Re: [Add] [Ext] Draft Posting: CNAME Discovery of Local DoH Resolvers

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, 1 July 2020 05:59:51 UTC Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2020, at 1:34 AM, Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > as i wrote, there are other network configuration parameters which are
> > also valuable targets, such as outbound proxy settings.
> 
> Who configures those with DHCP? That would be insane.

my IoT devices hate me, because i won't let them speak directly to their 
motherships, and lacking keyboards or ssh listeners, i have no way to tell 
them what proxy they would have to use to be successful. if you want me to 
agree that IoT is insane, i probably will. but it's our world.

> It sounds like a validating stub resolver will fail to work with your
> product.

well, yes and no. i want certain resolutions to fail. these fail. exactly how 
that failure is obtained matters less to me than the failure itself.

> > i think i should have paid more attention at that time, and i apologize.
> > DHCP was always the wrong thing to build, like BOOTP before it, and IPv6
> > address assignment after it. secure hosting networks have to use /30 and
> > later /31 netmasks (one customer per vlan) in order to trust any of this.
> 
> I don’t know what a “secure hosting network” is. Is that an IETF thing?

definitely not an IETF thing. rather, it's the real world.

-- 
Paul