nanog mailing list archives
Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer () hezmatt org>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 15:46:14 +1100
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:51:52AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
So what do we do? We currently point the blocked domains to addresses of a web server with a short explanation. But what if the domains were signed? We could let validating servers return SERVFAIL. But I'd really prefer avoiding that for the simple reason that there is no way to distinguish that SERVFAIL from one caused by e.g. a domain owner configuration error.
Perhaps we need to expand RCODE to be the full octet, and indicate "blocked for legal reasons" with RCODE value 25. - Matt
Current thread:
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses, (continued)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses John Levine (Nov 14)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Stephane Bortzmeyer (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses David Conrad (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Mark Andrews (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses David Conrad (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Roland Dobbins (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Roland Dobbins (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Mark Andrews (Nov 12)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Matt Palmer (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Mark Andrews (Nov 13)
- Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses Matt Palmer (Nov 14)