IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Early port allocation request for dns-over-TLS

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 18 August 2015 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6841B3057 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Q4U0p2jY5n6S for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA6F51B3056 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F13CC1FCAD3; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:16:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDEC916004E; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6509160056; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id XakJSrTEmVEm; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c122-106-161-187.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.161.187]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FB4516004E; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566B635289C6; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:16:36 +1000 (EST)
To: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <CAHw9_iJ8QPyHqg2emJm4RfSnsiUcHFY7tGS3K9nL5HJYTyww_Q@mail.gmail.com> <55CA382A.9020707@isi.edu> <CAHw9_iJEHztVOdsLZz6Xtmk-UK+CTdrrJFnk3Ojh1-9-+0dD7Q@mail.gmail.com> <ACC0BEF3-BF37-47CB-8188-37EE2AD1E5F4@verisign.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:03:33 +0000." <ACC0BEF3-BF37-47CB-8188-37EE2AD1E5F4@verisign.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:16:36 +1000
Message-Id: <20150818011636.566B635289C6@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/rqyWQ8yzJB8AN3qKscG298EiiOU>
Cc: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Early port allocation request for dns-over-TLS
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:16:45 -0000

In message <ACC0BEF3-BF37-47CB-8188-37EE2AD1E5F4@verisign.com>, "Wessels, Duane
" writes:
> > On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:42 AM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Warren,
> >>
> >> It might be useful to summarize on this list the rationale for this
> >> allocation and the plan for its use.
> >>
> >> In particular:
> >>
> >>        - why port 53 is not sufficient using STARTTLS
> >>
> >
> > - The WG decided that using a new port instead of a STARTTLS or
> > octet-matching would better suite our operational goals.
> > We had significant discussions on this, and we have concerns about
> > things like middle boxes reacting to non-DNS on 53.
>
> Additionally:
>
> - A separate port avoids the 1xRTT incurred by STARTTLS negotiation.
>
> - DNS-over-DTLS can't use STARTTLS (at least not as currently described),
> although
> it does claim that it can run on port 53.  That relies on an unaware
> server
> mis-interpreting a DTLS ClientHello message as a DNS message with
> Opcode=15.  That,
> in turn, takes Opcode 15 off the table for future allocation, etc.
>
>
> DW

More correctly DTLS traffic is DNS reply traffic (QR=1) which is
why there is no response from DNS servers.  The traffic is processed
as a broken unexpected reply.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email