IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 05 November 2015 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724AA1ACE71 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:26:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 nuv65w8F9oKg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) (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 0DEA71ACE6E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:26:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:45323) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1ZuIgn-0001NA-Qn (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:26:45 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1ZuIgn-0000mh-8u (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:26:45 +0000
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:26:45 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>, Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn0oiK9WKfN95b=muuxG0+0oKv8KDaq=xpabRf-zgCO+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511051112440.959@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CAKr6gn0oiK9WKfN95b=muuxG0+0oKv8KDaq=xpabRf-zgCO+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UzNnOapzCfkqYYpVvniyyvxrEqw>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] we already have a new version of this problem
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:26:50 -0000

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:

> So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
> emerging homenet desire for .home?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/

(I can't see any discussion of this draft on the homenet list so I don't
know if this question has been answered...)

Has anyone done a survey of where the leaked .home queries come from?

One big source is the BT Home Hub CPE which uses .home for private names;
there must be millions of these devices out there. (My mail servers leak
queries for these names because they appear in message submission EHLO
commands and my mail servers do EHLO domain verification; the name servers
they use are only configured to sink names required by RFC 6761: invalid,
local, localhost, onion, test.)

Are there other big deployments of similarly configured CPE devices?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire, Northeast Forties: Southeasterly 5 or 6,
increasing 7 at times. Slight or moderate, occasionally rough. Occasional
rain, fog patches. Moderate or good, occasionally very poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email