IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: add-enterprise-split-dns and split horizon DNS

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 08 December 2021 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCEE3A09F8 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 07:17:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 ERVeaN3ZknHy for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 07:17:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55B0A3A09FD for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 07:17:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66DAF38AC1; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 10:20:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id FGlxGv_wr0OB; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 10:20:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E176E38ABB; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 10:20:52 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1638976852; bh=h5V7f5RfONW1wGsHm4UQhvvwJY+jKUahYJhUPSjldL8=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=o/8xvvyKqLKnCvCvw0fkWcy8PgHw50hIEpifJr017rFiK+aZCz/9GwUGVsy953TvS 0XU8wS5Or2PU8ng2pqKM1aG34FudTnR+Rmee8w86bgwLtwKn65NIcotqAH48Vs3vDI ox7qZ0MfgccL9f56GPt8k46dPCm+uebfe+CwNr8xXULe75dJBef9MCo8GEeIJM9cfv g4hE54nlCu57dxGX7W0u83P8bYtK+KS4qzzRzKth/Th1uB187Wu9xE1vx+7WkvINeb Ile2w/nDG2TbwhEvnk9iZgH5l9nGSyOif9ZiSWpowxs8dUBc7Hr3x7LjPPRqhRvW8m J5rgsXmCTU+2g==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743551FB; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 10:17:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E03627E3-6BF3-424A-811D-063FED5AEDC5@hopcount.ca>
References: <11411.1638970287@localhost> <E03627E3-6BF3-424A-811D-063FED5AEDC5@hopcount.ca>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 10:17:08 -0500
Message-ID: <6088.1638976628@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/F0wvikTjnFcOrGEw-Mq_8b_Q4Fc>
Subject: Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: add-enterprise-split-dns and split horizon DNS
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:17:20 -0000

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
    > I point these things out just to illustrate that there are many ways to
    > peel the covering fabric from these multiple rhetorical animals. Clear
    > communication around these issues really needs some work towards a
    > usefully-complete taxonomy. Without a clear description of the
    > deployment scenarios to be covered it's really premature to claim any
    > particular solution is complete.

+100.

    >> {IPv6 makes this trivial, but it can also be done with less elegance using
    >> RFC1918, if the enterprise has no public IPv4 and can't hire any. }

    > The address family used to reach particular nameservers implicated in
    > the above seems like the most superficial of details to me.

Some people get their panties in a knot if a NS resolves to an RFC1918
address.   (And in the absence of DNSSEC, I probably agree)
There are a number of nicer alternatives though.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email