Subject: [IPsec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:31:56 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- General: Once my client signals support for split DNS, what prevents a server
from over claiming the domains that should be resolved via the private DNS
servers? Perhaps for purposes of employee monitoring or censoring NTFW domains?
(I've known some IT managers who would think that was a fine idea.)

§6: "the IKE connection SHOULD only process
the DNS information if the two connections are part of the same
logical entity"
How does a client determine the connections are part of the same logical
entity? I can think of some ways, but I think the draft should be give some
explicit guidance.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:47:17 -0500 (EST)

Nothing prevents that. Just like they can run a transparent proxy on
port 53 to accomplish the same. When you install a split-tunnel VPN,
you place some trust in those enterprise administrators (forced or not)

Local policy might of course prevent it. Libreswan allows a client to
configure modecfdomains="redhat.com ibm.com" and when connected would
not send any DNS queries for catpictures.com to the internal DNS even
if the VPN server response contained an INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN for
catpictures.com.

> entity? I can think of some ways, but I think the draft should be give some

I think that would be very vendor specific. Some vendors might have
hierarchical structures so "Red Hat" can have two VPN connections,
others might just do it based on the same remote VPN server ID (eg
vpn.redhat.com)

I'll add some text similar to this.

Paul

>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec