On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 09:34:17PM +0000, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> I think what you're suggesting has already been proposed. See
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/ and
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-cheese-shop/
It is in fact something you can do today. Some of the largest PowerDNS
Recursor sites in the world run with 'root-nx-trust' enabled:
"If set, an NXDOMAIN from the root-servers will serve as a blanket NXDOMAIN
for the entire TLD the query belonged to. The effect of this is far fewer
queries to the root-servers."
This after f-root had enabled RRL slightly too aggressively on some nodes.
We just tested this setting against the "owned Ubiquity" attack and after a
thousand queries or so traffic to the roots dropped off to almost zero.
Bert
>
> DW
>
>
> > On May 16, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Brian Somers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I work at OpenDNS. We saw a DoS attack in Miami on Friday night around
> > 10-11:00pm PST, consisting of UDP DNS requests for AAA.BBB.CCC.DDD where
> > each of AAA, BBB, CCC and DDD are three digit numbers not greater than 500.
> >
> > Each query was answered with an NXDOMAIN by the root servers, Although
> > our resolvers cached the NXDOMAIN for 1 hour (we cap negative responses at
> > 1 hour despite the larger SOA MINIMUM) it was ineffective in reducing the
> > load on the root servers as every varying query was another root server
> > request.
> >
> > We eventually blackholed all TLDs from 000 to 500 to stifle the problem
> > (locally delegating them to 127.0.0.1 where we don’t listen).
> >
> > However, during the attack, we also saw a huge number of TCP sockets in
> > TIME_WAIT talking to root servers (probably all root servers). I’m curious
> > if
> >
> > 1. Are root servers doing some sort of tar pitting where they send a TC
> > and then firewall port 53?
> > 2. Has anyone ever considered a better way than responding with NXDOMAIN?
> >
> > The second is a loaded question, but it occurs to me that a new type of
> > negative response to (say) 111.222.333.444/IN/A might be an NXDOMAIN with
> > an SOA record (as we do now) but also with an indicator that 444 and below
> > are NXDOMAINs. I’m not sure what that might look like, maybe "444/IN/NS .”
> > in the AUTHORITY section where “.” is the NS value meaning that 444 is
> > actually delegated to nobody.
> >
> > Thoughts/comments?
> >
> > —
> > Brian
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
