Re: [dns-privacy] [homenet] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12

Hi Ted, thanks for the comment.

I agree.

Plus one more point.

The ISP hosts the reverse zone.
The ISP also controls any reverse zone to customer assignments, and is 
in control of any renumbering.
The ISP may therefore choose to simply wipe any reverse zone content 
after renumbering occurs.
That would mitigate any re-use or privacy concerns.

Otherwise the HNA may no longer have authority over the content after a 
flash renumbering (e.g. if the ISP is simply authenticating customers 
based on source address of the updates)

regards,

Ted Lemon wrote on 05/05/2021 18:42:
> On May 5, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 
> <mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>> wrote:
>> The end user might suffer slightly by having locally served
>> reverse names that are no longer connected: they should obsolete that 
>> zone
>> when they realize that their PD hasn't been renewed, until such time,
>> (if it was a flash renumber), they would be right to think that they
>> legitimately control them.
>
> In practice I don’t think this is an issue. The reverse lookup is 
> usually triggered by receipt of a message from an IP address, so as 
> long as the IP address is still in use internally, the presence of the 
> reverse zone is wanted. When the address changes, the old zone becomes 
> obsolete whether it continues to be served or not. The likelihood of 
> the zone being re-allocated to some other network for which the 
> original network will then do a reverse lookup is very small, so I 
> don’t think there’s any reason to be concerned about this.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

-- 
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>