IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Root server tar pitting? Is there a better way?

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Mon, 16 May 2016 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.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 86B5512DAE6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 15:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 opOqNKLtWyAM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C12E012DAED for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2016 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id z184so77661384vkg.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2016 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=ajiEid5DSgeEqPfsqWC62QxaJaie7CGidjVcJCyWdP0=; b=M/oxtddX4n4Q0kwRAqZ6hVoGwMDvPVX2eRPvssIP9ak0AKJYmLnC1YZv/eE2ICsY+t vFg5q/idMq6etFf/wtKLq8OMQqzMIJWmKsREBT+dg9f3OxpVpZND/AUIfnRb0rrEJncz XbE0DxSOEa7hQyAp5ygERHvPDFEYknrQKjO+LTv+Yj9z8IEzmqv5pzG80mbugloOqnmX Gv7ipepE20nqnLb7+EhzJLUNUDXrNqaVReUFTNDqfnPenesZE7ojfHARxzWONjyLhvjx Fv+wSdVva6DBf7vA+y1rURxF0p/Cp0GVkG8C8S4PqJ2QST/KywF3At8S4IsTac07Du+u QujQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ajiEid5DSgeEqPfsqWC62QxaJaie7CGidjVcJCyWdP0=; b=ZPE3p9AZkza29uBw7D2DUuwSMn4BhfMT7+PIs7WuOXFcYdEFYYFAK6m90mn7YXMAaJ Gc0ZFWibOG2vIH2hOWHLKqXuLuj/j6iT/cdaFVALPVNTV4eQDKrBovuHReBhqwDxlXzS 8r12rVNk3GoY2WhKsSIkstgh09lVKXJ5dKM9iwtJJUOq8VzGIrWd3/Zpsb1vhTBUH4P5 8rmP00uC5y6HAKIwCraY589tzYhtGs0nHfJZp+aptS0rEAl/qSrc1ycNV8waxwsikNe8 vFRcea/UU91mi32TkUHGRE7KtrYxb8wOXz66bFdskKnwtsXI0h4lTAQE2DArLbfglaSX FhTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVoLuybP9rbvxBsSicNZn3jdYF3l8RVz5ZkJs91UWbcfmXPsD3ZL+YCDar97gaegHfks7zjeJFZj/7j5w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.159.55.142 with SMTP id q14mr7279091uaq.109.1463438110849; Mon, 16 May 2016 15:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.176.1.176 with HTTP; Mon, 16 May 2016 15:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160516214507.GA28128@server.ds9a.nl>
References: <44FFEAA9-7579-47E9-A5AF-5C0E1B720634@opendns.com> <29A70833-47CA-4371-8150-9C7AB16A0877@verisign.com> <20160516214507.GA28128@server.ds9a.nl>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:35:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdVjCWMu-r+MqwzFxyObTHscPv0qk9ufOT_jHxML87J5Cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c041276bf84810532fd3c0e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/HEnYTgPvqGnmNywKnVvdFaWrkqo>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>, Brian Somers <bsomers@opendns.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Root server tar pitting? Is there a better way?
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, 16 May 2016 22:35:13 -0000

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:45 PM, bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>
wrote:

> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 09:34:17PM +0000, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > I think what you're suggesting has already been proposed.  See
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/
> and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-cheese-shop/
>
> It is in fact something you can do today. Some of the largest PowerDNS
> Recursor sites in the world run with 'root-nx-trust' enabled:
>
> "If set, an NXDOMAIN from the root-servers will serve as a blanket NXDOMAIN
> for the entire TLD the query belonged to. The effect of this is far fewer
> queries to the root-servers."
>
> This after f-root had enabled RRL slightly too aggressively on some nodes.
>
> We just tested this setting against the "owned Ubiquity" attack and after a
> thousand queries or so traffic to the roots dropped off to almost zero.
>
>         Bert
>

Bert,

PowerDNS's root-nx-trust is I believe an implementation of what is described
in nxdomain-cut:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-03

rather than the nsec-aggressive-use or cheese-shop drafts - those are about
inferring NXDOMAIN from NSEC/NSEC3 spans.

Shumon.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email