Re: [IPsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-14: (with COMMENT)

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Wed, 28 November 2018 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C7A130DCE; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 04:25:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IP5TmRwg2rDM; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 04:25:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (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 A405512D4EF; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 04:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wASCPfkR001079 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:25:41 +0200 (EET)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id wASCPeNX004004; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:25:40 +0200 (EET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <23550.35140.688895.435296@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:25:40 +0200
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Paul Wouters <pwouters@redhat.com>
Cc: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, ipsec@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6cf92ec6-0ffd-9864-0793-bbf30fb638ae@redhat.com>
References: <154275031487.29795.6995020474049388117.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811210026410.29140@bofh.nohats.ca> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811210944410.24767@bofh.nohats.ca> <23545.49026.588213.633610@fireball.acr.fi> <6cf92ec6-0ffd-9864-0793-bbf30fb638ae@redhat.com>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 25.1.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 2 min
X-Total-Time: 1 min
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/43Rg31S7x0l3iHqPX4NdBPPXn6A>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:25:59 -0000

Paul Wouters writes:
> I did not really want to do that. It would also require updating RFC 
> 7296. So instead, I just pushed a change with:
> 
> -   assigned domains.  DNS queries for other domains MUST be sent to the
> -   regular DNS service of the client.
> +   assigned domains.  DNS queries for other domains SHOULD be sent to
> +   the regular DNS service of the client unless it prefers to use the
> +   IPsec tunnel for all its DNS queries.  For example, the client could
> +   trust the IPsec provided DNS servers more than the locally provided
> +   DNS servers especially in the case of connecting to unknown or
> +   untrusted networks (eg coffee shops or hotel networks).  Or the
> +   client could prefer the IPsec based DNS servers because those provide
> +   additional features over the local DNS servers.
> 
> > Anyways I think changing that to say "SHOULD be sent" could work
> > better, i.e., depending on the policy clients could either send
> > requests to normal DNS server or to the server provided in IKE.
> 
> Yes, done. see above.

Looks good. 

> > Note, that the original configuration payload was supposed to provide
> > similar information than what DHCP does, so client does not need to
> > have anything preconfigured, but can get the whole network
> > configuration from the server. This included addresses, dns servers,
> > etc, and even DHCP server address that it can use to get attributes
> > not included in the configuration payload. Usually the configuration
> > parameters received from configuration payload replaced the parameters
> > they had before.
> 
> Yes, but with split-tunnel, the client is clearly stepping in with one 
> foot while keeping the other foot dry :)

Agreed. My text was mostly to explain people not familiar with
configuration payload what was the original meaning for them in
non-split-tunnel context.
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi