IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Solicit feedback on the problems of DNS for Cloud Resources described by the draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

Paul Ebersman <list-dnsop@dragon.net> Wed, 12 February 2020 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <list-dnsop@dragon.net>
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 636AB120639 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:18:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 2esIkLT1xUNy for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.dragon.net (mail.dragon.net [149.20.3.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928A7120810 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fafnir.remote.dragon.net (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.dragon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA0F7A3C09; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fafnir.remote.dragon.net (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4A4E01C6B7A0; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fafnir.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fafnir.remote.dragon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B671C6B79F; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:18:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Ebersman <list-dnsop@dragon.net>
To: Morizot Timothy S <Timothy.S.Morizot=40irs.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
In-reply-to: <31b15893bd0b4b2a871f4779331c99d6@irs.gov>
References: <BN6PR1301MB2083B6F88FDE9A0A4EA2384985180@BN6PR1301MB2083.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BN6PR1301MB20839C511BDF230D79658BF485180@BN6PR1301MB2083.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <1698737.Wqn7rEUb4T@linux-9daj> <31b15893bd0b4b2a871f4779331c99d6@irs.gov>
Comments: In-reply-to Morizot Timothy S <Timothy.S.Morizot=40irs.gov@dmarc.ietf.org> message dated "Wed, 12 Feb 2020 12:34:54 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.7.1; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <63189.1581524286.1@fafnir.local>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:18:06 -0800
Message-Id: <20200212161806.4A4E01C6B7A0@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UKfI73QmKb7vL8-_Db51s39Avpc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Solicit feedback on the problems of DNS for Cloud Resources described by the draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement
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: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:18:09 -0000

tmorizot> I would also like to understand why global and unique names 
tmorizot> are unacceptable. 
 
Why do folks insist on NAT and RFC 1918? or ULA v6? 
 
There is a common feeling that it's another layer of security. I 
personally am not a fan of it but I think this is probably the most 
critical thing to have in the draft/RFC, i.e. pointing out that using 
globally unique names is way cleaner and outlining the issues not doing 
that will force you to deal with.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email