DNS flag day

[Warren Kumari]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 2:58 PM Ben Croswell <ben.croswell at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would say we had one provider go as far as saying this whole flag day
> thing is a hoax.
>

That's a weird stance / position. "The whole flag day thing is
[stupid|overblown|annoying|confusing|on a Friday]" are all positions I can
understand - not agree with (modulo the Friday one), but at least
understand. 'tis a hoax is just confusing...
Flag Day been discussed at length, and presented at multiple DNS events -
it seems that a DNS provider who hasn't seen any of the presentations and
recognized at least one person pushing this isn't well connected to the
community, and should probably be avoided...

W
P.S: Unless they think it is simply a *very* subtle, long running,
widespread hoax... and now I'm wondering if I'm the patsy here :-P




> Not sure what option there is other than voting with your wallet and
> moving to a different provider.
>

> May even be worth looking at 2 providers. I see DNS provider redundancy as
> being a huge priority after the Dyn DDoS event.
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019, 2:50 PM Lightner, Jeffrey <JLightner at dsservices.com
> wrote:
>
>> On checking I find that any of our domains that use Network Solutions’
>> Worldnic.com nameservers are reporting failures when checked.
>>
>> For example this result:  https://ednscomp.isc.org/ednscomp/e30c6cf0ea
>>
>> Other people online have posted about Network Solutions as they also saw
>> failures.
>>
>> On calling Network Solutions today they told me they are compliant
>> despite what was reported by https://dnsflagday.net/
>>
>>
>>
>> This issue is with domains registered at Network Solutions and using
>> their Advanced DNS (i.e. their Worldnic name servers).   Other domains we
>> have registered with them but pointing to other name servers (i.e. our own
>> BIND servers) displayed as compliant.
>>
>> When I sent them the links they saw what I saw but still claimed they are
>> compliant.   They refused to send me something in writing stating that so I
>> suggested they reach out to ISC regarding the checker’s results if they
>> believe they are compliant, but they said they don’t see the need.   I’ve
>> asked them to escalate and they say they have but I suspect I’ll not hear
>> back from them.
>>
>> Is there a list of known edns compliant Registrar name severs for the
>> larger Registrars?
>>
>> Is it possible the failures seen are false?   If so, are there alternate
>> edns compliance checkers that might show different responses than
>> dnsflagday.net?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* bind-users <bind-users-bounces at lists.isc.org> * On Behalf Of *Ben
>> Croswell
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 18, 2019 12:19 PM
>> *To:* bind-users at lists.isc.org
>> *Subject:* Re: DNS flag day
>>
>>
>>
>> I shouldn't have posted so closely to responding to the other user.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not running 9.8. I was replying to them about firewalls in regards
>> to their 9.8 issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Was just hoping for a statement of 9.x or greater supports the needed
>> badvers signaling etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019, 12:15 PM Victoria Risk <vicky at isc.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2019, at 9:09 AM, Ben Croswell <ben.croswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Has ISC released minimum viable BIND version for flag day?
>>
>>
>>
>> Most versions of BIND authoritative servers, going back years, are EDNS
>> compatible. Certainly ALL currently supported versions are compatible. I
>> see you are running 9.8, which has been EOL since September, 2014.  I think
>> that is probably fine, as far as EDNS, however.
>>
>>
>>
>> The change in BIND related to DNS Flag Day is removing workarounds from
>> resolvers, that will retry without EDNS or otherwise try to proceed even
>> when EDNS fails. This change came in the BIND 9.13 development version, and
>> will be in BIND 9.14, which is not yet released.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem you are seeing is most likely firewall-related.
>>
>>
>>
>> Vicky
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I looked around and couldn't find anything.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to
>> unsubscribe from this list
>>
>> bind-users mailing list
>> bind-users at lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to
>> unsubscribe from this list
>>
>> bind-users mailing list
>> bind-users at lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to
> unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20190118/be83923b/attachment-0001.html>