Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC
Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 29 July 2015 10:26 UTC
Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 1671C1A1A33 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 YLIh_z4D1yUX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53BD1A0211 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1ZKOZT-0000CeC; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:26:47 +0200
Message-Id: <m1ZKOZT-0000CeC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507230910190.11810@uplift.swm.pp.se> <55B09AE5.4040609@gmail.com> <2BBE839B-37FB-4EA2-982E-58028E7A13B6@nominum.com> <55B0F344.4090005@gmail.com> <ED7E283A-0430-4D4E-87A6-ED9FD8DFC6F4@nominum.com> <m1ZIYIw-0000EuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAAedzxrWExsiyh4hhsfJTufuRVM_67f2tGWkHCLc9kiduTU0hg@mail.gmail.com> <88CAA5385EB5404392BF93106C8C53F89636B43DE3@HE111507.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <55B8A596.80600@cesnet.cz>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:06:14 +0200 ." <55B8A596.80600@cesnet.cz>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:26:47 +0200
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/EnYKO2DsMqbUGIWw0ypVy8OCwPY>
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 10:26:51 -0000
In your letter dated Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:06:14 +0200 you wrote: >That is why there is a requirement in RFC7050 Section 3.1. to validate >network-specific NAT64 prefix using reverse and forward DNSSEC secured >queries. The only problem is that there is no way so far how to seed the >list of trusted NSP domains. Instead of asking users "Do you want to >trust the network prefix dns64.example.org?", there could probably be >some matching with domain name received by other means like DHCP or DNSSL= >=2E > >Of course, using the Well-known prefix is on the safe side, and should >be IMO used wherever applicable. It seems to me that Section 3.1 is very far from something can be implemented in a practical way in a consumer device. I.e. if a user with a mobile device connects to a random network that employs NAT64, there is essentially no way for an ordinary user to verify if the prefix is valid or not. Now if there would be DHCPv6 and RA options for the prefix, there would be no need to discover the prefix using the DNS64 resolver and the problem would reduce to whether to trust DHCPv6 or RA. Which is already part of the security model (i.e. RA guard can protect users from each other).
- [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Heatley, Nick
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Czerwonka Michał 1 - Hurt
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Heatley, Nick
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC holger.metschulat
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Ca By
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Ondřej Caletka
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Czerwonka Michał 1 - Hurt
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC Philip Homburg