Re: [DNSOP] Delegation into the interior of a zone?

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 27 December 2018 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 B1755130E8D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Dec 2018 12:00:00 -0800 (PST)
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 S2Hhv9RkDdEG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62F4F12E7C1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:e0b1:1534:707a:7c88] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:e0b1:1534:707a:7c88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BD9B892C6; Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:59:59 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5C252F32.50503@redbarn.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:59:46 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
CC: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20181227192639.21372200BFBF3A@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20181227192639.21372200BFBF3A@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qDRQNxJROjTigmKMJ3HbHu-XLEo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Delegation into the interior of a zone?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 20:00:01 -0000


John Levine wrote:
> Over in bind-users somone suggested a CIDR rDNS kludge in which you
> delegate a bunch of names out of a rDNS zone to a second server,
> and the second server answers them all from one zone, like this
>
> $ORIGIN 1.1.1.in-addr.arpa.
> @ SOA blah
>
> 10 NS otherserver
> 11 NS otherserver
> 12 NS otherserver

in RFC 2317 we do this with CNAME not NS. did the proponent explain why 
CNAME wasn't suitable for her purposes?

>
>
> and on the other server
>
> $ORIGIN 1.1.1.in-addr.arpa.
> @ SOA blah
>
> 10 PTR foo
> 11 PTR bar
> 12 PTR baz
>
> That is, the two zones have the same apex, and NS records point into
> the interior of the second zone, not at the apex.  That works in BIND,
> of course, but it seems wrong.  I am having trouble tracking down the
> specification of why it is wrong.

if the old domain-obscenity-checker (DoC) which came out with the 
domain-information-groper (DiG) back in the 1980's says it's wrong, then 
it's wrong. if the specifications don't cover this case, they are 
incomplete. or at least, that's how i do things.

>
> Any sugestions?  It would fail with DNSSEC since there's no DNSKEY
> to match the delegation DS, but how wrong was it before that?
>
> Signed,
> Confused

first i'd have to know what problem caused by CNAME in the outer zone 
they think they are solving using NS.

-- 
P Vixie