Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 23 February 2012 15:24 UTC
Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 1A02D21F855E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:24:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3oQR3ftkwhac for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2611221F8526 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT0ZaGAIZAf08wEL/9TO6j/5tx9Vzl9DL@postini.com; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:24:16 PST
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:22:35 -0800
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:22:34 -0800
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:11 -0500
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>, Marc Lampo <marc.lampo@eurid.eu>, "EXT - joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com>, 'Mark Andrews' <marka@isc.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:10 -0500
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHM8NGMkD00gtDZEUSP/1IDM55exZZHw6MAgADeEzCAAdSqgIAAJYzA
Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7674BFE2D@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <00e401ccf143$303934a0$90ab9de0$@lampo@eurid.eu> <CB6BA2F9.5161B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB6BA2F9.5161B%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7674BFE2DEMBX01WFjnprn_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e4081efb-6d29-443c-8708-750833aec629
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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 Feb 2012 15:24:21 -0000
Folks, I will allow the dust to settle for another 24 hours and then send the draft on for publication. Ron From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:07 AM To: Marc Lampo; Ronald Bonica; EXT - joelja@bogus.com; 'Mark Andrews' Cc: v6ops@ietf.org Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC On 2/22/12 4:20 AM, "Marc Lampo" <marc.lampo@eurid.eu<mailto:marc.lampo@eurid.eu>> wrote: 2) regarding the previous sentence : "So even though an authoritative DNS server will selectively return AAAA resource records and/or A resource records, these resource records can certainly still be signed." In this context - assuming we are talking about a signed domain with chain-of-trust appropriately in place - I'd propose : "So even though an authoritative DNS server will selectively return AAAA resource records and/or A resource records, these resource records must be signed, as well as any accompanying NextSecure information that proves existence and/or not-existence of AAAA resource records." Great suggestion, thank you for suggesting actual text! Correction to that sentence made and will publish momentarily in a -10. - Jason So : -> it's a *must* -> it's not only the A and/or AAAA RRs, but also the NSEC/NSEC3 RRs. Kind regards, Marc Lampo Security Officer EURid (for .eu) From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com] Sent: 21 February 2012 08:55 PM To: Ronald Bonica; Marc Lampo; EXT - joelja@bogus.com<mailto:joelja@bogus.com>; Mark Andrews Cc: v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC I made this addition in the relevant section (6.1). Let me know if it does not capture this sufficiently (or does so inelegantly). Thanks Jason In practical terms this means that two separate views or zones are used, each of which is signed, so that whether or not particular resource records exist, the existence or non-existence of the record can still be validated using DNSSEC. On 2/21/12 2:46 PM, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com<mailto:Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>> wrote: Good idea and it is quick & easy edit. Making the change now. Will send text momentarily. Jason On 2/21/12 8:44 AM, "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> wrote: Authors, What do you think? Ron -----Original Message----- From: Marc Lampo [mailto:marc.lampo@eurid.eu] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:03 AM To: Ronald Bonica; EXT - joelja@bogus.com<mailto:joelja@bogus.com> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting- implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC Hello, I had assumed : 1 zone file (and Mark Andrews correctly pointed at "views"). Would adding this piece of information, directly in the RFC, be useful to avoid confusion for future readers ? Thanks and kind regards, Marc Lampo -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net] Sent: 20 February 2012 11:55 PM To: EXT - joelja@bogus.com<mailto:joelja@bogus.com>; Marc Lampo Cc: v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC Marc, Havard, Are you satisfied with the answers provided by Joel and Mark? Ron -----Original Message----- From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of EXT - joelja@bogus.com<mailto:joelja@bogus.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 4:58 PM To: Marc Lampo Cc: v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa- whitelisting- implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC On 2/20/12 06:32 , Marc Lampo wrote: > Hello, > > (sorry to be late with my comments, bit overloaded on my side) > > 6.1 Security Considerations - paragraph 2 (on DNSSEC) > The text states : "there should not be any negative impact on DNSSEC" > In my opinion, this is *wrong* : > IMHO the following applies. if you have one zone yeah I agree. If you have two zones one with aaaa and one without (assuming this is done with dns views style implementation) you can sign both and they'll both be valid and complete from the vantage point of a client which resolves one or the other of them but not both. this is a traditional split horizon problem. it's just not inside/outside. joel > It is correct that, if an AAAA record exists (in a DNSSEC's zone), > the appropriate RRSIG will be known to authoritative NS's. > If, via white listing, the decision is taken not to present the AAAA > record > (and its signature), this seems OK. > > However : not returning an AAAA record seems identical to : there is no > AAAA record. > And that - there is no AAAA record - yields to "Next Secure" changes ! > If no AAAA record exists, for a name, the corresponding NSEC (NSEC3) > record > should not hold a reference to AAAA. > But if that AAAA record does exist, the authoritative NS will have NSEC > (NSEC3) > data that shows so. > > A DNSSEC query (ENDS0 + DO set) for AAAA (and the AAAA exists but due to > whitelisting > will not be returned), cannot be proven by accompanying (and required) > NSEC (NSEC3) > information. > Hence : this draft will/might make DNSSEC validating name servers fail. > > > If you look at 4.3.1.1 (Description of DNS Resolver Whitelisting) in > detail, > please observe : > 1) the caching name server (and "stub resolver") ask 2 queries > (there is only one line, > but it are two queries : one for "A", one for "AAAA") > 2) if the caching name server (or stub resolver) performs DNSSEC > validation, > it will never accept a reply of "NODATA" to the query of AAAA > (because the NSEC (NSEC3) information will not prove that > non-existance) > ((and the validating name server will repeat the query to all > authoritative NS's, looking for a validatable answer)) > > (the final result, to the user might be that only the A record is useable > - mission accomplished ? > But the side effect will be that validating caching name servers will hit > *all* authoritative servers for the domain, > "in search of" a correctly validating answer.) > > So, while for the end-user, the result might be identical, > one "security impact" of this approach is > additional (useless) DNS traffic and > additional load on authoritative NS's (that implement whitelisting) > > > Kind regards, > > Marc Lampo > Security Officer > EURid > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org] > Sent: 01 February 2012 04:09 PM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > Subject: [v6ops] Last Call: > <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> > (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to > consider the following document: > - 'Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6' > <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> as an > Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org> mailing lists by 2012-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org> instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This document describes considerations for the transition of end user > content on the Internet to IPv6. While this is tailored to address > end user content, which is typically web-based, many aspects of this > document may be more broadly applicable to the transition to IPv6 of > other applications and services. This document explores the > challenges involved in the transition to IPv6, potential migration > tactics, possible migration phases, and other considerations. The > audience for this document is the Internet community generally, > particularly IPv6 implementers. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa- whitelisting-impl > ications/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa- whitelisting-impl > ications/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
- [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whit… The IESG
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Joel jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Joel jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Marc Lampo
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Joel jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Marc Lampo
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Marc Lampo
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-… Livingood, Jason