Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.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 60E5712995B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 s4MV5YTOjWHE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 244CF127241 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C92D8242125A; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:30:23 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703211005500.30281@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:30:22 +0000
Cc: IETF dnsop Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AFEEA207-7535-48D6-92BB-31F742A1C37D@rfc1035.com>
References: <E07AFAEB-2B84-4610-87E7-94CF32CF3761@fugue.com> <7652B138-FEAB-4138-91FB-D71AFE6BEF2C@vigilsec.com> <6DCFBC9D-666A-4A3C-A418-82BB6AE3D25D@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703210928390.28925@bofh.nohats.ca> <1A714782-2EE5-49F8-A6C0-29852E90DA9C@rfc1035.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703211005500.30281@bofh.nohats.ca>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XAzK8VbLzf-UB3EhO9wy9fqqF68>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03
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, 21 Mar 2017 14:30:45 -0000

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:09, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> 
> Can we tell from the queries or a timeline of query quantity if this
> is generic .home pollution that predates the homenet protocol suite,
> or actually the result the homenet protocol suite being deployed?

What's this "we"? :-)

The short answer to your question Paul is I don't know. If someone could confirm what qname/qtype tuples are limited to the homenet suite, I could go looking for them in the DITL datasets. This will not be a trivial task. One year's DITL data generally consists of a few TB of data spread over 300K compressed pcap files containing a total of ~100B queries. It takes about 1 day of elapsed time and a few CPU-weeks to chug through that.