IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] ip6.arpa reverse delegation

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 24 November 2014 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9ED1A6FB4; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:34:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ZkGHFi3VljnJ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 828781A6FB0; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF562DA02CF; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:34:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30DA53E078; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:34:13 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <3351A0A8-F7DE-40ED-8EA5-06393764D250@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:34:07 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <0D5650EF-559F-4652-BAEA-5B4E9BE7E046@nominum.com>
References: <29673.1416777252@sandelman.ca> <3351A0A8-F7DE-40ED-8EA5-06393764D250@iki.fi>
To: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DJqO3XWJtTTMrCHARi4pzL6K6QM
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, homenet@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] ip6.arpa reverse delegation
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Nov 2014 15:34:47 -0000

On Nov 24, 2014, at 4:47 AM, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> wrote:
> Is this actually desired by the operators? At least here (.fi), ISPs seem to consider the reverse pointing to x.customer.y.isp.fi a feature, not a bug, of the current IPv4 deployment and specified same for future IPv6 deployments as well. (At the moment my ISP does not officially support IPv6, but do provide it via 6rd, and I get NXDOMAIN for reverses, but v4 is populated for more or less all ISPs.)

I have heard different things from different operators.   Some are skeptical, some definitely want this. So I think we have to just provide a way to do it, and let the operators (and their customers) decide whether they care to do it.

Populating the reverse tree with garbage records is a really bad thing to do IMHO, although you will hear voices on dnsop disagreeing with this perspective.   It's also pretty expensive, particularly if you do dnssec: there is no way to generate a static zone for that many IP addresses, so you have to fake up records in response to specific queries and then do on-the-fly signing.   Which to me sounds like a DoS attack in the making.

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status