Google wants to see client addresses in DNS queries

Google logoLate Wednesday evening, Google employees posted an "Internet-Draft" outlining proposed changes to the DNS protocol that allow authoritative DNS servers to see the addresses of clients. This way, geographically distributed content delivery networks can tailor their answers to a specific client's network location. So a client from California would talk to a server in California, while a client in the Netherlands would talk to a server in the Netherlands.

Currently, authoritative DNS servers don't see the client address, only the address of the resolving server that is typically operated by the client's ISP. So in the current situation, if our Californian and Dutch clients both use a DNS resolver in New York, a location-optimizing authoritative DNS server would give them both the addresses of servers in or around New York. By including the client's address in the request, the authoritative server can send a better response and improve the subsequent interactions between the client and server because the request/response round-trip times across the network are shorter.

Google does have a plan to avoid the most egregious privacy concerns. "Recursive Resolvers are strongly encouraged to conceal part of the IP address of the user by truncating IPv4 addresses to 24 bits." Coincidentally, 24 bits maps directly to the minimum address block that can be carried in the Internet's routing system. Carrying any more than that won't help solve the network distance problem using the routing tables. For IPv6, there is no corresponding number that everyone agrees to, but the authors of the draft suggest truncating IPv6 addresses as well. Of course, the owner of the authoritative DNS server still gets to see the client's full IP address when the HTTP request for the actual content is sent.

Internet-Drafts are working documents within the Internet Engineering Task Force. Anyone in possession of a keyboard and time on their hands can write one. Drafts live on the IETF servers for six months and are then deleted, so authors must post updates twice a year. If there is interest and no technical objections, a draft may progress to become an RFC (Request For Comments). The bar is relatively low for "experimental" and "informational" RFCs, but much higher for those that are intended to become Internet standards. Very few drafts get that far.

In this particular case, it's not clear whether purists will object to embracing "two-faced DNS" so explicitly. Although many organizations have DNS servers that serve up different answers to internal users than to external users, this practice isn't held in high esteem by those in the IETF who care about the Internet's architecture.

Interestingly, the Google and Neustar employees who wrote the document chose a model where the authoritative server sees the client addresses, rather having the authoritative server publish the full list of server addresses so that the resolving server can figure out which is closest. And if Web protocols and practices weren't so sensitive to round-trip times, this effort would be largely irrelevant. (Altough not having to carry packets from continent to continent would still save bandwidth costs.)

It's too early to make guesses about the success of this effort at the IETF, but Paul Vixie, well known as the original author of the BIND DNS software and no less for his strong opinions, set the tone in a message to the IETF DNSEXT mailing list. "if we're going to add client identity to the query, can we do so in a more general way? i'd like to know lat-long, country, isp, language, and adult/child."

Source: ars technica

Tags: Google, Internet

Comments
Add comment

Your name:
Sign in with:
or
Your comment:


Enter code:

E-mail (not required)
E-mail will not be disclosed to the third party


Last news

 
Consumer group recommends iPhone 8 over anniversary model
 
LTE connections wherever you go and instant waking should come to regular PCs, too
 
That fiction is slowly becoming a reality
 
The Snapdragon 845 octa-core SoC includes the Snapdragon X20 LTE modem
 
Human moderators can help make YouTube a safer place for everyone
 
Google says Progressive Web Apps are the future of app-like webpages
 
All 2018 models to sport the 'notch'
 
The biggest exchange in South Korea, where the BTC/KRW pair is at $14,700 now
The Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) Review
The evolution of the successful smartphone, now with a waterproof body and USB Type-C
February 7, 2017 /
Samsung Galaxy TabPro S - a tablet with the Windows-keyboard
The first Windows-tablet with the 12-inch display Super AMOLED
June 7, 2016 /
Keyboards for iOS
Ten iOS keyboards review
July 18, 2015 /
Samsung E1200 Mobile Phone Review
A cheap phone with a good screen
March 8, 2015 / 4
Creative Sound Blaster Z sound card review
Good sound for those who are not satisfied with the onboard solution
September 25, 2014 / 2
Samsung Galaxy Gear: Smartwatch at High Price
The first smartwatch from Samsung - almost a smartphone with a small body
December 19, 2013 /
 
 

News Archive

 
 
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      




Poll

Do you use microSD card with your phone?
or leave your own version in comments (4)