Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Sun, 04 November 2018 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 064ED1292F1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 08:35:00 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Njds4RdpuJI9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 08:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 146F712008A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 08:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm-114-109-178-6.revip13.asianet.co.th ([114.109.178.6]:53146 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1gJLMT-0005pa-E6 (Exim 4.72) (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Sun, 04 Nov 2018 16:34:53 +0000
To: Paul Ebersman <list-dnsop@dragon.net>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAH1iCirXYsYB3sAo8f1Jy-q4meLmQAPSFO-7x5idDufdT_unXQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811021543210.24450@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAH1iCioQX84JThYXPKzaiZ0MxPuDXRa2ttSnxYr6DCmRQxAmew@mail.gmail.com> <7306cd16-675c-70b1-acb1-ba66507028d4@bellis.me.uk> <20181104160239.94530D3146B@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <1cf50b45-0d3e-a23c-2968-c2c4f26f0e31@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:34:51 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181104160239.94530D3146B@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aBEIo6lZDgRz6SKxLzXbyE4NBWE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems
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: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 16:35:00 -0000


On 04/11/2018 23:02, Paul Ebersman wrote:

> Have you confirmed with the large CDNs doing geo-ip, load-balancing, etc
> that this is what they want, since they are largely driving all of this?
> 
> I'd guess that they would prefer this in the auth layer, where they own
> or have contractual relationship with the zone owner.
> 
> Yes, as DNS software folks, we'd like to keep auth doing auth and have
> only recursive doing lookups but I'm not sure that solves the problem in
> a way that will be accepted.

My expectation is that this would work for them exactly the way a CNAME 
does (i.e. via EDNS Client Subnet or similar) but without the restrictions.

Ray