Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-00.txt

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 09 September 2019 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 6CA3B12080E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 UctOhLUTR7pn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (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 0057312080C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1i7MJ4-0000K6C; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:14:22 +0200
Message-Id: <m1i7MJ4-0000K6C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <156802477017.28268.17780089460480647573@ietfa.amsl.com> <86ff56cd-c936-0a81-b276-f4fd61635c7f@nlnetlabs.nl>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:13:01 +0200 ." <86ff56cd-c936-0a81-b276-f4fd61635c7f@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 18:14:22 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/K6nLqeT_cjMZH0IG3ULLH4Ul0AU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 09 Sep 2019 16:14:26 -0000

>When implementing DNS Cookies, several DNS vendors found that
>impractical as the Client Cookie is typically computed before the Client
>IP address is known. Therefore, the requirement to put Client IP address
>as input to was removed, 

In Section 4.4, the client IP is added to the hash in the creation of the
server cookie.

I wonder what happens if a client alternates between different IP addresses,
for example, the client has multiple interfaces, the client has multiple
IPv6 prefixes on a single interface or a CGNAT device regards different DNS
requests as independent UDP flows and assigns them to different parts of
a CGNAT system.

It is possible that in those cases, a server would force a client to
retry for every request.