IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] draft-reddy-add-enterprise-split-dns, was Re: ADD Calls for WF Adoption

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 19 October 2021 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.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 838D43A116A for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.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 vYa7n5q35cXl for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 734033A1168 for <add@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HYHFF3lBPzKS2; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 04:07:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1634609249; bh=ZzDj4dfrrCPaeulWSDlVZIgHGm3GwHcPmzMRDl2/dSg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=dazSw/5t2gCEui2C4/xgGnQDTWRrF5yNX0W+W5bgjK/47zBUaX5RubIY5rRfRRAIn neUNzx+jVg30DGKtrZirD65SmT2PRMWgT4p4AEu5YtyatgS3O/zW8Z1R43vKwjcmVI r9nNN/1vTWyxmqMKybpjcMO8+5eO4yEeDiZb1HXo=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bKnLtR9LtqD0; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 04:07:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 04:07:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A07EB128029; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:07:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCF7128028; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:07:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:07:27 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFpG3gdSv=hm9kphwUvFi9LoZFwdDLW2J7cgqUKz3_yQjFHdPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c55266b3-5924-55dc-45bb-1d5eee3319ea@nohats.ca>
References: <2B5040C6-5A70-4DE6-ADF1-056D5CB0B524@comcast.com> <338d8ed-6712-227b-e4d-6e4d603be5c4@nohats.ca> <CAFpG3gduOGypj7RLddy-nneM53ZGXsK1mSJ8iHhx_sRXYxRF=A@mail.gmail.com> <27519.1634425871@localhost> <CAFpG3gdSv=hm9kphwUvFi9LoZFwdDLW2J7cgqUKz3_yQjFHdPQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/pBStA8Oi3mwNaECaLiPOmlIif4I>
Subject: Re: [Add] draft-reddy-add-enterprise-split-dns, was Re: ADD Calls for WF Adoption
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: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 02:08:05 -0000

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, tirumal reddy wrote:

> The complexity comes from the fact that endpoints do not use network-designated resolvers for various reasons and the endpoints are unable
> to or properly resolve split-horizon DNS domains.

One could also reverse this. The complexity comes from networks wanting
to take over a list of domains without a clear mandate of the endpoints
via proper provisioning or authorization.

It is the same argument we had at the BOF and at charter writing.

Paul
ps. and for reaching local resources, we do already have mDNS, which
does not require running a split DNS world view.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email