Re: [DNSOP] Mitigation of name collisions

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 03 October 2016 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7F0129432 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=ny+gNXil; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=nWFMB1PJ
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 VBVyx5-fKOhz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAD221293EE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21796 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2016 23:24:12 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5523.57f2e89c.k1610; bh=3DPIc2L4dOEWcRY8Iy6ebau67QQ3xQcHSaXtnldn9dg=; b=ny+gNXiliO3Cc49MREvYj22llg1E1f+CeRjEXPiQwFLcO8nq2uCkbBFwsiiBwaHU7gmie7l4Dydf7zhpu+0XIvYnw11uBcQyBhIiCQqibpITWYizV5KZXgQDkaflJx04vNY44q/Rg+59ege+if8lTyJwnlnpbFm2ijK0R2B6SadmRGUToZbrzst4EWXb0AbyV6frPNaIMz7P1lZ17EOkfusoz4DnNldaWKr2rCxg6I03UOZfnCNUqg9Pof4jZAPc
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5523.57f2e89c.k1610; bh=3DPIc2L4dOEWcRY8Iy6ebau67QQ3xQcHSaXtnldn9dg=; b=nWFMB1PJYrAmsHd36rSyCMukzg4+ov/n4hQUG7lEOK/22FjXFio2MWkE3678i7Yo2mhbQFTByS6UVob/qt7/fvGj3kTVOXqV9NzSVXaXfwGWHoRJ2Bj/49d2RKjHlCParCMDN85J87wn7ttymRbV7FO/tZHJxRmm0BCOh7uUFOMl8WFYcHDWVDC5Nw17f3bMJbF6UnCRCs4ByX2X5dXSgJVHmXUpDNRsZ2YDjLhrxsZWkubcccNex2abipWfQgrc
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 03 Oct 2016 23:24:12 -0000
Date: 3 Oct 2016 19:24:14 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610031921000.28732@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Warren Kumari" <warren@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i+NaU8RtC3sraO2ZwDKQSiYtmtFOYXPGV=5q0bwTdkOpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90CF5269-0443-45AB-83BA-BE9F9D03831A@vpnc.org> <CAHw9_i+NaU8RtC3sraO2ZwDKQSiYtmtFOYXPGV=5q0bwTdkOpA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/2LhdLzUDUy6VdVG_5uESVoNxFRg>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Mitigation of name collisions
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 23:24:18 -0000

>>> The wildcard 127.0.53.53 and such are clever, but none of the domains
>>> that have been delegated had significant collision issues to start
>>> with so it's hard to argue they've been effective.
>> ...

> ... and just for the record, much much more could have been determined
> (and users better warned / informed) if the address handed out was a
> server which displayed an error / links to more information[0],

Gee, I'd think you of all people would be aware that there's more to the 
Internet than the web.  A wildcard with a live IP in those domains would 
be a terrible idea for the same reason that *.com was.

> or if the name-servers serving the wildcard were required to collect and 
> publish information and statistics. This would have allowed analysis of 
> the effectiveness of the mitigations, etc.

That, on the other hand, would be a good idea.  Since all of the new TLDs 
use the same dozen back ends, I wonder if any of the back ends could be 
persuaded to release anonymized data.

R's,
John