Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration

> Couldn't this also be a reasonable operational feature?  The use of DNS in 
> PacketCable (as specified by these sub-options) is quite restricted.  Using 
> non-standard ports may, for example, allow deployment of a specific DNS 
> server for PacketCable on the same device as a general nameserver.  Or it 
> might just allow extra confidence that the queried server is, in fact, not a 
> general purpose Internet DNS server, but a PacketCable specific one.

How does this relate to 
	RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root.

I could be wrong bit it seems like folks might be trying to build w
alled gardens using this "dns on a different port number" as a tool.

I think we in the IETF should focus on designing the right protocols
for the Internet and not encourage walled gardens. So why should we add
additional complexity for this DNS port number thing?

I haven't seen an argument that is convincing to me.
(And FWIW, the "security through obscurity" argument about using non-standard
port numbers is actually a reason to not allow a mechanism for alternate
port numbers; we need to get folks to think about real security.)

> If CableLabs participants (including operators) have felt the desire to 
> deploy these DNS servers on non-standard ports, why shouldn't they be able 
> to do that?  Why shouldn't the DHCP configuration info which is specific to 
> PakcetCable (or similar CableLabs standards) support that?

I thought we were talking about an Internet standard, and not
a CableLabs standard.  

  Erik

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg