[dns-operations] Getting rid of ISP's recursive DNS servers? (Was: Eircom "DNS Attacks" ?
Stefan Schmidt
stefan.schmidt at freenet.ag
Sun Jul 19 22:06:52 UTC 2009
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 02:44:13PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 08:22:57PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
>>> I have seen configurations for djbdns at least that do not need
>>> the root-servers at all. Just ftp the file once per week and
>>> prepare it so your dnscache directly queries the tld-servers.
>
> Pretty much any caching server can be configured to do this. In fact,
> part of the IANA DNSSEC testbed was to have a signed zone open for zone
> transfer specifically for this purpose (try a zone transfer from
> root.iana.org). dnscache is actually at a disadvantage compared to BIND
> since it doesn't support zone transfer...
Thats meant for Peter i suppose.
I'd rather not encourage ftp transfers as a root-servers substitute.
>> The roots provide a central yet scalable
>
> Err, no. Not really. "Central" pretty much means non-scalable by
> definition. The root, as a single point of failure, will always be
> vulnerable because it is trivial to simply add more zombies to your
> botnet to overwhelm anything that the root server operators are able to
> spend. You want scalability? Compare the O(300) machines serving the
> root zone today to the number of caching servers out there.
I will put it this way:
The root nameservers provide the most scalable yet central service yet.
This is due to the ingenious protocol design we have with DNS. It could
also work with a p2p system but i would presume this to be way slower.
>> and yes, flexible point to
>> gather TLD delegation data from, replacing that with a non-DNS way
>> only
>> obfuscates the protocol and well, just think about the scalability
>> issues
>> you'd run into with the central ftp-server you're proposing.
>
> The root zone is small (currently about 130K signed) and changes
> relatively infrequently. Due to caching, it is obviously not time
> critical to have the absolutely latest version. As such, it would be
> trivial to Akamize (or whatever) the root zone. Assuming it is signed,
> of course.
Alright, so what would you do if for some (any) reason we needed to do a
complete reset/bootstrap of the DNS?
I'd rather not have to synthesize the egg without the chicken.
Stefan
--
/* Thanks to Rob `CmdrTaco' Malda for not influencing this code in any
* way.
*/
2.4.3 linux/net/core/netfilter.c
More information about the dns-operations
mailing list