This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[atlas] testing DNS flag day compatibility
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Long response times using one-off measurements with old probes
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] testing DNS flag day compatibility
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Petr Špaček
petr.spacek at nic.cz
Mon Dec 17 18:40:51 CET 2018
Hello everyone, this is follow-up from RIPE 77 hallway discussion, sorry for delay. We are looking for ways to test DNS flag day [1] compatibility from client networks. Objective is to test hypothesis that most breakage happens on authoritative side of DNS. In other words, we would like to test that DNS recursive infrastructure and client networks do not significantly influence compatibility. That would help to provide precise information for network operators who will have to deal with DNS flag day. Problem here is that RIPE Atlas does not allow to send all types of queries [2] required for full test. It was discussed at length that Atlas team has its reasons for not sending random blobs to random IP addresses, which is understood. Question here is: Can we find a middle ground to allow greater variety of valid DNS queries without forcing Atlas team to reimplement everything? My notes from meeting mention two approaches for further dicussion: a) User provides command line arguments for well-known tool dig, which gets executed in controlled environment ("as part of RIPE Atlas infrastructure") and generates query packet/blob. This blob generated by dig is then used as payload so use cannot ship anything but syntactically valid DNS packet. b) User provides blob for payload, which is then analyzed by packet parser of choice (BIND/ldns/Knot DNS/all of them). The payload can be sent out only if packet parsers do not find out any problem/blob is syntactically valid. These two approaches can also be combined to guard again quirks in either component. c) <propose your own here> What do you think? Is there a way to allow greater flexibility to Atlas DNS? [1] https://dnsflagday.net/ [2] https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/DNS-Compliance-Testing/blob/master/genreport.c#L216 -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Long response times using one-off measurements with old probes
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] testing DNS flag day compatibility
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]