Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Mon, 07 August 2017 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 A5BA9131D24 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 08:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 0DRcGlK1lOmP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 08:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079C71324A0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 08:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=61352 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1dekDy-0002OV-9j (Exim 4.72) (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Mon, 07 Aug 2017 16:45:46 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?Q?=c3=93lafur_Gu=c3=b0mundsson?= <olafur@cloudflare.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <6c97191d-9591-d7de-6e8b-ed6e460c7707@bellis.me.uk> <CAN6NTqwXnZB_1nCn5nyg+TFSkh2dT=niZWAYg8wA2Tfe-ebWqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <af6270f2-d0c1-b027-0043-649a7945981b@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:45:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN6NTqwXnZB_1nCn5nyg+TFSkh2dT=niZWAYg8wA2Tfe-ebWqA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nxv8Um0If_KwTVxdfatvx0cQLU4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 15:45:52 -0000


On 07/08/2017 16:44, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:

> This was the original proposal, 
> the drawback is that resolvers to not cache the answer, and to make
> things worse they ask ALL NS addresses for listed domain 
> thus it acts as a DDoS against the domain in question.  

Indeed - I've since confirmed that BIND does this.

I think my point still stands that this behaviour should be documented
in the section that talks about a possible new RCODE and why that option
was rejected.

kind regards,

Ray