Process for selecting an authoritative name server

• US 9,448,897 B2
• Filed: 06/30/2014
• Issued: 09/20/2016
• Est. Priority Date: 04/04/2012
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: VeriSign, Inc.
• Original Assignee: VeriSign, Inc.
• Inventors: Kinra, Rohit
• Primary Examiner(s): Jean, Frantz
• Application Number:
  US14/319,027
• Publication Number:
  US 20140317439A1
• Time in Patent Office: 813 Days
• Field of Search: 709/203, 709/225, 709/249, 709/224, 709/250, 714/4.11
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/2007 using redundant communication media
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/951 Indexing; Web crawling techniques
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0668 by dynamic selection of recovery network elements, e.g. replacement by the most appropriate element after failure
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 43/0805 by checking availability
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 43/0864 Round trip delays
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 43/0894 Packet rate
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 61/4511 using domain name system [DNS]
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/1008 based on parameters of servers, e.g. available memory or workload monitoring of computer activity G06F11/30
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/1029 using data related to the state of servers by a load balancer
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/1034 Reaction to server failures by a load balancer
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/1036 Load balancing of requests to servers for services different from user content provisioning, e.g. load balancing across domain name servers
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 69/40 for recovering from a failure of a protocol instance or entity, e.g. service redundancy protocols, protocol state redundancy or protocol service redirection management of faults, events, alarms or notifications in data switching networks H04L41/06

Abstract

Methods and systems for intelligently choosing an authoritative name server from among a group of name servers for resolving Domain Name System requests. Systems and methods are provided that enable choosing of a first server associated with and/or operated by a first service provider based on a first measurement associated with that first server. The systems and methods further comprise requesting first data from that first server, determining that the first server is unresponsive, and choosing a second server. The second server is chosen based on a second measurement, and chosen contingent on it being associated with and/or operated by to a different service provider than that associated with the first server. The systems and methods then comprise requesting second data from the second server.

Claims

1. A method, comprising:

accessing, by one or more processors, a memory storing information regarding a set of servers, each of the servers in the set of servers being associated with one service provider in a set of service providers, wherein for each of the servers in the set of servers, an indicator is stored indicating whether the server should be tried;

determining that at least one server associated with each of the service providers in the set of service providers is not reachable;

choosing, by one or more processors, a first server from the set of servers associated with a first service provider, based on a first measurement associated with the first server; and

requesting a first data from the first server.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that at least one server associated with each of the service providers is not reachable is based on a determination that:

a server failed to respond to a request within a predetermined amount of time;

a server is unreachable;

or

a server is experiencing a problem affecting performance.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first measurement includes affinity measurements based on at least one of geographic location, historical data, statistics, round-trip time, bandwidth, or time between request and response.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein:

the first data comprises DNS resolutions, and

the first server is an authoritative name server.

5. An electronic device, comprising:

a memory storing a set of instructions; and

a processor to;

access, by one or more processors, a memory storing information regarding a set of servers, each of the servers in the set of servers being associated with one service provider in a set of service providers, wherein for each of the servers in the set of servers, an indicator is stored indicating whether the server should be tried;

determine that at least one server associated with each of the service providers in the set of service providers is not reachable;

choose, by one or more processors, a first server from the set of servers associated with a first service provider, based on a first measurement associated with the first server; and

request a first data from the first server.

6. The device of claim 5, wherein determining that at least one server associated with each of the service providers is not reachable is based on a determination that:

a server failed to respond to a request within a predetermined amount of time;

a server is unreachable;

or

a server is experiencing a problem affecting performance.

7. The device of claim 5, wherein the first measurement includes affinity measurements based on at least one of geographic location, historical data, statistics, round-trip time, bandwidth, or time between request and response.

8. The device of claim 5, wherein:

the first data comprises DNS resolutions, and

the first server is an authoritative name server.

9. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method to:

determine that a server is non-responsive;

identify a set of servers associated with a same service provider as the service provider of the non-responsive server; and

update a memory to associate an indicator with each of the servers in the set of servers, the indicator indicating the set of servers should not be tried.

10. The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to identify the set of servers associated with the same service provider as the service provider of the non-responsive server based on at least one of:

an indication of an association between the non-responsive server and a first server in the set of servers; and

a determination that the non-responsive server shares at least one of a domain, top-level domain (TLD), domain and TLD, or business association with the first server in the set of servers.

11. The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to:

determine that all of the service providers have at least one associated server that is unresponsive; and

choose a second server, based on a first measurement associated with the second server.

12. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the first measurement includes affinity measurements based on at least one of geographic location, historical data, statistics, round-trip time, bandwidth, or time between request and response.

13. The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to:

choose a server that does not have associated therewith an indicator indicating it should not be tried; and

requesting a first data from chosen server.

14. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the chosen server that does not have associated therewith an indicator indicating it should not be tried, and is further chosen based on the chosen server'"'"'s association with a service provider that is different from the service provider associated with the non-responsive server.

15. The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein determining that the server is non-responsive is based at least one a determination that:

the non-responsive server failed to respond to a request within a predetermined amount of time;

the non-responsive server is unreachable;

or

the first server is experiencing a problem affecting performance.

16. An apparatus, comprising:

a memory, storing a set of instructions; and

at least one processor, to execute the stored set of instructions to;

determine that a server is non-responsive;

identify a set of servers associated with a same service provider as the service provider of the non-responsive server; and

update a memory to associate an indicator with each of the servers in the set of servers, the indicator indicating the set of servers should not be tried.

17. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor to identify the set of servers associated with the same service provider as the service provider of the non-responsive server is based on at least one of:

an indication of an association between the non-responsive server and a first server in the set of servers; and

a determination that the non-responsive server shares at least one of a domain, top-level domain (TLD), domain and TLD, or business association with the first server in the set of servers.

18. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further to:

determine that all of the service providers have at least one associated server that is unresponsive; and

choose a second server, based on a first measurement associated with the second server.

19. The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the first measurement includes affinity measurements based on at least one of geographic location, historical data, statistics, round-trip time, bandwidth, or time between request and response.

20. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further to:

choose a server that does not have associated therewith an indicator indicating it should not be tried; and

requesting a first data from chosen server.

21. The apparatus of claim 20, wherein the chosen server that does not have associated therewith an indicator indicating it should not be tried, and is further chosen based on the chosen server'"'"'s association with a service provider that is different from the service provider associated with the non-responsive server.

22. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein determining that the server is non-responsive is based at least one a determination that:

the non-responsive server failed to respond to a request within a predetermined amount of time;

the non-responsive server is unreachable;

or

the first server is experiencing a problem affecting performance.