IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: add-enterprise-split-dns and split horizon DNS

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 08 December 2021 16:48 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 393943A0483 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 08:48:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ElXPc3iG1kJc for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 08:48:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 B7B7C3A0486 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 08:48:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4J8NQS2b9Xz3Cg; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:48:16 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1638982096; bh=Mb1XtkYco2RgQcC7AEeS9fZ67QuvxQFKa/ZYKMwEGvk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=OhEHENqq09AQrjmvcW0iePBJzOLECYYA2G19l97XIYxbp37QuiiIoe+tHLD/yzgXN qtr7vwQ+amG80RSwrzKmqZJNMdwiitqJYQq4eA4gFLR2KcOdJ5MsdYGToImNj7IC6e bCoc9FsTRAk3hnJ6j21h/UAcJaK84wSmfkovw3bM=
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 CU5LPXd6SUJZ; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:48:15 +0100 (CET)
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; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:48:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BD2D3185C5F; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:48:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9550185C5E; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:48:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 11:48:13 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Dan Wing <danwing@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>, "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <Glenn.Deen@nbcuni.com>
In-Reply-To: <5320E6D1-7A19-457A-AD44-86B9AD849407@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6ef2f9f3-1d3-b41a-b1c0-5822f54ba2a6@nohats.ca>
References: <152347.1638473207@dooku> <CABcZeBMyZLSE2HZ2dL+P6Dq3hMaG2QgTRrUuAjHTB7pJpXTaMQ@mail.gmail.com> <8AF4482A-A656-4999-8127-39D94FC914AF@gmail.com> <C27FDD98-D80D-4DB8-83D7-3B1BB686F509@nbcuni.com> <16475.1638571910@localhost> <5320E6D1-7A19-457A-AD44-86B9AD849407@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/pVy9tmktoU8sEIRLLzBVCTJAOLo>
Subject: Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: add-enterprise-split-dns and split horizon DNS
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: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:48:26 -0000

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021, Dan Wing wrote:

> What is the desired behavior if a DNS server advertises "I own google.com, send queries to me" or "I own piratebay dot whatever-this-week".

This has been the unanswered question from the first BoF, through
charter discussion, through draft discussion.

>> I claim that it isn't: that DNSSEC provides for corp.example.com delegations
>> that satisfy all of the issues that multiple-views claims to solve.
>
> I don't understand what is meant by "corp.example.com delegations".

Usually it is shorthand for "private view only delegations", but I also
do not understand that in relation to the DNSSEC provision.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email