Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 20 March 2018 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 E3C99127698 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 WQfuo-45brx9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (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 68B6912751F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l3so2464371iog.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=p4EEjpstHxOd75QuhRie9vy98KP5fhGCi2GN9SKZqrk=; b=ctHHi10z39eCSQIaWzkPzpFcr50awF4RSaDC3KOjJ4yksMR8yoUnReCNtN0bLX1jwx zNP8F5z2BF0y9VvIBlWnKcGvqodi4BJDVwDfkR5TuQx4Kyj8fIpBGyUx3olJS7IPmmfI kgwDI7mkhMl96mW9DW23JaO0xffjY3jVPRFm9tBUFzoPPDKWnvHmv6TUVjzg9EFiO4xu l9bxZh2d7E+4sOwtsxVNfLPlk/PjCAmSiBVmJdCYfYL3YjkmHcq8Hyip5i3XB88zgmUT 0bEz0vfzOlVp6cFgYyvRZNQ7I7XgsCIrrnZF5PbZ4tsl088B/OOFWG10eQAcvThERtIC oZlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=p4EEjpstHxOd75QuhRie9vy98KP5fhGCi2GN9SKZqrk=; b=Q+1alTxen9bmtRAgfZ4PVQf0COuhlBNaFg8U6DJPKNZND5p/P9OfJLYISF/hPsWrIg Vo0OW7gllQciOUv0Tz8Tpbx2B1sL7N2qwOyVLyUj9UUoQAlpuY5fgcabMdc17gJFvCbZ f/aE7uFX3wZBG/2h956fTYT7ZFrZSIwD0Why9K0t7b1rR9F8iO1kfrIU9tpiqF8Rq5vZ cpdMCEtV/uPkWo+opEzWZ/JWZeAjRcCvPyQrUOQt+1mDgxodWbddnmZq/N7NM3jXGPOf W79TZt8TkBJ0WogHbg0jnjmJD27PfvHsnpGq3hp4+W5NeLG6jwhSzls3I5B3InRdNa71 LBgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HmQCDKcJLTDAlab1NcrQ719qWQe4IpzRKZ/vYQHQFHnHX+bYcE dY11RlhdvljwpKh8TpjfiScZ+IfIVTmeM8n7rGwD9w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtDDxUXJba2/eXFiggPC1tkVLGLP5251Y8t+TJ63Y1XuJQBZ+P7acZvxrSWOTuwCM/oAmWhWnvbXxFPgsP1QYM=
X-Received: by 10.107.136.202 with SMTP id s71mr16653821ioi.45.1521554224680; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.226.203 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.226.203 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180320135126.ivcjinh6su4lzqzc@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <3D490CA8-0733-47AD-A088-113B1116B207@vpnc.org> <80F91E05-4A54-4EB2-9298-69C2CD4725CC@fugue.com> <20180320135126.ivcjinh6su4lzqzc@mx4.yitter.info>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:57:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kJ0nUphuDsNNz4VEZ7B5jaMz6CfxRA6J5Ywe3v9Nu1GA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ec72811c5be0567d87336"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MgfwewaKqjksz5yYYAy7JoybCVM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:57:08 -0000

I think split horizon is really specific to source address, but I agree
with your clarification as it applies to views. Also agree that we should
mention all variants.

On Mar 20, 2018 13:52, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:58:08PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >   Where DNS servers that are authoritative for a particular set of
> domains
> >   provide partly or completely different answers in those domains
> depending
> >   on the source of the query.   The effect of this is that a domain name
> that
> >   is notionally globally unique nevertheless has different meanings for
> >   different network users.
>
> I mostly like that, but I quibble with "source of the query".  It's
> really "depending on some factor apart from the name, class, and type
> of the query.  For instance, the answers might differ according to the
> source of the query."  EDNS client subnet is another example, but I've
> also seen things based on authentication (SIG(0) or TSIG).
> Effectively, every "DNS tricks" service on the public Internet is also
> a kind of split horizon.
>
> I think we should include all of "split DNS", "split horizon", and
> "split brain": they're all terms I've heard and so we ought to make
> sure they're both included.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>