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> Mon, 20 February 2012 22:57 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 044CB21F85FC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:57:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.227
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 AteiiHVbikTq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70B821F85FB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT0LPu5rCXP50qJ3GspbyuWCpDhBY3X0X@postini.com; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:57:03 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; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:55:37 -0800
Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:55:36 -0800
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:55:36 -0500
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "EXT - joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com>, Marc Lampo <marc.lampo@eurid.eu>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:55:28 -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: AczwGv1RylzOYikrSOiJPgXVBRSCpgAB5Bzw
Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7671A227B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <20120201150911.25955.80172.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <017501ccefdc$68025a50$38070ef0$@lampo@eurid.eu> <4F42C1E6.7010606@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F42C1E6.7010606@bogus.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:57:04 -0000
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] On Behalf > Of EXT - joelja@bogus.com > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 4:58 PM > To: Marc Lampo > 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 2/20/12 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 > > 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 mailing lists by 2012-02-15. Exceptionally, comments > may be > > sent to 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 > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > 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