IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] are there recent studies of client side/ISP firewalls interfering with EDNS?

"Wiley, Glen" <gwiley@verisign.com> Thu, 12 November 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <gwiley@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C737A1ADBFC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:59:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ncaxcsTWMatM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x261.google.com (mail-oi0-x261.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::261]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D78711AD378 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by oies6 with SMTP id s6so3827721oie.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:59:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=verisign_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :accept-language:content-language:user-agent:content-type :mime-version; bh=wc5m1QJ08IiInkZhItl36/32TVCxxqisFENh4lJKf4U=; b=dg38LF/ebJvW0tlW60VIx+VTYKJvXpwvZC/uc5DIS9Gf+VCv3JlJuFEHVHHTe2h49j XSPOT21FWwje6bOwRLN/YZ7AsNvJhlWKuags6JTx2xGOIH7wHq3sPsB3erNQGaidYBmu vXaXFL4jT8xkWtV1u2nslAzSRbB10+IFJvXv6UFVUjHG0A0g/hwfycMp4L6lKBIQDd6M K3u1r8OMMDKQ4s2npDmzei+5QvIsmo8wJ8YTX7IijfClbLt6perF11F+laCMdy16/Li3 UhdPT03VtQGQRLJfIvlwSEsvIL4uqh0XC28FKAHxEWBvHSxDlC0LvwoDDEBwiYv6/bzc cjTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:accept-language:content-language:user-agent:content-type :mime-version; bh=wc5m1QJ08IiInkZhItl36/32TVCxxqisFENh4lJKf4U=; b=fiGVVOjEFmFDosdUjgRh1jxLypRKJf5X+rDdHAHevHDT4qjG5epg4RSs9WeznguLGu 946KcpILwZXMdSQzAeqfnbayV/Tx6s4x68zn0TkEBYw7L7tcydDvvk2GRbP8Ktw60eyF VcffUmcEa7xutF2KLghkwyODDQ+NXQ2mA5wU0Qpv21ckAOTJGVp9vpQ1kxJjindAdNtR PLM9lU3uJimoH7P+lXoQWc134xFLlBqtu1AeFu+WInK1MBW6VeHaz19mEGAzPq+pGszm PVimR2+j1TF8AGD8mewK2YDfLQAGwjpyHAKyLk2qRUt1cn/6DWiqYFzqKPvHAf7Wcf7f Z2hQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmhup3VvV64wCdkJ6pw5L7XawGxYDdiWUA/5em3zWmlXgqyCJ9PXPi3c0WSI1kcR1oYLYiL0dlx0jpLzvnYjx0rUgeN+g==
X-Received: by 10.140.101.41 with SMTP id t38mr9405621qge.53.1447343941175; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id s72sm1144041qkl.9.2015.11.12.07.59.00 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:59:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tACFx0Kp001619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:59:00 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:59:00 -0500
From: "Wiley, Glen" <gwiley@verisign.com>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: are there recent studies of client side/ISP firewalls interfering with EDNS?
Thread-Index: AQHRHWMLeWj+FK8I0Uu+D1aEtMmxlw==
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:59:00 +0000
Message-ID: <D26A217F.1E6DC%gwiley@verisign.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.9.150325
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D26A217F1E6DCgwileyverisigncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/szH3cqfhbj6Sbd0PiALQ5w_kM-E>
Subject: [DNSOP] are there recent studies of client side/ISP firewalls interfering with EDNS?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 12 Nov 2015 15:59:04 -0000

I have seen the ISC EDNS compliance report (beautiful thing really), but it loks as though the focus is really on the name servers and name server operators.  Has a recent study been done to examine whether client side/ISP firewalls are interfering with EDNS?
--
Glen Wiley
Principal Engineer
Verisign, Inc.
(571) 230-7917

A5E5 E373 3C75 5B3E 2E24
6A0F DC65 2354 9946 C63A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email