On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:
On 23/04/14 16:42, Dave Taht wrote:
> I will argue that a  better place to report  dnssec  validation
> errors is the dnsmasq  list.
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wed Apr 23 15:13:05 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[29719]: query[A]
>> e3191.dscc.akamaiedge.net.0.1.cn.akamaiedge.net from 172.30.42.99
>> Wed Apr 23 15:13:05 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[29719]: forwarded
>> e3191.dscc.akamaiedge.net.0.1.cn.akamaiedge.net to 8.8.8.8
>> Wed Apr 23 15:13:05 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[29719]: dnssec-query[DS]
>> e3191.dscc.akamaiedge.net.0.1.cn.akamaiedge.net to 8.8.8.8
>> Wed Apr 23 15:13:05 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[29719]: forwarded
>> e3191.dscc.akamaiedge.net.0.1.cn.akamaiedge.net to 8.8.4.4
>> Wed Apr 23 15:13:05 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[29719]: forwarded
>> e3191.dscc.akamaiedge.net.0.1.cn.akamaiedge.net to 8.8.8.8
>> Wed Apr 23 15:13:05 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[29719]: reply
>> e3191.dscc.akamaiedge.net.0.1.cn.akamaiedge.net is BOGUS DS
>> Wed Apr 23 15:13:05 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[29719]: validation result is
>> BOGUS
>> Wed Apr 23 15:13:05 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[29719]: reply
>> e3191.dscc.akamaiedge.net.0.1.cn.akamaiedge.net is 2.20.28.186
>>
>> This one validates via verisign, however.
>>

Something strange in that domain. Turning off DNSSEC with the
checking-disabled bit, the original A-record query is OK
  
....
 
Dnsmasq does the DS query next because the answer to the A query comes
back unsigned, so dnsmasq is looking for a DS record that proves this is
OK. It's likely that Verisign does that top-down (starting from the
root) whilst dnsmasq does it bottom up. Hence Verisign never finds the
broken DS, whilst dnsmasq does.

That's as good an analysis as I can produce right now. Anyone who can
shed more light, please do.

(And yes, please report DNSSEC problems  on the dnsmasq-discuss list for
preference.)

This is still persisting (and it appears to be blocking a bunch of Apple software update functions).  From your comments, Simon, it sounds like you think this is an Akamai issue, and should be reported to them?

Thanks,
Aaron