March 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Domain Rant.
by George Herbert 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

I should clarify, this didn't happen to CRL domains (that I know of); I'm an end user at CRL at this point, not an employee, and as such of course I don't speak for CRL on this issue... The domain in question was mine (my other, non-computer related business actually...). However, I am getting plenty of private mail that ISPs and their customers were affected like my personal domain by InterNIC records problems with the billing, as well as the public responses to the nanog list here. It is apparent that InterNIC has a serious problem of major scale here: they do not have accurate records of who has paid and who has not, and are acting as though they did and thus denying services to a number of people whose money they took. That is not good behaviour in the best of circumstances. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com

1 0

Internic slightly broken
by Cameo Wood 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

Seems that you do an inquiry on any domain, through whois or telnet directly, and it stops at Administrative contact. Seems like we might have a small problem. InterNIC > [vt100] InterNIC > whois internic.net Connecting to the rs Database . . . . . . Connected to the rs Database Network Solutions, Inc. (INTERNIC-DOM) 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 20170 Domain Name: INTERNIC.NET Administrative Contact[vt100] InterNIC > ______ \____/ IDT Corporation E-mail: cameo(a)corp.idt.net \__/ Cameo Wood Phone: +1 201 928 2889 \/ Network Management Engineer Pager: 800 225 0256 x 85-452

1 0

Re: NANOG 10
by Greg Boykin 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Ian Duncan wrote: > > I think it'd be great to see NANOG happen regularly north of 49. But > ideal locations include a generous sponsor who'll handle some > significant > hassles and expenses--suggestions? What about Network Solutions Inc. coughing up some of the domain$$$ for first class flight for everyone and something more than a continental breakfast? -Greg- geboykin(a)scsnet.com

2 1

Re: Domain Rant.
by Paul A Vixie 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

hey, a content free rant fest. "these are a few of my favorite things..." > Seems to me that somebody has to pay for the service and I'd rather pay > for it myself rather than have the U.S. taxpayer foot the bill. Indeed. When you let a taxpayer buy something for you, then the so-called representatives of that taxpayer get to make decisions about the service, and sometimes those decisions have a lot of social engineering built in. Far better to get something done without this kind of government value-add. > So start paying the operators of the root nameservers for their services. > I find the root nameservers to be vastly more useful than where my > money appears to be going. Network Solutions paid for the hardware I now run F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET on. I reached a certain point where I could not afford to buy the next 512MB of RAM out of ISC funds. So from my point of view, domain holders who send money to Network Solutions are doing the right thing, no matter what the original contract may have said. > Inferencing the US govt. is out of the loop is a logical leap of > faith. Tell me who owns the "." and why wouldn't the Feds of some > denomination step in to "stabilize" the namespace. They will try, but since it's not a defense issue noone will take them seriously. > In other words, why would they risk such a valuable resource, built in the > past with US taxpayer money, walk away to a potentially non-US private > enterprise or a consortium. They can and would do this with .MIL and .GOV, but the others don't point at any resources that they own, and point at many resources owned by citizens of countries where treaties are in effect. They will at some point take over .US, but the process of government intervention in the affairs of "." will take every bit as long as the one which led to the international allocation of radio frequency spectrums. > $50/year is outrageous and does reflect monopolistic pricing. if i had to do it, i'd end up burning $25 of it on the accounts receivable process and the other $25 of it on legal fees and end up with nothing. so, as a root name server operator, i am happy as hell not to be in this loop. > If you think $50 is bad, just wait and see if the $20,000/year/domain goes > through... i havn't heard that one. i think you're confused about top level domains vs. second level domains.

1 0

Re: Domain Rant.
by NetSurfer 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

If you think $50 is bad, just wait and see if the $20,000/year/domain goes through... #include <standard.disclaimer> _ __ __ _____ ____ / | / /__ / /_/ ___/__ _______/ __/__ _____ / |/ / _ \/ __/\__ \/ / / / ___/ /_/ _ \/ ___/ / /| / __/ /_ ___/ / /_/ / / / __/ __/ / ================/_/=|_/\___/\__//____/\__,_/_/==/_/==\___/_/=============== ---------- From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Domain Rant. Date: Wednesday, March 19, 1997 6:00 PM > So.. how many people here have domains predating the NIC contracts, who > politely objected to paying and got their domains put on hold this week? Not we. We don't expect a free lunch. randy

3 2

Re: Domain Rant.
by Sanjay Dani 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

> Seems to me that somebody has to pay for the service and I'd rather pay > for it myself rather than have the U.S. taxpayer foot the bill. Note that > I am NOT a U.S. taxpayer, not yet anyway. But that saying about no > taxation without representation cuts both ways. I'm quite happy to see the > tax money, and therefore the U.S. government, out of the loop. Inferencing the US govt. is out of the loop is a logical leap of faith. Tell me who owns the "." and why wouldn't the Feds of some denomination step in to "stabilize" the namespace. In other words, why would they risk such a valuable resource, built in the past with US taxpayer money, walk away to a potentially non-US private enterprise or a consortium. I'm just pointing out one more plausible outcome, not meaning to argue. Regards, Sanjay.

3 2

Re: Domain Rant.
by Mark Borchers 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

> At 7:25 PM -0800 3/19/97, Len Rose wrote: > >So.. how many people here have domains predating the NIC contracts, who > >politely objected to paying and got their domains put on hold this week? > > My objections were not polite, but I paid since I can't afford the > service interruption. > > Always interesting to see monopoly forces at work... > > d/ $50/year seems pretty reasonable for monopolistic pricing.

2 1

Re: NANOG 10
by William B. Norton 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

At 08:50 AM 3/20/97 -0500, Michael Gibson wrote: >Agreed, Toronto would be the ideal location. In fact I was approached by a couple of Canadians eh ;-) looking to explore hosting a future NANOG. I still need to work with them on initial recommendations (hotel and room availability, data needs, transportation issues, etc.), but the locations discussed were Vancouver and Toronto. As mentioned before, all we need is a sponsor to step up to the plate. Another North American possibility to explore would be Mexico. I personally don't know the state of Internet connectivity there, or if it even makes sense; only a couple of .mx folks come to NANOG now. Bill -------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Norton <wbn(a)merit.edu> (313) 764-9430

1 0

Re: Domain Rant.
by matthew＠scruz.net 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

So start paying the operators of the root nameservers for their services. I find the root nameservers to be vastly more useful than where my money appears to be going. -matthew kaufman Original message <m0w7ZVP-0007zWC(a)rip.psg.com> From: randy(a)psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mar 19, 20:31 Subject: Re: Domain Rant. > > > So.. how many people here have domains predating the NIC contracts, who > > politely objected to paying and got their domains put on hold this week? > > Not we. We don't expect a free lunch. > > randy >-- End of excerpt from Randy Bush

1 0

Domain Rant.
by Len Rose 20 Mar '97

20 Mar '97

So.. how many people here have domains predating the NIC contracts, who politely objected to paying and got their domains put on hold this week? Len

5 4