Internet-Draft AXFR NOTIFY May 2026
Pels & Obser Expires 19 November 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-pels-dnsop-axfr-notify-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
M. Pels
RIPE NCC
F. Obser
RIPE NCC

AXFR message type for DNS NOTIFY

Abstract

This document defines a new AXFR message type for DNS NOTIFY messages. The message instructs a secondary server to perform an AXFR zone transfer of a zone.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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 19 November 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

DNS NOTFY[RFC1996] describes a method to inform secondary name servers that a zone has changed. Upon receipt of a NOTIFY(SOA) message, a secondary will query the primary server for the SOA of the zone, and perform an IXFR[RFC1995] or AXFR[RFC5936] zone transfer if the SOA SERIAL has been incremented since the last time the zone was fetched.

There are cases when it is desirable to force a secondary server to perform an AXFR zone transfer. Example scenarios are an incorrectly synchronized database on a secondary server due to a software bug, or an operator incidentally wanting to propagate changes to a zone without updating the SOA SERIAL.

Most authoritative DNS server software supports performing a forced AXFR zone transfer. However, this can only be initiated by the operator of the DNS server, and secondary servers for a zone may not be managed by the same operator as the primary server(s). This document defines a new NOTIFY(AXFR) message type, used to initiate forced AXFR transfers by secondary servers from a primary server of a zone.

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Protocol sequence

3.1. Initiation

When a primary server wants its secondary servers to perform an AXFR zone transfer, it sends a NOTIFY message with the following characteristics to each secondary server:

query ID:   (new)
op:         NOTIFY (4)
resp:       NOERROR
flags:      AA
qcount:     1
qname:      (zone name)
qclass:     (zone class)
qtype:      T_AXFR

3.2. Secondary server behaviour

When a secondary server receives a NOTIFY(AXFR) request from one of its locally designated primaries for the zone enclosing the given QNAME, with QTYPE=AXFR and QR=0, it SHOULD perform an AXFR zone transfer from one of its configured primary servers. It will also send a NOTIFY response back to the NOTIFY request's source, with the following characteristics:

query ID:   (same)
op:         NOTIFY (4)
resp:       NOERROR
flags:      QR AA
qcount:     1
qname:      (zone name)
qclass:     (zone class)
qtype:      T_AXFR

If the secondary server, for the zone enclosing the given QNAME, is configured as a primary server for other secondary servers, it MUST also send a NOTIFY(AXFR) request to each of its configured secondaries. This ensures that an entire chain of secondary servers is synchronized in concert.

4. IANA considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

5. Security considerations

A NOTIFY(AXFR) request with a forged IP/UDP source address can cause a secondary to send spurious AXFR requests to its primary servers, leading to a denial of service attack if the forged requests are sent very often. To counter this, secondary servers MUST rate-limit how often they will request an AXFR from their primaries.

If a primary server has many secondaries, requesting all of them to perform an AXFR simultaneously may cause the primary to become overloaded. The sending out of NOTIFY(AXFR) requests to secondary servers SHOULD be splayed to reduce this thundering herd effect.

6. Normative References

[RFC1995]
Ohta, M., "Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS", RFC 1995, DOI 10.17487/RFC1995, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1995>.
[RFC1996]
Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC1996, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1996>.
[RFC5936]
Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, Ed., "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR)", RFC 5936, DOI 10.17487/RFC5936, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5936>.

7. Informative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Anand Buddhdev for contributing ideas and feedback to this document.

Authors' Addresses

Martin Pels
RIPE NCC
Netherlands
Florian Obser
RIPE NCC
Netherlands