IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] The renumbering problem [Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft]

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Tue, 25 November 2008 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B56B3A6C13 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:19:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id itsxHDeSXYD7 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:19:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E30703A6C2E for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1L51Ud-000O4j-U6 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:14:31 +0000
Received: from [2001:1af8:2:5::2] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <iljitsch@muada.com>) id 1L51UO-000O3T-Rc for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:14:20 +0000
Received: from claw.it.uc3m.es (claw.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.246] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAPHDF5v004015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:13:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <63548E65-2A9C-47B2-8595-5C88BEA97F4E@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <E60CDD5C-0D46-4C50-B300-FFAABA8BB704@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] The renumbering problem [Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft]
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:14:00 +0100
References: <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014765AF@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <6BB0BB30-7AA4-4821-B9EB-4703794F3C87@muada.com> <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net> <9937716B-A667-4FB6-8337-9596AD356901@muada.com> <courier.4917F518.00002B4D@softhome.net> <20081110143243.GI89033@Space.Net> <courier.491852A1.000070E6@softhome.net> <1568D893-1DC9-48CF-A04A-F2B55F31E416@apple.com> <4920E51C.7070007@gmail.com> <60FD682C-1436-493F-995D-4B2A7241D398@apple.com> <20081118220136.GE89033@Space.Net> <E60CDD5C-0D46-4C50-B300-FFAABA8BB704@apple.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On 19 nov 2008, at 1:29, james woodyatt wrote:

> My hunch is that those folks should probably be using DNS-SD instead  
> of the fragile cruftiness they're struggling against now.

Can DNS service discovery be secured with DNSSEC?

What if there are unsigned delegations in the delegation hiearchy?

If I'm going to base my firewalling rules or VPN setup on the DNS then  
the DNS info must be protected against poisoning and other attacks.

Iljitsch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email