Hello Ray,
On 10 Feb 2017, at 14:12, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 10/02/2017 12:52, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Can you please consider adding a port number field?
I see where you're coming from, but I'm not inclined to add it (yet)
for
a couple of reasons:
1. CGNAT is evil ;-)
You have my full agreement on that! However, it is also a reality that
we have to deal with today.
2. If I add this, then folks will want other transport related fields
(indeed I already had at least one other person suggest this).
I suggest weighing every such request individually - saying yes to ports
is no reason to say yes to something else :)
Are the server side ACLs etc that need to be able to identify the
client
so fine grained that they'd really give different treatment to
different
clients arriving from the same CGN IP address?
Sadly, yes. In ISP networks, there may be policy differences per
subscriber, and given CGNAT the DNS server can only identify the
subscribers by their IP+port.
This is probably something that the WG should consider if (or
hopefully
when) this becomes a WG item.
I encourage WG adoption in any case!
Kind regards,
--
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
