Up at the crack of dawn for the second half of the DNS-OARC workshop. (See the timetable for links to slides etc.) The coffee I bought yesterday morning made a few satisfactory cups to help me get started.
Before leaving the restaurant this evening I mentioned writing my notes to Dave Knight, who said his approach is to incrementally add to an email as the week goes on. I kind of like my daily reviews for remembering interesting side conversations, which are the major advantage of the value of attending these events in person.
Sara Dickinson of Sinodun did a really good talk on the consequences of DNS encryption, with a very insightful analysis of the implications for how this might change the architectural relationships between the web and the DNS.
DNS operators should read RFC 8404 on “Effects of Pervasive Encryption on Operators”. (I have not read it yet.)
Sara encouraged operators to implement DoT and DoH on their resolvers.
My lightning talk on DoT and DoH at Cambridge was basically a few (very small) numbers to give operators an idea of what they can expect if they actually do this. I’m going to submit the same talk for the RIPE lightning talks session later this week.
I had some good conversations with Baptiste Jonglez (who is doing a PhD at Univ. Grenoble Alpes) and with Sara about DoT performance measurements. At the moment BIND doesn’t collect statistics that allow me to know interesting things about DoT usage like DoT query rate and timing of queries within a connection. (The latter is useful for setting connection idle timeouts.) Something to add to the todo list…
Ondřej Surý of ISC.org talked about some experiments to find out how much actually breaks in practice if you put a CNAME and other data at a zone apex. Many resolvers break, but surprisingly many resolvers kind of work.
Interestingly, CNAME+DNAME at the same name is pretty close to working. This has been discussed in the past as “BNAME” (B for both) with the idea of using it for completely aliasing a DNS subtree to cope with internationalized domain names that are semantically equivalent but have different Unicode encodings (e.g. ss / ß). However the records have to be put in the parent zone, which is problematic if the parent is a TLD.
The questions afterwards predictably veered towards ANAME and I spoke up to encourage the audience to take a look at my revamped ANAME draft when it is submitted. (I hope to do a submission early this week to give it a wider audience for comments before a revised submission near the deadline next Monday.)
Tale Lawrence mentioned the various proposals for multiple queries in a single DNS request as another angle for improving performance. (A super simplified version of this is actually a stealth feature of the ANAME draft, but don’t tell anyone.)
I spoke to a few people about ANAME today and there’s more enthusiasm than I feared, though it tends to be pretty guarded. So I think the draft’s success really depends on getting the semantics right.
Early in the morning was Jim Hague also of Sinodun talked about C-DNS, which is a compressed DNS packet capture format used for DITL (“day in the life” or “dittle”) data collection from ICANN L-root servers. (There was a special DITL collection for a couple of days around the DNSSEC key rollover this weekend).
C-DNS is based on CBOR which is a pretty nice IETF standard binary serialization format with a very JSON-like flavour.
Jim was talking partly about recent work on importing C-DNS data into the ClickHouse column-oriented SQLish time-series database.
I’m vaguely interested in this area because various people have made
casual requests for DNS telemetry from my servers. (None of them have
followed through yet, so I don’t do any query data collection at the
moment.) I kind of hoped that
dnstap would be
a thing, but the casual requests for telemetry have been more
interested in pcaps. Someone (I failed to make a note of who, drat)
mentioned that there is a
dnstap fanout/filter tool, which was on my
todo list in case we ever needed to provide multiple feeds containing
I spoke to Robert Edmonds (the
dnstap developer, who is now at
Fastly) who thinks in retrospect that protobufs was an unfortunate
choice. I wonder if it would be a good idea to re-do
uncompressed C-DNS for framing, but I didn’t manage to talk to Jim
about this before he had to leave.
A couple of talks on what will happen next year after the open source DNS resolvers remove their workaround code for broken authoritative servers. Lots of people collaborating on this including Sebastián Castro (.nz), Hugo Salgado (.cl), Petr Špaček (.cz).
Their analysis is rapidly becoming more informative and actionable, which is great. They have a fairly short list of mass hosting providers that will be responsible for the vast majority of the potential breakage, if they aren’t fixed in time.
Giovane Moura (SIDN) - DNS Defenses During DDoS
also to appear at SIGCOMM
headline number on effectiveness of DNS caches: 70% hit rate
query amplification during an outage can be 8x - unbound has mitigation for this which I should have a look at.
Duane Wessels (Verisign) - zone digests
really good slide on channel vs data security
he surprised me by saying there is no validation for zone transfer SOA queries - I feel I need to look at the code but I can imagine why it works that way…
zone digests potentially great for safer stealth secondaries which we have a lot of in Cambridge
Petr Spacek complained about the implementation complexity … I wonder if there’s a cunning qp hack to make it easier :-)
Peter van Dijk (PowerDNS) - NSEC aggressive use and TTLs
there are now three instead of two TTLs that affect negative cacheing: SOA TTL, SOA MINIMUM, plus now NSEC TTL.
new operational advice: be careful to make NSEC TTL and SOA negative TTLs match!