IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Glue is not optional, but sometimes it *is* sufficient...

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 22 May 2020 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 977333A0AD7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 dyZ8M03rWqIw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 C423B3A02BC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49TBnH6ptczG4L; Fri, 22 May 2020 18:30:59 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1590165059; bh=adBwXNTrrvPSADodGHw0OaDDUomMTDz2nbMuaBRLdPk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=DDvRanIXqSb9WjVMBo1IZprIqADYvESxMpFZSHQYleZtPr3Y0/SqfS6WCZidvYZBR p1MPRHLc7QOE1knhPN8PZv9T7nKkncO7MW0YdKG8qnxrTSVxuoyIXiCJIXCh8G01Ca BPNjeFSebauu4xviloQ/UNhs6AC7MICe5EwVb3qY=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5q-Xzq2Fprbm; Fri, 22 May 2020 18:30:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 22 May 2020 18:30:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 348346020EFF; Fri, 22 May 2020 12:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D8066B7C; Fri, 22 May 2020 12:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 12:30:58 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DDBED5AB-54D8-4936-8509-802472FA3B11@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005221227070.3507@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAHw9_i+UsV9NkuPM4KYBZhO7_J78MkUEyVR3fr=vOX-vsjJeUA@mail.gmail.com> <DDBED5AB-54D8-4936-8509-802472FA3B11@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/skowfiFcB4N9-jg_XSnJNY9_htI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Glue is not optional, but sometimes it *is* sufficient...
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: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:31:06 -0000

On Fri, 22 May 2020, Joe Abley wrote:

> It'd be interesting to continue this kind of experiment over time and see where the success rate for those queries is trending.

Although the 2010 announcement email listed only 2829 out of what? 70M
domains? And that was before DNSSEC and servers like unbound doing
referral harderning that would also lead those to not return answers
to clients that are just based on glue. So I would expect that number
to be even lower now.

So it seems compared the other DNS problems, this is pretty much
non-existing.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email