Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 23 July 2015 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 5686E1A1BC2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 S8fmS7J4k_bb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 CD8461A2182 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82C2EDA0085; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:31:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.218] (71.233.41.235) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:31:01 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_178A832B-439A-4452-8CC8-7EB8B3F3CF7F"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <55B09AE5.4040609@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 06:30:59 -0400
Message-ID: <2BBE839B-37FB-4EA2-982E-58028E7A13B6@nominum.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507230910190.11810@uplift.swm.pp.se> <55B09AE5.4040609@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/FUrVt3UlMsEEzAlay2v7qiwaZAg>
Cc: 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:31:43 -0000

On Jul 23, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
> Read RFC 6147 - it covers this issue, and points out that
> "The main drawback of this mode is its
> deployability, since it requires changes in the end hosts."

I think Mikael is asking for a stronger statement than “you could do this, but probably won’t.”

I think this would take the form of a document describing recommendations for DNSSEC-aware stub resolvers, which I don’t think currently exists, and hence could in theory be worked on.