On Feb 15, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 2/15/10 9:21 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Mark Scholten wrote:
>>>
>>> I've seen problems that are only there because of DNSSEC, so if there is a
>>> problem starting with trying to disable DNSSEC could be a good idea. As long
>>> as not all rootzones are signed I don't see a good reason to use DNSSEC at
>>> the moment.
>>
>> You realise that two of them are signed now and the rest will be signed by
>> 1st July?
>>
>
>
> Which means now is a good time to find and fix brokenness, not hope that
> DNSSEC will go away.
Right.
Apart from implementations that just can't handle funky RR types in the
response -- firewalls, perhaps? see RFC 2979, especially the transparency rule
-- a lot of the trouble is caused by the reply size. The code should either
use EDNS0 or fall back to TCP -- and lots of folks have broken firewall configs
that don't allow TCP 53, even though it's been in the spec since 1984 or
thereabouts.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
