[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@wasabisystems.com>, Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>, users@ipv6.org, dns op wg <dnsop@cafax.se>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From: Mark.Andrews@nominum.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:56:18 +1100
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:39:15 -0800." <E14J8j5-000JOh-00@rip.psg.com>
Sender: owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject: Re: IPv6 dns


> > Why do a rogue server? Why not just have the existing root operators
> > deploy v6 transport capable root servers that are official?
> 
> no disagreement there.
> 
> > If you feel that it is too risky to do that on the existing hardware ...
> 
> obviously you missed the entire discussion.  this is not about the usual
> software bugs.  it's about cache poisoning of old servers in v4 space.
> 
> > I would ask you to state a reason (other than possible expense) why
> > having a couple of "clone servers" run and administered by the same
> > folks running the current roots but on the 6bone and accepting
> > requests over v6 transport could cause an operational problem. What is
> > it, exactly, that we're fearing here?
> 
> this was discussed in dnsop, and is in the dnsop minutes.  it was discussed
> in ngtrans.
> 
> to repeat the presentation:
> 
> ----
> 
> the v6 directorate and the i* would appreciate if today's dnsop meeting
> would add the following to its agenda:
> 
>   o if there actually is a need for to experiment with a separate v6 root,
> 
>   o what is the cache hints and root zone content, and, given that
> 
>   o what are the possiblity vulnerabilities of the general internet, and if
>     there are any
> 
>   o what are the limits/guidelines needed to prudently protect the net?
> 
> an example of a worry is cache poisoning of an antique v4 bind.

	A quick look at the code says that AAAA/A6 records won't
	be cached.  If fact you can use this technique for finger
	printing nameservers.

	Anti-cache poisoning techniques depend upon ownernames not
	type.

	The real worry with BIND 4 is that it does not support TCP
	retries.   So as long a mix of A and A6/AAAA records make
	it into the additional section and we don't increase the
	answer section things should be ok.

	Mark

> 
> ----
> 
> and there are thousands of vulnerable v4 binds still out there.
> 
> randy
--
Mark Andrews, Nominum Inc.
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@nominum.com

Home | Date list | Subject list