Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] [IANA #989438]'s delegation should be insecure.

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Wed, 13 June 2018 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253B5130E25; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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 autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fJCXLe7awNNh; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC93130E20; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1528886743; x=1529491543;; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References: In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; bh=Bml4ou0FFQdc/9tV383up1hL0Wd2FnBhVxpBJfUADNY=; b=O8HoXB5sK2bE+ iNqkhgpangsVO3AmTf8QmME/4Q2gm9fezPoBabnaLn3qKEE9gpQo4JHqSJf8YYRy CK9j6Noeob9GpFRnqYARXlcMoyYO4Fz0vPQn5u5ngfkJIJjgLEgmXGknlmiTTwdb GxRgfEDjN2ELrSrDxhuyWH5aY9YL/w=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed:, Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:45:43 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:45:42 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50005788682.msg; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:45:41 +0200
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:b9c7:adad:b8cb:35fd
X-MDHelo: []
X-MDArrival-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:45:41 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.e.0.180610
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:45:38 +0200
To: Philip Homburg <>, <>
CC: Stuart Cheshire <>, Michelle Cotton via RT <>, dnsop <>, David Schinazi <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [v6ops] [IANA #989438]'s delegation should be insecure.
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] [IANA #989438]'s delegation should be insecure.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:45:50 -0000

Hi Philip,

Agree, ideally, should be a DHCPv6 bases mechanism as we already proposed long time ago, because PCP is not present in many networks (unfortunately), while DHCP is quite common.

We are happy to resurrect and review this work if needed:





-----Mensaje original-----

De: DNSOP <> en nombre de Philip Homburg <>

Fecha: miércoles, 13 de junio de 2018, 12:42

Para: <>

CC: Stuart Cheshire <>om>, Michelle Cotton via RT <>rg>, dnsop <>rg>, David Schinazi <>

Asunto: Re: [DNSOP] [v6ops] [IANA #989438]'s delegation should be insecure.




    >From Section 6.2:

    3.  Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST recognize ''

           as special and MUST give it special treatment.  Regardless of any

           manual client DNS configuration, DNS overrides configured by VPN

           client software, or any other mechanisms that influence the

           choice of the client's recursive resolver address(es) (including

           client devices that run their own local recursive resolver and

           use the loopback address as their configured recursive resolver

           address) all queries for '' and any subdomains of

           that name MUST be sent to the recursive resolver learned from the

           network via IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS

           Configuration [RFC6106] or via DNS Configuration options for

           DHCPv6 [RFC3646].


    First we introduce as a hack to avoid creating/deploying a

    suitable mechanism to communicate the NAT64 translation prefix. That's fine

    with me.


    But when that hack then requires changes to every possible DNS stub resolver

    implementation in the world, there is something seriously wrong.


    So if this in indeeed required to make RFC7050 work then it is better to

    formally deprecate RFC7050 and focus on other ways to discover the

    translation prefix.


    It seems that at least one already exists (RFC7225) so not much is lost.




    DNSOP mailing list


IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.