DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses
mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Sat Nov 14 22:17:26 UTC 2015
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 05:32:41PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20151114044614.GA4973 at hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes:
> > 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.
> Rcode's were expanded to 12 bits back in 1999. See RFC 2671.
I didn't feel it was worth looking beyond RFC1035 for an off-the-cuff joke.
More information about the NANOG