- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: root name servers
by Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

> The whole point of hijacking the root domain servers is that it > turns DNS from a centralised system into a more distributed > system where cooperation is essential. Umm, let me see if I can phrase this gently.... This whole idea of hijacking the root domain must be one of the ideas I've seen recently which is fully at odds with one of the major points of what I perceive the Internet is all about. If you decide to set up your own group of root name servers with a different naming and registration policy than the current root, you are of course free to do so (nothing will prevent you). However, this will create a totally separate DNS name space from the single name space we have today. If I am not much mistaken, a given name server *cannot* look up names in more than a single name space, so you end up creating two different "universes". Depending on how you populate your local name server's cache with root name server hint information, your name server will either end up being able to look up names in one or the other of these two separate name spaces but not both. (Yes, there are "technical reasons" with the current DNS protocol that make this so, if I've not totally misunderstood things.) Aside from causing massive confusion (people really do have a hard enough time figuring out how to configure DNS semi- correctly with only a single name space at hand), this conflicts with the goal of *connectivity*, i.e. that I am able to e.g. send e-mail to anyone else who is connected. With two or more (shudder) separate name spaces I will claim that this will not in practice be possible. The "distributed system where cooperation is essential" is what we have today: you pick your name (which isn't already taken) under a given other name, have it delegated to you and thereafter you have full autonomy over your own name space. The "cooperation (which) is essential" is what the current caretakers of the root name servers are doing today. 1/2 ;-) Sorry, I do not see how you can both "hijack the root name servers" and acheive full connectivity. If you want to sacrifice full connectivity (or an approximation thereof), you are of course free to go ahead and see how large a following you could gather. Regards, - Håvard

1 0

Re: EP.NET ???
by Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

> > Personally I think that this is actually a value-subtracted service, > > as the EP.NET organisation does not run the named boxes, or the > > exchange points. > > > > It would be much more helpfull the the interfaces that faces the NAP > > and another provider where following each providers naming > > conventions, and had a domain-name that would point the users to the > > organisation that actually operates the boxes. > > Yes, that is the desired goal, however some sites are not > willing or able to do so, so there is a default case where a > name is available. (There are some exchange points where no > forward is registered, which can be a hassel) The existence of a forward mapping is not a necessary technical precondition for you to insert a reverse mapping which points in the right direction, i.e. at the organization operating the boxes. However I also have trouble seeing why any ISP would willingly decline to register it's boxes in the DNS. I fully agree with PL that introducing EP.NET into this is value- subtraction, in that it will just add unneeded confusion. - Håvard

4 4

Re: NEW POLICY ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES
by Dave Crocker 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

At 8:30 AM 7/28/95, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU wrote: >It really does not matter, as long as at least one is made available. As long as we're at it, let's carve of 4. Documentation often needs more than one. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. page: +1 408 581 1174 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA dcrocker(a)brandenburg.com

1 0

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by Sean Doran 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

>i would fear for the interconnects if all seven root servers got 600/sec Why? 5 minute input rate 26121000 bits/sec, 13430 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 19862000 bits/sec, 12327 packets/sec That's one of two connections to a particular (busy) interconnect at a pretty quiet time (22:30 EDT Tuesday). We see 15-minute periods of ~35Mbps inbound these days on the same link. The interconnects that are based on FDDI and DEC FDDI switches are working *beautifully*. Admittedly the bridging happening here and there to accomodate slow connections has occasional hiccups which cause nasty side-effects, but that's one of the very few flaws in the whole scheme of the MAEs, one NAP, and the special hack done at another NAP. Say, does anyone know if ATM NAP gear can handle > 20Mbps yet? Sean.

3 2

ATM thruput [was Re: US Domain -- County Delegations]
by kwe＠6SigmaNets.com 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

At 6:40 PM 8/1/95, Sean Doran wrote: > >Say, does anyone know if ATM NAP gear can handle > 20Mbps yet? > > Sean. Sean; I have recent preliminary test results of the cisco AIP across the Newbridge 36150 (which is the PacBell NAP configuration) that show nearly full bandwidth TCP throughput. The Kentrox ADSUs are much improved, but results are preliminary. I will present more about this next Tuesday at the PacBell NAP Users meeting in San Ramon, CA, at the next NANOG and eventually on the PacBell NAP Home Page. --Kent

2 1

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by Paul A Vixie 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

Someone asked me privately... > One thing to keep in mind is that when thinking about appropriate >domain names for a big business, say AT&T, it makes very little sense to >force someone to connect to somemachine.att.nj.us, especially when that >machine could be anywhere in the US or even outside the country. For a >company that large, it would be better to hide geographic info behind a >.com, than to force the geographic location of the company's US >headquarters to influence the domain names of the rest of the company. I'm >sure the folks at IBM would feel the same way. So would all the companies >that are incorporated in Delaware for tax reasons, but have their HQs in >other states. > > For a smaller company, or one with less offices, it might make >sense for their domain name to be geographical, for example cisco.sf.ca.us >or nytimes.ny.us. > > When it comes down to it, I'm agreeing with you, but for a slightly >different reason. It seems a little impractical for the internet to be the >great equalizer between Joe's Garage and Ford Motor Company, especially >when there may be twenty different Joe's Garages but there is only one FMC. i do not believe any more that a company's (or organization's or person's) domain name ought to map differently based on their geographic domain. if we allow that binding, every midsized company who wants to look like a big one will find some way to bend the rules. my current thinking is to match costs and values. folks seem to value having their name directly under .COM, and lo and behold it costs the 'net more to have those names there than if they were all delegated to smaller registries. ergo, the folks who want to live in .COM should probably pay more -- a lot more -- than the folks who don't. extending this model upward, it should be poss- ible to register directly in the root, for US$1M a year or so. the idea here is, let the company categorize themselves. no rules to bend. but: if they want to live in a place that's expensive for the 'net to maintain, they should pay for the overhead they are generating. as for all those deleware corporations, i'd expect each company to choose the local registry that makes the most sense -- to them, not to me or to the NIC or the IANA. if they are incorporated in deleware but have their main offices in virginia and want to register their domain under alaska, that's noone's business but their own. the alaskan registry would be within its rights to charge more for out of state registrations.

4 6

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by kwe＠6SigmaNets.com 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

At 4:16 PM 8/1/95, Walter O. Haas wrote: >My thinking has evolved away from geographically based names... >the Internet is >erasing geography, and I think that we would be living in the past if >we relied too much on geography in naming. It might make sense for >"joes-garage" to be a geographically-qualified domain since the market >for automobile repair is likely to be within a few miles of the business, >but my little one-man consulting corporation is located in Salt Lake City >with it's biggest customer in St. Louis. For a business with essentially >no geographic barriers, such as mine, it doesn't make much sense to >include geography in the name regardless of where the corporation is >registered. Walt; This is true for non-geographic markets, but what happens when the Internet reaches a size where geographic markets develop? In other words, when it makes sense to buy pizza on the Net, won't it make sense to revive geographic naming, to serve geographic markets? --Kent

3 2

Re: root name servers
by Michael Dillon 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

On Tue, 1 Aug 1995, Kent W. England wrote: > At 8:43 AM 7/29/95, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > >What about hijacking the root name servers? Here's the scenario..... > ... > >Could people be plotting this even as we speak? Is it a good idea? Would > >it solve the namespace problems we currently have? > > > >Michael Dillon > > I want bork.bork.bork and die.die.die top level domains, please or I will > hijack your hijack. Thank you. The whole point of hijacking the root domain servers is that it turns DNS from a centralised system into a more distributed system where cooperation is essential. I could be wrong because I don't fully understand BIND internals here, but if anyone wanted to copy the root domain and add new toplevel domains like .bork or .die on their own networks, they could just do it. Any references to .bork or .die would be correctly resolved and any other references would be delegated to the same .com and .org and .net servers that are currently in use. If other networks felt there was value in accessing the .bork and .die domains they would do similarily referencing your nameserver to resolve such references. Is there any technical reason this wouldn't work? Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael(a)memra.com

2 2

Re: root name servers
by kwe＠6SigmaNets.com 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

At 8:43 AM 7/29/95, Michael Dillon wrote: > >What about hijacking the root name servers? Here's the scenario..... ... >Could people be plotting this even as we speak? Is it a good idea? Would >it solve the namespace problems we currently have? > >Michael Dillon I want bork.bork.bork and die.die.die top level domains, please or I will hijack your hijack. Thank you. --Kent :-)

1 0

Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
by rrv＠uiuc.edu 02 Aug '95

02 Aug '95

At 2:39 AM 8/1/95, Paul Traina wrote: >Just to be obnoxious, let me state the ugly obvious programatic mapping... >use the first 2 or 3 letters in the 2nd layer domain name. > >cisco.com = cisco.ci.com >nytimes.com = nytimes.ny.com >real-routers.com = real-routers.re.com > >Since this is a purely implied and programatic mapping, the particularly >-cute- thing we can do is automagicly map this crud so no user ever has >to see the abomonation "cisco.ci.com". Better yet, hash the 2nd layer domain name.

6 8