Subject: Re: [homenet] case for reverse DNS on homenet

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:12:40 -0400

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> There was some minor discussion in the WG about whether reverse
    >> DNS was needed at all for home networks.

    Joe> Why? Do we all like stalls on reverse lookups ( telnet, some
    Joe> logging, x509 validation, acls)?

I have no idea why you like to have stalls.
My network doesn't have any such things, and there is no reason you have
to stall things to do a lookup.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:28:30 -0700

On 4/3/2012 6:12 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch<[email-masked]>  writes:

The above things stall waiting for a lookup to complete and timeout when 
they lack a reverse DNS entry.

Joe

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:37:28 +1000

> they lack a reverse DNS entry.

Lack of a reverse entry DOES NOT CAUSE A STALL.  Broken delegations
cause stalls.  Unreachable nameservers cause stalls.  Not having
a PTR record does not cause a stall as you get back NXDOMAIN.

If a reverse lookup is slow complain to the administrators of the
reverse zone and if that fails complain to the RIR to get the
delegation removed.  A broken delegation is *much* worse than
no delegation.

> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:29:15 -0700

On 4/5/2012 4:37 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message<[email-masked]>, Joe Touch writes:
>>
>>

Fair enough...

> delegation removed.

Certainly - I'll let all home users know that this is the appropriate 
solution. I'm sure the average customer knows what to do next... ;-(

Whether this is fixed by ensuring proper delegation or by a proxy that 
gives the right answer quickly, IMO a reverse DNS local to the homenet 
is useful.

Joe

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 20:46:30 -0400

On Apr 5, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Joe Touch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Whether this is fixed by ensuring proper delegation or by a proxy that gives the right answer quickly, IMO a reverse DNS local to the homenet is useful.

Reminder: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lemon-dhc-dns-pd-00 addresses this precise issue in a way that does not require every homenet to manage its own reverse delegation, but allows homenets to be configured in such a way that they can negotiate such a delegation if their operators prefer.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:58:02 -0400

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> Whether this is fixed by ensuring proper delegation or by a proxy
    >> that gives the right answer quickly, IMO a reverse DNS local to
    >> the homenet is useful.

    Ted> Reminder: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lemon-dhc-dns-pd-00
    Ted> addresses this precise issue in a way that does not require
    Ted> every homenet to manage its own reverse delegation, but allows
    Ted> homenets to be configured in such a way that they can negotiate

Ted, I read your document this morning (it was on my list...) 
and I love your document.  Great!  

Does it get adopted by DHC or HOMENET WG?

I think I didn't get to the end of it this morning on the bus, but if
homenet uses PD to delegate prefixes within the home, do you see any
reason why subnets for the different parts of the home(net) couldn't
have reverse DNS delegated too?  

(I think there are reasons why some networks probably *shouldn't* do
this, probably not by default either, but I can see a number of
situations where it would be useful.  One use case might be Fred's house
network, with the two SOHOs...)