IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sunset4] future of dnssec?

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 22 February 2017 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 AFD941298CF for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:13:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 dBLejBlFD_O9 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 765D0129961 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C650C3493E0; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6FEA16006B; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A912A16006A; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id PJ3UjJStUv4z; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 529C8160048; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C813564549C9; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:13:29 +1100 (EST)
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21334D566F0@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <CAD6AjGQxi-6wxqEWRwLKc_1c4ocnQEm6RNA9ZCHzhqUTKJj88g@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:51:58 -0000." <CAD6AjGQxi-6wxqEWRwLKc_1c4ocnQEm6RNA9ZCHzhqUTKJj88g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:13:29 +1100
Message-Id: <20170222141329.C813564549C9@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/LMeIu2oAdHjXPOzhEo8aKoDhW-M>
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 14:13:38 -0000

In message <CAD6AjGQxi-6wxqEWRwLKc_1c4ocnQEm6RNA9ZCHzhqUTKJj88g@mail.gmail.com>
, Ca By writes:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:23 AM Heatley, Nick <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Post exhaustion, the majority of cellular networks and some public wifi
> > networks will use DNS64.
> >
> > DNSSEC and DNS64 do not get along. DNSSEC for “A records only” is
> > broken.
> >
> > Is this the reason why all content must go v6?
> >
> > Or is the case for DNSSEC still questionable?
>
> It is demonstrably true that the case for DNSSEC is questioned by smart
> people.
>
> Let's assume that dnssec adds value.
>
> We cannnot do any dnssec without EDNS0.
>
> And, no mobile operating system i am aware of supports EDNS0

I'm aware of apps that support EDNS.  That said phone vendors and
mobile ISP's should be ashamed that they don't support DNSSEC today.

15% of the world lives behind validating resolvers. 

> So first, we need to solve the EDNS0 issue and the total lack of mobile
> end point support
>
> Then, we may discuss how having ipv6 and aaaa is a requirement (thusly no
> dns64) for dnssec to function correctly end to end.
>
> Or do end hosts need to perform DNS64 so “DNSSEC for A records only” can
> be intact?


> > NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
> > This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or
> > confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named
> above.
> > If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying,
> > distributing or using this information is prohibited.
> > If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately
> on
> > the email address above. Thank you.
> >
> > We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
> >
> > EE Limited
> > Registered office:Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire,
> > AL10 9BW
> > Registered in England no: 02382161
> >
> > EE Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of:
> >
> > British Telecommunications plc
> > Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
> > Registered in England no: 1800000
> > _______________________________________________
> > sunset4 mailing list
> > sunset4@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email