North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Interesting new dns failures

  • From: David Ulevitch
  • Date: Tue May 22 16:43:55 2007

Gadi Evron wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote: 
ok, so 'today' you can't think of a reason (nor can I really easily) but
it's not clear that this may remain the case tomorrow. It's possible that
as a way to 'better loadshare' traffic akamai (just to make an example)
could start doing this as well.

So, I think that what we (security folks) want is probably not to
auto-squish domains in the TLD because of NS's moving about at some rate
other than 'normal' but to be able to ask for a quick takedown of said
domain, yes? I don't think we'll be able to reduce false positive rates
low enough to be acceptable with an 'auto-squish' method :(


Auto-squish on a registrar level is actually starting to work, but there
is a long way yet..

As to NS fastflux, I think you are right. But it may also be an issue of
policy. Is there a reason today to allow any domain to change NSs
constantly?

Why are people trying to solve these problems in the core?

These issues need to and must be solved at the edge. In this case the edge can be on customer networks, customer resolvers, or at the registrar. It's dangerous to fix problems at the core where visibility is limited and data is moving quickly.

These issues should not be "solved" by the registry operators or root server operators, that's very dangerous.

There are, of course, exceptions where it's helpful when a registry operator steps in to help mitigate a serious Internet disturbance, but that's the exception and should not be the rule.

People are suggesting it become the rule because nobody is trying anything else.

-David Ulevitch