RPZ based on destination

[Tomas S.]

Hi George,

is there any chance You could help merge acl_interface

branch to 1.16.2?

util/configparser.c, util/configlexer.c and daemon/daemon.c

fails to patch.

On 2022-07-05 19:21, George Thessalonikefs via Unbound-users wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
> There is ongoing work that we call acl per interface.
> This applies all the same logic of the access-control directives but 
> for the listening interface(s) instead.
>
> It is being worked on a separate branch:
>     https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/tree/acl_interface
>
> This will be part of the next Unbound *feature* release (circa 
> September).
>
> It should be ready, pending review near the release date.
>
> If you want to already test I can provide some quick documentation:
>
> - each access-control-* option you could previously use per client-ip
>   you can now do the same per listening interface with interface-*.
>   Note: The "access-control:" directive is named "interface-action:"
> - if you mix and match access-control* options and the new interface-*
>   options, the access-control* options always overrule the interface-*
>   options as they are considered more specific (targeting clients
>   instead of the whole interface).
> - The interfaces used in the interface-* options must have been already
>   defined with the interface: directive.
>
> The unbound.conf man page and the example.conf file should provide 
> most of the information you would need.
>
> Let me know if it works for you.
>
> Best regards,
> -- George
>
>
> On 04/07/2022 10:53, Tomas S. via Unbound-users wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> we are implementing recursive DNS service with a multiple RPZ zones,
>>
>> where user can decide which policies to use by selecting one of 
>> multiple DNS servers IPs
>>
>> (think cloudflare 1.1.1.1 - default, 1.1.1.2 - with malware blocking, 
>> 1.1.1.3 - malware+adult blocking).
>>
>>
>> To implement this (in one server) one could run multiple unbound 
>> instances,
>>
>> but rpz: unbound configuration already supports tags, however, tags 
>> can only be set
>>
>> by client source IP.
>>
>>
>> I'm thinking about adding one more access-control directive: like 
>> access-control-tag,
>>
>> but for destination IP (lets say access-control-dest-tag).
>>
>> Do you think it would be a reasonable approach?
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Tomas
>>