IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] howto "internal"

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> Tue, 24 July 2018 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
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 3CB481311A5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tnetconsulting.net
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 9E8FpysnY_TD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe26:8849]) (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 2D4D71311A6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from REDACTED (hal9000.thn.corp.google.com [IPv6:2620:0:102a:11:fe50:e322:5780:92c6]) (authenticated bits=0) by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id w6OIVGpX020981 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:31:17 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tnetconsulting.net; s=2015; t=1532457077; bh=Q8LA6Kgd7RKyTdJzms4duSdbN3KJoRThljM8LMRrt80=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc:Content-Disposition: Content-Language:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Date:From: In-Reply-To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:References:Reply-To: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Sender:Subject:To: User-Agent; b=22Afg/CqO1VIKTxDPKvwBgnV7cVlrWT7VqrtN0JdaQdGH7+MOY9C8U1ehap28FV3O MporcnQJNBqxAEHx5e11kQ2I39PXr5X7HBkbjMKDjrFHFTfS8WqPut0iWMjPVdybyo UCXhTUhRW8BZRnf3afFJ2HYXzmxVJaZpA17RKMmo=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <1cb82914-0bc3-9ea7-7f69-9dc826d19e48@andreasschulze.de> <2264d840-33cc-736c-668a-a537c4da4a30@nic.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807241623300.5965@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CADyWQ+HZ4i2P9qK03xK_EvZYakdduKigH87QgZ4zfUwjHjL25Q@mail.gmail.com> <5B574F67.1090806@redbarn.org>
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Organization: TNet Consulting
Message-ID: <993209cf-01b5-c6c2-cc64-74b42c398e26@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:31:16 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5B574F67.1090806@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms050300040205040102050105"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yalExlMbknSQ5OstsLwfI9u7nNc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] howto "internal"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:31:20 -0000

Paul,

On 07/24/2018 10:10 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i also use real domains for my private stuff. but i also use RPZ locally 
> for the internal bindings,

Do you leverage anything like Dynamic DNS updates in conjunction with 
DHCP?  If so, how well does that play with the configuration that you're 
using?

> not NS RR delegations that i'd have to keep out of my externally-served 
> zone files.

Is there a best practice around this method of delegating to 
sub-domain(s) that are inaccessible to the public?

Is it better to return NODATA or NXDOMAIN to global clients querying for 
host.sub-domain.example.net?  Or is there a different error that can be 
returned to indicate no access?

I guess there's always delegating to a server that is inaccessible 
externally too.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email