June 2004 - dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [dns-wg] IANA proposal for changing TLD delegations
by Marcel Schneider 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

On Thursday, 24 Jun 2004, Jim Reid writes: > IANA has published a proposal on how it plans to deal with changes in > the root zone for TLD delegations. It's at > http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html. > I would recommend that people read this and comment on it. TLD owners > in particular might want to pay special attention to the part headed > "IANA Procedures for Removing Problematic Delegation Data ". We have been checking the document before and found nothing to worry about. The part you are referring to deals with restoring the DNS in case of emergency. The title is of course not well chosen - it could be interpreted in different ways, as suggested by Jim, but the measures are sound. Marcel

1 0

Re: [dns-wg] IANA proposal for changing TLD delegations
by Jim Reid 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad.knowles(a)skynet.be> writes: >> http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html. Brad> I read the proposal on the web page. Except for their Brad> complete lack of discussion of things like IPv6, DNSSEC, Brad> etc..., I don't see anything specifically and obviously Brad> wrong with what they've got. Everything seems, more or Brad> less, fairly reasonable. Brad> Do you have some specific comments/views on the Brad> proposal? If so, could/would you be willing to share them Brad> with us? Well the section "IANA Procedures for Removing Problematic Delegation Data" suggests to me that IANA may unilaterally decide to change the delegation of a TLD without the consent of the TLD operator. And it's not at all clear what circumstances and criteria would prevail for IANA to justify taking that action. Not that this practice can ever be justified IMO. IANA can't possibly know what the best or correct name servers for some TLD will be. By definition only the TLD operator can decide that. I'm rather surprised that nobody seems to think this is part of the proposal could be more than a little controversial. And if IANA starts changing the root zone whenever it feels like doing so -- OK I exaggerate for effect -- that sets a very dangerous precedent. When it comes to the root zone, IANA must only act as the registry. It must always be someone/something else that decides what goes in the root zone. Of course this doesn't preclude IANA from checking delegations and making recommendations about changes. But there must be a seperate role that has the responsibility of instructing IANA to make changes to the root zone. IANA must not have that authority itself. Perhaps this section of the proposal is just badly written? However I fear it's badly thought out instead.

1 0

IANA proposal for changing TLD delegations
by Jim Reid 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

IANA has published a proposal on how it plans to deal with changes in the root zone for TLD delegations. It's at http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html. I would recommend that people read this and comment on it. TLD owners in particular might want to pay special attention to the part headed "IANA Procedures for Removing Problematic Delegation Data ". Unfortunately the closing date for comments was June 21st -- I've only just seen this document. However a revised version is promised for June 28th, so there may still be an opportunity to comment on the current one.

3 2

Re: [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
by Jim Reid 16 Jun '04

16 Jun '04

Not having seen the whole discussion thread, it's a bit hard to make sense of what's been said. However it appears to be that someone is saying that the need for anycasting (and more specifically special address allocations for anycast name servers) can be discounted if ENDS0 was more widely used. This is a flawed argument IMO. As Peter has said, resolvers that aren't EDNS0-aware will still be pounding on the parent zone's name servers. [They're also much more likely to be the resolvers that are misconfigured to go to the root to reverse lookup RFC1918 addresses, don't implement negative caching and so on....] Simply adding more NS records and glue in the parent zone's delegation for a child zone is no help. For one thing, most name server implementations have a limit on the number of name servers they can handle for a delegation. Adding extra NS records is even less help when those servers have IPv6 addresses => yet bigger DNS payloads. In fact adding extra servers and/or IPv6 addresses may be worse because there's an increased likelihood of truncated responses getting sent to these non-EDNS0 resolvers, resulting in retried queries over TCP. Nasty. Aside from these DNS protocol issues, there are plenty of other good reasons for deploying anycasting for important DNS infrastructure. That's why lots of the root and TLD name server operators are doing this already. Ironically, these include the NCC's root name server. Anycasting provides increased robustness, extra redundancy, improved performance, better scalability, extra capacity/throughput, defence in depth from DDoS attacks, etc, etc. Anycasting isn't going to go away even if all the world's DNS software implemented EDNS0. Anycasting is a fact of life. And it will become more prominent in future. So if the address policy WG is reluctant to endorse special address allocations for DNS anycasting, I'd ask them to reconsider. If it helps, we could ask the DNS WG to discuss the issue and perhaps make a recommendation to the address policy WG.

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
by Peter Koch 15 Jun '04

15 Jun '04

Hello, {I'm copying this to the DNS wg list, since the protocol issues may probably be better discussed there. Hey, I *love* these [tags] :-(} [address allocation for anycast of DNS nameservers] Havard Eidnes <he(a)uninett.no> wrote: > > ------------ snip ------------ > > "Operators providing DNS for a zone served by a number of name servers > > such that the total response size when including the list of > > nameservers for the zone is close to the UDP packet size limit may > > Hm, it's not "the UDP packet size limit", it is "the packet size limit > for DNS over UDP without the application of EDNS.0". I may not have > followed things too closely, but it makes me sort of wonder why a push towards EDNS.0 is not being advocated instead of polluting the routing > space to compensate for people who have not yet upgraded their > software... Of course, people may still dream up configurations which Isn't then the parent of those trying to do anycast suffering from those resolvers unaware of EDNS0? In other words: what could the applicant do? -Peter

1 0