IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 25 October 2010 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152B83A67B7; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.293
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.305, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tlQ8k3meQLGK; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5ED33A67AF; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1PACwO-000H8U-1H for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:37:40 +0000
Received: from mail-gx0-f180.google.com ([209.85.161.180]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1PACwK-000H8C-Sz for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:37:37 +0000
Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so1526900gxk.11 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Zmyw7j/2K55OcbSJlED7HdYx6Xz3yrJ0ySTOwCFmEHM=; b=MLmvOItr4RM4T3VY8kxByDqywoj75J3S1JXQvRPaWKSIZK1NNuq9VLWVay6DR4cBNm L28egOkFWFRExu5CG4w56KER3wj3o/cjtRUvHuXpTEDnZNtbDxQsieBARtLS3JruhIhk aSxI65Uvu//YEYzSDWAmy+k4XCg3Grjd0UWtg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=LSLsn1Dj4s0S22J+IvjQbLDOqM5XY5ZwHnpzIzEzVFpX5sFDTHk7FqPEQV8Gy5mXG6 3MzM7Ibxj4B+DzNru2z6EBQ7fbdewgASy2KTBD6bALUNIK/t/Wyn9jDQ1Iy0dMJqgBje JAdIfrq7bSgd6+5QZGJiS5ZzsP6Uo2bLMIx6A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.245.38 with SMTP id s38mr4970034anh.144.1287974254883; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.41.14 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C8EA875A.83BA%roy@nominet.org.uk>
References: <59023.1287939121@nsa.vix.com> <C8EA875A.83BA%roy@nominet.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:37:34 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTik4L+Sz+8p8-KQbsfnZPfvT13fz7y4NFtOq16xw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Roy Arends <roy@nominet.org.uk>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e68dec97f1321b049367df0a"
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

Only if the ISP concerned does not redirect all DNS traffic to their own
resolver.

That is not necessarily done for evil purposes either. A lot of ISPs are
doing that to try to reduce the scope for bots on their network performing
DDoS attacks on the DNS.


On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Roy Arends <roy@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

> On 10/24/10 6:52 PM, "Paul Vixie" <vixie@isc.org> wrote:
>
> > i'm thinking we need a flag bit in edns to allow a client to opt out of
> > things like "web error redirection" (dns ad insertion).  the semantics
> > of it would just be, if server policy allows "clear path" dns for this
> > query, then the server is requested to provide same.
> >
> > if server policy does not allow, for example if dns ad insertion isn't
> > optional or if the non-clear-path dns is for security reasons (blocking
> > malware C&C names), then "clear path" dns would not be provided.
> >
> > so this would be opt-out rather than opt-in, to make it noncontroversial.
> > (those of us who previously wanted opt-in have learned that opt-in is
> > considered controversial by the companies already doing dns ad insertion
> > or similar non-clear-path dns.)
> >
> > opin?  i can write a short i-d on it before beijing.
>
> The end-game will be applications doing their own resolving. Real control.
> No third party dependencies. No favors to ask.
>
> Roy
>
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email