- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by Paul A Vixie 10 Mar '01

10 Mar '01

> Too bad ICANN has been such a complete and utter failure that an > organization felt it necessary to start such a business, huh? ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.

12 16

Re: DNS - Bind database
by Patrick Greenwell 10 Mar '01

10 Mar '01

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote: > as opposed to tinydns, which may be free (beer) but not Free (speech). The > license included with djb's tools is ... interesting, to say the > least. I prefer to rely on tools that _don't_ have a single human point > of failure Like linux? :-)

1 0

RE: new.net
by Mike Batchelor 10 Mar '01

10 Mar '01

> Unfortunately, this won't work. We explored this in 1995/6. The > problem is > that is creates a very fragmented *FLAT* name space. Flat name spaces are > bad. Fragmented name spaces are even worse. Combine them and > you're out of > business. The trademark law's primary issue is whether there is confusion > created for the consumer. Any naming scheme which introduces > confusion for > the consumer is doomed: > > STARBUCKS.A1 > STARBUCKS.A2 > STARBUCKS.A3 > etc. It's all TBL's fault for inventing a URL format that puts the domain name right in front of the user. Hide the browser's location bar somehow, and all these problems go away, no matter what strings are used at whatever level. I say we storm the W3C to make them pay for their sins. Or better yet, make them run the registries, that'll show 'em. :) --- "The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" - Kosh

2 1

Re: Namespace conflicts
by Scott Gifford 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Saint skullY the Dazed <skully(a)netlsd.org> writes: > AFAIK there is no way for you to register anything under > ci.cityname.state.us unless you're affiliated with that city's > government. IMO, it makes sense to do that. Errr...If somebody already has "cityname.state.us", they implicitly have ownership of "ci.cityname.state.us". They just have to add it to their DNS zone files. If it were "cityname.ci.state.us", it would be another story, but for some strange reason that's not how it's done. -----ScottG.

1 0

Re: UUNet/Chicago
by CARL.P.HIRSCH＠sargentlundy.com 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

We're running a DS3 right into UUnet here in the Loop... haven't seen a hiccup all day. Just talked to my last job, they haven't had any problems on their UUnet T1 either. This place is also in the Loop... dunno about the suburbs. What line is UUnet feeding you? -carl hirsch network analyst sargent & lundy llc owner-nanog-outgoing @merit.edu AT nxmime To: CARL P HIRSCH/Sargentlundy, nanog(a)merit.edu AT nxmime@SNL-ccmail 03/09/01 04:01 PM cc: Subject: UUNet/Chicago anyone know anything about a "widespread" uunet outage in chicago? the noc is not being very helpful. -- nicholas harteau nrh(a)ikami.com

2 1

RE: UUNet/Chicago
by Lee Watterworth 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

BB1.TOR2.uunet.ca is fuxored as well. I shut down my link to uunet canada. 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 10.1.1.4 2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 10.1.0.20 3 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 206.51.26.1 4 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 207.176.255.21 5 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 205.150.242.81 6 * * * Request timed out. 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 * * * Request timed out. 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 * * * Request timed out. 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * ^C -----Original Message----- From: nicholas harteau [mailto:nrh@ikami.com] Sent: March 9, 2001 5:00 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: UUNet/Chicago In case anyone didn't know but was interested: a customer aggregation router failed, it's being replaced, eta of 1hr. nicholas harteau wrote: > > anyone know anything about a "widespread" uunet outage in chicago? the > noc is not being very helpful. > -- nicholas harteau nrh(a)ikami.com

1 0

mail.yahoo.com, "missing A records" and squid proxy
by Jim Mercer 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

we have a squid proxy set up as transparent. a few days ago users started complaining because sometimes they would get a message like: ------------------------------------------ The requested URL could not be retrieved While trying to retrieve the URL: http://mail.yahoo.com/ The following error was encountered: Unable to determine IP address from host name for mail.yahoo.com The dnsserver returned: No Address records This means that: The cache was not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL. Check if the address is correct. ------------------------------------------ poking in the DNS, i find: Name: login.yahoo.akadns.net Addresses: 64.58.76.98, 64.58.76.99 Aliases: mail.yahoo.com, login.yahoo.com so, mail.yahoo.com isn't an A record, but a CNAME pointing to something at akadns. we are thinking there might be some issue with some dynamic nature of yahoo's dns. are we barking up the right tree? -- [ Jim Mercer jim(a)pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.ca ] [ Reptilian Research -- Longer Life through Colder Blood ] [ aka jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ]

5 4

UUNet/Chicago
by nicholas harteau 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

anyone know anything about a "widespread" uunet outage in chicago? the noc is not being very helpful. -- nicholas harteau nrh(a)ikami.com

1 2

RE: UUNet/Chicago
by Doane, Andrew 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

DS3 to UUNet on GW3/CHI6 Translating "www.uu.net"...domain server (208.203.56.201) [OK] Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.uu.net (63.111.61.6) 1 500.Serial0-1-0.GW3.CHI6.ALTER.NET (157.130.113.173) [AS 701] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 113.ATM2-0.XR1.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.82) [AS 701] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 291.at-2-0-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.254) [AS 701] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec 4 106.at-6-1-0.TR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (146.188.142.33) [AS 701] 36 msec 36 msec 36 msec 5 0.so-7-0-0.XR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.9.230) [AS 701] 36 msec 36 msec 32 msec 6 193.ATM6-0.SR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.81.121) [AS 701] 36 msec 32 msec 36 msec 7 * * * 8 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.alter.net (198.5.128.2) [AS 11486] 36 msec 36 msec 36 msec 9 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.alter.net (198.5.128.2) [AS 11486] !A Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.amazon.com (208.216.181.15) 1 500.Serial0-1-0.GW3.CHI6.ALTER.NET (157.130.113.173) [AS 701] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 113.ATM2-0.XR1.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.82) [AS 701] 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec 3 291.at-2-0-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.254) [AS 701] 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec 4 106.at-6-1-0.TR1.POR3.ALTER.NET (146.188.141.226) [AS 701] 48 msec 48 msec 48 msec 5 197.ATM7-0.XR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.105.1) [AS 701] 52 msec 52 msec 52 msec 6 195.ATM4-0.GW8.SEA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.105.217) [AS 701] 52 msec 52 msec 56 msec 7 amazon-oc3-gw.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.178.2) [AS 701] 52 msec 52 msec 52 msec 8 208-226-122-16.amazon.com (208.226.122.16) [AS 7224] 52 msec 56 msec 52 msec Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 157.130.113.173 4 701 580629 5319 1401232 0 0 3d12h 98165 Appears to be ok over here. -Andrew -----Original Message----- From: nicholas harteau [mailto:nrh@ikami.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 3:46 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: UUNet/Chicago anyone know anything about a "widespread" uunet outage in chicago? the noc is not being very helpful. -- nicholas harteau nrh(a)ikami.com

1 0

Re: new.net
by Scott Gifford 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Somebody pointed out that ".tm" is the CCTLD for Turkmenistan. I'm going to act as if it isn't, to simplify the discussion; it can just as easily be replaced by ".trademark", ".rtm", etc. I'm also probably obligated to mention that we're not really on-topic anymore, but I'm enjoying seeing NANOG a bit livelier lately, so I'm going to carry on anyways. :) "Mike Batchelor" <mikebat(a)tmcs.net> writes: > > richb(a)pioneer.ci.net writes: > > > > > Corporate entities should be *required* to register in the flat dot-com > > > namespace, IMHO, and not be *allowed* names in any other namespace. > > > > I like the idea of creating a new ".tm" TLD (or something less likely > > to conflict with a CCTLD), and requiring anybody who wants trademark > > protection to register there; everything else is a free-for-all, as it > > pretty much is now. Let them have their little trademark disputes > > over there, and let less litigious heads rule in the other TLDs. > > How do you propose to enforce this? It could simply be enforced by the UDRP, as it is currently. But UDRP would not look at trademarks at all outside of the trademarked namespace. That would let me register "gifford.com" without worrying about "Gifford's Huge Company, Inc." suing me for trademark infringement. > What authority will be able to intercede in a trademark lawsuit > involving a domain outside .tm, and put a stop to it? Nobody; that's the point. If you want a domain with your trademark, you should be able to get it in ".tm". > The namespace is the namespace, and infringment is infringment, whereever it > occurs. If infringment occurs, the damaged party should not be prevented > from seeking relief. The problem is ambiguous cases, like the one mentioned above, and the many others previously discussed on this list. I shouldn't have to trademark my name to be able to safely use it as a domain, and sites that want to criticize a trademarked entity should be able to use the trademarked name as part of their domain name (as Fair Use currently allows, but the UDRP does not). I would love a system that stops people from domain squatting, while allowing people with legitimate domain names that overlap with a trademark to use them without worrying about them being taken away. But if such a system isn't possible, I think the above would perhaps work better than what we have now. Maybe just making it illegal to sell domains for more than you paid for them would be a simpler solution. Laws like this currently exist to make ticket scalping illegal, at least in Michigan. But that still doesn't solve the hypothetical case of Burger King registering "mcdonalds.com". Hrm... -----ScottG.

1 0