Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Day One

I have to hide the actual host names, so I'm hoping there is still enough information to answer this question...

I'm trying to resolve a certain host name (let's pretend it's www.example.com, but this is not the actual host name). A simple dig request works, but when I try to do a series of dig starting from a root nameserver, I hit a dead-end. Here's an example:

# Starting with arbitrarily-chosen root nameserver
$ dig @198.41.0.4 www.example.com
(returns the usual list of TLD .com nameservers)

# Using a.gtld-servers.net
$ dig @192.5.6.30 www.example.com
(returns a list of 5 example.com authorities)

At this point, I tried each of the 5 example.comauthorities. Three of them fail with status SERVFAIL, and the remaining two time out. Here's a SERVFAIL example:

;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 33577
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.example.com.       IN  A

;; Query time: 74 msec
;; SERVER: <intentionally removed>
;; WHEN: Tue Mar  8 10:10:33 2011
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 37

I tried this multiple times, from my own machine at home and from a remote machine in our co-lo, and both machines consistently get the same results.

However,

  • As I mentioned above, dig www.example.com (without specifying an @server) works fine.
  • This DNS trace utility is able to resolve the host name, and it clearly shows that it's using one of the name servers that times out for me!

Can anybody help me figure out what's going on?

EDIT 1: In case it helps, what should happen is that this host name should ultimately resolve to a CNAME record pointing to www.example.com.edgesuite.net, which should in turn resolve to another CNAME record pointing to an Akamai edge server.

EDIT 2: Per Joris's recommendation, I ran dig +trace www.example.com, and it actually failed to find a result. It gets to the same list of example.com authorities that I found before, and stops there.

Caching seems like a very likely culprit (and I did think of this earlier), but the weird part is that the actual host name isn't that popular. Would it be cached on two different ISP local nameservers if I'm the first person to request it? :-)


Day Two

OK, I've discovered a few things:

  1. The two example.com authorities that I thought were timing out (as opposed to the other three, that were returning SERVFAIL) are not actually timing out. They just require a much longer timeout. If I use dig +time=10, for example, then I do eventually get back a result.
  2. I've tried this from several servers around the U.S., and the story is the same -- using dig www.example.com returns a result very quickly, but dig @ns1.example.com (or @ns2.example.com) requires using a large timeout parameter.

So my new questions are:

  1. Could the result really be cached on a variety of proxying DNS servers, even though it's not a commonly-used host name? The TTL is 54,000 (or 15 hours, if I understand correctly).
  2. If not, then is it possible that ns1.example.com is somehow configured to return a result more quickly to proxying DNS servers than to my own dig queries (some kind of white list)? Or is that just crazy talk?
share|improve this question
    
This is a publicly registered domain name, right? So why keep the name secret? We're going to be very limited in helping you without the actual name. –  joeqwerty Mar 8 '11 at 20:05
    
@joeqwerty That what I was afraid of :-(. I understand your reaction, but this is on behalf of a customer whose name I am not at liberty to disclose. The customer's identity will be obvious if I include the host name. I'm hoping someone can help me figure this out without the specifics, but I'm aware of the realities :-(. –  Matt Solnit Mar 8 '11 at 20:08
    
Understood. I'll post an answer as best I can. –  joeqwerty Mar 8 '11 at 20:40

7 Answers 7

Don't obscure your DNS data when asking for help with DNS problems. It's pointless and silly, and this is a classic example of how it has served to obscure the actual problem that you have.

There are two major possibilities here:

  • You have intermittent connectivity to the content DNS servers. A common cause of such problems is an IP traffic routing problem, or a simple case of there being too many hops between you and them. Find out the IP addresses of the 5 content DNS servers in question, and use traceroute or some such to determine that you really do have IP connectivity to them all. Test UDP/IP connectivity to port 53, specifically, if your tool is capable of it.
  • The answer was provided in one of the paths that you didn't take when doing things manually, and that your resolving proxy DNS server only takes sometimes. The unfortunate truth about DNS query resolution is that there are a lot more paths that it can take down the tree of the DNS namespace than one might think from the superficial explanations of the process that exist. It's possible, for example, that the first CNAME resource record set (which you cannot obtain) was served up, and then cached by your resolving proxy DNS server, when mapping the names of some of the higher level content DNS servers to addresses. Given that your resolving proxy DNS server sometimes works, you can find out how it discovered the answer by looking at its query/response logs. (Some DNS server softwares have to have this logging explicitly turned on. Some have it on by default. How to do it for your particular software, which you haven't stated, is the domain of a separate question.)

Note that the only caching that occurrs here is local, on your resolving proxy DNS server. The content DNS servers that you are querying don't cache. (Or, more strictly speaking, if they do cache they cache the back-end databases that they are working from, in ways that have little to nothing to do with resource record TTLs, and that aren't publicly visible through the DNS protocol.)

There are a couple of minor and fairly unlikely possibilities as well, including daft firewalls at your site rewriting DNS traffic on the fly as it passes through them. But since you've not provided proper data, there's little more to narrow down and rule-out the possibilities that you can obtain from random passers-by out on Internet.

share|improve this answer
1  
I appreciate your position, but it's simply not possible to provide the host name. However, +1 for useful information. –  Matt Solnit Mar 8 '11 at 23:09
    
I've added some more information that might be helpful (see "Day Two" above). If you have any thoughts, it would be great to get your input :-). –  Matt Solnit Mar 9 '11 at 17:26
    
I really liked that first link! +1 –  Campo Mar 9 '11 at 17:49

To eliminate any chance of faulty queries, could you try dig +trace example.com? It will follow the chain for you. If that succeeds, (it will only try one of the authorities at each level), you have at least one working trail.

If multiple tries all fail, there is something broken. Chances are you're seeing cached answers with the "normal" request; expect the breakage to surface as soon as the TTL expires.

share|improve this answer
    
Hi Joris. Caching had definitely occurred to me. I'll add the +trace results to my question. –  Matt Solnit Mar 8 '11 at 21:30
    
Then it would seem your DNS setup is faulty, somewhere near the example.com authorities. –  Joris Mar 9 '11 at 9:23

At this point, I tried each of the 5 foo.com authorities.

I get two authorities:

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
foo.com.        172800  IN  NS  ns.okdirect.com.
foo.com.        172800  IN  NS  ns2.okdirect.com.

Both resolve www.foo.com correctly.

share|improve this answer
    
Hi embobo. As I mentioned, this is not the actual host name I am using. It was just an example since I can't share the real one. –  Matt Solnit Mar 8 '11 at 19:51
    
I realized this wasn't as clear as it could have been :-). I edited the question, hope it makes more sense now. –  Matt Solnit Mar 8 '11 at 19:53

Did you change the number of authorized name servers for your domain ? At the level that you are querying, these are handled at the registrar level. If you saw 5 before and now you see 2, I'd have to guess you made a change to your authorized name server entries ?

Next time try a simple telnet to port 53 of the authorized name servers

share|improve this answer
    
The queries and responses are almost certainly using UDP/IP, not TCP/IP. telnet is overrated and often inappropriate as a diagnostic tool, especially in this case. TELNET, the protocol that it speaks, is not actually a bare bones TCP/IP raw data protocol. –  JdeBP Mar 8 '11 at 22:34

This sounds like an ACL issue on the name servers. The best practice is to separate resolvers and authoritative servers. The domain sounds to have 2x authoritative servers and three caching resolvers that have restrictive acls preventing your query for the domain. Your "however" case works due to the request being a query and not asking for recursion.

In bind you should have the following three options specified or the default will be applied, which has changed with bind versions.

allow-recursion { none; };
allow-query { any; };
allow-query-cache { ournets; };

share|improve this answer

I just found a solution to a similar problem:

Debian server registered at a Windows Server 2003 was not resolved correctly. sometimes I was able to reach the server through its host name, sometimes not.

the problem was an ipv6 address of the Linux machine. disabling ipv6 solved the problem.

share|improve this answer

The problem is that you are not using the right queries. You have to ask the root servers for the NS for the TLD (e.g. dig @ROOT-NS com.), then ask the TLD bout your domain (e.g. dig @TLD-NS example.com) then ask the NS for example.com about www.example.com (e.g. dig @eaxmple.com-NS-IP www.example.com)

Edit: Here is a full example:

dig -t NS .                         # Find the root NS using local resolver
dig -t NS @f.root-servers.net com. 
dig -t NS @a.gtld-servers.net example.com
dig -t A @ns.example.com www.example.com
share|improve this answer
    
Hi Mircea. At the end of the day I'm basically doing the same thing. Even though I'm asking for a specific host name, rather than NS records, I'm getting a list of authorities and "following the trail", but I get stuck at the query to example.com-NS-IP, which either times out or fails with SERVFAIL. –  Matt Solnit Mar 8 '11 at 20:29
1  
This is incorrect and misleading. The query resolution process operates by always asking for the information that is actually desired, and following referrals if the answer is not given. It does not operate by sending NS queries until it somehow magically knows when not to. The attempt to manually replicate the query resolution process (albeit that it didn't follow anywhere near all of the paths) was correct as it stood. –  JdeBP Mar 8 '11 at 21:53

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.