IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-dir] Help reviewing draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets for bad DNS advice?

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 09 July 2013 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9DE11E80FB for <dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wt+pWj89sVvq for <dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BD411E80E1 for <dns-dir@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUdwNrOLTgqSRL8z0yXRpeLZXg7v5JLaS@postini.com; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 06:18:38 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD36C1B8222 for <dns-dir@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CA53190052 for <dns-dir@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:18:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:18:36 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "dns-dir@ietf.org" <dns-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Help reviewing draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets for bad DNS advice?
Thread-Index: AQHOfKbQ9VqBkBf9F0SETyJ2n+Ya+A==
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:18:34 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775205E09@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <17E8FC11-7BDD-404C-98BA-B7CE073AD221@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <17E8FC11-7BDD-404C-98BA-B7CE073AD221@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1437989B1CD93C4D8801665B4412C28E@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Help reviewing draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets for bad DNS advice?
X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list <dns-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-dir>, <mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dns-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir>, <mailto:dns-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:18:45 -0000

On Jul 5, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
>   For this reason, networks attempting to prevent IPv6 traffic from
>   traversing their devices should consider configuring their local
>   recursive DNS servers to respond to queries for AAAA DNS records with
>   a DNS RCODE of 0 (NOERROR) [RFC1035] or to silently ignore such
>   queries, and should even consider filtering AAAA records at the
>   network ingress point to prevent the internal hosts from attempting
>   their own DNS resolution.  This will ensure that hosts which are on
>   an IPv4-only network will only receive DNS A records, and they will
>   be unlikely to attempt to use (likely broken) IPv6 connectivity to
>   reach their desired destinations.

So, nobody is going to object to the above text, aside from calling it "dumbass?"   I hear people complaining on dnsop all the time about middleboxes doing stuff like this; are we going to codify it in an RFC?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email