IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sunset4] future of dnssec?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B2A129A5A for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:35:31 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.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 i13h3u_v4p9U for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (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 38F221294FD for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id b16so7100891qte.0 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:35:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=z0HsFBNRgIvPc+nc3gWM+zUKCDinrNGRt2kN9pRSG9E=; b=rxpNd5e0qAnhlsknwjm9Ze45D9u0IDnORIwfD6d8kHSwbHGjjKfeQoMx2S8uKTDGHb JRqjs8jAUN8/MDXuVJMhHw+Ylu78RbnE40Rfthh7EXpF89ZWFZij66twY9X/0+sz/UuA c+8/snyv0rnEuGfdH2APWHM6OmYWTVRtYGR388aXfSxuLqNfzd8M4KXgNp2Ij+vU8BhH 3ocTgwkSwUBQ5CZzF6im6ay098gXiXB7mrTpWm2wVBp0Jh+W5zXgoUC83zdHcOYpdCM/ bzDy7a0fCp6YUAWFtLA/PRbQYSTirVJMCU1Coe8xVPII1cqIITmjbWXXuXXLcKd9uCWy iOLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=z0HsFBNRgIvPc+nc3gWM+zUKCDinrNGRt2kN9pRSG9E=; b=S6WVNocK36n7sEEEeVrqqjFL2RAQVCFsY2ELKZ2QQmDD4xxzC172TjBDdXFRctV0bL FcUjydle+6i8DkPHoCYRyvtabzGoYqfhhCWPYQssGRAXewGgslFaTVav3Wu/Ts94kPMy IU/ar3v6HrAAaAfwjOonGRZTWGZVvWJ1z6npBouVHk9HQDAzKB8Q64qd8f1hhBD6++Kt U+ZMzvB9gRE39yXopErM7h4ja1QOrbWDOcMtXc8Pd23w+m4rHJ2eOjYCEKAsDTC4J3aX oiEe+UOkkMQiULhQrRy6oiVJlakuHaKahkn0VLlT04NvX7lHnbcU4+1kCuohTfR4fC5F CIBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m8AGMPBQUPpmVMr6YDVTnFtXTZ4S0ZWmM2d3I4GGGBoTGDGOHyzCgO2T3Cw6OzOg==
X-Received: by 10.200.1.206 with SMTP id b14mr8231838qtg.285.1487781329186; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:35:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z139sm980472qkb.29.2017.02.22.08.35.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:35:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <AC554B0E-709B-474D-97BD-C2518CED2266@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FE7496BF-B35D-4627-AED4-7582B7C5F68E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:35:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20170222143629.9E9C56454B08@rock.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21334D566F0@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <B5E8C545-55B9-4ECB-B0C8-C3EEFEECD320@fugue.com> <20170222143629.9E9C56454B08@rock.dv.isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/IKH220w5OG8kHWWcVbLZWoTKJeI>
Cc: "Heatley, Nick" <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] future of dnssec?
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sunset4/>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:35:32 -0000

On Feb 22, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> DNS64 really should just be made historic.  It does not work with
> DNSSEC.  There has NEVER been a NEED for NAT64 or DNS64.  They
> provides NO BENEFIT over other methods.  Every proported benefit
> turns out not to exist.

(A) I find NAT64 to be a very convenient solution, and best of all it tests IPv6 functionality in apps, so I know which apps will not work on a v6-only network.
(B) DNS64 works _fine_ with DNSSEC as long as you do the DNS64 translation _after you validate_.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email