IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 10 February 2022 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E2D3A08C3 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 06:07:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 VhJDsUstT7sk for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 06:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 623EC3A0A1C for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 06:07:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343345C00DC for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:07:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:07:49 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; bh=vm4/MmCWcz7FCxCecyzU8gbm13G4tqBSkMFYbm6D2XU=; b=YVnfyAkN tQJUe5cLyDrxLFaqV0xNbcVQHjihT1fUYlWiwJgsEnAtzK9NhDKvbw4emevOh49l 3uXY0wlAb06P3KP4bWqW9xUXnAJAuLUFbpMROjQq10xnkPABM7r51z8lIkEvtIR8 Mxu0Zbxg1fZFLjxFWh/G5Gyth/77i2WUFwKuuOxn/lFv/ExlV++yobQxTD83M3HQ HqVHBmMGy3Z/YebbXXV9BtYq7Oy2Dq26G7rMRkLYifhD+tO7E0qGfF0jwi/dFHfN 7gbC7BKiAmDl9aHsyfaGcPVAthV9ReSGYyx2gmLDbdWLxNNyMyp8pz31TpUEW+DI 6/V0bI8HzKueRA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:NBwFYuBqIUbjZ_PtrJuPRIo4cnyyMXcUmwXQvFMw0ToOKlY9JbGmQA> <xme:NBwFYojdtfCmsT-vvgfwMt4VchauvovyHsEB6Ad4XhmET7IyeTsrRQPy4roQjZZ6d wEjVKucys1_OA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:NBwFYhnbNwPji6ruWTbBdQStdHceK_itCv0WJ33HfWtP-CD35HSlGinsdoUIpu9qucrezqPNim-O2H9U1WTXAuvPflp5ORnvKP2TQMUuTFRXSo59fDfoVA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddriedugdehlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvfhfhjggtgfesthejre dttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfeikefguedvgf ehteettddvieevgedvuddvfeeufeeifedujeefuddvheduieeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfu ihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkh dqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:NRwFYswrkHuC-s0RARIPNTXii0QN7-3UYsaXrrqEv_ElsJ_hEJal8A> <xmx:NRwFYjSyD6gVkAWW_iAutlXH3O0dVwAYJ9aip8umDhLEXoyQVPDzJA> <xmx:NRwFYnY0oIlbn6tgwWSqJwAy_nK6IvJB5aRFj2PEqenOKP-UCpXq4A> <xmx:NRwFYqdRYOqtC5v06NKGeYBtbhWX8VLdZn6GjCcfOqotx_qGf38w1Q>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:07:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <906b94df-cd2f-dd4a-b38c-bc37f997c218@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:07:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: behave@ietf.org
References: <45e423cc-4095-cca2-bf8c-aa15e977b19c@posteo.de> <ff858dee-a21a-a50d-72a5-da7915ac2de4@network-heretics.com> <71b5cdb0-78af-0f77-debc-84e178fe5e3a@posteo.de> <7a008cc2-e8a3-f91d-c782-96866c36a9db@network-heretics.com> <ee760818-a3c4-3755-6bdf-afcec6fcaaad@posteo.de> <B7DFC369-E7B7-4171-9C85-F75986B5AEF6@gmail.com> <6123a322-e9a7-7f90-391f-9b4c4461ce45@network-heretics.com> <e95993e4-4166-4b3d-1637-8ca451b093b6@huitema.net> <7b7cf541-3387-6d0b-0fbe-273a08fd37ed@posteo.de> <0d18c171-f713-4590-d9a6-3c5729a3384c@huitema.net> <a4dbfa8c-abb4-e4e7-e53c-d7f54a2e5bf9@posteo.de> <50b919ba-22e5-cfd0-5e44-b905d42c50b7@it.uc3m.es> <8c10d7d6-ad60-2373-c809-1b75b8d1448c@huitema.net> <0f31d5ce-fae5-1673-3b9b-15341c8b052e@it.uc3m.es> <c38f50da-8a0f-c15e-2938-1d33c3620e50@huitema.net> <4b4ef08b-e08f-6e12-d884-211b0c74d9c7@it.uc3m.es>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <4b4ef08b-e08f-6e12-d884-211b0c74d9c7@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/qx5XONPVDX06nE_U-hj6hjmZps4>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:07:59 -0000

On 2/10/22 02:38, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

>
> I would assume that the external resolver provider makes public which 
> resolver instances implement DNS64 and which do not and the clients 
> select accordingly?
That sounds like a disaster, because the information about which 
resolver instances implement which hacks, inevitably gets separated from 
the resolver interface info.
>
> I guess another alternative would be for the resolver to do dns64 for 
> cusotmers connecting through IPv6 and obtain replies that return only 
> A RR, but this sounds like a bad idea to me.... 

It sounds like a Bad Idea to me also.

(How long until we realize that trying to make DNS reflect a NATted 
world - trying to make DNS servers tell lies that are consistent with 
the lies that NATs tell - is inherently a Bad Idea?)

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email