IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] some background on split DNS with DNSSEC

tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com> Sat, 13 November 2021 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <kondtir@gmail.com>
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 69C373A0DB9 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 04:24:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Uiz9b6sNJS6D for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 04:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A9233A0DCE for <add@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 04:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id t11so24039251ljh.6 for <add@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 04:24:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6yVilb0VJoFzS8/B8AaNrHCKgKbLfNKRBY+3BTcxsWs=; b=dI52Xm9pVpqecOXLiSFrPRChzxwVW6x1Qk+yCKS3IwoBYyl4kfTO1lYBFtd9WzNp3a Qt9+qXd1YUXAxzaVCyhFeG/30GAb1HxR8zTaqmd1kZhb2ieVe/wsNFb7fBkuxZWJoTli lgpMeb0eEdHxZ9jFUlGcPRFsu7Nt7N9CYOd1lLdJTO8d7gDKA4ZfGoqCAqeRovO6lU48 R4izwyx7RRyNldNNXhf5RElykvyQja8cTDp51ig4VsyEbWy7ec5EpKHIDvO7ph1plAUh /fU5sWYlqbPiGOcTz68zJDZ7jqeToBuHJYv6wAL+lPWD/AswgIAFvE88K68R18i3cjIH px2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6yVilb0VJoFzS8/B8AaNrHCKgKbLfNKRBY+3BTcxsWs=; b=KoCUoQvPI6UeC40jb6smI9N4mEwufokNfUo9Km4fjxHl9qQilfwEzpSaQ8EBdSE00B 6+ZDvfuRr2xU9LBuqDlODNKvLyDzFMeKqbk3BYr45olGrTahHhbSS+ZtPF89hh4fS6OB SuLKPy5nxr/Nyx1t/BhU9vGEQ1BCTjs16pvPO7+oRjAct802igCcKcI0C43sVsRfqzmv zX+MVPsSWisWQHRHJyCTSvVim1LMmCNJvZhuwURvDiXLwd5rA5GhvHIA1+IveZwu3O1f MaJee9anA70Jsxqh28rfvJQWFqTNXB5R+VsXYEuD9JvxJgJnxcd8hUv0mCW4Lhi58hes B8ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530W3qYISiR/6FofbWtHxnAbHFYgOzAGFyON5m6DtH6wrS3hM3G6 vjRw2fXawIyYZ1oVK58SBXpLdauPuoe8usXEi0neJABY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyW2Ca1YMBu5HYBES0fz8cnMUsf71lTD1Mu8dilplK3HW8ZV+T52V5LMUf6P8dgyulUIEyEPT4lACs3NvOImQg=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9915:: with SMTP id v21mr22949128lji.155.1636806292054; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 04:24:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DD51ECDC-9787-4DEB-A2AF-39C3CF2ABEE8@nbcuni.com> <A3966F94-86DA-436A-903F-94724D3B5833@gmail.com> <CAHbrMsCdEhgeJOZd9JNqT3DMgQyoFEhhDBD3CbPDSy8Z8wkngg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFpG3gec8YH3Lh_BTgs2HO0H=Tsbs1vgGzc2j-og3dPxVd9wYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsBGuDVyq_ro0zuJ+6gUne=Dd_p4uTgJFjvA9du_dTA-cA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFpG3ge+ZO-7-fMy_o_jujAvrPAqNJCcWkEfxKscoOYvs=L-Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsAB+7HrNMWPL2sCtcmg2PXvKPs1SLheMfaRFDcm1UbwPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsAB+7HrNMWPL2sCtcmg2PXvKPs1SLheMfaRFDcm1UbwPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 17:54:40 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFpG3ge8EuPKQLov6aJYN2-81CVAJV8EWNBTho+pBEaA_+_qyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Cc: Dan Wing <danwing@gmail.com>, "add@ietf org" <add@ietf.org>, "Deen, Glenn" <Glenn_Deen@comcast.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009aa58505d0aaa904"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/PpLfnFPupB0Qk0DoQ8g3fKcmH80>
Subject: Re: [Add] some background on split DNS with DNSSEC
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: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:24:58 -0000

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 21:08, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 2:38 AM tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 17:39, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>> * Perform full iterative resolution for this NS query, requiring DNSSEC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please clarify the need for the above two mechanisms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The first is effectively "delegated DNSSEC validation".  This is useful
>>> for a client whose threat model includes network attackers on the public
>>> internet, if it doesn't want to implement full DNSSEC validation locally.
>>>
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The second is a valid client behavior.  It will work, and under our
>>> charter we can't rule it out.  It also might work better in practice than
>>> DNSSEC-via-network-resolver because stub-side DNSSEC validation is
>>> nontrivial due to the need for chain walking.
>>>
>>
>> I don't get how iterative resolution is better for the stub resolver than
>> the typical recursive mode.
>>
>
> There have occasionally been suggestions in this working group that
> clients might want to run full resolvers locally for privacy reasons.
> However, I was specifically referring to the problem of resolving full
> DNSSEC chains as a stub.  Resolvers do not ordinarily provide the full
> chain to the stub (absent RFC 7901), so validation requires the stub to
> walk "up" the chain, querying for DNSKEY and DS records.  This is not easy
> to do correctly and is not available in most stub resolver
> implementations.  It may be simpler for the client to walk "down" the chain
> using a standard iterative resolver implementation.
>

Got it, Thanks for the clarification.

-Tiru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email