Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Mon, 19 March 2018 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.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 D7F5112D878 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 LryWRgsI2k4u for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (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 4B7E412D879 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 132so19398327qkd.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zgG0Lb3Bbg642I7QX4cpnyAqBk1fWuLlsMWOlqrB64s=; b=IO62ZmciuGxaMYEbPqlop2Yjp5jrgf4IYHkEjrxR/WQ6JTEAgH4yPA7YOzM67oh/cM 7a/o6G3oeoMTVrNTLNAw306a26tsN/pl3b+n6ywyQsRtPWoL0MGh56kWuWwwDdSPv7fh S57i9/TYH12d440JCQHibrU5KB8Ayj5WVJD/k1KeHjwhWkOcLZLvQVg/YTPgGG+R5Yq7 3Uh6NGPrkgy5T3vv0cNa3HrEqecgHbVMJT9Gd1O5ru317Cpsbn9RtdfviObt/OQgUbp7 3KtzTDb3PELIsqsMXpzosbb9Rv1c9/AODywCwu/iGmFjkGdTOAUL+NVJ1OeLofk/Hbvu HlYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zgG0Lb3Bbg642I7QX4cpnyAqBk1fWuLlsMWOlqrB64s=; b=hzhNPvONuOAU4LyzA5mqjf3ZQb5rnODb1ixGj0xiewseP3mQfC8Lyf/UGWU3SHqfQP tAI+cHF0DbW1lG8t9lmuBUYY4FuNFQaarIYkk0JuJ8TaaqIJaUJXmNSHHaq12uDGBY2/ QU/t8b+TqlZVZxdpqUX93Ex4RekHUqWLpylcJoKz33nxyM2EtX2ZuG9IgiPPI6uoabk4 Q9oxTrIUOpgLD+Bhn1ZcHNp0v1dE8rC4O02/6KSBNwd/5aEci3lRVYfKBGkzbtzdGo50 6H2AMmyhNHHgPGKfuICT6CubriSbIunwe4wcrjzMYQMvov9k/B/hd5cm8XE2e2f1ZhwU L71w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FaHZogawcIYglvC5x85c3C/dliELlOUjqYhB+K2ohLZ6VajOWG 4hvx9dQccv3UXiC/CljmsL2g8lFqr/Jee1vfKrzYAfVT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvYFd4LwlnVnPQ+HzexBjxcWeQ4nyf/ibL87Kezp6S0mGNxtEHzUaWVEQCZZlu+CjGYKsiACryodE7/Y3dw6T4=
X-Received: by 10.55.25.134 with SMTP id 6mr18478494qkz.52.1521484645257; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.55.57 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:370:128:7cdb:5bd4:43dc:d1f8]
In-Reply-To: <5AB00268.4040902@redbarn.org>
References: <3D490CA8-0733-47AD-A088-113B1116B207@vpnc.org> <CAKr6gn0RrJEzLCg-nzmwpY7R4XUtRXudQZWdgpz2Vt3X1+BL4Q@mail.gmail.com> <D2E84EBB-9AE5-469B-B8A5-37DBD9CD8D44@fugue.com> <5AB00268.4040902@redbarn.org>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:37:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn22Gk0Gw1U80wguzqV2vwdEkZNh=KicnojRm3bR-f-p-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ya8JEWb9V_lOYfbnod6wAivVJjQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS
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, 19 Mar 2018 18:37:31 -0000

The quality to me, which was there in abstract, is a port-53 bound
daemon, which uses the client IP network or /32 to specify how it
answers.

Server, Resolver, these are distinct classes. I felt split-horizon was
the moment of decision logic from "who asked"

If anyone has actually bound it to "which interface did I get the
question on" thats subtly different, and more side-like.

-G

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>; wrote:
>
>
> Ted Lemon wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 6:10 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org
>> <mailto:ggm@algebras.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "A DNS resolver which looks at the client requesting address, and uses
>>
>>
>> That's a different thing. There's a distinction between a resolver that
>> gives different answers, and a set of authoritative servers that give
>> different answers. I believe split horizon is referring to the latter,
>> not the former.
>
>
> i've done both and referred to both as "split-horizon dns".
>
> bind9 views does both.
>
> --
> P Vixie
>