[Acme] Support for domains with redundant but not immediately synchronized servers
Jonas Wielicki <jonas@wielicki.name> Mon, 30 November 2015 17:17 UTC
Return-Path: <jonas@wielicki.name>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2838D1B29CA for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:17:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8BrNLdqcmtwk for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sol.sotecware.net (sol.sotecware.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:d16:5380::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFB751B29B3 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:17:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from altair.sotecware.net (xd9bda3ec.dyn.telefonica.de [217.189.163.236]) by sol.sotecware.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBBC92006CA for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:17:24 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wielicki.name; s=k001.sol; t=1448903844; bh=9i5zk2hx9cp3AIPOIHA0oE9OoJ0b0hl2xqM2cyPy6w8=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=n+6NYYzaZGLpURVsjRkw1XtTCKRRpTMvXIQB89SzeodCtGVIPoqzJ3Wm8Asgv5oKX ebm7p/zwsCiOLOYyPISvooZf1gkbzeEC1Lz3Cqw3nIhGXiqYy6TqLx26zWlIx+0POA q4JpJnUyZlz4wDNeXPf+SekdQNpy6qI8pUgPH3O2ugF3XhZgKXHPlSxuAM2b0qVUAB icNu/9r+DLfy0auIP9+afpdWYStUDzwlYuWI5S0quFP45jlZeKYGyUvzjmGUDNDnMN 77e1yPA8iBkcxUORqGBjKjPX3bupkcjHx/J/js8pvPo+G4rgRvKY5nrrOe8L7WkaY7 sdebZ26PF0n9w==
To: acme@ietf.org
From: Jonas Wielicki <jonas@wielicki.name>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1210
Message-ID: <565C84A1.9040102@wielicki.name>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:17:21 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/ZzgtWzZICj_HQ19geObENv12Lv8>
Subject: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but not immediately synchronized servers
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:17:31 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi list, I have asked this in the IRC and was pointed to this mailing list. I tried to get a certificate for klausurschokola.de via Let’s Encrypt during the currently running limited beta (we have the domain whitelisted). The name has the following address records: 1800 IN A 176.9.101.187 1800 IN A 217.115.12.71 (in addition, there is one AAAA record for each of the machines addressed by the A records) As you can see, two different machines are addressed. Those are physically separated machines with different main administrators. Both are pulling their web content from the same source, but it is not supposed to be dynamic, so there is no "fast" (order of seconds) way to mirror the content. Our wish would be to be able to use different private keys and certificates for both hosts, and renew these independently from the other host. We thought that this would be possible using Let’s Encrypt. The problem is that currently, the Let’s Encrypt server sometimes chooses the wrong of the two IPs to ask for the file in /.well-known/acme-challenge. Ideally, it would use the IP of the requester (of course only after it has verified that the IP is in the DNS) or allow the requester to specify a preferred IP. For example, on 176.9.101.187: # letsencrypt certonly -c ~/schoko.ini -d klausurschokola.de -d www.klausurschokola.de [… curses …] Failed authorization procedure. klausurschokola.de (http-01): unauthorized :: The client lacks sufficient authorization :: Invalid response from http://klausurschokola.de/.well-known/acme-challenge/c5HJrtp8t8JhfNgTXVC 8N7OsCrguAWGw-JTIJxCFeIQ [217.115.12.71]: 404 Is such a thing planned? Are there security reasons against doing this? Are there security reasons against doing this on a DNSSEC signed domain (which klausurschokola.de is)? best regards, Jonas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWXIShAAoJEMBiAyWXYliKJ1wP/iGVeGRxnAkrAstfjeGLvLeC TXnF76X/8xC3s4dd/UR0DE2n9Pdn0FYCK+6jRTn+Xpa0MvrA2ME20AZMh070Ghy0 JRbdTWqjQTHzvjXYQHjSkW24pyZNgdfnmwd0HiAhn1mANv3dhVTnHR4hibZww+Su ty3XzsyZYjrfQ3K5/bTb/jz+QZUoZ/fJJuNlyMsVInF3rzagj34WWR4sYbAIwKEF CTvBFxINY04pUeemYlywPYrUOmcJTOK/wVi1ya2BgLgTqNJP5FJOX5jCHHr8m5ej A7G/nGWFSybOG1GkjMOdST3uMeL7HlpqhUnuNzsiC3ZAfmgVwceLsG3bTCAxcrgB 7XiSs3MrURuEk17w2QB0Oyt487DrmftzFo3vzvCrrl42au9JV69Y14/0W3z5piYM DIGpd/KNSL2m6xvzoJHoi+o5lTl9GiP6KQKlJiIUtn2cz8Ro6CiwXkhD0FmG8sP7 4wqg+vnpcTdhrzsWuAPrpGej+GT1LlWOLERnyPOfVhQ8EUPanwgUbGo1uTfHB2mj T2CdCCZhcmJFurvz+7FVI1WaVgGR/rdZbu4ueC+0YNZEOICXE0pIJEw8rKWJbqe3 lKchgpR6jR3TKHHwNFDIZj049TBiEGxMXsdEaGlLOHdnr4ZlIDgfycumhYVTNJUi IDHRifjFUchCynluOhZi =3akD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but not… Jonas Wielicki
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Hugo Landau
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jonas Wielicki
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Salz, Rich
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Peter Eckersley
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Ryan Pendleton
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Manger, James
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jonas Wielicki
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Salz, Rich
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Michael Wyraz
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jonas Wielicki
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Michael Wyraz
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jonas Wielicki
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jonas Wielicki
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jonas Wielicki
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Michael Wyraz
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: [Acme] Support for domains with redundant but… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews