Re: [Add] My principles for discovery

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 26 March 2020 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247AD3A0EA4 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AX9s8erwP_vx for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F8853A0E23 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AC538981 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:48:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BE6D03 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:49:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
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-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:49:39 -0400
Message-ID: <14244.1585255779@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Add] My principles for discovery
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:49:59 -0000

Vittorio Bertola <> wrote:
    > It seems to me that the model that especially draft-pauly is proposing
    > - i.e. every destination pointing the client to a resolver that the
    > destination controls - is functionally equivalent, in terms of who gets
    > to see which information, to eliminating the concept of an external
    > resolver and having the end-user device implement and run a full
    > resolver on its own.

Linking against libunbound is already a thing.  You get DNSSEC too.
We used centralized resolvers because of too little ram, and to enable

The issue that I see are:
  1) so-called "DNS" firewalls, which are imposed as a condition of internet.
     Determining how/if/when we trust them.

  2) IoT devices which have user, and which might really not have enough ram.

While there are split-horizon DNS issues that many organizations deploy
regularly, I think that they architectural concept is old, stale and broken.
IPv6 provides better mechanisms, and we should recommend them.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-