Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 29 July 2015 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065BA1B353D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 u83ByoyaqApF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D76731B3535 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1624; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438138802; x=1439348402; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=/Vh/ogmh3oubzFivGgSReGtBJgLWWV8ZPHOxDWrjcOQ=; b=lO0C5BcadQFeRVrZZpCtcNeePygO+6VkjxkiwRgmOQkgnxBVon8K/NAi x9ss/cfFfgng2h3utj5afS/gcSCapyTD7Xc5h0egA5HqtPMuPtJ0+dVp8 JY5i1q5nABZ4DTyZPR6orlegesXu7R5vmkAfV+t4WvN8AAzbtLkRsvnlH w=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AgAwDbQLhV/5JdJa1bgxWBPQa8NQmHegKBTzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDAXkFCwIBCA4KLjIlAgQOBQ6IGAjPMgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLToUHB4MYgRQBBJRoAYI3gViIMpMuhX0mZIMZb4FIgQQBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,568,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="13943966"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2015 03:00:02 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6T302Pj024667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:00:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.49]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:00:01 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC
Thread-Index: AQHQyaqpV8aF2KHpOEG3XvnwKN9v8g==
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:00:01 +0000
Message-ID: <4797B33E-9851-427E-8710-84122AFD0FFA@cisco.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507230910190.11810@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507230910190.11810@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.24.116.172]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9F69F2B5-1FF9-474D-BE07-28C3F925C684"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4xtzkyb3LSoOTKWkHSZ43MVxQok>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:00:05 -0000

> On Jul 23, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>; wrote:
> 
> I really care about DNSSEC and I don't want this to be broken for a prolonged amount of time just because people are doing NAT64+DNS64.

Between us girls, I don't think many of us really like NAT64...