- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Pointer to DNS Benchmarking list
by Ondřej Surý 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

The mentioned mailing list is: dns-benchmarking(a)lists.dns-oarc.net and the archives are located: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-benchmarking/ with pointer to git: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-benchmarking/2012-June/000008.html you can subscribe here: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-benchmarking O. -- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Using RIPE Atlas: A DENIC Case Study
by RIPE Labs Administrator 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

[apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, Please find a new article on RIPE Labs: Using RIPE Atlas: A DENIC Case Study, by Peter Koch: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/pk/denic-case-study-using-ripe-atlas Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Draft recommendation for limiting the EDNS0 response size on authoritative name servers
by Roland van Rijswijk - Deij 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

Hi all, During the last RIPE meeting, I presented on research that SURFnet has been doing over the past year into DNS response delivery issues caused by firewalls or other network equipment blocking fragments (see https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/91-20120418_-_RIPE64_-_Ljubljana_-_DN… and the meeting minutes for the last WG meeting). After the meeting, Jim Reid suggested that we write a draft WG recommendation containing some of the suggestions we made for dealing with this issue (specifically, dealing with it by reducing the maximum EDNS0 response size on the authoritative side). Gijs van den Broek, who has performed most of the research, has spent the past couple of weeks writing such a recommendation. I'm circulating the draft document here hoping that we can discuss whether or not it makes sense to issue a recommendation on this. I realise this may be a controversial issue. Many have argued in the past that the only real solution to this problem is that people stop doing second rate Internet by blocking fragments, or that operators of caching recursive name servers should correctly configure their systems according to the maximum response size they can receive. Our approach to this has been a rather pragmatic one. Rather than looking at what should be the ideal situation we are trying to strive for maximum interoperability and ensuring that we maximise the chance that a response is delivered to a query while still not completely giving up on the ideal that fragmentation should just work and be accepted. The reason for approaching this from the authoritative side, by the way, is that there are already a number of recommendations out there that deal with the caching recursive side of things. If there is one thing our research shows its that these recommendations are not followed by most operators, unfortunately. As an operator of a substantial number of zones, we would like to be able to influence the deliverability of responses for the zones we are authoritative for. Since we cannot chase down every operator of a caching recursive name server that experiences delivery issues, even if we wanted to, the only way to do this is to avoid fragmentation on the authoritative side. I will present some more of our reasoning behind the recommendations in the document at the DNS WG meeting. I'm hoping for a good discussion next week :-) The document can be found here: https://dnssec.surfnet.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Recommendations-for-de… Remarks, comments, rants, etc. are all welcome via e-mail as well, of course :-) Cheers and see you next week, Roland -- Roland M. van Rijswijk - Deij -- SURFnet bv -- w: http://www.surfnet.nl/en/ -- t: +31-30-2305388 -- e: roland.vanrijswijk(a)surfnet.nl

5 5

New on RIPE Labs: Counting DNSSEC
by Mirjam Kuehne 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article on RIPE Labs: Counting DNSSEC (by Geoff Huston): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/counting-dnssec Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

draft minutes from RIPE64
by Jim Reid 15 Sep '12

15 Sep '12

Colleagues, here they are. Please speak up if there are any errors or omissions so that these can be approved by the WG at RIPE65. Thanks.

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Root Server Instances in Member Networks
by Mirjam Kuehne 06 Sep '12

06 Sep '12

[apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, Please find a proposal on RIPE Labs how to create member instances of K-root and how to implement this during a pilot phase: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dfk/root-servers-in-member-networks Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

FWD from address-policy-wg: Cosmetic Surgery Project: Review Period on Version 2 of Draft Document, for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space]
by Peter Koch 06 Sep '12

06 Sep '12

Dear DNS WG, the following announcement and proposal may be relevant for this audience. Please follow the instructions for comments. Thanks, Peter (as WG co-chair) ----- Forwarded message from Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> ----- From: Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Review Period on Version 2 of Draft Document, for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:52:18 +0200 Reply-To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". After the feedback in the previous review phase, a new draft (2.0) of the policy document is online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The highlights of the changes from the previous version include: -the removal of all unnecessary references to "reverse resolution" -the rewording and simplification of section 4.0 In response to the community's request: -section 3.0 focuses on who is able to ask for the delegation -the reference to the obsolete RFC 2874 has been replaced with the relevant active RFCs The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 3 October 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>. Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

DRAFT DNS WG Agenda for upcoming meeting at RIPE65
by Peter Koch 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Dear WG, please find below (and soon at <https://ripe65.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/dns-wg/>) the first draft agenda for our meeting at RIPE65 in Amsterdam: ============================================================================= D R A F T Agenda ============================================================================= RIPE DNS WG Meeting at RIPE65, Amsterdam ============================================================================= Session I Wed 26 Sep 1100-1230 // EIX Session II Wed 26 Sep 1400-1530 // IPv6 ============================================================================= 0 Administrivia Introduction, mailing list, minutes, mic discipline 1 Software reports OpenDNSSEC [Sara Dickinson] Knot DNS [Marek Vavrua] 2 Interop & New Protocols DNS Benchmarking effort [Ondrej Sury] IETF [DANE] [Ondrej Sury] 3 RIPE NCC report [Romeo Zwart] 4 DNSMON future [Daniel Karrenberg] 5 Operational considerations [Roland van Rijswijk] and recommendations for DNS response packet sizes 6 Panel (tentative) DNS amplification attacks: BCP38, mitigation, reputation or what? 7 Panel (tentative) Overcoming the "first mover loses" paradigm for IPv6^WDNSSEC deployment ============================================================================= The sequence of presentations/talks is subject to change to accomodate timing and presenter availability. Please note that the panel sessions are "in the making" and subject to up-to-dateness. Suggestions welcome at <dns-wg-chair(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Peter

1 0

DNS measurements available as RIPE Atlas UDMs
by Vesna Manojlovic 28 Aug '12

28 Aug '12

Dear colleagues, I am happy to announce DNS measurements, a new addition to the RIPE Atlas User Defined Measurements (UDM), making it in total 4 types of customized measurements available to RIPE Atlas hosts & RIPE NCC members. Please find out the details in the RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/becha/dns-user-defined-measurements-in-ripe-a… Please let us know what you think, and enjoy the measurements :) Regards, Vesna

1 0

Syntax of the "nserver:" Attribute in Domain Objects
by Anand Buddhdev 23 Aug '12

23 Aug '12

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, Following on from the removal of the forward DOMAIN objects from the RIPE Database, all DOMAIN objects are now used for either reverse DNS or ENUM delegations. For both these cases, the "nserver:" attribute is required. Currently this attribute is optional and there are many objects in the RIPE Database that do not have any "nserver:" attributes. These objects are ignored by the DNS provisioning service, because they have no operational value. The RIPE NCC proposes to make the "nserver:" attribute mandatory in DOMAIN objects and delete any objects from the RIPE Database that do not have this attribute. To simplify the parsing of DOMAIN objects, the RIPE NCC also proposes to deprecate the list option on the "nserver:" attribute (a list, when used in combination with end-of-line comments and continuation lines, is very complex to parse). This means adding multiple name servers to a single attribute will no longer be allowed. For example, an attribute currently formatted as: nserver: ns1.example.com ns2.example.net will have to be rewritten as: nserver: ns1.example.com nserver: ns2.example.net If glue records are required, they would be written like this: nserver: ns1.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa 192.0.2.1 nserver: ns1.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa 2001:db8::1 nserver: ns2.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa 192.0.2.2 nserver: ns2.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa 2001:db8::2 There are a number of domain objects in the RIPE Database which use the list feature, and list multiple name servers in a single "nserver:" attribute. As part of this syntax change, we would update these objects to use the new syntax. This would not affect DNS delegation in any way. This message has been sent to both the DNS and Database working groups, but we ask that discussion of this matter be kept on the DNS WG mailing list. Regards, Anand Buddhdev RIPE NCC

4 7