IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-atr-large-resp

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org> Thu, 07 February 2019 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@mukund.org>
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 BBD9E12426E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:09:34 -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=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 Jk1rcIg0ZshH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [188.40.18.99]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4365128CF3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jurassic.lan.banu.com (unknown [27.5.235.215]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6DA385A401EA; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 19:09:30 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 00:39:27 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>
To: Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190207190927.GA30071@jurassic.lan.banu.com>
References: <BCACF554-8BE6-49BC-B75A-BCED776F5189@NLnetLabs.nl> <4A75C4E3-F74F-46DB-9A8A-879C0BB79190@powerdns.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A75C4E3-F74F-46DB-9A8A-879C0BB79190@powerdns.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XK7ctHM8lq3euA8sDCcn3EJZZfg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-atr-large-resp
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 19:09:35 -0000

Hi Peter

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:22:00AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> The draft doubles the number of packets involved in a legitimate
> exchange; it more than doubles the number of packets involved in a
> spoofed exchange. About half of these packets are ICMP
> packets. Without the draft, ICMP packets are useful debugging aids,
> and in big numbers, indications of attacks or operational
> problems. With the draft, ICMP becomes another useless source of
> background noise.

I had implemented the draft about a year ago as a server-side patch for
BIND so that it could be tried/tested. But I was not aware of the ICMP
issue that you mentioned. Today I looked at a packet capture with ATR
response and sure enough, the 2nd truncated response generates an ICMP
message from the recipient. I agree that this would be noisy.

		Mukund

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email