IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a request

manning <bmanning@karoshi.com> Fri, 03 July 2015 03:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bmanning@karoshi.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 23F891B2B10 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ZG3aLp8R33PA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vacation.karoshi.com (vacation.karoshi.com [198.32.6.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72A31B2B11 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vacation.karoshi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE160A1496F; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at karoshi.com
Received: from vacation.karoshi.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (vacation.karoshi.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sVeoNaJHFA1V; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.12] (cpe-23-240-123-116.socal.res.rr.com [23.240.123.116]) by vacation.karoshi.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE076A1495C; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: manning <bmanning@karoshi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150703012146.GA29948@mycre.ws>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:56:12 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DC13E07F-2203-4FE9-A67F-B5851A54298F@karoshi.com>
References: <6CB05D82CE245B4083BBF3B97E2ED470C27498@ait-pex01mbx01.win.dtu.dk> <D1BAA21E.CA2E%edward.lewis@icann.org> <6CB05D82CE245B4083BBF3B97E2ED470C2759F@ait-pex01mbx01.win.dtu.dk> <6CB05D82CE245B4083BBF3B97E2ED470C275B2@ait-pex01mbx01.win.dtu.dk> <E225C721-7279-4053-97A2-2D63A155DA14@karoshi.com> <6CB05D82CE245B4083BBF3B97E2ED470C27602@ait-pex01mbx01.win.dtu.dk> <88E49F4B-64BD-4832-BD02-D1A882874E92@karoshi.com> <20150702234423.GB23022@mycre.ws> <EBDBDD70-046F-4E31-BDAC-A619EECD4F13@karoshi.com> <20150703012146.GA29948@mycre.ws>
To: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/kcdllNmgztPg2Yl2rz0EHrMFHe8>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a request
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: <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: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 03:59:42 -0000

On 2July2015Thursday, at 18:21, Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> wrote:

> manning wrote:
>> 	There in lies the problem.  These systems have no way to disambiguate a local v. global scope.
>>         It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes do NOT have global scope, i.e. No connection to the Internets
>>         and no way to attempt DNS resolution.   Or they need to ensure that DNS resolution occurs after every other “name lookup technology”
>>         which is not global in scope.
> 
> I don't understand this point.  Since Onion hidden service names are
> based on hashes derived from public keys surely they're globally scoped
> (barring hash collisions)?
> 
> -- 
> Robert Edmonds

If they _are_ globally scoped,  what part of the local system decides which namespace to use, the ONION, the LOCAL, the P2P, the BIT, the BBSS, the DECnetV, the IXP, or the DNS…
where is search order determined?  Does first match in any namespace win?  What is the tiebreaker when there are label collisions between namespaces?


/bill

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email