Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems

Tim Wicinski <> Fri, 09 November 2018 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6FB12D4F2 for <>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:09:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rh5f9QBRM72R for <>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9935124D68 for <>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y16so828470qki.7 for <>; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 03:09:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=976l3uKRUv/BEEF9fPdYcS5FsRz+6tfxe9tFjU4/9YU=; b=vZoPrhmSCV/EGhk7k8CwnjY656c0UPrr0K2ipK0kKreL4uBozPlnV8GxxoCggk7IKy nc9afOtIozbLJHLdkkSer/+1zL7DQaqNO2WzGbQnQwph/Eey5fV1QEAukTusQqjjl2je uhKoOvH/yFlNl4xDIGJLEaOYQGu31MeE0sa2XuLdG2mGKyIDx7vlzLMGJgAdJRt2DwOi 1FTGqzI52Yk7Wf5rDuGYedF5vYn/Um/XdkUWRkFqgb4Z+ryjLGiqIuv1A4vSPabcvAON Jj0KlltmGR9UBQU/0akLBumlPIW72+Pho6HINBQ4LanX9AjbgaCozGcLqqvpKdgD9voE baaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=976l3uKRUv/BEEF9fPdYcS5FsRz+6tfxe9tFjU4/9YU=; b=MGGVY5nwKVToYAlXV7gr/jOAMotVh4ud2DAGJ7nwEp5Z8hiAEVbBZgB1HiQA6JrtIZ Uqv9z0EyVHJL9b9a6VjDL7C5uc9XKtG0re8+Zf+Fct/sl9UwJuB2Ng8qavgUZas+5A+c MB7/tXfpKeTyk9HtNHdovqrNFRsBHSxs1x8OM0JqmFuA6njh9i3cb+u0UXwXhno6alh+ yw7ZIVuitd2tVtMBwRT0Gev0uVKtKPfbLdIfdamkfjsmsZMwDboxmLC9d45MQ2Eo0Kmb fLPM81KO8sE36bL3x7Er5Y5E8dUfg5FdOPjCLVR+gnVvis8ess3gduO2uym+m1cnNTJ3 D9tQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJelwrynufeKNQn7lYXrucLe4FdnFBS21WKYQhx80Pen4o1r6ll t5xiyXc+9tlOMsQmxJQ9lKd6cNcg
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fpDJ10uXghXtgeaJ+veHNl6GwFG1R6MOfUSdnKY2P6XJwrf6boWAPgQgIZK+HUhDVzsOt1Xw==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:d643:: with SMTP id t64mr7699267qki.201.1541761758574; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 03:09:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m14sm3024449qka.21.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Nov 2018 03:09:17 -0800 (PST)
To: Matthijs Mekking <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Tim Wicinski <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 06:09:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 11:09:21 -0000

On 11/9/18 05:03, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> It seems that everyone thinks that the latest ANAME draft requires DNS 
> UPDATE. This is just a use case that Tony provides and would help him 
> in his daily operations. However, it is not required to do so: ANAME 
> resolution can also happen by updating the zone file before loading it 
> into the primary server. Or it may happen in the authority server if 
> people desire to implement it there.
> I think the draft should be updated to make that absolutely clear. The 
> draft should standardize how ANAME resolution is done, and what it 
> means to have ANAME and sibling address records in the zone for 
> address rtype (A, AAAA, ...) and ANAME query lookup.


>> Second, and relatedly, I think the TTLs of replacement records 
>> established for non-transfer responses are too high. Respecting the 
>> TTL of every record in a chain that starts with the ANAME requires 
>> the TTL of final replacement records to be no higher than the minimum 
>> TTL encountered over the chain, potentially /reduced/ 
>> nondeterministically to mitigate query bunching. I would therefore 
>> add language encouraging resolvers synthesizing those records to 
>> engage in best-effort determination of original TTLs by (e.g., by 
>> directly querying authoritative servers and refreshing at 50% 
>> remaining), but *requiring* them to decrement TTLs of records for 
>> which they are not authoritative.
> I agree, the TTL language in this document is not ready and needs more 
> discussion.

If folks have some suggested text, please should send it along.

>> And finally, back on the question of what ANAME sibling address 
>> records actually represent, I think that NXDOMAIN and NODATA results 
>> should be treated as errors for the purposes of ANAME sibling 
>> replacement. This position can be justified on both practical and 
>> principled grounds—replacing functional records with an empty RRSet 
>> is undesirable for DNS users (or at least the sample of them that are 
>> Oracle+Dyn customers), and could inappropriately stretch the maximum 
>> specified ANAME sibling TTL (on the ANAME record itself) to the SOA 
>> MINIMUM value (which is doubly bad, because it results in extended 
>> caching of the /least/ valuable state). And adding insult to injury, 
>> resolvers in general will not even have the SOA, and will need to 
>> perform more lookups in order to issue a proper negative response of 
>> their own. Let's please just eliminate all of that by specifying that 
>> ANAME processing can never replace something with nothing.
> +1

"ANAME processing can never replace something with nothing"  should also 
be mentioned in the document.

Mr Gibson also mentioned this:
>> P.P.S. I think it has been discussed before, but this document should 
>> also introduce and use a new "Address RTYPE" registry or subregistry, 
>> rather than forever constraining ANAME exclusively to A and AAAA.

I think that should be discussed.

thanks Matthijs,