Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 DE3FC132C32 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 TFyvY2pdHVbs for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD8D713292D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 58792 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2017 17:19:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.53) by gal.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2017 17:19:37 -0000
Date: 13 Sep 2017 17:19:15 -0000
Message-ID: <20170913171915.1194.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20170913030645.946E8855120E@rock.dv.isc.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lUQ3v8X92JSFv7GgwfsXRV-nWxo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:19:40 -0000

In article <20170913030645.946E8855120E@rock.dv.isc.org> you write:
>> When we look at edge cases like this, it's tempting to be swept away by
>> the futility of trying to close every gap.   But it's still worth closing
>> the ones we can close.   Trying to outlaw localhost.* is hopeless.  But
>> outlawing *.localhost is certainly valid and viable, and as DNSSEC
>> adoption increases, more and more it will be the case that we actually
>> need do nothing to break it.   "localhost" + search list still fails
>> unsafe.
>
>Why would we want to outlaw *.localhost?  Just because it is
>inconvient for the IAB and ICANN that they didn't address this issue
>correctly years ago.

I concur with Mark that while localhost.<foo> is a problem,
<foo>.localhost is not.  I've occasionally used that hack to pass
traffice to various servers running on 127/8 addresses other than
127.0.0.1.

R's,
John