





Network Working Group                                     A. Gulbrandsen
Request for Comments: 2782                            Troll Technologies
Obsoletes: 2052                                                 P. Vixie
Category: Standards Track                   Internet Software Consortium
                                                               L. Esibov
                                                         Microsoft Corp.
                                                           February 2000


       A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes a DNS RR which specifies the location of the
   server(s) for a specific protocol and domain.

Overview and rationale

   Currently, one must either know the exact address of a server to
   contact it, or broadcast a question.

   The SRV RR allows administrators to use several servers for a single
   domain, to move services from host to host with little fuss, and to
   designate some hosts as primary servers for a service and others as
   backups.

   Clients ask for a specific service/protocol for a specific domain
   (the word domain is used here in the strict RFC 1034 sense), and get
   back the names of any available servers.

   Note that where this document refers to "address records", it means A
   RR's, AAAA RR's, or their most modern equivalent.







Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY"
   used in this document are to be interpreted as specified in [BCP 14].
   Other terms used in this document are defined in the DNS
   specification, RFC 1034.

Applicability Statement

   In general, it is expected that SRV records will be used by clients
   for applications where the relevant protocol specification indicates
   that clients should use the SRV record. Such specification MUST
   define the symbolic name to be used in the Service field of the SRV
   record as described below. It also MUST include security
   considerations. Service SRV records SHOULD NOT be used in the absence
   of such specification.

Introductory example

   If a SRV-cognizant LDAP client wants to discover a LDAP server that
   supports TCP protocol and provides LDAP service for the domain
   example.com., it does a lookup of

      _ldap._tcp.example.com

   as described in [ARM].  The example zone file near the end of this
   memo contains answering RRs for an SRV query.

   Note: LDAP is chosen as an example for illustrative purposes only,
   and the LDAP examples used in this document should not be considered
   a definitive statement on the recommended way for LDAP to use SRV
   records. As described in the earlier applicability section, consult
   the appropriate LDAP documents for the recommended procedures.

The format of the SRV RR

   Here is the format of the SRV RR, whose DNS type code is 33:

        _Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target

        (There is an example near the end of this document.)

   Service
        The symbolic name of the desired service, as defined in Assigned
        Numbers [STD 2] or locally.  An underscore (_) is prepended to
        the service identifier to avoid collisions with DNS labels that
        occur in nature.




Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


        Some widely used services, notably POP, don't have a single
        universal name.  If Assigned Numbers names the service
        indicated, that name is the only name which is legal for SRV
        lookups.  The Service is case insensitive.

   Proto
        The symbolic name of the desired protocol, with an underscore
        (_) prepended to prevent collisions with DNS labels that occur
        in nature.  _TCP and _UDP are at present the most useful values
        for this field, though any name defined by Assigned Numbers or
        locally may be used (as for Service).  The Proto is case
        insensitive.

   Name
        The domain this RR refers to.  The SRV RR is unique in that the
        name one searches for is not this name; the example near the end
        shows this clearly.

   TTL
        Standard DNS meaning [RFC 1035].

   Class
        Standard DNS meaning [RFC 1035].   SRV records occur in the IN
        Class.

   Priority
        The priority of this target host.  A client MUST attempt to
        contact the target host with the lowest-numbered priority it can
        reach; target hosts with the same priority SHOULD be tried in an
        order defined by the weight field.  The range is 0-65535.  This
        is a 16 bit unsigned integer in network byte order.

   Weight
        A server selection mechanism.  The weight field specifies a
        relative weight for entries with the same priority. Larger
        weights SHOULD be given a proportionately higher probability of
        being selected. The range of this number is 0-65535.  This is a
        16 bit unsigned integer in network byte order.  Domain
        administrators SHOULD use Weight 0 when there isn't any server
        selection to do, to make the RR easier to read for humans (less
        noisy).  In the presence of records containing weights greater
        than 0, records with weight 0 should have a very small chance of
        being selected.

        In the absence of a protocol whose specification calls for the
        use of other weighting information, a client arranges the SRV
        RRs of the same Priority in the order in which target hosts,




Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


        specified by the SRV RRs, will be contacted. The following
        algorithm SHOULD be used to order the SRV RRs of the same
        priority:

        To select a target to be contacted next, arrange all SRV RRs
        (that have not been ordered yet) in any order, except that all
        those with weight 0 are placed at the beginning of the list.

        Compute the sum of the weights of those RRs, and with each RR
        associate the running sum in the selected order. Then choose a
        uniform random number between 0 and the sum computed
        (inclusive), and select the RR whose running sum value is the
        first in the selected order which is greater than or equal to
        the random number selected. The target host specified in the
        selected SRV RR is the next one to be contacted by the client.
        Remove this SRV RR from the set of the unordered SRV RRs and
        apply the described algorithm to the unordered SRV RRs to select
        the next target host.  Continue the ordering process until there
        are no unordered SRV RRs.  This process is repeated for each
        Priority.

   Port
        The port on this target host of this service.  The range is 0-
        65535.  This is a 16 bit unsigned integer in network byte order.
        This is often as specified in Assigned Numbers but need not be.

   Target
        The domain name of the target host.  There MUST be one or more
        address records for this name, the name MUST NOT be an alias (in
        the sense of RFC 1034 or RFC 2181).  Implementors are urged, but
        not required, to return the address record(s) in the Additional
        Data section.  Unless and until permitted by future standards
        action, name compression is not to be used for this field.

        A Target of "." means that the service is decidedly not
        available at this domain.

Domain administrator advice

   Expecting everyone to update their client applications when the first
   server publishes a SRV RR is futile (even if desirable).  Therefore
   SRV would have to coexist with address record lookups for existing
   protocols, and DNS administrators should try to provide address
   records to support old clients:

      - Where the services for a single domain are spread over several
        hosts, it seems advisable to have a list of address records at
        the same DNS node as the SRV RR, listing reasonable (if perhaps



Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


        suboptimal) fallback hosts for Telnet, NNTP and other protocols
        likely to be used with this name.  Note that some programs only
        try the first address they get back from e.g. gethostbyname(),
        and we don't know how widespread this behavior is.

      - Where one service is provided by several hosts, one can either
        provide address records for all the hosts (in which case the
        round-robin mechanism, where available, will share the load
        equally) or just for one (presumably the fastest).

      - If a host is intended to provide a service only when the main
        server(s) is/are down, it probably shouldn't be listed in
        address records.

      - Hosts that are referenced by backup address records must use the
        port number specified in Assigned Numbers for the service.

      - Designers of future protocols for which "secondary servers" is
        not useful (or meaningful) may choose to not use SRV's support
        for secondary servers.  Clients for such protocols may use or
        ignore SRV RRs with Priority higher than the RR with the lowest
        Priority for a domain.

   Currently there's a practical limit of 512 bytes for DNS replies.
   Until all resolvers can handle larger responses, domain
   administrators are strongly advised to keep their SRV replies below
   512 bytes.

   All round numbers, wrote Dr. Johnson, are false, and these numbers
   are very round: A reply packet has a 30-byte overhead plus the name
   of the service ("_ldap._tcp.example.com" for instance); each SRV RR
   adds 20 bytes plus the name of the target host; each NS RR in the NS
   section is 15 bytes plus the name of the name server host; and
   finally each A RR in the additional data section is 20 bytes or so,
   and there are A's for each SRV and NS RR mentioned in the answer.
   This size estimate is extremely crude, but shouldn't underestimate
   the actual answer size by much.  If an answer may be close to the
   limit, using a DNS query tool (e.g. "dig") to look at the actual
   answer is a good idea.

The "Weight" field

   Weight, the server selection field, is not quite satisfactory, but
   the actual load on typical servers changes much too quickly to be
   kept around in DNS caches.  It seems to the authors that offering
   administrators a way to say "this machine is three times as fast as
   that one" is the best that can practically be done.




Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


   The only way the authors can see of getting a "better" load figure is
   asking a separate server when the client selects a server and
   contacts it.  For short-lived services an extra step in the
   connection establishment seems too expensive, and for long-lived
   services, the load figure may well be thrown off a minute after the
   connection is established when someone else starts or finishes a
   heavy job.

   Note: There are currently various experiments at providing relative
   network proximity estimation, available bandwidth estimation, and
   similar services.  Use of the SRV record with such facilities, and in
   particular the interpretation of the Weight field when these
   facilities are used, is for further study.  Weight is only intended
   for static, not dynamic, server selection.  Using SRV weight for
   dynamic server selection would require assigning unreasonably short
   TTLs to the SRV RRs, which would limit the usefulness of the DNS
   caching mechanism, thus increasing overall network load and
   decreasing overall reliability.  Server selection via SRV is only
   intended to express static information such as "this server has a
   faster CPU than that one" or "this server has a much better network
   connection than that one".

The Port number

   Currently, the translation from service name to port number happens
   at the client, often using a file such as /etc/services.

   Moving this information to the DNS makes it less necessary to update
   these files on every single computer of the net every time a new
   service is added, and makes it possible to move standard services out
   of the "root-only" port range on unix.

Usage rules

   A SRV-cognizant client SHOULD use this procedure to locate a list of
   servers and connect to the preferred one:

        Do a lookup for QNAME=_service._protocol.target, QCLASS=IN,
        QTYPE=SRV.

        If the reply is NOERROR, ANCOUNT>0 and there is at least one
        SRV RR which specifies the requested Service and Protocol in
        the reply:

            If there is precisely one SRV RR, and its Target is "."
            (the root domain), abort.





Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


            Else, for all such RR's, build a list of (Priority, Weight,
            Target) tuples

            Sort the list by priority (lowest number first)

            Create a new empty list

            For each distinct priority level
                While there are still elements left at this priority
                level

                    Select an element as specified above, in the
                    description of Weight in "The format of the SRV
                    RR" Section, and move it to the tail of the new
                    list

            For each element in the new list

                query the DNS for address records for the Target or
                use any such records found in the Additional Data
                section of the earlier SRV response.

                for each address record found, try to connect to the
               (protocol, address, service).

        else

            Do a lookup for QNAME=target, QCLASS=IN, QTYPE=A

            for each address record found, try to connect to the
           (protocol, address, service)

Notes:

   - Port numbers SHOULD NOT be used in place of the symbolic service
     or protocol names (for the same reason why variant names cannot
     be allowed: Applications would have to do two or more lookups).

   - If a truncated response comes back from an SRV query, the rules
     described in [RFC 2181] shall apply.

   - A client MUST parse all of the RR's in the reply.

   - If the Additional Data section doesn't contain address records
     for all the SRV RR's and the client may want to connect to the
     target host(s) involved, the client MUST look up the address
     record(s).  (This happens quite often when the address record
     has shorter TTL than the SRV or NS RR's.)



Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


   - Future protocols could be designed to use SRV RR lookups as the
     means by which clients locate their servers.

Fictional example

   This example uses fictional service "foobar" as an aid in
   understanding SRV records. If ever service "foobar" is implemented,
   it is not intended that it will necessarily use SRV records.  This is
   (part of) the zone file for example.com, a still-unused domain:

      $ORIGIN example.com.
      @               SOA server.example.com. root.example.com. (
                          1995032001 3600 3600 604800 86400 )
                      NS  server.example.com.
                      NS  ns1.ip-provider.net.
                      NS  ns2.ip-provider.net.
      ; foobar - use old-slow-box or new-fast-box if either is
      ; available, make three quarters of the logins go to
      ; new-fast-box.
      _foobar._tcp    SRV 0 1 9 old-slow-box.example.com.
                       SRV 0 3 9 new-fast-box.example.com.
      ; if neither old-slow-box or new-fast-box is up, switch to
      ; using the sysdmin's box and the server
                       SRV 1 0 9 sysadmins-box.example.com.
                       SRV 1 0 9 server.example.com.
      server           A   172.30.79.10
      old-slow-box     A   172.30.79.11
      sysadmins-box    A   172.30.79.12
      new-fast-box     A   172.30.79.13
      ; NO other services are supported
      *._tcp          SRV  0 0 0 .
      *._udp          SRV  0 0 0 .



















Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


   In this example, a client of the "foobar" service in the
   "example.com." domain needs an SRV lookup of
   "_foobar._tcp.example.com." and possibly A lookups of "new-fast-
   box.example.com." and/or the other hosts named.  The size of the SRV
   reply is approximately 365 bytes:

      30 bytes general overhead
      20 bytes for the query string, "_foobar._tcp.example.com."
      130 bytes for 4 SRV RR's, 20 bytes each plus the lengths of "new-
        fast-box", "old-slow-box", "server" and "sysadmins-box" -
        "example.com" in the query section is quoted here and doesn't
        need to be counted again.
      75 bytes for 3 NS RRs, 15 bytes each plus the lengths of "server",
        "ns1.ip-provider.net." and "ns2" - again, "ip-provider.net." is
        quoted and only needs to be counted once.
      120 bytes for the 6 address records (assuming IPv4 only) mentioned
        by the SRV and NS RR's.

IANA Considerations

   The IANA has assigned RR type value 33 to the SRV RR.  No other IANA
   services are required by this document.

Changes from RFC 2052

   This document obsoletes RFC 2052.   The major change from that
   previous, experimental, version of this specification is that now the
   protocol and service labels are prepended with an underscore, to
   lower the probability of an accidental clash with a similar name used
   for unrelated purposes.  Aside from that, changes are only intended
   to increase the clarity and completeness of the document. This
   document especially clarifies the use of the Weight field of the SRV
   records.

Security Considerations

   The authors believe this RR to not cause any new security problems.
   Some problems become more visible, though.

   - The ability to specify ports on a fine-grained basis obviously
     changes how a router can filter packets.  It becomes impossible
     to block internal clients from accessing specific external
     services, slightly harder to block internal users from running
     unauthorized services, and more important for the router
     operations and DNS operations personnel to cooperate.

   - There is no way a site can keep its hosts from being referenced
     as servers.  This could lead to denial of service.



Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


   - With SRV, DNS spoofers can supply false port numbers, as well as
     host names and addresses.   Because this vulnerability exists
     already, with names and addresses, this is not a new
     vulnerability, merely a slightly extended one, with little
     practical effect.

References

   STD 2:    Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC
             1700, October 1994.

   RFC 1034: Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
             STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   RFC 1035: Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - Implementation and
             Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   RFC 974:  Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system", STD
             14, RFC 974, January 1986.

   BCP 14:   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   RFC 2181: Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
             Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

   RFC 2219: Hamilton, M. and R. Wright, "Use of DNS Aliases for Network
             Services", BCP 17, RFC 2219, October 1997.

   BCP 14:   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   ARM:      Armijo, M., Esibov, L. and P. Leach, "Discovering LDAP
             Services with DNS", Work in Progress.

   KDC-DNS:  Hornstein, K. and J. Altman, "Distributing Kerberos KDC and
             Realm Information with DNS", Work in Progress.














Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


Acknowledgements

   The algorithm used to select from the weighted SRV RRs of equal
   priority is adapted from one supplied by Dan Bernstein.

Authors' Addresses

   Arnt Gulbrandsen
   Troll Tech
   Waldemar Thranes gate 98B
   N-0175 Oslo, Norway

   Fax:   +47 22806380
   Phone: +47 22806390
   EMail: arnt@troll.no


   Paul Vixie
   Internet Software Consortium
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA 94063

   Phone: +1 650 779 7001


   Levon Esibov
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052

   EMail: levone@microsoft.com




















Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 2782                       DNS SRV RR                  February 2000


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Gulbrandsen, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 12]

