IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Default DNS Server

Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> Fri, 29 March 2019 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <nygren@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D15D1204A1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 IV51lFQa_PYN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com (mail-wr1-f44.google.com [209.85.221.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5FD12046B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id w1so4202448wrp.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wndfZV6mn9BhXuiRpJ7ksq7Ws716RSc3Ysbptwbiuuk=; b=YXr4p8T3egUSsQELOIrCk8zjijQfGFoqJzwDNdDTx0c98AlUEkjdsn1dm3LbbrY9Io MB/z36rxTl2ePjDKkLjfi00egRcmTnSmHaB4RU+NEgHrY2IXwzhd4CsdLu2orcWGef3y +tlwM23FEhYD2F6aH9wBW/eLkKZbZGqvVWfVmSUbyDwTDV/mNxEk023BKj7L9HEdiC47 iPGEffD8GZnExrh09LB4kFy+irXLP57gwB0cvbEyHl6HdX2zpse/K8KidSqGljF2T43S gAPb/onljLdLTY4bNl5PwwOq8cTIblAU6/AeUZv/qB6EhB386XHy0SnLMxkv0Mv3XboE T0ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU2Ifk+Jnesae3BJ0zJmV8J4mEQaIFuN3pywVTVeI7fW0i5/ON7 Rxz4JGdHFIQ0/8lege7Z/XQQDXKlY/kUF5d7y/s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw0eZOpWDlWlnyiEAJ6vnaAoG1oKm6zlnmX9lLim/6NPCEpib+dHZfM88VTwmNhXdRjMIZXq3PEM2pYjT5EQP4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1250:: with SMTP id j16mr31541389wrx.135.1553893129957; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155352271867.29069.14575634631344292386.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E8BCAC39-7DDD-4971-A893-0FF5C0DC2567@consulintel.es> <CANPwAQYDgdw6gvDPa+QWBUR3Lfgs6pwWgLieYj79pYA6QEEz_w@mail.gmail.com> <F0D01DF1-4C40-452E-B523-0331050F8858@consulintel.es> <B97DC1EE-24E7-4B9E-8E45-C65CD87DBB39@consulintel.es> <0153779E-91C8-4D9F-9454-CE44E2E9A9A8@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0153779E-91C8-4D9F-9454-CE44E2E9A9A8@gmail.com>
From: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 16:58:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJhBd5D0zKot4c5QLkAKT46EcSWZM5e0-ji-EujKQ3wf6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000007b80c058541f03b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fcOnrAQKeE0p-9gvk-nLjUMfxMo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Default DNS Server
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 20:59:01 -0000

For those who haven't seen it, this was perhaps one of the hottest topics
at this IETF.
See the discussions in DoH, DPRIVE, a session Wednesday afternoon, and
elseswhere.
There is a strong desire by some parties to use "more trustworthy DNS
resolvers"
which means not necessarily trusting the network-offered resolver.
I suspect this may not immediately impact consumer electronics,
but it could impact some browsers.

Some response perspectives, at least one of which mentions DNS64:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reid-doh-operator-00
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues-03

For what it's worth, Firefox doesn't yet do DNS64 synthesis when using a
DoH server
(and actually also does happy eyeballs backwards when doing DoH),
but now has bugs open to fix both.

      Erik




On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:57 AM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 2019, at 5:11 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=
> 40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > 1) Mikael mention that Chromecast (and other devices), use a manually
> configured DNS such as 8.8.8.8.
>
> This is a different comment than Jordi's topic, but I'm of the opinion
> that the use of services like 8.8.8.8 by default overrides what might be
> local policy. I'd really like to see such things use 8.8.8.8 (or 1.1.1.1 or
> whatever) only as a backup in case the network didn't tell it what DNS
> server to use.
>
> Reason: if nothing else, the device might be used in a network that has
> local services that need to be accessible. Google is well informed, but
> even Google doesn't know everything, and specifically doesn't know about
> such services. To me, this design decision borders on arrogance, and
> certainly isn't about enabling user control of the services they use. Net
> Neutrality and all that...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an
> interesting comment on projected traffic volume...
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email