Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS64 and DOH

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB419126DC2 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 03:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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=yitter.info header.b=Pz+nwvsn; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=loHXZPse
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 HvISvIS1Nj9A for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 03:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7AD5126CBF for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 03:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A93BE780 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1521455601; bh=uZ+qxXJ+rL8P8jqxPLCCsfAsrk8o/3sdHBvTVhrStxQ=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Pz+nwvsnydrpP5HsjjXoop+IVqoCHGXfV21zxQLD71rmOZZ/lqsiTMYC0FNAZM8PM dlNFEDxfP3viDEGo4T8bUreyE0ECfVQ3PKvjIPlA11uGTNTE9dcngEoKdrrQZ5JZh1 cqJbUa+dVNDSzS3ntQadgetTa26pbOdarjyIQifE=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1aOxIDnFlmLV for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:33:16 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1521455600; bh=uZ+qxXJ+rL8P8jqxPLCCsfAsrk8o/3sdHBvTVhrStxQ=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=loHXZPse8ybzjQQ+c/CofNg34IbTUr+GuooSCdLdqA/Z6q4Fh/KXY9WVZLYt8SbtM oBPqGlWNtxevS2qEIdrNapVHIv42tCVgt9iruB8bcYlJJEqPTGwLrBpUpqmnZV2u8U MLg6eciiC7t3eW+ntuZQlEvRYDmiFMXUonQSwSok=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: doh@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180319103315.zubfti6m4zoscas5@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <CAKC-DJjtHE89A=vG5iS_0M_jqnWusDUDnwyernd+FC1VxxmU5Q@mail.gmail.com> <C03FF16F-CA2A-40AD-9138-C0F089ADA832@icann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C03FF16F-CA2A-40AD-9138-C0F089ADA832@icann.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/t24AJbrNhFZQR4OnWX88d4ntVy0>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS64 and DOH
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:23 -0000

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:19:16AM +0000, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> This is true for DNS64 in any environment, not just DOH, correct? If a client has two resolvers configured and only one is doing DNS64, or they are doing it differently, you have the same problem, yes?
> 

Quite so, but even in a MIF (split horizon) environment the
different-scope resolution is not usually imagined to be two different
paths to the whole Internet.  I think the point is basically that, if
the host is doing DNS64 for resolution but somehow gets DOH that is
not using the DNS64 path, there's a problem.  That does seem worth
noting.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com