Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- From: "Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 02:06:53 -0500
In news:F66589A9-7FA3-4789-92A7-7F2AB211ECDB@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Frank Ricciardi <FrankRicciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
not following you.
DNS should be straight TCP/IP on port 53, correct?
UDP first, then TCP. With the orginal RFCs, it defines it as when the
response is greater than 512 bytes. like some zones that have a large amount
of data in the response packet, it reverts to TCP. With EDNS0, a new RFC
that came out that Windows 2003 adopted, UDP now goes upto 1280 bytes. This
was implemented to make the response more efficient and quicker with zones
that have large data.
BUT
With Windows communication within a network, or even on the local server,
there's more that goes on than a simple a Windows to Windows session, even
if it's DNS, RPC is used. RPC also requires authentication, which requires
certain ports. If in a domain, the ports requirements increase. Even on the
same machine, if the IP address in IP properties says to use itself, it will
use RPC. With Windows to Windows, an ephemeral port is used by the quering
client. What is an ephemeral? Simply a random port 1024 and above. Run a
sniffer and you can see the traffic.
Read the results in this search to see what I'm talking about:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-06,GGLR:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ephemeral+port&spell=1
If across the Internet, UDP and TCP 53 alone will work, but not locally.
Period. Then EDNS0 comes into play. If a firewall does not allow DNS UDP
packet sizes beyond 512, then the response will not go across it.
If you want to test it locally, use nslookup, which is pure UDP, then TCP
depending on the size of the response packet. Pinging locally will revert to
the ephemeral ports, then authentication, etc.
I hope that helps.
Ace
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- From: Frank Ricciardi
- Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- References:
- Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- From: Ace Fekay [MVP]
- Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- From: Frank Ricciardi
- Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- From: Ace Fekay [MVP]
- Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- From: Frank Ricciardi
- Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- From: Ace Fekay [MVP]
- Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- Prev by Date: Re: Domain cannot be found
- Next by Date: Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- Previous by thread: Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- Next by thread: Re: Ports other than 53 required for proper DNS operation????
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|