On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:13 AM Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
> > > nalini elkins wrote on 2019-03-11 10:26: > > Tiru, > > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > > Enterprise networks are already able to block DoH services, > i wonder if everyone here knows that TLS 1.3 and encrypted headers is > going to push a SOCKS agenda onto enterprises that had not previously > needed one, I'm pretty familiar with TLS 1.3, but I don't know what this means. TLS 1.3 doesn't generally encrypt headers any more than TLS 1.2 did, except for the content type byte, which isn't that useful for inspection anyway. Are you perchance referring to encrypted SNI? Something else? -Ekr and that simply blocking every external endpoint known or > tested to support DoH will be the cheaper alternative, even if that > makes millions of other endpoints at google, cloudflare, cisco, and ibm > unreachable as a side effect? > > CF has so far only supported DoH on 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.0.1.0/24, which i > blocked already (before DoH) so that's not a problem. but if google > decides to support DoH on the same IP addresses and port numbers that > are used for some API or web service i depend on, that web service is > going to be either blocked, or forced to go through SOCKS. this will add > considerable cost to my network policy. (by design.) > > -- > P Vixie > > _______________________________________________ > Doh mailing list > d...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
