- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: nanog endorsements and nameservers outside the u.s. (was blah blah blah)
by Jim Fleming 30 May '97

30 May '97

On Friday, May 30, 1997 12:18 PM, Sean M. Doran[SMTP:smd@clock.org] wrote: <snip> @ @ So, the answer to the question is, yes, you should be concerned @ about performance issues, and yes, you should be working on a tractable @ scalable engineering plan for both North American and intercontinental @ connectivity, and this should take into account other people's @ real and perceived costs. @ @ In other words, kids, the increasing number of root nameservers @ outside the U.S.A. is a sign that the Internet is internationalizing. @ Engineer for that now, or you're probably in for a bumpy ride as @ various governments including your own stop subsidizing your @ connectivity elsewhere. @ Sean, Thanks for the great response. You are correct, the Internet is "internationalizing". Rather then spread Root Name Servers "thin" around the world, it seems more prudent to deploy distinct Root Name Server Confederations in the various regions that are well connected. These confederations can be kept in "synch" via a variety of software and procedural mechanisms. Work in this area has proved this to be the case with no operational problems. It is unfortunate that many people around the world are frightened and strong-armed into thinking that they have to follow a couple people's orders or they will break the Internet. Via education, this is changing. Hopefully, NANOG will help to continue to educate people. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0

RE: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
by Jim Fleming 30 May '97

30 May '97

On Friday, May 30, 1997 7:42 AM, Richard Shu[SMTP:rshu@inetnow.net] wrote: @ Jamie Rishaw wrote: @ @ > > Seriously, our schedule calls for 5 dedicated, non-recursive servers @ > > up by next week this time, with T1 of better connectivity. @ > @ > "Oh, we'll have quadruple this Real Soon Now(tm). We decided that it was @ > a Good Thing to release this project with a crappy server and crappy links.. @ > but honest.. we're fixing it!" @ > @ > > We plan full RFC2010 by the time we reach 5% visibility. @ > @ > So.. never, right? @ > @ > I dont get it. Why wait until later to do things _right_? @ @ Because we're not used to being members of organizations in which @ major decisions are driven by short-notice ultimatums. @ @ Because we had to act quickly when it became apparent that the @ root servers were likely to be arbitrarily reloaded with a set of @ TLDs less than the full set originally registered as eDNS TLDs. @ @ Because we are used to organizations that provide stability and @ reliability as key elements to foster an environment hospitable @ to business. @ @ Respectfully submitted, @ Richard Shu @ @ Richard, You have a Root Name Server Confederation to build. As you gain subscribers to your Root Name Server Confederation those subscribers will depend on your servers for 24 by 7 support. I suggest that you focus your time, energy and money on serving those subscribers. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0

Re: IAHC Plan rejectd by US Gov't
by Sean M. Doran 30 May '97

30 May '97

IANA is a useful registry for numbers of all sorts (result codes for things like SMTP or NNTP, SNMP variables, you name it), and does a good job of keeping track of which numbers have been assigned to what. The vast majority of these numbers are assigned during the IETF standards process, as protocols are developed. Two sets of things that IANA has had historical responsibility for include the allocation of IP addresses and the delegation and maintenaince of certain DNS zones. Both of these have recently been politicized. Unfortunately the recently heavily politicized functions will still take some work to be separated from the ordinary functions, but I gather that is the ultimate objective. I also gather that IANA has been offered some two and a half years of funding both by APNIC and RIPE, which, if nothing else, should help protect the non-Americans from the total lunacy brewing in the USA, so that networks in the APNIC and RIPE regions can get on with building their parts of the Internet, and developing Internet protocols and tools. I can't resist a quip to tie this into NANOG. I have an outage report. America is broken. Route around it. Sean.

1 0

IAHC Plan rejectd by US Gov't
by Richard J. Sexton 30 May '97

30 May '97

At 10:22 AM 5/29/97 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >>[IAHC Plan] >>And failed, being rejected by: >> US GOV't >> NSI >> Major ISP's >> Author of the DNS itself > >* The effort has not been rejected by the US government. U.S. rejects Net name plan By Margie Wylie May 2, 1997, 5:45 p.m. PT "The U.S. government, however, took a neutral stance on the proposition until today. "We are explicitly saying that we are not supporting the ad hoc committee's plan in its current form," a member of the White House's interagency task force on domain names said today" <http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10345,00.html> I hardly call this a hearty endorsement, Dave. Perhaps this is what Mockapetris meant when he said "both sides are guilty of half truths". This article is less than a month old, and you are spouting just the opposite as fact ? Shame. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum. Arrgh matey's. Respectfully submitted, one of the "pirates", who would lke to see and is willing to committ infrastructure to subsidize free SL domain names. Sue me. Yes, yes, I can hear it now: "But $100 is not unresonable for any business to get thei rown domain name" and ONCE AGAIN i point out, it's more than jus business that uses the net. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

7 9

Re: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
by salo＠msc.edu 30 May '97

30 May '97

> From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso(a)cisco.com> > > I would really appreciate it, as I'm sure may other subscribers > of the NANOG would, if you DNS combatants would take this discussion > elsewhere, to a more appropriate list. I'm on the verge of constructing > filters so that I don't have to see this cruft -- short of that, I'm > now considering unsubscribing to the list. > > The signal/noise ratio has degenerated dramatically. On the other hand, these "dicussions" may provide strong evidence of the possible utility of adult supervision in this area. -tjs

2 1

uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape
by Jim Fleming 30 May '97

30 May '97

As promised, it looks like the uDNS[1] Root Name Server Confederation is taking shape. The founders appear to be taking a careful approach and are adding more servers. The eDNS Root Name Server Confederation will remain stable to continue to serve ISPs. There are 5 servers in the eDNS Root Name Server Confederation. The major Root Name Server Confederations are now: AlterNIC InterNIC eDNS name.space NSI/ISI uDNS When the uDNS Root Name Server Confederation reaches 4 servers, it will be added to the automated reportin system that helps to keep all of the Root Name Server Confederations in "synch". [1] ========================================= ; <<>> DiG 2.1 <<>> @208.195.108.8 . any ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 4, Auth: 3, Addit: 3 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; ., type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: . 172800 SOA root.starfire.douglas.ma.us. hostmaster.starfire.douglas.ma.us. ( 1997052900 ; serial 43200 ; refresh (12 hours) 900 ; retry (15 mins) 604800 ; expire (7 days) 172800 ) ; minimum (2 days) . 518400 NS root.starfire.douglas.ma.us. . 518400 NS hp.manhattan.com. . 518400 NS DONTSERF.MAKEWAVES.NET. ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: . 518400 NS root.starfire.douglas.ma.us. . 518400 NS hp.manhattan.com. . 518400 NS DONTSERF.MAKEWAVES.NET. ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: root.starfire.douglas.ma.us. 86400 A 208.195.108.8 hp.manhattan.com. 172800 A 199.103.194.137 DONTSERF.MAKEWAVES.NET. 172800 A 204.94.43.1 ;; Total query time: 5393 msec ;; FROM: doormat.unety.net to SERVER: 208.195.108.8 ;; WHEN: Fri May 30 01:31:17 1997 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 17 rcvd: 254 ============================================

10 11

NANOG speaker abstracts
by Susan R. Harris 30 May '97

30 May '97

Just wanted to mention that a few abstracts, pointers to Internet-Drafts etc. have been posted for next week's meeting: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9706/agenda.html --Susan Harris

1 0

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by George Herbert 30 May '97

30 May '97

While there's a lot of posturing going on right now, I have a few questions and issues that I feel are relatively substantive that i'd like to see answered or discussed. First of all, it concerns me greatly that the IAHC/iPOC process has resulted so far in more legalese regarding how apparently unbinding yet binding challenge panels regarding domain names are to be empowered than working code or protocols related to the actual implimentation of the new TLDs and their servers and registries. In an amongst the policy disputes, we seem to have entirely lost the "old" way, and this is not a good development for anyone. I would like a clear status update on implimentation from the iPOC people... I'd love to be shown to be wrong on this one, having the actual work underpublicized is bad but not nearly as serious, but I would like to know. Secondly, I am somewhat dismayed by some of the iPOC (and other) positions regarding the solidness of grounding of support for the IAHC and iPOC process and its lack of acknowledgement for the chaotic path that got us this far. Remember the numberous draft RCFs by Jon Postel, and Karl Denninger. There were a couple of times we thought we had consensus and proceeded to lose it. What we have ended up with in the MOU is far different from what we started out looking for, and in fact had come very close to agreeing to more than once. This is not to say I disagree with the MOU; the political realities of the world and the internet and their interactions have shifted, and the MOU reflects that. However, in particular regarding .WEB, it would be very wise to recall that when the origional application was made by Chris Ambler the consensus of "the rules' were far different from what it is today. Refusal of iPOC to bend and acknowledge that is unfortunate, and refusal of Chris to bend and acknowledge that the world shifted would be equally unfortunate. I suggest that in this particular case iPOC make a finding that Chris had a valid prexisting application for .WEB before the process changed, and recognize the precedence of his existing .WEB registrants. I would hope that Chris can understand that sole proprietorship of any GTLD is now deemed inapropriate (and probably rightly so), and with an iPOC finding as described above would agree to sign the MOU and become one of perhaps many .WEB registrars in the resulting framework, with the rights of his existing customers acknowledged and grandfathered in as the initial set of registered .WEB second level domains. As a side issue, those claiming that his claim on .WEB has been shot down just because a couple of hours of oral argument failed to generate a temporary restraining order should not be so confident; it's not at all rare for better prepared further testimony to change the trial outcome from what a TRO or injunction hearing ruled. As a final note, to those advocating the "alternative constellations" of root servers, I offer the following observation: You are completely useless unless your roots are a coordinated superset of the IANA-blessed roots, don't contradict one another, and meet the reliability specifications we've discussed to death over the last 18 months or so. Right now, none of those three is true overall and it appears that for many of the alternate groups none of them are true. If you cannot all get together and make them all true, for at least some significant subset of the "confederations", stop trying to play and go home. The objective factors involved do not change with political arguments among you: if you cannot meet them then you are wasting your time trying. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com Speaking only for myself

2 1

RE: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
by Jim Fleming 30 May '97

30 May '97

On Thursday, May 29, 1997 6:14 PM, Jamie Rishaw[SMTP:jamie@dilbert.iagnet.net] wrote: <snip> @ @ Somehow I fear putting my DNS in the hands of someone who says "Hmm..." @ over a named.boot file. @ Jamie, Since you are apparently an expert on everything, and a evidently a NANOG member, maybe you can help clarify some items.... 1. What is the official Root Name Server configuration endorsed by NANOG ? 2. How do you feel about "mixing" different kinds of Root Name Servers in the same root.cache file ? 3. How do you feel about moving the Root Name Servers out of the United States ? Are you concerned about the performance issues ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

2 1

RE: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
by Jim Fleming 30 May '97

30 May '97

On Thursday, May 29, 1997 10:26 PM, Ron Kimball[SMTP:hostmaster@starfire.douglas.ma.us] wrote: @ On Thu, 29 May 1997 23:14:36 -0400 (EDT), Jamie Rishaw wrote: <snip> @ @ Our root server operators got uppidy and shut down the zone as of a @ couple hours from now, we didn't have a whole lot of time to "get it @ right" :-( @ Ron, Maybe the NANOG members can help to add to your growing Root Name Server Confederation ? Maybe Jamie could help out... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0