) to those queries.
If a host sees queries, for which a record in its cache would be
expected to be given as an answer in a multicast response, but no
such answer is seen, then the host may take this as an indication
that the record may no longer be valid.
After seeing two or more of these queries, and seeing no multicast
response containing the expected answer within a reasonable amount of
time, then even though its TTL may indicate that it is not yet due to
expire, that record MAY be flushed from the cache. The host SHOULD
NOT perform its own queries to re-confirm that the record is truly
gone. If every host on a large network were to do this, it would
cause a lot of unnecessary multicast traffic. If host A sends
multicast queries that remain unanswered, then there is no reason to
suppose that host B or any other host is likely to be any more
successful.
The previous section, "Cache Flush on Failure Indication", describes
a situation where a user trying to print discovers that the printer
is no longer available. By implementing the passive observation
described here, when one user fails to contact the printer, all hosts
on the network observe that failure and update their caches
accordingly.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 29]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
14. Enabling and Disabling Multicast DNS
The option to fail-over to Multicast DNS for names not ending in
".local." SHOULD be a user-configured option, and SHOULD
be disabled by default because of the possible security issues
related to unintended local resolution of apparently global names.
The option to lookup unqualified (relative) names by appending
".local." (or not) is controlled by whether ".local." appears
(or not) in the client's DNS search list.
No special control is needed for enabling and disabling Multicast DNS
for names explicitly ending with ".local." as entered by the user.
The user doesn't need a way to disable Multicast DNS for names ending
with ".local.", because if the user doesn't want to use Multicast
DNS, they can achieve this by simply not using those names. If a user
*does* enter a name ending in ".local.", then we can safely assume
the user's intention was probably that it should work. Having user
configuration options that can be (intentionally or unintentionally)
set so that local names don't work is just one more way of
frustrating the user's ability to perform the tasks they want,
perpetuating the view that, "IP networking is too complicated to
configure and too hard to use." This in turn perpetuates the
continued use of protocols like AppleTalk. If we want to retire
AppleTalk, NetBIOS, etc., we need to offer users equivalent IP
functionality that they can rely on to, "always work, like
AppleTalk." A little Multicast DNS traffic may be a burden on the
network, but it is an insignificant burden compared to continued
widespread use of AppleTalk.
15. Considerations for Multiple Interfaces
A host should defend its host name (FQDN) on all active interfaces on
which it is answering Multicast DNS queries.
In the event of a name conflict on *any* interface, a host should
configure a new host name, if it wishes to maintain uniqueness of its
host name.
When answering a Multicast DNS query, a multi-homed host with a
link-local address (or addresses) should take care to ensure that
any address going out in a Multicast DNS response is valid for use
on the interface on which the response is going out.
Just as the same link-local IP address may validly be in use
simultaneously on different links by different hosts, the same
link-local host name may validly be in use simultaneously on
different links, and this is not an error. A multi-homed host with
connections to two different links may be able to communicate with
two different hosts that are validly using the same name. While this
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 30]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
kind of name duplication should be rare, it means that a host that
wants to fully support this case needs network programming APIs that
allow applications to specify on what interface to perform a
link-local Multicast DNS query, and to discover on what interface a
Multicast DNS response was received.
16. Multicast DNS and Power Management
Many modern network devices have the ability to go into a low-power
mode where only a small part of the Ethernet hardware remains
powered, and the device can be woken up by sending a specially
formatted Ethernet frame which the device's power-management hardware
recognizes.
To make use of this in conjunction with Multicast DNS, the device
first uses DNS-SD to determine if Sleep Proxy Service is available on
the local network. In some networks there may be more than one piece
of hardware implementing Sleep Proxy Service, for fault-tolerance
reasons.
If the device finds the network has Sleep Proxy Service, the device
transmits two or more gratuitous mDNS announcements setting the TTL
of its relevant resource records to zero, to delete them from
neighbouring caches. The relevant resource records include address
records and SRV records, and other resource records as may apply to a
particular device. The device then communicates all of its remaining
active records, plus the names, types and classes of the deleted
records, to the Sleep Proxy Service(s), along with a copy of the
specific "magic packet" required to wake the device up.
When a Sleep Proxy Service sees an mDNS query for one of the
device's active records (e.g. a DNS-SD PTR record), it answers on
behalf of the device without waking it up. When a Sleep Proxy Service
sees an mDNS query for one of the device's deleted resource
records, it deduces that some client on the network needs to make an
active connection to the device, and sends the specified "magic
packet" to wake the device up. The device then wakes up, reactivates
its deleted resource records, and re-announces them to the network.
The client waiting to connect sees the announcements, learns the
current IP address and port number of the desired service on the
device, and proceeds to connect to it.
The connecting client does not need to be aware of how Sleep Proxy
Service works. Only devices that implement low power mode and wish to
make use of Sleep Proxy Service need to be aware of how that protocol
works.
The reason that a device using a Sleep Proxy Service should send more
than one goodbye packet is that the wakeup message is caused by the
Sleep Proxy Service seeing queries for the device's SRV and/or
address records, and those queries are in turn caused by the records
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 31]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
being absent from peer caches. If the records are not deleted from
peer caches, then those peers may use the cached value directly
without querying, and no wakeup message would be generated.
The full specification of mDNS / DNS-SD Sleep Proxy Service
is described in another document [not yet published].
17. Multicast DNS Character Set
Unicast DNS has been plagued by the lack of any support for non-US
characters. Indeed, conventional DNS is usually limited to just
letters, digits and hyphens, with no spaces or other punctuation.
Attempts to remedy this have made slow progress because of the need
to accommodate old buggy legacy implementations.
Multicast DNS is a new protocol and doesn't (yet) have old buggy
legacy implementations to constrain the design choices. Accordingly,
it adopts the obvious simple solution: all names in Multicast DNS are
encoded using UTF-8 [RFC 2279]. For names that are restricted to
letters, digits and hyphens, the UTF-8 encoding is identical to the
US-ASCII encoding, so this is entirely compatible with existing host
names. For characters outside the US-ASCII range, UTF-8 encoding is
used.
Multicast DNS implementations MUST NOT use any other encodings apart
from UTF-8 (US-ASCII being considered a compatible subset of UTF-8).
This point bears repeating: There are various baroque representations
of international text being proposed for Unicast DNS. None of these
representations may be used in Multicast DNS packets. Any text being
represented internally in some other representation MUST be converted
to canonical UTF-8 before being placed in any Multicast DNS packet.
The simple rules for case-insensitivity in Unicast DNS also apply in
Multicast DNS; that is to say, in name comparisons, the lower-case
letters "a" to "z" match their upper-case equivalents "A" to "Z".
Hence, if a client issues a query for an address record with the name
"stuartcheshire.local", then a responder having an address record
with the name "StuartCheshire.local" should issue a response.
No other automatic character equivalence is defined in Multicast DNS.
For example, accented characters are not defined to be automatically
equivalent to their unaccented counterparts. Where automatic
equivalences are desired, this may be achieved through the use of
programmatically-generated CNAME records. For example, if a responder
has an address record for an accented name Y, and a client issues a
query for a name X, where X is the same as Y with all the accents
removed, then the responder may issue a response containing two
resource records: A CNAME record "X CNAME Y", asserting that the
requested name X (unaccented) is an alias for the true (accented)
name Y, followed by the address record for Y.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 32]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
18. Multicast DNS Message Size
RFC 1035 restricts DNS Messages carried by UDP to no more than 512
bytes (not counting the IP or UDP headers). For UDP packets carried
over the wide-area Internet in 1987, this was appropriate. For
link-local multicast packets on today's networks, there is no reason
to retain this restriction. Given that the packets are by definition
link-local, there are no Path MTU issues to consider.
Multicast DNS Messages carried by UDP may be up to the IP MTU of the
physical interface, less the space required for the IP header (20
bytes for IPv4; 40 bytes for IPv6) and the UDP header (8 bytes).
In the case of a single mDNS Resource Record which is too large to
fit in a single MTU-sized multicast response packet, a Multicast DNS
Responder SHOULD send the Resource Record alone, in a single IP
datagram, sent using multiple IP fragments. Resource Records this
large SHOULD be avoided, except in the very rare cases where they
really are the appropriate solution to the problem at hand.
Implementers should be aware that many simple devices do not
re-assemble fragmented IP datagrams, so large Resource Records SHOULD
only be used in specialized cases where the implementer knows that
all receivers implement reassembly.
A Multicast DNS packet larger than the interface MTU, which is sent
using fragments, MUST NOT contain more than one Resource Record.
Even when fragmentation is used, a Multicast DNS packet, including IP
and UDP headers, MUST NOT exceed 9000 bytes.
19. Multicast DNS Message Format
This section describes specific restrictions on the allowable
values for the header fields of a Multicast DNS message.
19.1. ID (Query Identifier)
Multicast DNS clients SHOULD listen for gratuitous responses
issued by hosts booting up (or waking up from sleep or otherwise
joining the network). Since these gratuitous responses may contain a
useful answer to a question for which the client is currently
awaiting an answer, Multicast DNS clients SHOULD examine all received
Multicast DNS response messages for useful answers, without regard to
the contents of the ID field or the question section. In Multicast
DNS, knowing which particular query message (if any) is responsible
for eliciting a particular response message is less interesting than
knowing whether the response message contains useful information.
Multicast DNS clients MAY cache any or all Multicast DNS response
messages they receive, for possible future use, providing of course
that normal TTL aging is performed on these cashed resource records.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 33]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
In multicast query messages, the Query ID SHOULD be set to zero on
transmission.
In multicast responses, including gratuitous multicast responses, the
Query ID MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be ignored on
reception.
In unicast response messages generated specifically in response to a
particular (unicast or multicast) query, the Query ID MUST match the
ID from the query message.
19.2. QR (Query/Response) Bit
In query messages, MUST be zero.
In response messages, MUST be one.
19.3. OPCODE
In both multicast query and multicast response messages, MUST be zero
(only standard queries are currently supported over multicast, unless
other queries are allowed by future IETF Standards Action).
19.4. AA (Authoritative Answer) Bit
In query messages, the Authoritative Answer bit MUST be zero on
transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception.
In response messages for Multicast Domains, the Authoritative Answer
bit MUST be set to one (not setting this bit implies there's some
other place where "better" information may be found) and MUST be
ignored on reception.
19.5. TC (Truncated) Bit
In query messages, if the TC bit is set, it means that additional
Known Answer records may be following shortly. A responder MAY choose
to record this fact, and wait for those additional Known Answer
records, before deciding whether to respond. If the TC bit is clear,
it means that the querying host has no additional Known Answers.
In multicast response messages, the TC bit MUST be zero on
transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception.
In legacy unicast response messages, the TC bit has the same meaning
as in conventional unicast DNS: it means that the response was too
large to fit in a single packet, so the client SHOULD re-issue its
query using TCP in order to receive the larger response.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 34]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
19.6. RD (Recursion Desired) Bit
In both multicast query and multicast response messages, the
Recursion Desired bit SHOULD be zero on transmission, and MUST be
ignored on reception.
19.7. RA (Recursion Available) Bit
In both multicast query and multicast response messages, the
Recursion Available bit MUST be zero on transmission, and MUST be
ignored on reception.
19.8. Z (Zero) Bit
In both query and response messages, the Zero bit MUST be zero on
transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception.
19.9. AD (Authentic Data) Bit [RFC 2535]
In query messages the Authentic Data bit MUST be zero on
transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception.
In response messages, the Authentic Data bit MAY be set. Resolvers
receiving response messages with the AD bit set MUST NOT trust the AD
bit unless they trust the source of the message and either have a
secure path to it or use DNS transaction security.
19.10. CD (Checking Disabled) Bit [RFC 2535]
In query messages, a resolver willing to do cryptography SHOULD set
the Checking Disabled bit to permit it to impose its own policies.
In response messages, the Checking Disabled bit MUST be zero on
transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception.
19.11. RCODE (Response Code)
In both multicast query and multicast response messages, the Response
Code MUST be zero on transmission. Multicast DNS messages received
with non-zero Response Codes MUST be silently ignored.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 35]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
20. Choice of UDP Port Number
Arguments were made for and against using Multicast on UDP port 53.
The final decision was to use UDP port 5353. Some of the arguments
for and against are given below.
20.1 Arguments for using UDP port 53:
* This is "just DNS", so it should be the same port.
* There is less work to be done updating old clients to do simple
mDNS queries. Only the destination address need be changed.
In some cases, this can be achieved without any code changes,
just by adding the address 224.0.0.251 to a configuration file.
20.2 Arguments for using a different port (UDP port 5353):
* This is not "just DNS". This is a DNS-like protocol, but different.
* Changing client code to use a different port number is not hard.
* Using the same port number makes it hard to run an mDNS Responder
and a conventional unicast DNS server on the same machine. If a
conventional unicast DNS server wishes to implement mDNS as well,
it can still do that, by opening two sockets. Having two different
port numbers is important to allow this flexibility.
* Some VPN software hijacks all outgoing traffic to port 53 and
redirects it to a special DNS server set up to serve those VPN
clients while they are connected to the corporate network. It is
questionable whether this is the right thing to do, but it is
common, and redirecting link-local multicast DNS packets to a
remote server rarely produces any useful results. It does mean, for
example, that the user becomes unable to access their local network
printer sitting on their desk right next to their computer. Using
a different UDP port eliminates this particular problem.
* On many operating systems, unprivileged clients may not send or
receive packets on low-numbered ports. This means that any client
sending or receiving mDNS packets on port 53 would have to run as
"root", which is an undesirable security risk. Using a higher-
numbered UDP port eliminates this particular problem.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 36]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
21. Summary of Differences Between Multicast DNS and Unicast DNS
The value of Multicast DNS is that it shares, as much as possible,
the familiar APIs, naming syntax, resource record types, etc., of
Unicast DNS. There are of course necessary differences by virtue of
it using Multicast, and by virtue of it operating in a community of
cooperating peers, rather than a precisely defined authoritarian
hierarchy controlled by a strict chain of formal delegations from the
top. These differences are listed below:
Multicast DNS...
* uses multicast
* uses UDP port 5353 instead of port 53
* operates in well-defined parts of the DNS namespace
* uses UTF-8, and only UTF-8, to encode resource record names
* defines a clear limit on the maximum legal domain name (255 bytes)
* allows larger UDP packets
* allows more than one question in a query packet
* uses the Answer Section of a query to list Known Answers
* uses the TC bit in a query to indicate additional Known Answers
* uses the Authority Section of a query for probe tie-breaking
* ignores the Query ID field (except for generating legacy responses)
* doesn't require the question to be repeated in the response packet
* uses gratuitous responses to announce new records to the peer group
* defines a "unicast response" bit in the rrclass of query questions
* defines a "cache flush" bit in the rrclass of responses
* uses DNS TTL 0 to indicate that a record has been deleted
* uses IP TTL 255 to verify that answers originated on the local link
* monitors queries to perform Duplicate Question Suppression
* monitors responses to perform Duplicate Answer Suppression...
* ... and Ongoing Conflict Detection
* ... and Opportunistic Caching
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 37]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
22. Benefits of Multicast Responses
Some people have argued that sending responses via multicast is
inefficient on the network. In fact the benefits of using multicast
responses result in a net lowering of overall multicast traffic, for
a variety of reasons.
* One multicast response can update the cache on all machines on the
network. If another machine later wants to issue the same query, it
already has the answer in its cache, so it may not need to even
transmit that multicast query on the network at all.
* When more than one machine has the same ongoing long-lived query
running, every machine does not have to transmit its own
independent query. When one machine transmits a query, all the
other hosts see the answers, so they can suppress their own
queries.
* When a host sees a multicast query, but does not see the
corresponding multicast response, it can use this information to
promptly delete stale data from its cache. To achieve the same
level of user-interface quality and responsiveness without
multicast responses would require lower cache lifetimes and more
frequent network polling, resulting in a significantly higher
packet rate.
* Multicast responses allow passive conflict detection. Without this
ability, some other conflict detection mechanism would be needed,
imposing its own additional burden on the network.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 38]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
23. IPv6 Considerations
An IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host behave as "ships that pass in
the night". Even if they are on the same Ethernet, neither is aware
of the other's traffic. For this reason, each physical link may have
*two* unrelated ".local." zones, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6.
Since for practical purposes, a group of IPv4-only hosts and a group
of IPv6-only hosts on the same Ethernet act as if they were on two
entirely separate Ethernet segments, it is unsurprising that their
use of the ".local." zone should occur exactly as it would if
they really were on two entirely separate Ethernet segments.
A dual-stack (v4/v6) host can participate in both ".local."
zones, and should register its name(s) and perform its lookups both
using IPv4 and IPv6. This enables it to reach, and be reached by,
both IPv4-only and IPv6-only hosts. In effect this acts like a
multi-homed host, with one connection to the logical "IPv4 Ethernet
segment", and a connection to the logical "IPv6 Ethernet segment".
23.1 IPv6 Multicast Addresses by Hashing
Some discovery protocols use a range of multicast addresses, and
determine the address to be used by a hash function of the name being
sought. Queries are sent via multicast to the address as indicated by
the hash function, and responses are returned to the querier via
unicast. Particularly in IPv6, where multicast addresses are
extremely plentiful, this approach is frequently advocated.
There are some problems with this:
* When a host has a large number of records with different names, the
host may have to join a large number of multicast groups. This can
place undue burden on the Ethernet hardware, which typically
supports a limited number of multicast addresses efficiently. When
this number is exceeded, the Ethernet hardware may have to resort
to receiving all multicasts and passing them up to the host
software for filtering, thereby defeating the point of using a
multicast address range in the first place.
* Multiple questions cannot be placed in one packet if they don't all
hash to the same multicast address.
* Duplicate Question Suppression doesn't work if queriers are not
seeing each other's queries.
* Duplicate Answer Suppression doesn't work if responders are not
seeing each other's responses.
* Opportunistic Caching doesn't work.
* Ongoing Conflict Detection doesn't work.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 39]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
24. Security Considerations
The algorithm for detecting and resolving name conflicts is, by its
very nature, an algorithm that assumes cooperating participants. Its
purpose is to allow a group of hosts to arrive at a mutually disjoint
set of host names and other DNS resource record names, in the absence
of any central authority to coordinate this or mediate disputes. In
the absence of any higher authority to resolve disputes, the only
alternative is that the participants must work together cooperatively
to arrive at a resolution.
In an environment where the participants are mutually antagonistic
and unwilling to cooperate, other mechanisms are appropriate, like
manually administered DNS.
In an environment where there is a group of cooperating participants,
but there may be other antagonistic participants on the same physical
link, the cooperating participants need to use IPSEC signatures
and/or DNSSEC [RFC 2535] signatures so that they can distinguish mDNS
messages from trusted participants (which they process as usual) from
mDNS messages from untrusted participants (which they silently
discard).
When DNS queries for *global* DNS names are sent to the mDNS
multicast address (during network outages which disrupt communication
with the greater Internet) it is *especially* important to use
DNSSEC, because the user may have the impression that he or she is
communicating with some authentic host, when in fact he or she is
really communicating with some local host that is merely masquerading
as that name. This is less critical for names ending with ".local.",
because the user should be aware that those names have only local
significance and no global authority is implied.
Most computer users neglect to type the trailing dot at the end of a
fully qualified domain name, making it a relative domain name (e.g.
"www.example.com"). In the event of network outage, attempts to
positively resolve the name as entered will fail, resulting in
application of the search list, including ".local.", if present.
A malicious host could masquerade as "www.example.com" by answering
the resulting Multicast DNS query for "www.example.com.local."
To avoid this, a host MUST NOT append the search suffix
".local.", if present, to any relative (partially qualified)
domain name containing two or more labels. Appending ".local." to
single-label relative domain names is acceptable, since the user
should have no expectation that a single-label domain name will
resolve as-is.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 40]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
25. IANA Considerations
The IANA has allocated the IPv4 link-local multicast address
224.0.0.251 for the use described in this document.
The IANA has allocated the IPv6 multicast address set FF0X::FB
for the use described in this document.
When this document is published, IANA should designate a list
of domains which are deemed to have only link-local significance,
as described in this document.
No other IANA services are required by this document.
26. Acknowledgements
The concepts described in this document have been explored and
developed with help from Erik Guttman, Paul Vixie, Bill Woodcock,
and others.
27. Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society January 2004.
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
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 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 41]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
28. Normative References
[RFC 1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and
Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
29. Informative References
[dotlocal] <http://www.dotlocal.org/>
[djbdl] <http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/dot-local.html>
[IEEE802] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Overview and Architecture.
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,
IEEE Standard 802, 1990.
[DNS-SD] Cheshire, S., and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", Internet-Draft (work in progress),
draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-03.txt, January 2004.
[RFC 2136] Vixie, P., et al., "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name
System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997.
[RFC 2462] S. Thomson and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC 2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
RFC 2535, March 1999.
[v4LL] Cheshire, S., B. Aboba, and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses",
Internet-Draft (work in progress),
draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-11.txt, January 2004.
[ZC] Williams, A., "Requirements for Automatic Configuration
of IP Hosts", Internet-Draft (work in progress),
draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-12.txt, September 2002.
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 42]
Internet Draft Multicast DNS 29th January 2003
30. Author's Addresses
Stuart Cheshire
Apple Computer, Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino
California 95014
USA
Phone: +1 408 974 3207
EMail: rfc@stuartcheshire.org
Marc Krochmal
Apple Computer, Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino
California 95014
USA
Phone: +1 408 974 4368
EMail: marc@apple.com
Expires 29th July 2004 Cheshire & Krochmal [Page 43]
Reference in a new issue View git blame Copy permalink