August 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: TLD operations change
by Sean Donelan 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

>> Effective zone serial number 2000080101, g.root-servers.net (192.112.36.4) >> will no longer be authoritatively answering for com, net, org. In its place >> g.gtld-servers.net (198.41.3.101) will be added as an authoritative server >> for com, net, org. > > So much for O/S and hardware genetic diversity. Apparently my comment was a bit too cryptic. I was referring to the NSI program of NSI buying a set of identical hardware and acting as the sole operator of the machines serving as the GTLD zone servers. Although the NSI Registry web site confusingly indicates the root zone servers are supporting the .com, .net and .org rather than the GTLD servers. "The Registry DNS Programs Office is the business owner of the DNS (Domain Name System) root name servers supporting the .com, .net, and .org domains." I agree its a good idea to seperate the operation of the root name servers and the .com, .net and .org zone zervers. I disagree with the method NSI used to do this. A much safer method, somewhat similar to how pension funds choose fund managers, would have been to hire independent operators with different management styles instead of NSI acting as the sole operator of all the GTLD zone servers. Each independent operator would make their own choice of hardware, software, and procedures to meet the functional requirements. Ideally they would choose a variety of different methods. Just like you don't want all of your pension fund managers investing in the most risky stocks, you don't want all your operators choosing the most bleeding edge systems. On the other hand, you don't want only conservative operators because they will be using machines so far behind the power curve you won't make it until next week. It would avoid a problem, such as a bug in a single version of IBM equipment or a bad procedure call by one of the operators being replicated by all the operators at the same time. If NSI doesn't like "volunteers" (although it should be noted that several of the current root zone "volunteers" are in fact older, more established organizations than NSI and some provide a lot more protection than NSI provides for its own facilities) NSI could have funded (grants, contracts, even a cooperative agreement) several independent operators instead of trying to act as the operator itself. Of course, then NSI might have to worry about one of the folks it signed a cooperative agreement trying to claim it owned the zone files NSI hired it to act as an operator for :-) I'm normally opposed to "outsourcing" but in this case outsourcing makes a lot of sense. NSI being the business owner of *ALL* the machines serving the GTLD zone files doesn't make a lot of sense. My basic objection is using a set of identically configured hardware and software managed by a single operation for a "distributed" system.

2 1

two AS announce the same adress space
by Mikael Abrahamsson 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

What will break if two different ASes announce the exact same adress space? It's the old multihoming issue, small company wants to multihome, does not want to get an AS of its own, and wants to use one address space via both providers. This adress space is from PI space so ISP1 already announces the exact net (no aggregation) and would like ISP2 to also announce this, perhaps via a private peering using "private AS" but I would like to avoid that. I know the RFC says this should not be done (or at least I'm told so), but I would like to know if someone does this anyway and if they do, what problems arise? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

1 1

Re: two AS announce the same adress space
by Mark Milhollan 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

Johnny Fonseca writes: >Depending on the aggregation, Indeed. I didn't mean to discount that aspect, only to say that announcements from two different AS' won't, by itself, cause any more difficulty than is normal. Thanks.

1 0

Re: TLD operations change
by Sean Donelan 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

> Effective zone serial number 2000080101, g.root-servers.net (192.112.36.4) > will no longer be authoritatively answering for com, net, org. In its place > g.gtld-servers.net (198.41.3.101) will be added as an authoritative server > for com, net, org. So much for O/S and hardware genetic diversity.

1 0

Is the list alive
by Mark Milhollan 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

"Scott McGrath" <s_mcgrath(a)bexair.com> wrote: >I have not seen any traffic from the list recently and I usually get 50+ >messages per day I was wondering that myself, especially since I see messages in the archive that haven't arrived in my mailbox.

1 0

two AS announce the same adress space
by Mark Milhollan 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> wrote: >What will break if two different ASes announce the exact same adress >space? Nothing much. Some AS' won't accept the annoucement, but that was a possibility anyway, and it will be listed as being inconsistent.

1 0

Re: Sonet protection usage
by michael.dillon＠gtsip.net 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

On Thu, 27 July 2000, Jonathon Plonka wrote: > I might point out that Global Crossing does lay out their paths as rings > including under sea cables. > > http://www.globalcrossing.com/net_ac1.htm for us to europe > http://www.globalcrossing.com/net_pc1.htm for US to japan. Go to http://www.flagatlantic.com/ to read about a major transatlantic cable that is organized in physical rings. To see what I mean you need to go to the "cable route" page and check out the detailled maps for London-Paris and New York where you will see that there are two end-point rings connected by a long transatlantic ring. --- Michael Dillon Phone: +44 (20) 7769 8489 Mobile: +44 (79) 7099 2658 Director of Product Engineering, GTS IP Services 151 Shaftesbury Ave. London WC2H 8AL UK

1 0

Re: g.root-servers.net returns NXDOMAIN for com.
by Michael Shields 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

> check carefully. most root servers are no longer > authoritative for gTLDs. The gTLDS are being moved > to their own machines. Yes, I know. But g was returning *NXDOMAIN*. It did not refer queries to gTLD servers; it authoritatively claimed that com did not exist. This can and did can queries to fail and mail to bounce. -- Shields.

1 0

Get a $1000 FREE Satellite TV System .
by bfreetv16＠indiatimes.com 31 Jul '00

31 Jul '00

1 0