Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal and DNAME

Brian Dickson <> Fri, 05 January 2018 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF886120227 for <>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:03:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F6jTuub19e1v for <>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F5D1200B9 for <>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f6so7194411ioh.8 for <>; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:03:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R+8pCOVsrZIwoA/sbCFNRVyXxT18CBHOHJtTLkEbt4o=; b=WfM6ZwfEUvuhL3dH/GLDm+vkCmTk9RVB8xbOA/pkQQv66TrcdST1qGERUKp2igQ313 31R3XfnK/RBHsjVpvt58JH/jcWQ4gDTZ7ioRkPYpoq+Tm+voiGGoWmoCy6WrAyGLQRMh Ea33TPF2qq705p8U+rJ3p78M348vsdVRAfyHGyR2okdrHtX2vy95y/zgP4qHYMEnPzdC aD/Sz5z5GCQWmL7n7c2K3ELUPhc3VAuQet5VORVejZGhe86VBsO3hPw0rrzGv3nndDyZ MkpiI0a/qgg7cJ9vu9WzsyBDlxSi9IdHrVC5NFoJONL9ZEPxYhlEJZQF9G7Mhukp/Z10 ahOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R+8pCOVsrZIwoA/sbCFNRVyXxT18CBHOHJtTLkEbt4o=; b=FiI61OEu7MGMamO9oFuAkfY8bf1QzeKWob01cXJ+OdBKBUc0pChlOMXp+NuWXJ71Jn ezqDI+yRzcQC/G8349fMIDP4ydJZ/Wka6iWjfpxR9wfkihoVLbEiXHv13NvQ6CrFL9OG 7Enlm6rSsgFPpRmSRmWiZWqLSNqGbzV4uxnZk4whsVvTQTuUMuKCDSx88KyureeqhsOI RDbi5lAoUublPYpP9IuyHfJPwuPpUkkryyfBFsJODeEmCliwmbYgvXPy1HmBtdRvFEN2 n6lWt1RW6TgpPUo2i3RluOzpl7xKBhnpSe1cLjZwiVAwsr8rmx48+LtIyz5CxXpamnBF F0eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdnEZcKo9j0fZZmEpOxUhsw5Tu2O94aQjUh6w8Dwy8vJ0qJj/Ve Di8ETYhBr1TzgtrRxoaBIso+6uADyIb2ZpXswmWP/w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotWty3Ib7Eu3dU6iOFxWYx+B8MxRw5jyO8eA8Lk19I4INnLBk8brLD6ae3YuaDFtyWsIDTrWYFNbkMd8NTNrP0=
X-Received: by with SMTP id g9mr4726527ioe.80.1515189793262; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:03:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:03:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Dickson <>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:03:12 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: " WG" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140c5c665104805620e9dd6"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal and DNAME
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, 05 Jan 2018 22:03:16 -0000

[Attribution of the following quotes to Joe and Petr omitted...]

> > However, I think the more general idea that queries for internal names
> > should be leaked towards unknown AS112 operators is problematic. As an
> > end-user I would prefer my leaked queries to be jealously hoarded by one
> > of twelve root server operators than an inbound number of anonymous and
> > potentially ephemeral AS112 operators.
> >
> > The potential for complete data collection at the root servers goes down
> > as resolvers implement aggressive NSEC caching. In the case of a
> Unfortunatelly aggressive use of NSEC will not help because the name
> will exist (either with NS or DNAME).

Isn't .internal already a relatively non-trivial thing for users/admins to
implement? Potential leakage only occurs if someone actively does
".internal" usage.


Perhaps guidance on how to minimize leakage (to zero) would be appropriate?

Things that come to mind:
- Use a benign SLD, such as internal, so the suffix of any name would be
- plus
- QNAME minimization and/or aggressive NSEC, to prune anything below
.internal.internal ever resulting in anything other than synthesized
NXDOMAIN (and thus not leaking)?
- and/or locally running an AS112 instance
- and/or locally installing the namespace of AS112 or its name server names

If the only thing any AS112 operator ever saw was "internal.internal"
queries, the issue is mostly moot/mute.