Wouldn't it at least make sense to require that the .gprs
"pseudo-TLD" be reserved by IANA under Section 4 of RFC 2860 ("technical work items" and
"assignments of domain names for technical uses"), with the proviso that
this TLD must not be resolved, except locally ?
This is under the theory that anything that looks like a tld and is used in IP DNS
will eventually leak into the public infrastructure.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:34:58 -0400
"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In message <0a3601c5c824$3253fcb0$0500a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Spencer Dawkins"
> writes:
> >OK, as much fun as this is...
> >
> >GPRS relies heavily on a tunneling mechanism (called GTP) for cellular
> >mobility. It's IP based.
> >
> >The DNS that users know ANYTHING about is used INSIDE the tunnel - if a GPRS
> >user types www.yahoo.com, that's INSIDE the tunnel.
> >
> >.gprs is used OUTSIDE the tunnel, to find GGSNs for SGSNs, etc.
> >
> >.gprs is not an alt-root, it's not even the DNS for a "walled garden" that
> >any GPRS user will ever see directly, unless you think that SGSNs are "DNS
> >users". It is ONLY used for GPRS infrastructure devices to find each other
> >inside a GPRS infrastructure IP network.
> >
> >Some number of GPRS operators ALSO operate DNS for end users in a walled
> >garden, but that has nothing to do with .gprs. It would be a serious concern
> >if GPRS end users could send untunneled packets directly to GPRS
> >infrastructure devices, because, sadly, it's very rare that GPRS operators
> >use IPsec to secure the operation of the GPRS infrastructure.
> >
> And exactly how does abusing the DNS stop people from sending them
> packets? In the security world, we have a phrae for this: security
> through obscurity. It's not a compliment....
>
> I see absolutely no technical justification for .gprs in this
> application. And yes, I understand what it's for. I also think that
> Neustar should know better. My working assumption is that after
> "creating new facts on the ground", to quote a phrase from Middle East
> politics, the GSMA folk will start marketing walled garden content to
> their users under that domain. (Not that any other generic TLD has
> really caught on, but that doesn't stop folks from trying.) There are
> also the usual issues of leakage (hint: how do resolvers learn where
> the real root servers live?), confusion if one of operators needs yet
> another pseudo-TLD, and what answers a DNSSEC should give for this
> tree's root.
>
> It's a bad idea, no matter what the excuse. .local can cause trouble,
> but at least it has some justification. I see no valid reason for this
> stunt.
>
> --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf