IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sunset4] future of dnssec?

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 23 February 2017 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 1085E129B6B for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:06:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 vJfxrMs-aAFl for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (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 5C2DC129B76 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3662F4A; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:06:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date:date :in-reply-to:x-mailer:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1487887575; bh=C1yFBOvvKG02HrWzm9L8ocVE+ruwXnqWHs+qimlcWXM=; b=G 8lYjx/FqrITTmeiiiJUoky3SQ5VrUFeyGMLxAUQuHKJTae0YNZU8RHC69vE5eeWj NzGPmqluaX0MBomJJgKgWugACZEIxUqapEdRjIEST//XyRcErpE5yuFhxuY4Np+2 RmRz5zOcKUU/Pi/QcylMH3Tu+r/W3z/c4Sdcq5+kz4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id z_PkW0hSEwlC; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:06:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.180.161.37] (unknown [89.200.41.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3692E49; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:06:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14D27)
In-Reply-To: <20170223201918.3BEDA6470D6F@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:06:14 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <391350BB-2100-4D43-8F3D-0F63FCC7AEC7@steffann.nl>
References: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21334D566F0@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <B5E8C545-55B9-4ECB-B0C8-C3EEFEECD320@fugue.com> <20170222143629.9E9C56454B08@rock.dv.isc.org> <AC554B0E-709B-474D-97BD-C2518CED2266@fugue.com> <6E387159-A35B-487D-9818-0325E072E865@steffann.nl> <20170223201918.3BEDA6470D6F@rock.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/muMxKGbEONIFhrPuaBpJz3Ti2qM>
Cc: "Heatley, Nick" <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:06:23 -0000

Hi Mark,

> I presume the configuration was:
> 
> Internet <-> ISP validating DNS64 <-> clients.

Correct

> That's the trivial configuration.
> 
> You need to think about all the other ways networks are set up today.
> 
> Internet <-> ISP validating DNS64 <-> validating recursive server <-> clients.
> Internet <-> ISP validating DNS64 <-> validating recursive server <-> validating clients.

Those setups are so uncommon in the places where DNS64 is used that it causes no problems. 

I realise that there are plenty of ways this can break, but in reality it works pretty well. But I agree it's a hack and the sooner we can get rid of IPv4 the better. In that context I'll happily use it.

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email