April 1996 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Paul J. Zawada 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

At 02:05 PM 4/24/96 +0200, Havard.Eidnes(a)runit.sintef.no wrote: >Is there someone who thinks that trademark problems will be any >less of a concern by creating lots of new TLDs -- won't a trade- >mark owner be equally interested in protecting his rights in all >the new TLDs, especially if the new TLDs are "generic"? Good point... Look at the introduction of the 888 prefix in the US. The FCC is still trying to figure about what to do about all of the companies that want their "vanity" 800 numbers replicated into the 888 numbering space. What's the point of making the name (or number, in the case of 888) space bigger if it's just going to be filled up with copies of what's out there already? --zawada Paul J. Zawada | Senior Network Engineer zawada(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications +1 217 244 4728 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada

1 0

Wyndham Bristol Hotel
by Pam Ciesla 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

There was a bit of confusion at the hotel regarding reservations for the NANOG Mtg. It was listed under Commercial Internet Exchange instead of NANOG. This has been corrected. If you have made reservations and did not get the special rate of $119.00 please reconfirm your reservations. Pam

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

Jon Zeef wrote: >> Flattening domain name tree by adding more TLDs is the Wrong Thing. >> It is totally bogus. >> >> How about ceasing .COM allocations altogether? There's .US and .INT. >Which have policies that make them not very usefull for offloading some >of .com. Heh. Are the policies written in stone? Is it gospel or something? Are we supposed to snap to attention as somebody says the magic word "policy"? I'd rather smack those who invent stupid policies on the head so they won't do that again. Can anybody please answer how did it happen that IANA allowed people who cannot come up with sane policies to hijack the country's domain? How did it happen that .US is close to useless? >First you say it's the wrong approach, then you suggest using that >basic approach. Wrong. Did i propose to create new TLDs? Switching from .COM to .US is good because it breaks the dot-envy feeding frenzy. And .US already has a mandatory tree structure in it. >More TLDs is the Right Thing for business reasons and to a small extent, >technically. To a *very* small extent. They're ultimately destructive from the social point of view. How do you propose to prevent the problem which happens in .COM now from repeating at top level? The only thing which kept top level domain from bloating is the strict policy of ISO coutry-codes only. I know several service providers which will start lobbying IANA for new TLDs the very next day it is allowed -- just because they percieve that registries run by competitiors have the ability to harm their business. And you have no way to find out if their claims have any merit. US is lucky to have InterNIC which is *not* in bit transport business. It is not like that in other places. Sorry, new TLDs is worse than non-solution. I've been there with .SU name allocation policies. As long as some guidelines (i.e. only geographical/major metropolitan first-level domains) were maintained everything was fine. They were abandoned for .RU -- and look what a mess it is now. Exactly like .COM. Why the alternative registries won't take subdomains of .US which are not used for states? (Or why not allocate names like <org>.<state><registry#>.US)? *Any* scheme limiting branching of a tree to some reasonable level is better than "new TLD" proposal which does not include any guidelines to that effect. Please do not dump US problems onto outside world. --vadim

1 0

Utah REP
by Christian Nielsen 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

The Utah Regional Exchange Point for the State of Utah is ready to be turned on. The first ISP/Companies will be connecting this week. We have worked on making sure that the Utah REP is able to handle traffic for anyone in the State of Utah. The Utah REP is an exchange point in Utah to bring together all the ISP/companies at one point to take the load off the Major NAPS and MAES around the country. At this time, it takes over 15 hops, traveles around the western US and a 25% packet loss to go about 5 miles. The Utah REP will allow companies to exchange traffic localy but will not be a replacement for their current connections. The Utah REP will be located at Triad 4. If one does not already have a connection at Triad 4 in Salt Lake City, one may bring a connection in. More information about the Utah REP can be found at http://www.utah.net or http://rep.utah.net We would like to thank all those who have helped out so far, Bill Manning, ISI, Dave Siegel, RTD, for the use of the REP name, and many others. For those of you in the Salt Lake City/Utah area, the monthly ISP lunch will be Thurs, May 2nd, yes, I know it is a little past April :), at the Panda on 17th and State. On Thursday night, May 9th, we will have a meeting to answer any and all questions about the Utah REP. Place and time to be announced later. Please email me if you would like to be on the list. And for anyone that has questions, they may email myself cnielsen(a)vii.com or Pete Kruckenberg pete(a)inquo.net. Christian Nielsen Vyzynz International Inc. cnielsen(a)vii.com,CN46,KB7HAP Phone 801-568-0999 Fax 801-568-0953 Private Email - Christian(a)Nielsen.Net BOFH - cnielsen(a)one.dot PS :)

1 0

Re: Agenda Topics for May
by Paul Ferguson 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

Yes, I'd like to hear about the renumbering dilemma. :-) - paul At 12:41 PM 4/23/96 -0400, Susan R. Harris wrote: >Greetings - Here's what we've lined up so far for the May 30-31 NANOG >agenda: > > "State of the Internet" - reports from backbone providers, NSPs, NAPs, > researchers, and the InterNIC on topology, traffic, stability, and > trouble spots > Update on the Internet Routing Registry > RA Status Report > >Are there other topics you'd like to hear about? >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh(a)merit.edu >Phone: (313) 936-2100 Fax: (313) 747-3185 >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Sean Doran 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

Paul Vixie writes (in two separate messages): >(I keep thinking -- what has this got to do with North American Network Ops?) and | I wish the average ISP would be as insistent on proper names. You've answered your own question. You've also answered a bunch of mine (and with impressively few words :) ). The thing I wonder now is that, if we have essentially unlimited scalability of the DNS both technically and administratively, should ISPs even _care_ about what names people choose to use? Moreover, if time needs buying for you development wizard(s), how much do you need and what should we be telling people in the interim? Sean.

3 3

Agenda Topics for May
by Susan R. Harris 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

Greetings - Here's what we've lined up so far for the May 30-31 NANOG agenda: "State of the Internet" - reports from backbone providers, NSPs, NAPs, researchers, and the InterNIC on topology, traffic, stability, and trouble spots Update on the Internet Routing Registry RA Status Report Are there other topics you'd like to hear about? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh(a)merit.edu Phone: (313) 936-2100 Fax: (313) 747-3185 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Domain Parks
by Jim Fleming 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

On Monday, April 22, 1996 11:38 PM, Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] wrote: <snip> @ @What ISP's can do is stop registering trash domains. Tell your users to put @their WWW pages in a domain park of some kind, rather than allocating a TLD @for every one-person "company" whose scope of operations is a local city or @neighborhood. @ With cooperation from the major browser companies, the world could shift to "domain parks" or some directory service scheme. (At least for WWW services) I am really sort of surprised that Netscape and/or Microsoft have not added a more extensive URL equivalent of resolv.conf to their browsers. Netscape does allow people to type a name without the http://www and .com but that seems to be the extent of the "searching". Using http://comm.unety.net/US/IL/Naperville as an example, a browser feature could allow people to enter some arbitrary string that they want to have pre-pended to their entries. Using this example, "http://comm.unety.net/US/IL" could be set by a user that wants to use the entries for Illinois. Maybe the browser companies are waiting for the domain system to get overloaded and will bring out their own "domain parks" and generate revenue by hosting people's pages for a small fee. If that occurs then almost anything could be used as the pre-pended string, and companies could fight for a registration in the directory service of the browser company with the most market share. Of course the large companies would buy an entry from all of the major browser directory services. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Sean Doran 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

| Personally, I like the <eighty-subdomains>.BigCompany.COM. approach; | it just scales better. Less messy. Tastes great. Me too. However, there appears to be some counterpressure to move towards what I perceive as some kind of system which lacks any real hierarchy in the sense of domains. Perhaps instead of trying to "fix" the DNS by creating huge new bunches of things to the right of the last normally-seen dot, we should move towards something completely different. Maybe instead of: <whatever>.COM being considered as three tokens and being looked up as: ask a ROOT nameserver for COM NSes ask a COM nameserver for <whatever> NSes ask a <whatever> nameserver for appropriate info (all modulo caching) instead we treat it as (leaving out the '<' '>' stuff out of laziness): <w><h><a><t><e><v><e><r><.><c><o><m> and look up like this: ask a ROOT nameserver for M NSes ask a M nameserver for O NSes ... ask a <w> nameserver for appropriate info that will scale to a huge number of generally unformatted labels for things. This strikes me as a practical way of moving towards ".Earth" and ".Alt" and thousands of other "top-level-domains". Other than technical scalability, the other general design goal for any changes to the status quo wouuld have to be administrative scalability. As a too-easy example, in this model that's essentially making sure an overworked or evil delegator for $origin ever.com won't break the ability of people wanting $origin whatever.com or $origin never.com from going about obtaining those names. Perhaps some form of automagic registration scheme should be available to allow for others to initiate any rightwards growth of names unless they involve certain charaters (like '.', perhaps, so as not to overly confuse people who are used to foo.bar.com being under the administration of whoever is in charge of bar.com) Again, I worry about being wasteful of other people's time here; this could be a non-issue for operators big and small for all I know, so I'll drop back into read-only mode for a bit, and let smarter DNS people and folks more in the trenches talk it out (or ignore it). Sean.

4 3

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by mbyrnes＠tpoint.net 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

>On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Sean Doran wrote: > >> Looking around a bit, completely unscientifically and without >> more than eyeballing things, it appears that this practice >> is continuing, despite the back-pressure of a registration >> fee levied by the InterNIC. > >Sean, you misunderstand. The fee is not a back-pressure, on the contrary, >it is an IMPETUS. It's like this... > > Company: I want one of thos domain thingies. > > Internic: That'll be 50 bucks. > > Company: 50 bucks? I'll take 5 then; put it on my VISA. This also, has the effect, before the fee, the Internic could say one to a company, with now with the fee the are on shaky ground, when combined with their trademark policy. (if you own the trademark, and pay the fee, the probably can't prevent you from registering as many a you want.) It does ohav ethe positive effet of putting the cost of domain speculation, into the non-trivial range. >> issue on any front, and whether it really needs fixing >> by perhaps us suggesting that subsequent domains be >> charged on an exponential scale, with proceeds going >> into the costs of maintaining the worldwide DNS, particularly >> with respect to user-and-administrator education. > >Someone posted some stats on com-priv a week ago that would indicate >that Internic is raking in $10 million per annum with the current fees. >Are you sure anything needs fixing here? Hm... Internic is raking in "millions" with registration fees, but the root name server operators are getting ZERO. Yet, the real service that you are registering for, is root name service, not the WHOISS database, (root name service is even debateable, since most of the domains are in .com, but the same machines serve .com as ., so its moot.) If I were a root name server opeartor, that could cause major havok, if I decided too, I would be asking Network Solutions, aka internic.NET., where my cut is. If all the root name servers, decided for just 1% of that fee, or the'd drop "internic.net" out of the root zone files, they could probably get away with it. It would also solve the whole issue of resrouces to support root DNS. >> (NANOG or I*-something-or-other); I'm just wondering >> if I'm completely out-to-lunch on this one. > >You have a good idea there in establishing a funding link between the >registrants of domain names and the people who operate the registries and >the root nameservers. Of course, most registries are already funded by >domain fees like the Internic's $50. The missing link is funding for the >root nameservers. Some people also feel that DNS registrations should fund >ISOC/IAB/IETF/IANA or some sub or superset thereof. > >ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt >covers some of this as does the POISED95 WG There is a very dangers path, because once anyone can buy a top level domain form the root name server opeartors, people will, how long before "@aol.", and "@home." show up? About 2 seconds. You would also need some sort of feedback into the referal rate, but with good postive and negative caching that wouldn't be a huge hurdel. >> all clearly able to fit (at least for the moment) into >> <eighty-subdomains>.BigCompany.COM. > >I think human beings like flat hierearchies. In management. In GUI menu >systems. And now in DNS. Certainly they seem to be more efficient in >management and in GUI menu systems and even B+ Trees vs. binary trees. >Maybe they really are more efficient in the DNS as well. Flat space will fail when 50% of the humans on this planet have their own domain. (You think Internet growth is bad now, just wait until a Internet terminal can be had for $100, the $500 ones are only a year or so around the corner, and based on historical trends, the rgowth rate increases every time the the price point drops. (Which could happen, 2.5 billion people on the Net in 6 years...) (Assuming population iof the Net is doubling every 9 months, like bandwidth, and addressable hosts, and domains). >> If people think this sort of thing is OK, I'll shut up now. > >I don't think there really is anything that we can do about it other than >to accomodate it. I fully intend to have a couple of dozen domains just >for myself and run virtual WWW servers on my home LAN in the next century. >But by then that will be the normal state of affairs. Luckyly, all the good names will be taken well before this happens, and there just isn;t that much motiviation, for people to get 6 different domains and pay for them when they look like fsdhwue47.sdfj, etc. We are quite limited by the fact that the DNS protocols seem to limit us to [A-Z][a-z][1-0]-_. We would be really bad off if the DNS implementers had used UNICODE. >The plans to open up the top level domain space by adding 15 or more new >international top level domains per year will make the landscape rather >more interesting. http://www.kirk.tlhIngan.alt :-) Who has proposed this? I don't see it happening. A. it won't scale B. it looks ugly Thus violating the two key reasons the DNS system is so popular today. I think more TLD will be opened, but it will be for a couple of reasons, first off some re-writes DNS so that the clunky concept of a "root" name server is dead, then the commerical giants buy Microtsoft, or your favorite software vendor to implement the new protocol, and with their millions of users for everyone elses network to work they would need to upgrade to the new software to support "aol.". The social reasons with regard to Paul Vixie's "dot envy", are quite clear. I expect there to be a good bit of money made in the "domain length shortening business". I can see that ad now: Domains R Us, get your domain shortened here. Be the envy of major corporations and national governments, meet exiciting women and make money in your new home based business, with Domains R Us. sigh. -- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry(a)fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094 http://www.fc.net -- Mike Byrnes mbyrnes(a)tpoint.net Turning Point Information Services, Inc. Austin, Tx Corporate Online Solutions Since 1991 -----------------------------------------------------------------

1 0