- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Draft DNS-WG minutes from RIPE 45
by Olaf M. Kolkman 19 May '03

19 May '03

Draft DNS-WG minutes from RIPE 45 May 15, 2003 9:00-12:30 Chair: Jim Reid Scribe: Olaf M. Kolkman ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Agenda A. Administrivia: * Minutes of Last Meeting * Matters arising B. IETF Report & News Lars-Johan Liman, Autonomica C. BIND News Joao Damas, ISC D. Invited talk: Mitigating Junk DNS Traffic, How the AS112 Project Can Help. John Brown, Chagres Technologies (cancelled) E. Invited Talk: DNS RTT Measurements: ccTLDs compared with roots/gTLDs Nevil Brownlee, CAIDA F. Delegation and Lame Server Checking ZoneCheck: DNS zone checking tool Stephane D'Alu, AFNIC Fixing Lameness - A Registry Perspective Ed Lewis, ARIN New Tools for Lameness and Delegation Checking Patrik Faltstrom, Cisco Systems Panel Session on Delegation and Lame Server Checking Stephane D'Alu, Ed Lewis & Patrik Faltstrom G. AOB --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrativia Slightly modified above. - The chair expanded on the fact that the working-group is intended to do some work and that the delegation check panel discussion may end up as a work item for this group; a policy document. - Minutes where approved. - Issues arising: + Andrei Robachevsky on delegation from 2002.ip6.arpa: 2002 space and reverse delegation. Delegation does not scale, it is mapped to /32 in IPv4 space. The issue is currently discussed in the IAB where the decision about delegation to the RIRs is made. After a positive decision a proposal will come to the RIRs and the community will need to work on the policies. Next step in this process in is a meeting between RIR and IAB in Vienna. Remark: Currently only 3 delegations requests. Chair: After gauging consensus: Due to little interest working on a policy is not to become a WG item just yet. + DNS WG and DNR Forum overlap Rob Blokzijl: Its becoming more and more complicated to explain the differences between the DNS-WG and DNR Forum. It is difficult to find out for participants to go where and for the chairs to find out where a presentation belongs. Confusion is the result. The proposal is to combine the meetings of the two groups and allocate 3-4 slots and have the combined meeting chaired by the DNS-WG and DNR-Forum chairs. As a next step the groups may be merged. Comments are: - Let's get on with technical work. - Giving the efficiency combining meetings are good. - There are advantages scheduling DNR issues early in the week, close to the CENTR technical meeting. - There are worries about the amount of time allocated to the combined groups. Rob Blokzijl answered that the amount of slots is allocated by the amount of agenda items, early agendas will help a proper slot allocation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ B. IETF Report & News Lars-Johan Liman, Autonomica Slides available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/presentations/ripe-45-dns-ietf.pdf Lars-Johan gave an update IETF developments. In the DNSEXT working group: - the details of "Jakob's bug", a DNSSEC related development - IPv6 support in the root. - LLMNR (Link Local Multicast Name Resolution); a protocol for resolving names when there are no external DNS servers. - Clarification of the wildcard processing; few implementations do it correct. - 6DNAR IPv6 Domain Name Auto Registration. - DNSSEC docs, these are under rewrite; some details need to be decided on. - DS draft changes In DNSOP - New chairs Rob Austein and Dave Meyer. - 6to4 delegations; does not follow allocation tree. - .local zones problems: Queries that are supposed to remained in a limited 'scope' leak out. There are a number of solutions. - Response sizes of delegation records. The size of an answer is a function of the query name; how to make sure one receives glue [Quote of the day: "This one is quicker and bigger than your pointer"] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- C. BIND News Joao Damas, ISC Slides available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/presentations/ripe45-dns-bind.pdf Joao described developments: - BIND8 8.4.0 (in RC1): has IPv6 transport and bug fixes. 8.3.5 same as 8.4.0 without IPv6 - BIND9 9.3.0 no release date defined 9.2.2 DNSSEC _not_ defined at compile time. 9.2.3 bug fix release - BIND developments GSS-TSIG to be incorporated in 9.3 and performance increase. - BIND Forum The forum is a source of funding for BIND development and support. Members have CVS access to bind9 code. Increase of membership is needed to achieve stability. - OpenReg: reference implementation of an EPP based registry system. - F-ROOT: Anycasting on a large number of local nodes. Joao concluded with expressing gratitude for RIPE NCCs contribution to the BIND forum. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Invited talk: Mitigating Junk DNS Traffic, How the AS112 Project Can Help John Brown, Chagres Technologies Cancelled due to illness. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Invited Talk: DNS RTT Measurements: ccTLDs compared with roots/gTLDs Nevil Brownlee, CAIDA Slides available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/presentations/ripe45-dns-nevil.pdf Nevil does passive measurements of DNS traffic and presented a talk similar to the EOF presentation on Monday though tailored towards ccTLDs. He stressed that this is on-going work and that he is interested in feedback on what aspects are interesting for ccTLDs to measure. Nevil went into the details of measurements made in the first week of May and demonstrated how certain effects in his plots can be explained by congestion close to the probe or the server, daily load effects, route changes, &c, &c. He demonstrated some of the differences in the measurements of Root/gTLD and ccTLDs. One remarkable observation is that the Suriname (SR) TLD seems to be a very popular TLD among the measurement sites. Comments on SR being 'that popular' + Liman notes that this may be a bug. + Faltsrom did some tests: SR seems to have a lame delegation to one of the servers that returns a SERVFAIL for some queries. This may cause an increase of traffic. Nevil further showed slides with details about a number of ccTLDs and explained the congestion patterns. More NeTraMet meter sites for DNS monitoring ar needed. following the "Setting up a NeTraMet meter" on http://www.caida.org/~nevil Chair's Question: Could you give recommendations, using this data, to ccTLD operators. Answer: willing to collaborate if there is interest. Chair's Question2: Maybe looking at the semantic content can be useful for understanding what is going on. Answer: There are limitations, line rates only allow to look at the first cell currently. With new interface cards looking at DNS content might become possible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- F. Delegation and Lame Server Checking F.1 ZoneCheck: DNS zone checking tool Stephane D'Alu, AFNIC Slides available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/presentations/ripe45-dns-zonechec… Tool available at http://zonecheck.nic.fr/v2/ For testing contact <zonecheck(a)nic.fr> Stephane presented the 2nd version of ZoneCheck. Highlights: + Checks on: o DNS RRs: SOA, NS, A, AAAA, MX, o Consistency: SOA serials and content o Flags: recursion and authority. + Modular build so other checks can be build in. (RFC compliant checking tool) + monitoring: http://tac.eureg.org/mon/ + Strengths of the tool Answer to a question about languages: Both French and English are available. Faltsrom: Test on open relay reports false positive Answer bug. F.2 Fixing Lameness - A Registry Perspective Ed Lewis, ARIN Presentation at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/presentations/ripe45-dns-testing-… Ed presents the impact on the ARIN engineering department for doing lameness tests. The goal is to give references to those engineers who want to do lameness tests too. This work is based on a policy described in http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_1.html He discussed a number of issues that one has to consider: o why do you want to do lameness tests (save the net or save the DNS). o How do you store your registry data against you want to check (how do you perform the mapping). o When and how do you contact a registrant. o Taking into account the change in the db based on your feedback. o Staging your test (in line with your testing policy): o Training your first line support staff o What kind of statistics do you keep and present o What is best practice and what is "allowed" practice; how far do you go into improving data. o How do you share information with other registries. Comments by George Michealson: There is an emerging policy in the APNIC DNS-SIG. There are questions like what are definitions of lameness and what are the procedures to be followed. He welcomes feedback. George comments on the differences in his personal opinion on some of the choices made by ARIN and his own ideas on lameness: e.g. a 60 days timeout should be considered consistently lame. Jim Reid asked what kind of response you get from customers. Ed answers that the responses were positive and reactive. F.3 New Tools for Lameness and Delegation Checking Patrik Faltstrom, Cisco Systems Slides available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/presentations/ripe45-dns-check/ Patrik presented 'dnscheck' (http://dnscheck.paf.se) He gave a life demonstration. The tool reports errors where an error is defined as not getting relevant data back. i.e. if only one of the nameservers does not return a proper answer. The tool concentrates on 'parent-child' relation ships. The .SE zone returns 22% errors. 41% lame, 14% missing A, 14% TCP, 6% non-functioning email in SOA, 5% illegal CNAME in MX, 4% has less than 2 NS RRs. Only a small fraction of the zones have combined errors. Patrick poses questions; how come? what are the requirement, what are the recommendations? Is this a WG issue? Tool at http://dnscheck.paf.se discussions on <dnscheck(a)lists.paf.se. Question by Jim Reid: Are the tests cached so one can tell that things are improved. Answer: Tests are not being stored for more than the tests that failed during the latest one. Question Bernard Tuy: is there IPv6 support Answer DNSSEC and IPv6 are on the stack. Question Winkler: How do you check the consistency at the root. What is the authoritative information. The delegation NS set or the TLD NS set. Answer: First the root delegation NS set is requested, it is checked for consistency in the NS RR set in the TLD, then the glue is verified against the addresses in the DNS. Remark by George Michaelson: The trends seem flat. Answer: The data is only been collected for a month. 2nd Remark by George Michaelson: An authoritative NXDOMAIN hurts the end-users most. F.4 Panel Session on Delegation and Lame Server Checking Stephane D'Alu, Ed Lewis & Patrik Faltstrom Andrei Robachevsky and George Michealson Chair explains that this is a mixture of technology and policy and that there may a working item for this working group. Daniel Karrenberg: The quality of the DNS lameness seems to have been constant. The DNS remains working. Do we want to play protocol police? Will there be an impact on the registry operators? Randy Bush: If you delegate zones you are responsible for the technical quality. The availability of tools helps. DNS breakages effect end users e.g. microsofts delegation not observing RFC 2881 recommendations. Let us not wait for fatal breakage. Patrick Faltsrom: Big DNS operators seem to be able to do a better job. This may be due to the availability of better tools. (General availability of tools, also for smaller DNS operators, is good) Mohsen: Lame delegation happens after the delegation. Regular checks are good. Akkerhuis: Most complaints are not about being lame but more that registrants have moved domains and old ISPs have not removed their zones from the old zones. (Karrenberg suggests that with tools that keep history you can actually check this) Karrenberg: It is a good thing that zone administrators checking what happens in their zones but are the mechanism used correct? Reid: How do we do this; which tools do we need, what policy statements. Randy: Since there is no increased error rate. Do not confuse RIPEs job with the job of the ccTLDs. Michaelson: Lameness is not well defined. We probably need a good common understanding. Faltsrom refined that we should be careful to not to have statements about lameness into quality statements. The chair gauged if there is consensus for working on this lameness issues in particular with respect to practices on the reverse tree. Reid, Faltsrom and Michaelson volunteered further discussion on the mailinglist. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AOB: A patent was granted to Verisign for multiple simultaneous domain name searches. allocate 3-4 slots and have the combined meeting chaired by the DNS-WG and DNR-Forum chairs. As a next step the groups may be merged. Comments are: - Let's get on with technical work. - Giving the efficiency combining meetings are good. - There are advantages scheduling DNR issues early in the week, close to the CENTR technical meeting. - There are worries about the amount of time allocated to the combined groups. Rob Blokzijl answered that the amount of slots is allocated by the amount of agenda items, early agendas will help a proper slot allocation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [dns-wg] Delegation checking policy/procedure at ARIN
by Thor Kottelin 15 May '03

15 May '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 dns-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> > when the nameserver is on the same machine as > the site, I never understood why I would need two name servers. > Either the machine is in operation or not. Why could I not > have only one nameserver in that case? As a practical example, someone might need to look up the mail address in your SOA record while "the machine" is down. More generally speaking, domains are administrative entities; using second level domains to name individual boxes is not good namespace administration. Thor - -- http://thorweb.anta.net/ PGP public key available "Women should always wear tight clothes, and men should carry powerful handguns." - Calvin (by Bill Watterson) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPsNfh+lROe8ye3NFEQLKDQCfdulKFvL1NJ5MdfIARNl9ER1aE4EAoJKV QNm51VjqQB09CyOLkKCHKtiB =8AQi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [dns-wg] Delegation checking policy/procedure at ARIN
by Jim Reid 15 May '03

15 May '03

>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> writes: JFC> When I cannot register a ".fr" or a ".tp" name because of the JFC> retsrictions imposed by their NICs I am upset. I would prefer JFC> - and I would be gratefull - if they told me what is wrong I JFC> could correct when I want, but securing the DN in the JFC> meanwhile? This is really something to discuss with the registry concerned. There should be some forum where its customers -- or stakeholders -- can influence policy. However registries don't usually run DNS consultancy businesses, so there will be limits on what they can and cannot do. It's hard to see where chatty help messages for the DNS-clueless would stop and DNS consulting starts: how much help and advice is "enough"? And how much of that consultancy can a registry afford to do when it's only getting a few bucks for the registration? JFC> Example: when the nameserver is on the same machine as the JFC> site, I never understood why I would need two name servers. Read section 3.3 of RFC2182. In fact, read the whole RFC. JFC> I would be really interested if Patrick's work permitted JFC> that: to tell me what may be wrong in my files and to teach JFC> me to correcty right them? Well, someone from AFNIC will be talking about their new delegation checking tools and processes at the WG tomorrow. The presentation should be on the RIPE web site by early next week at the latest. I'm hoping the WG will use tomorrow's session on delegation checking to work on this topic: perhaps produce a BCP or something like that. If this gets under way, it would be useful to get contributions on things like the nature of error messages and so on.

4 4

Delegation checking policy/procedure at ARIN
by Jim Reid 13 May '03

13 May '03

Ed Lewis will be giving a presentation at the WG next week on ARIN's proposals for checking DNS delegations. I've passed a copy of his slides to RIPE NCC for their comments. [This could well turn out to be a subject that RIRs might want to co-ordinate or establish a commpn policy.] The slides probably won't be on the RIPE web site until after WG, so apologies that the detail isn't available yet. Ed's kindly provided the following shopping list of stuff that ARIN are considering. These issues -- and others! -- are likely to crop up if/when a similar policy is adopted by RIPE NCC. I've forwarded Ed's summary to the list so that we can think about this and perhaps have a discussion on the mailing list before the WG meets. Hopefully this could bring some focus to the panel session that's been arranged for the WG next week. ------- Forwarded Message Message-Id: <a05111b0ebad47bb890b7(a)[192.168.1.100]> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:07:00 -0400 To: Jim.Reid(a)nominum.com, Patrik Faltstrom <paf(a)cisco.com>, Peter Koch <pk(a)techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> From: Edward Lewis <edlewis(a)arin.net> Subject: ripe 45 notes Cc: Edward Lewis <edlewis(a)arin.net> ARIN's membership has adopted a policy (found at the following URL: http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_1.html) The policy omits many engineering details, as these are being uncovered we are noting them. This presentation is a discussion of issues identified to date. Note that this is an engineering discussion, not a report on progress nor a statement on findings. Most of the presentation consists of a laundry list of issues. Here is a synopsis of the issues: 0) What is the purpose? 1) Data is stored in different formats - registration database is not a mirror of the DNS. People will have different perspectives - other than DNS. 2) When is a good time to report problems? How can this be done (wrt time ordering) in a clear manner? 3) Data in DB changes over time, even in result of testing reports 4) Incremental nature of tool development 5) Staff impacts, how this will impact those who answer the email and phones 6) Kinds of (and importance of) statistics 7) Firmness of testing, how rigorous? 8) Correlating data in the DB, specifically ASN's and prefixes with the context being RIR specific here - -- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer It's true, my last college class really was "Introduction to Ada." ------- End of Forwarded Message

6 6

Signing the Root Zone to be discussed in TechSec WG @ Barcelona
by Daniel Karrenberg 13 May '03

13 May '03

Point C on the agenda below might be interesting for people on this list. Daniel ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> ----- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 06:50:16 +0200 From: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> To: techsec-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: meeting(a)ripe.net, webmaster(a)ripe.net, Lars-Johan Liman <liman(a)autonomica.se>, Yuri Demchenko <demch(a)nlnetlabs.nl>, "Olaf M. Kolkman" <olaf(a)ripe.net> Subject: Agenda TechSec-wg Barcelona TechSec-ers, Over the last few weeks there have been additional agenda points suggested. Because of other obligations I am a bit late with updating the agenda. My sincere apologies. Here is my suggestion so far. There should be time for more, so if you have relevant material, just be there and we will bash the agenda. (for Ted) Daniel ----- A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - minutes B. Disi report, Olaf Kolkman - 15 minutes Report on the status of the DISI project and the state of DNSSEC in the IETF. C. Signing the Root Zone, Johan Ihren (via Lars-Johan Liman) - 40 minutes Presentation on draft-ietf-dnsop-interim-signed-root-01.txt and draft-ihren-dnsext-threshold-validation-00.txt. Also some discussion whether the RIPE NCC should spend time on this. See also message <3EA54B21.3070307(a)ripe.net> from Andrei Robachevsky on the dns-wg and local-ir mailing lists. D. Fonkey project update: target applications, Yuri Demchenko - 15 minutes. Short information about the status of the project and description of target applications, including extended PGP keyserver, attributes/privilege server, location server. E. Overview of Related Activities Elsewhere, Yuri Demchenko - 20 minutes Information about activities and projects among CSIRT community (IETF INCH WG and IODEF development, CERT/CC and TF-CSIRT projects, usage of IRT object in RIPE NCC Database by CSIRT community). Short overview of PKI/AA activities and exploring interest of WG in providing more information about PKI/AA developments (in context of supporting PKI based RIPE NCC Improved Secure Communication System), including training courses. F. Any Other Business ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

Re: [dns-wg] Delegation checking policy/procedure at ARIN
by Jim Reid 06 May '03

06 May '03

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad.knowles(a)skynet.be> writes: >> Ed Lewis will be giving a presentation at the WG next week on >> ARIN's proposals for checking DNS delegations. I've passed a >> copy of his slides to RIPE NCC for their comments. [This could >> well turn out to be a subject that RIRs might want to >> co-ordinate or establish a commpn policy.] The slides probably >> won't be on the RIPE web site until after WG, so apologies that >> the detail isn't available yet. Brad> Specifically, I was thinking about a distributed Brad> collection script and a centralized checking facility, where Brad> results could be posted to the appropriate mailing lists and Brad> newsgroups, in much the same way as the reports made by Rob Brad> Thomas to the NANOG mailing list (especially his "lame Brad> delegation" report at <http://www.cymru.com/DNS/lame.html>). I encourage you (and others) to expand on these thoughts on the list. Or if you'd prefer, bring this to the WG at a future RIPE meeting. Brad> Perhaps this is something that could be done in Brad> conjunction with the RIRs? Could we all pool our resources? Brad> Perhaps we can talk to Rob as well? These are all good ideas. In fact the RIRs are mumbling about having a common policy on this. We should know more after Ed's presentation and the panel session in Barcelona next week. My hope is there will be enough commitment for the subject to become a work item for the WG. This subject is going to become more important and there's a gap here that will need to be filled, possibly soon. IMO the WG is an ideal forum for the discussion to take place because of the combination of operational, policy and standards issues that are involved.

2 1

Announcement RIPE NCC DNSSec Training Courses
by RIPE NCC Training 01 May '03

01 May '03

------- Dear Colleagues, [apologies for duplicate postings] As a service to its members the RIPE NCC offers the DNSSec Training Course. The main objective of the DNSSec Training Course is to provide LIRs with sufficient background to be able to deploy DNSSec in their own organisation as soon as the protocol is standardised. This course also explains the specific procedures set up by the RIPE NCC to to secure the in-addr.arpa zone. The Domain Name System (DNS) is one of the main parts of the Internet infrastructure. At the moment DNS lacks a mechanism to establish the authenticity and integrity of the data it provides. DNSSec is a set of extensions to provide this end-to-end authenticity and integrity. It is currently being developed within the IETF dnsnext Working Group. The protocol is about to be finalised and the code implementing the protocol is available in alpha releases. The DNSSec course consists of two parts: an "Introduction to DNSSec" and a real life demonstration. The "Introduction to DNSSEC" will cover: - DNS security threats - DNSSec security mechanisms - DNSSec server protection - DNSSec data protection - Delegation issues - Key management issues - Current developments Examples are based on the BIND name server. Please note that DNSSec is an advanced course. It will: - NOT teach the basics of DNS. - NOT describe how to receive Internet resources from the RIPE NCC not describe how to operate a Local Internet Registry (LIR) The target audience of the course are technical staff of LIRs: e.g. network & system operators, engineers, etc. This course is not intended for administrative or management staff (e.g. Hostmasters). It is assumed that all attendees are familiar with common DNS terminology, have a practical knowledge in operating DNS servers and are interested in learning the concepts and mechanisms that DNSSec offers. The DNSSec course is conducted in the English language and is free of charge, since it is covered by the membership fee. More information about the DNSSec Training Course can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/training/dnssec/ REGISTRATION: You can register for a course at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/trainingform.pl.cgi Or by completing the registration form at the end of this e-mail and replying to <training(a)ripe.net> In order to register for a DNSSec Training Course you must be an employee of an LIR and either : - be an LIR contact - be confirmed by an LIR contact. LIR contacts are those employees of an LIR who are registered with the RIPE NCC as authoritative contact persons. It is expected that most of those interested in the DNSSec Training Course will not be an authorative contact persons for their LIR, and therefore will be refused by the course registration "robot". In order to be admitted to the course, a confirmation e-mail must be sent to <training(a)ripe.net>. Please approach the LIR contacts from your organisation personally, since the identity of LIR contacts is confidential, and the RIPE NCC is unable to divulge contact persons for any given LIR. Kind Regards, The RIPE NCC Training Team COURSE DATES AND VENUES +++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Friday 4 July 2003 Time: 0900 - 1700 Location: Glasgow,Scotland AND: Date: Friday 18 July 2003 Time: 0900 - 1700 Location: Vienna, Austria AND: Date: Friday 19 September 2003 Time: 0900 - 1700 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands REGISTRATION FORM +++++++++++++++++ %START PART 1 - Registration 1) Your name Enter First name, Last name in full e.g. John Doe Mary-Beth Walton # NAME [ ] 2) Your Registry ID (format: country-code.<name of registry>) # REG [ ] 3) Your e-mail address # EMAIL [ ] 4) Your NIC handle (optional) # NICHANDLE [ ] 5) The course you plan to attend (date and location) # COURSE [ ] %END

1 0

[staff] [local-ir@ripe.net]signing the roots
by Andrei Robachevsky 01 May '03

01 May '03

Dear colleagues, At the DNS-WG at the last RIPE meeting (RIPE 44) Johan Ihren presented his proposal for an interim scheme for signing the public DNS root. The current version of this Internet-Draft is: draft-ietf-dnsop-interim-signed-root-01.txt The full text of this Internet-Draft can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-interim-signed-root-01… In the Internet-Draft, a mechanism has been proposed for a first stage of a transition from a unsigned DNS root to a signed root, such that the data in the root zone is accompanied by DNSSEC signatures to allow validation. The process of doing this involves the use of a set of operator keys which are signed by one key signing key, sometimes referred to a "master key". It has been further proposed that these key signing keys be managed by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The proposal states the requirements of the RIRs would be to: * establish a secure out-of-band communication path in collaboration with the signing operators which will be used for authenticated exchange of the unsigned keyset. * periodically generate strong keys using a good random number generator * manage their keys (i.e. use them for signing the operator keyset and keeping the private key appropriately secret) Question: Since this Internet-Draft suggests future action by the RIRs, the RIPE community should discuss this issue and provide feedback to the author. Therefore, the following question is asked: Is this a task that should be performed by the RIPE NCC? Please direct your feedback to dns-wg(a)ripe.net mailing list. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC

1 0

views.........please
by Mansoor Ahmed 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Hi, I have a requirment of 2 views one for internal and one for external, the named.conf is very simple, but i am unable to query other domains when doing nslookup from outside, it is replaying root servers only. ------------------------------------------------------------ options { directory "/var/named"; pid-file "/var/named/named.pid"; }; logging { channel sec_channel { file "/var/tmp/named.security"; severity info; }; category security { sec_channel; default_syslog; default_debug; }; }; acl "corpnet" { 10.0.0.1; }; view "internal" { match-clients { "corpnet"; }; recursion yes; zone "." in { type hint; file "root.ca"; }; zone "domain-local" { type slave; file "domain-local.hosts"; allow-transfer { any; }; masters { 216.137.31.87; }; }; }; view "external" { match-clients { any; }; recursion no; zone "." in { type hint; file "root.ca"; }; zone "domain1.com" { type slave; file "domain1.com"; allow-transfer { none; }; masters { 216.137.31.87; }; }; }; Please advice, thanks in advance. Mansoor

1 0

I-D on SRV and whois servers
by Marcos Sanz/Denic 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Hi all, In this version of the draft, Gerhard and I have incorporated comments made in the last WG session: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sanz-whois-srv-00.txt Feedback and comments are very welcome. On the other hand I'd like to raise the question whether some registry zone administrators would be willing to include SRV records pointing to their whois servers, as .de and .at have done. This would increase the gene pool of the initiative. Regards, Marcos Sanz DENIC eG

1 0