Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

["Adrien de Croy" <[e-mail]>]

>>>don't leak into the DNS.  The only thing that anyone's asking DNS
>>>developers to do is to fail .onion requests rather than forwarding
>>>them along.
>>That's the problem.  Creating new requirements for DNS developers to 
>>do anything at all is a huge problem.
>
>It's not a requirement.  It's a request.  I expect it's a lot easier 
>than whatever you have to do to deal with .local.  If we adopt .alt, 
>you can stub that out too and with any luck you're done.
we ignore .local also otherwise we'd break Active Directory resolution 
which also ignores .local, and happily gives us records for .local 
queries over DNS.  So maybe Microsoft is ignoring it too?

I also don't feel a commercial compulsion to implement a multicast DNS 
resolver and server just to deal with that.

In fact we ignore all special use names except localhost.  Stubbing out 
the private IP range reverse zones would break a lot of stuff.  
Example.com etc are seemingly ignored by the internet at large, since I 
can still resolve it.  That leaves .test?


>
>>Having said that, I wish there was a way with a single DNS lookup one 
>>could resolve both/either IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses from a name with 
>>a single query (e.g. the "give me any version address" query), rather 
>>than having to make 2 lookups and fail over etc.  Would basically 
>>halve the amount of DNS traffic on the network and resolve a lot of 
>>pathological cases.
>
>Surely you've been reading the draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free 
>thread.
Thanks for the pointer, I'll check it out.

Cheers

Adrien

>
>R's,
>John