IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Alternative signalling propsals

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 17 December 2018 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE576130F1B for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:37:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 o3nuBSQlaakc for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02DFC130F0E for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43JWdB73LVzKGq; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:37:18 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1545075438; bh=zHVDj5U+t/WGblFiy++ogkFI6PrUHQrTcGhgnpdkX0I=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=CmV896gJ91y8/rx5/k84L28Eb1rnTt8TlYIOll3bwj9ldzVVv4BUttkeMX2mK4zjQ 86aKDXTxe9KFPFso6it7xywCA8OLdeUzv6awl5PjpvUW8+pmvr6ykWm3ohdmKcl1Iu AMBUHLrXw7T3w1rqfayKfTC6bnuCXJMfZfV6JBPI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jldKJUD4z2EX; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:36:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:36:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 654384AA4D9; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:36:50 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 654384AA4D9
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD3340C9588; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:36:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:36:50 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Wes Hardaker <wes@hardakers.net>
cc: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <yblwoo8vxlk.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812171434580.5262@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <74C380A3-C69F-4340-A723-B134F052953E@akamai.com> <yblwoo8vxlk.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/TKVlZQ0aFDHg2dqOVrJrAenxItU>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Alternative signalling propsals
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:37:29 -0000

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> cons:
> - not everyone controls their reverse zone easily, especially for those
>  that don't hold at least a /24 allocation. Ironically, I fall into
>  this camp but still think this is a better solution than a name-based one.
> - requires more lookups

Your ISP should support Classless Delegations, RFC 2317

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2317

I have deployed this successfully.

> - requires the reverse tree for that address be fully signed

That might be tricker, if your upstream ISP does not believe in DNSSEC
signing.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email