Re: [DNSOP] call for adoption: draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet

"Mark Delany" <f4t@november.emu.st> Thu, 12 February 2015 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <f4t@november.emu.st>
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 052E71A88E2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:38:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 OsdPnyJd2bKr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.bushwire.net (f5.bushwire.net [199.48.133.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 193D21A8886 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:38:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 68484 invoked by uid 1001); 12 Feb 2015 07:31:27 -0000
Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-dnsop@ietf.org
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=s384; d=november.emu.st; b=Mo+mABtZxtX1X2AehSzk4UHS9YOIkiFNdC3ZB9dik3Zyt+to903UatSZaf0BijqG;
Comments: DomainKeys? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys
DomainKey-Trace-MD: h=18; b=45; l=C18R71D32M65F41M32T18S39?43R60?53?54?69M17C50?66C27I81;
Comments: QMDA 0.3
Received: (qmail 68477 invoked by uid 1001); 12 Feb 2015 07:31:27 -0000
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:31:27 +0000
Message-ID: <20150212073127.68476.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
From: Mark Delany <f4t@november.emu.st>
Mail-Followup-To: dnsop@ietf.org
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <629002B1-7A32-4A83-ACA1-0185F5355641@gmail.com> <20141224195229.4342.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> <20150212065119.68256.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> <CAKr6gn1sjgyaavAZfoYSBSeNKd=9ysfKe52jyN_KO8in7NR0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CAghj3nbcHapFenH"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn1sjgyaavAZfoYSBSeNKd=9ysfKe52jyN_KO8in7NR0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZESI_NwEDf9hzv3zxBoJjGXa6W0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] call for adoption: draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 12 Feb 2015 14:38:17 -0000

On 12Feb15, George Michaelson allegedly wrote:
> 
> we've got two agencies who do DNS, and probably have > 20% worldwide
> eyeball share in DNS (I don't know, thats a guesstimate) now doing
> edns0_client_subnet albiet with whitelist, so its a permit-list, but its
> functionally 'there'

Whitelists are my biggest bugbear actually. All my other comments are
nice-to-haves. I hear that Google now adaptively whitelist which is a
nice strategy but I'd really like to see the whitelist approach
deprecated as much as possible. (And yes, I understand MarkA's stats
that show some small percentage of auth queries will break).

I've been in other conversations lately where it was all about how do
we get "pick some larger resolver" to whitelist us? We all know that
doesn't scale. So interest appears to be growing.

> Its probably already more widely deployed than IPv6...

On the auth side I think you're right. It's the client side that's the
missing link. But this is a classic alignment-of-interest problem. The
relatively small number of auths who care implement, but there is
little incentive on the resolver side.


Mark.