Re: [Add] My principles for discovery

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 26 March 2020 20:49 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 247AD3A0EA4 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AX9s8erwP_vx for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F8853A0E23 for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AC538981 for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:48:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BE6D03 for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:49:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: add@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <93585501.473.1585121577118@appsuite-dev-gw1.open-xchange.com>
References: <aec5404a-99eb-4aa7-9020-1e7b4f51b5ca@www.fastmail.com> <93585501.473.1585121577118@appsuite-dev-gw1.open-xchange.com>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/HOE4Qd-SAaRxtYjcxdh36CdAbr8>
Subject: Re: [Add] My principles for discovery
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:49:59 -0000

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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.

+1.
Linking against libunbound is already a thing.  You get DNSSEC too.
We used centralized resolvers because of too little ram, and to enable
caching.

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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-