Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] My assessment of .homenet as described during the WG session yesterday.

Paul Vixie <> Thu, 30 March 2017 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94931296CF; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x-iiyKR85m0S; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CBBE129447; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-hs2j.localnet ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D864F61F9C; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:05:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <>
Cc: Brian Dickson <>, Mark Andrews <>, Michael Richardson <>, HOMENET <>, Mark Townsley <>, Terry Manderson <>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:05:14 +0000
Message-ID: <4075745.jMg8SJvaMW@linux-hs2j>
Organization: Vixie Freehold
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] My assessment of .homenet as described during the WG session yesterday.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:05:25 -0000

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:54:50 PM GMT Brian Dickson wrote:
> Mark,
> When I say, "never reaches the roots", this is what I mean:
> Resolution of "example.<homenet-label>" is, by design, intercepted by
> homenet resolvers, and never reaches the outside world.
> Do you concur with this statement?
> ...

i'm not mark, but i'd like to speak on a related topic.

by design, queries that result in RFC 1918 addresses, and queries for RFC 1918 
PTR names, were to be intercepted by local resolvers.

let me know if you can't access DNS-OARC's DITL archives, which will show you 
how prominent both kinds those queries loom in actual root name service load.

i predict that<homenetlabel> will do likewise, whatever its design. 
this is the one saving grace in asking for a real root zone delegation: we can 
add an NS pointing to localhost, and try to get subsequent queries to go to 
heck rather than to the root servers.