Network Working Group                                            E. Hunt
Internet-Draft                                                       ISC
Intended status: Standards Track                             P. van Dijk
Expires: November 25, 2017                                      PowerDNS
                                                                 A. Eden
                                                            May 24, 2017

             Address-specific DNS Name Redirection (ANAME)


   This document defines the "ANAME" DNS RR type, to provide similar
   functionality to CNAME, but only redirects type A and AAAA queries.
   Unlike CNAME, an ANAME can coexist with other record types.  The
   ANAME RR allows zone owners to redirect queries for apex domain names
   in a standards compliant manner.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  The ANAME Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Authoritative Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Address records returned with ANAME . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Coexistence with other types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  DNSSEC signing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Recursive Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Websites hosted by content distribution networks are often served by
   multiple IP addresses handling different geographic areas.  In many
   cases, an initial query for a domain name returns a CNAME record
   whose <target> is a name served by the CDN, and which ultimately
   resolves to a different final answer depending on the client's IP
   address or subnet, geographic location, or other considerations.

   It is common practice for websites to publish content at their
   registered domain name (sometimes referred to as a "bare domain" or
   "zone apex": for example, "" rather than
   "").  However, [RFC1033] forbids the use of CNAME
   records at the same node as any other record type.  Zone apex nodes
   always contain SOA and NS RRsets, and frequently contain other types
   such as DNSKEY, MX, TXT/SPF, etc.  Consequently, a CNAME record is
   not permitted at zone apex nodes.

   It should be noted that [RFC4034] relaxed this restriction by
   allowing coexistence of CNAME with RRSIG and NSEC records, but such
   exceptions are not applicable to other resource records.  RRSIG and
   NSEC exist to prove the integrity of the CNAME record; they are not
   intended to associate arbitrary data with the domain name.

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

   DNAME [RFC6672] is also not a solution, as its function is to
   redirect all names in the namespace below the DNAME <owner>, not the
   DNAME <owner> itself.

   Redirecting website lookups to an alternate domain name via SRV or
   URI resource records would be an effective solution, but to date this
   approach has not been accepted by browser implementations.  In
   addition, it is not possible to use SRV records with wildcard names.

   As a result of the above, the only widely supported and standards-
   compliant way to publish content at a zone apex is to to place A and/
   or AAAA records at that node.  The flexibility afforded by CNAME is
   not available.

   This document specifies a new RR type "ANAME", which provides similar
   functionality to CNAME, but only for address queries (i.e., for type
   A or AAAA).  The ANAME record can be present at any DNS node, and can
   coexist with most other RR types, enabling it to be present at a zone
   apex.  Authoritative servers configured with ANAME records will
   answer address queries for the ANAME owner with addresses found at
   the ANAME's target, and also with the ANAME itself.  Recursive
   resolvers which understand ANAME can re-query for the ANAME target,
   just as if they had received a CNAME response.  Recursive resolvers
   which do not understand ANAME will ignore the ANAME and consume the
   provided A/AAAA records directly.

   Similar authoritative functionality has been implemented and deployed
   by a number of DNS software vendors and service providers, using
   names such as ALIAS, ANAME, apex CNAME, CNAME flattening, and top
   level redirection.  These approaches have all been standards-
   noncompliant in one way or another, and none have provided a
   mechanism for a recursive resolver to follow the redirection chain

1.1.  Terminology

   "Address type" refers to a DNS RR type that encodes a network
   address.  Currently the set of address types consists of A and AAAA.

   "Address query" refers to a DNS query for any address type.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

2.  The ANAME Resource Record

   This document defines the "ANAME" DNS resource record type, with RR
   TYPE value [TBD].

   The ANAME presentation format is identical to that of CNAME

       owner ttl class ANAME target

   The wire format is also identical to CNAME, except that name
   compression is not permitted in ANAME RDATA, per [RFC3597].

   No more than one ANAME resource record SHALL be present at any DNS

3.  Authoritative Server Behavior

   When an ANAME record is present at a DNS node and a query is received
   by an authoritative server for type A or AAAA, the authoritative
   server returns the ANAME RR in the answer section.

   Because not all querying resolvers understand ANAME, the
   authoritative server MUST also return address records, as described
   below.  This is conceptually similar to the synthesized CNAME record
   included with DNAME responses [RFC6672].

   Authoritative servers implementing ANAME MUST be equipped to resolve
   the ANAME <target> on the querying resolver's behalf, either by
   sending queries to an external recursive resolver or by implementing
   recursive resolution logic internally, so that address records can be
   expanded when the ANAME <target> is in a separate zone from <owner>.

   If a query for the ANAME <target> returns a chaining response (i.e.,
   CNAME, DNAME, or another ANAME), then the authoritative server (or
   the resolver tasked with resolving the ANAME <target> on its behalf)
   MUST attempt to follow the chain until it is able to resolve a final
   address response, or until resolution fails.  Intermediate ANAMEs,
   CNAMEs, and DNAMEs MUST be omitted from the response.

3.1.  Address records returned with ANAME

   If the original query is for type A, and an RRset of type A exists at
   the final ANAME <target>, then that A RRset (with <owner> changed to
   match that of the ANAME RR), MUST be appended to the answer section
   after the ANAME RRset.  If an AAAA RRset is also known to exist at
   the ANAME <target>, then the AAAA RRset MAY be appended to the

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

   additional section (again, with <owner> changed to match that of the

   Similarly, if the original query was for type AAAA, and an AAAA RRset
   exists at the final ANAME <target>, then it is appended to the answer
   section (with <owner> changed), and if an A RRset also exists at the
   final ANAME <target> then it MAY be appended to the additional

   If the original query is for type ANAME, A and AAAA records MAY be
   returned in the additional section.

   If the original query is for type ANY and access to ANY query
   processing is not restricted, then the answer section MUST contain
   both the ANAME and the A and AAAA RRsets, if present and successfully
   resolved at the ANAME <target>.

   How and when an authoritative server resolves the A and AAAA
   responses from the ANAME <target> (when it is not itself
   authoritative for <target>) is unspecified.  If the authoritative
   server is capable of performing recursive resolution, then it MAY
   resolve the query itself, or it MAY send address queries to an
   external resolver.  It MAY send address queries to the ANAME <target>
   when loading the zone and cache the responses locally, or it MAY
   delay resolution of the address records until a query is received for
   the ANAME <owner>.  In either case, for performance reasons, it is
   RECOMMENDED that address records be cached locally by the
   authoritative server.

   Address records cached locally MUST have a limited TTL.  The initial
   TTL for locally-cached address records MUST be set to the lesser of
   the ANAME TTL and the TTL of the address records retrieved from the
   ANAME <target>.  The local TTL MUST count down, just as it would in a
   conventional resolver cache.  Records with an expired TTL MUST NOT be
   used to answer address queries until refreshed with a new query to
   the ANAME <target>.

   If configured to do so, then the authoritative server MAY, when
   sending queries to the ANAME <target>, include an EDNS CLIENT-SUBNET
   (ECS) option [RFC7871], either forwarding an ECS option that was sent
   to it by the querying resolver, or generating a new ECS option from
   the querying resolver's address.  If a response from the ANAME
   <target> includes an ECS option with a SCOPE PREFIX-LENGTH greater
   than zero, the response SHOULD be cached with the ECS data and should
   only be used in response to queries from the same client subnet.

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

3.2.  Coexistence with other types

   If the zone is configured with an A or AAAA RRset at the same DNS
   node as ANAME, then the ANAME is considered to have been pre-expanded
   for zone transfer purposes.  When a zone is being transferred to a
   secondary server, if any address record already exists at the same
   node as an ANAME RR, then the ANAME RR MUST NOT be further expanded
   by the authoritative server.

   ANAME MUST NOT coexist with CNAME or any other RR type that restricts
   the types with which it can itself coexist.

   Like other types, ANAME MUST NOT exist below a DNAME, but it can
   coexist at the same node; in fact, the two can be used cooperatively
   to redirect both the owner name (via ANAME) and everything under it
   (via DNAME).

   ANAME can freely coexist at the same owner name with any other RR

3.3.  DNSSEC signing

   If the zone in which the ANAME resides is DNSSEC-signed, and if the
   server has access to its private zone-signing key, then the A and
   AAAA RRsets MUST be signed, either in advance when populating the A/
   AAAA answers for the ANAME records, or "on the fly" when responding
   to a query.

   If the server does not have access to the private zone-signing key
   then it MAY return unsigned address records, but this is NOT
   RECOMMENDED unless every resolver with access to the zone is known to
   support ANAME (as might be the case in a split-horizon deployment
   where ANAME records are only served to an internal network with its
   own resolvers).

   Validating resolvers which do not yet implement ANAME will not be
   able to validate the A and AAAA responses included with an ANAME
   response unless those responses are validly signed by a DNSKEY at the
   apex of the zone in which the ANAME resides.  Passing along the
   RRSIGs associated with the original A and AAAA RRsets from the ANAME
   <target> will not be sufficient for DNSSEC validation.

   Implementers MAY allow address records associated with the ANAME to
   be populated and signed by the primary server, then sent along with
   their RRSIGs to secondaries via zone transfer.  In this case, the
   master server MUST respect the TTLs of the address records, MUST
   refresh the address records by re-resolving the ANAME <target> when
   their TTLs expire, SHOULD respond to address queries with TTLs that

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

   count down as they would when answering from a normal DNS cache, and
   MUST inform secondary servers via DNS NOTIFY they need to refresh the
   zone when address records have been updated.  A secondary server
   SHOULD store address records and associated RRSIGs supplied via zone
   transfer in such a way that their TTLs will count down, as they would
   in a normal DNS cache, and ultimately trigger a zone refresh query
   upon reaching zero.  When a secondary server is responding to an
   address query, it SHOULD answer with the reduced TTL, but when
   responding to a zone transfer request, it MUST answer with the
   original TTL received from the primary.

   If this address record expansion and signing during zone transfer is
   not supported, then every authoritative server providing ANAME
   responses in a signed zone SHOULD have access to the private zone-
   signing key for that zone.  Deployment of ANAME in signed zones where
   address records cannot be signed due to lack of access to the private
   zone-signing key is NOT RECOMMENDED.

   When ANAME is present in a signed DNS node and address records exist
   at the ANAME <target>, the type bit map in the NSEC [RFC4034] or
   NSEC3 [RFC5155] record for that node MUST include bits for A and/or
   AAAA as well as ANAME.  This is for the benefit of validating
   resolvers not implementing ANAME which may use a signed proof of
   nonexistence for type A and AAAA to prevent address queries from
   being resolved.  The type bit map SHOULD only include address types
   which are known to exist at the <target>.

4.  Recursive Server Behavior

   When a recursive resolver sends a query of type A or AAAA and
   receives a response with an ANAME RRset in the answer section, it
   MUST re-query for the ANAME <target>.  This is necessary because, in
   some cases, the address received will be dependent on network
   topology and other considerations, and the resolver may find a
   different answer than the authoritative server did.  (This
   requirement MAY be relaxed if both the ANAME <owner> and <target> are
   validly signed and provably in the same zone.)

   If resolution fails -- for example, due to the local resolver being
   nonfunctional or the ANAME <target> zone being unreachable -- then
   the resolver MAY use the address records that were included in the
   authoritative response as a fallback.  Otherwise, these records MUST
   NOT be cached or returned.

   If configured to do so, the resolver MAY include an EDNS CLIENT-
   SUBNET option [RFC7871] both when sending the initial query to the
   ANAME <owner> and when re-querying for the ANAME <target>.  If the
   response includes a SCOPE PREFIX-LENGTH greater than zero, the

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

   response SHOULD be cached with the ECS data and should only be used
   in response to queries from the same client subnet.

5.  Operational Considerations

   When a zone containing ANAME records is transferred to a secondary
   server, the ANAME records are transferred, but the A or AAAA records
   retrieved from the ANAME <target> may not be.  If the primary server
   implements ANAME but the secondary server does not, then the two will
   return different answers for address queries.  It is therefore
   RECOMMENDED that ANAME not be deployed in a zone unless all of the
   authoritative servers for that zone implement ANAME, or the primary
   is able to expand the ANAME with the related address RRsets during
   the zone transfer.

6.  Implementation Status

   PowerDNS <> currently implements a similar
   authoritative-only feature using "ALIAS" records, which are expanded
   by the primary server and transfered as address records to

   [TODO: Add discussion of DNSimple, DNS Made Easy, EasyDNS,
   Cloudflare, and Akamai.]

7.  Security Considerations

   An authoritative server which implements ANAME resolves address
   queries on behalf of its clients, either internally or by querying an
   external resolver.  This resolution must be allowed to take place
   regardless of whether the client would ordinarily have been permitted
   by local policy to send recursive queries.

   When a resolver that does not understand ANAME receives a response
   containing A or AAAA records with <owner> rewritten to match that of
   the ANAME RR, this may bypass security mechanisms based on local
   policy limiting access to the original ANAME <target>.

   A validating resolver that does not understand ANAME will not be able
   to validate A and AAAA records unless they are signed.

   Both authoritative servers and resolvers that implement ANAME should
   carefully check for loops and treat them as an error condition.

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign a DNS RR data type value for the ANAME RR
   type under the "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs" subregistry under the
   "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" registry.

9.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Mukund Sivaraman, Stephen Morris, Ray Bellis, Mark Andrews,
   Richard Salts, Job Snijders, and Hakan Lindqvist for discussion and

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1033]  Lottor, M., "Domain administrators operations guide",
              RFC 1033, November 1987.

   [RFC3597]  Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
              (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, March 2005.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5155]  Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
              Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
              Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008.

   [RFC6672]  Rose, S. and W. Wijngaards, "DNAME Redirection in the
              DNS", RFC 6672, June 2012.

   [RFC7871]  Contavalli, C., van der Gaast, W., Lawrence, D., and W.
              Kumari, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries", RFC 7871,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7871, May 2016,

Authors' Addresses

Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    aname                         May 2017

   Evan Hunt
   950 Charter St
   Redwood City, CA  94063


   Peter van Dijk
   PowerDNS.COM B.V.
   Den Haag
   The Netherlands


   Anthony Eden
   Boston, MA


Hunt, et al.            Expires November 25, 2017              [Page 10]