Nanog 46 is wrapping up today and it has been an incredible experience. This particular Nanog seemed to have an underlying IPv6 current to it, but, if you believe the reports, IPv6 is going to have to become the standard in the next couple of years. We’ll be running dual-stack configurations for some time to come, but IPv6 rollout is necessary.
To date, I haven’t had a lot to do with IPv6. A few years ago I set up one of the many IPv6 shims, just to check out connectivity, but never really went anywhere with it. It was nothing more than a tech demo at the time, with no real content out there to bother with. Content exists today, however, and will continue to grow as time moves on.
IPv6 connectivity is still spotty and problematic for some, though, and there doesn’t seem to be a definitive, workable solution. For instance, if your IPv6 connectivity is not properly configured, you may lose access to some sites as you receive DNS responses pointing you at IPv6 content, but that you cannot reach. This results in either a major delay in falling back to IPv4 connectivity, or complete breakage. So one of the primary problems right now is whether or not to send AAAA record responses to DNS requests when the IPv6 connectivity status of the receiver is unknown. Google, from what I understand, is using a whitelist system. When a provider has sufficient IPv6 connectivity, Google adds them to their whitelist and the provider is then able to receive AAAA records.
Those problems aside, I think rolling out IPv6 will be pretty straightforward. My general take on this is to run dual-stack to start, and probably for the forseeable future, and getting the network to hand out IPv6 addresses. Once that’s in place, then we can start offering AAAA records for services. I’m still unsure at this point how to handle DNS responses to users with possibly poor v6 connectivity.
Another area of great interest this time around is DNSSEC. I’m still quite skeptical about DNSSEC as a technology, partly due to ignorance, partly due to seeing problems with what I do understand. Rest assured, once I have a better handle on this, I’ll finish up my How DNS Works series.
I’m all for securing the DNS infrastructure and doing something to ensure that DNS cannot be poisoned the same way it can today. DNSSEC aims to add security to DNS such that you can trust the responses you receive. However, I have major concerns with what I’ve seen of DNSSEC so far. One of the bigger problems I see is that each and every domain (zone) needs to be signed. Sure, this makes sense, but my concern is the cost involved to do so. SSL Certificates are not cheap and are a recurring cost. Smaller providers may run into major issues with funding such security. As a result, they will be unable to sign their domains and participate in the secure infrastructure.
Another issue I find extremely problematic is the fallback to TCP. Cryptographic signatures are big, and they tend to be bigger, the larger the key you use. As a result, DNS responses are exceeding the size of UDP and falling back to TCP. One reason DNS works so well today is that the DNS server doesn’t have to worry about retransmissions, state of connections, etc. There is no handshake required, and the UDP packets just fly. It’s up to the client to retransmit if necessary. When you move to TCP, the nature of the protocol means that both the client and server need to keep state information and perform any necessary retransmissions. This takes up socket space on the server, takes time, and uses up many more CPU cycles. Based on a lightning talk during today’s session, when the .ORG domain was signed, they saw a 100-fold increase in TCP connections, moving from less than 1 query per second to almost 100. This concerns me greatly as the majority of the Internet has not enabled DNSSEC at this point. I can see this climbing even more, eventually overwhelming the system and bringing DNS to its knees.
I also believe that moving in this direction will allow the “bad guys” to DoS attack servers in much easier ways as they can easily trigger TCP transactions, perform various TCP-based attacks, and generally muck up the system further.
So what’s the alternative? Well, there is DNSCurve, though I know even less about that as it’s very much a fringe technology at this point. In fact, the first workable patch against djbdns was only released in the past few weeks. It’s going to take some time to absorb what’s out there, but based on the current move to DNSSEC, my general feeling is that no matter how much better DNSCurve may or may not be, it doesn’t have much of a chance. Even so, there’s a lot more to learn in this arena.
I also participated in a Security BOF. BOFs are, essentially, less structured talks on a given subject. There is a bit more audience participation and the audience tends to be a bit smaller. The Security BOF was excellent as there were conversations about abuse, spam, and methods of dealing with each. The spam problem is, of course, widespread and it’s comforting to know that you’re not the only one without a definitive answer. Of course, the flip side of that is that it’s somewhat discouraging to know that even the big guys such as Google are still facing major problems with spam. The conversation as a whole, though, was quite enlightening and I learned a lot.
One of the more exciting parts of Nanog for me, though, was to meet some of the Internet greats. I’ve talked to some of these folks via email and on various mailing lists, but to meet them in person is a rare honor. I was able to meet and speak with both Randy Bush and Paul Vixie, both giants in their fields. I was able to rub elbows with folks from Google, Yahoo, and more. I’ve exchanged PGP keys with several people throughout the conference, serving as a geek’s autograph. I have met some incredible people and I look forward to talking with them in the future.
If you’re a network operator, or your interests lie in that direction, I strongly encourage you to make a trip to at least one NANOG in your lifetime. I’m hooked at this point and I’m looking forward to being able to attend more meetings in the future.