nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful)
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 12:34:13 -0800
[ I just removed these addresses: Havard.Eidnes () runit sintef no smd () clock org peter () wonderland org jlewis () inorganic5 fdt net paulp () winterlan com ...from the recipient list, since I know they are all on NANOG. I would not be offended by each of the above people thanking me publically for not making them see two copies of this reply. Perhaps that would set some kind of an example for the rest of the audience, most of whom just say "reply-all". ] Havard said:
...which brings me to think if it isn't so that Secure DNS (at least as currently specified) and widespread deployment of NAT boxes which fiddle with the contents of DNS reply/request packets isn't exactly a properly working combination. As I understand it you can have NAT or Secure DNS with e.g. signed A records but you can't (easily?) have both.
This is a misdirected concern. DNS clients inside a NAT cloud are already proscribed from seeing DNS data from other NAT clouds or from the Internet itself. The NAT technology has to strip off DNSSEC stuff when it imports data but it tends to strip off DNS delegation and authority data as well, and tends to alter the address and mail exchange records. NAT borders are already DNS endpoints, with or without DNSSEC. Whether and how to regenerate external DNS inside a NAT cloud is a matter of NAT implementation, but the fact that it's _regenerated_, not forwarded or recursed, is a design constant.
Current thread:
- Re: moving to IPv6, (continued)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vadim Antonov (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Winfried Haug (Nov 09)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 11)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 11)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Bill Becker (Nov 01)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Greg A. Woods (Nov 01)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Havard . Eidnes (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Paul A Vixie (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) bmanning (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Greg A. Woods (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Eric M. Carroll (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Paul A Vixie (Nov 01)
- Message not available
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Paul A Vixie (Nov 01)
- Message not available
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 02)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Alan Hannan (Nov 02)
- Message not available
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 03)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Havard . Eidnes (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Brett Frankenberger (Nov 02)