Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

Evan Hunt <> Fri, 07 April 2017 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E2112714F for <>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bSQjniZ--wgp for <>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2189912420B for <>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C85E53493E2; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 22:47:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10292) id BB630216C1E; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 22:47:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 22:47:16 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <>
To: Paul Wouters <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 22:47:52 -0000

Hi Paul,

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:16:14PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
>     When a recursive resolver sends a query of type A or AAAA and
>     receives a response with an ANAME RRset in the answer section, it
>     MUST re-query for the ANAME <target>.  This is necessary because, in
>     some cases, the address received will be dependent on network
>     topology and other considerations, and the resolver may find a
>     different answer than the authoritative server did.
> That opens up a whole can of worms :P We start with the problem of
> "we need addresses at the APEX be non-static, but then you add logic
> to support that and then it is not good enough for the job. AUTH servers
> already know how to return split view answers with various
> implementations based on geolocation, edns-subnet or what not.

The hope here is that, in the long run, ANAME resolution would be the job
of the resolver, which in in a position to get the best answer for its
clients, given geolocation and topology considerations.

Expansion of ANAME on the authoritative end is a workaround for the
fact that we can't go back in time and put ANAME support into all
the resolvers.

> But really, what it comes down to for me is that if you are adding logic
> to the AUTH nameservers to synthesize ANAME into A/AAAA records, why bother
> ever sending ANAME over the wire? Just let clients send A/AAAA and never
> ask for ANAME.

Resolvers don't ask for ANAME. They ask for A/AAAA, and get an A/AAAA
answer, along with an ANAME record so they can go directly to the source
and get a better answer if they support that.

Evan Hunt --
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.