Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration

At 07:09 AM 8/5/2002 +0200, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > >How does this relate to
> > >         RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root.
> >
> > Erik, how exactly does a non standard DNS port violate the unique root ?
>
>I asked that question with the hope the proponents would think about
>it carefully. Seems like that failed :-)

My understanding is that the namespace supported by a DNS server and the 
port the DNS protocol run on are orthogonal.

>It seems to me that the DNS as we know it operates on a well-know
>port. Being able to run something using the DNS protocol but
>a different port number sounds like being able to run
>a different naming system with potentially a different root.
>
> > Security is not Cablelab's primary argument here (recall it was #3 in the
> > previous email).  The primary argument is to provide flexibility to our
> > customers.
>
>But ignoring the testing argument (which is an argument
>for an experimental RFC and not a standard IMHO)
>the remaining arguments are:
> >2. Some MSO's may decide to deploy DNS on non standard ports.  Its a
> >flexibility issue.
> >3. Not using a standard port makes it slightly less prone to attack by
> >script kiddies.
>
>#2 doesn't state why folks see this need. One possibility is
>definitely walled gardens and in general using a different DNS
>tree than the rest of us. I've yet to see any other concrete reason
>for this (and I don't buy flexibility for its own sake).
>
>And #3 is just security through obscurity which we IMHO have no
>business promoting in our standards.
>
>   Erik

--

Paul Duffy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
paduffy@cisco.com

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