Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The point of an NS record is to tell client which name server will know for sure the actual IP address for a domain name. So for instance, the following query tells you that if you want to get an authoritative answer about facebook.com you must ask a.ns.facebook.com:

> dig ns facebook.com                                                                                                                                       19:58:27

; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-3ubuntu0.8-Ubuntu <<>> ns facebook.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 32063
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;facebook.com.          IN  NS

;; ANSWER SECTION:
facebook.com.       65000   IN  NS  a.ns.facebook.com.
facebook.com.       65000   IN  NS  b.ns.facebook.com.

;; Query time: 13 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.1.1#53(127.0.1.1)
;; WHEN: Sun Mar 20 19:58:40 CET 2016
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 65

This seems cool and useful but I'm wondering why the ANSWER section contains the hostname and not IP of the authoritative source? Wouldn't it be easier for the client to get the actual IP address of the authoritative source and not the hostname?

I mean if it gets the hostname it will have to make another query to resolve this hostname into an IP and then ask this new IP about the initial facebook.com domain it was looking for. Isn't this inefficient?

I'd be interested in answer that points me to some paragraphs in some RFC that explains this problem.

share|improve this question
    
"that explains this problem." which one? Do you mean one additional query? – ALex_hha Mar 20 at 19:15
    
yeah @ALex_hha I mean additional query – Pawelmhm Mar 20 at 19:30
up vote 17 down vote accepted

The solution to the problem is DNS glue records, which are described at What is a glue record?.

RFC 1035 Section 3.3.11 states

"... Note that the class may not indicate the protocol family which should be used to communicate" with the host, although it is typically a strong hint."

Returning an IP address would be tantamount to stating the method by which the host can be contacted, which goes against the RFC.

share|improve this answer
    
thanks Jason so if NS record would contain IP this would indicate protocol family, and RFC forbids that, is that right? Does it mean that client can use different protocol families when doing dns query? I thought it can only use UDP/TCP? – Pawelmhm Mar 20 at 19:40
5  
Protocol family refers to IPv4, IPv6 – sendmoreinfo Mar 20 at 19:42
    
If you know the question is a duplicate then as you can't vote to close as a dupe, you should flag it as such. – Iain Mar 21 at 6:30
3  
I think the RFC is using "may not" in the sense of "might not", not in the sense of a prohibition. (It predates RFC2119, which standardized this sort of language to reduce ambiguity.) – David Mar 21 at 22:16

Jason provided the DNS mechanism that works around the issue you described, but we still haven't taken a look at why things are done this way.

Let's say that I own example.com, and I've contracted some of my website content out to a content delivery company named Contoso. Their platform requires us to delegate sub.example.com to their nameservers so that they can control what responses are returned.

; SOA and MX omitted from this example
$ORIGIN example.com.

@           IN      NS            ns1
@           IN      NS            ns2

; delegate sub.example.com to Contoso's nameservers
sub         IN      NS            ns1.cdn.contoso.com.
sub         IN      NS            ns2.cdn.contoso.com.

; this is ours, not Contoso's
www         IN      A             198.51.100.1

As you've noted, we haven't specified the IP addresses of Contoso's nameservers. All our server knows is to tell the internet "we don't manage sub.example.com, ask Contoso instead". This is very important, because:

  • We don't own Contoso.com.
  • We can't expect Contoso to coordinate a change of their nameserver IPs with all of their customers. That is exactly what would have to happen if our server was providing those IPs.

So far so good. A year passes, and unbeknownst to us Contoso is changing the IP addresses of their CDN nameservers. Because DNS works the way that it does, all they have to do is update the A records they return for ns1.cdn and ns2.cdn.contoso.com..

This brings us to an important point: the glue records described by Jason exists to deal with "chicken and egg" scenarios in DNS, such as google.com telling the world that their nameservers are ns1.google.com and ns2.google.com. You should never create glue records pointing to infrastructure that you do not own unless they exist to solve a problem like this:

@           IN      NS            ns1
@           IN      NS            ns2

; delegate sub.example.com to ns1 and ns2.sub.example.com
sub         IN      NS            ns1.sub
sub         IN      NS            ns2.sub

; provide the IP addresses of ns1 and ns2 so that nameservers
; on the internet can find them.
;
; these IP addresses are owned by Contoso, not us, and they must
; coordinate changes to these IPs with us
ns1.sub     IN       A            203.0.113.10
ns1.sub     IN       A            203.1.113.10

This avoids the chicken and egg scenario, but also makes it so that Contoso has to coordinate every IP change of those nameservers with us. This is very risk prone and undesirable.

share|improve this answer
    
Ah, that makes a lot of sense when the name servers are not self-hosted. – Jason Martin Mar 21 at 15:09

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.