Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] dnsop-any-notimp violates the DNS standards

bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl> Mon, 16 March 2015 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ahu@xs.powerdns.com>
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 5EB271A87A0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.503
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=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 8iUfMn2nzv3Q for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs.powerdns.com (xs.powerdns.com [IPv6:2001:888:2000:1d::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D28191A8793 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ahu by xs.powerdns.com with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ahu@xs.powerdns.com>) id 1YXVvq-0003HH-Fa; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:23:50 +0100
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:23:50 +0100
From: bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>
To: dnsop@ietf.org, dns-operations@dns-oarc.net
Message-ID: <20150316142350.GB26918@xs.powerdns.com>
References: <20150309110803.4516.qmail@cr.yp.to> <20150309151812.GA14897@xs.powerdns.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150309151812.GA14897@xs.powerdns.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/j0WBSIw6txHrkSncozUIp0Q66DY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] dnsop-any-notimp violates the DNS standards
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: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:24:00 -0000

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:18:12PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 11:08:03AM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > My "qmail" software is very widely deployed (on roughly 1 million SMTP
> > server IP addresses) and, by default, relies upon ANY queries in a way
> > that is guaranteed to work by the mandatory DNS standards.
(...)
> Do you think I read 4.3.2 wrong? Or is there another RFC that updates the
> algorithm?

Thanks to some clarification from Dan, I now understand that one can indeed
rely on ANY queries to resolvers to either deliver a CNAME or no CNAME, in
which case there is no CNAME. 

Separately, I fail to see why we actually need to outlaw ANY queries when we
can happily TC=1 them. 

I realize it is nice to do house cleaning in DNS, but I also realize that
having a document that says we deprecated ANY queries is not going to change
a lot about the real world. People will continue to perform them and expect
them to work.

A TC=1 answer does not generate any UDP packet amplification that can be
used for reflection attacks, and in my experience, TCP/IP performance these
days is stunning enough that the few legit ANY queries that come back pose
no issue.
http://blog.powerdns.com/2013/06/25/simple-tcpip-dns-benchmarking-tool/ has
some numbers.

Incidentally, our new tool 'dnsdist' [1] implements any-to-tcp as a setting,
proving that it could be added to any setup w/o too much work.

[1] http://dnsdist.org/ 


	Bert