March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Steven M. Bellovin 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

In message <Pine.GSO.4.31.0103141436410.9269-100000(a)meron.openu.ac.il>, Rafi Sa dowsky writes: > > >Hi Hank > > In this particular case ".XXX" as "generic" suffix is probably not a good >choice - I'm sure someone would pay a lot of money for this particular >gTLD ... I think that that was Hank's point -- the owner of the One True .xxx will make lots of money. > >Regards > Rafi > >On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: >> >> > I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political".Upon careful re-readin >g >> > it boils down to: >> > >> > If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like. >> > >> > If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they > ask. >> > >> > How is this political? >> >> It isn't, but since these cyber-carpetbaggers have failed on the technical >> end to get their way, they figure if they can turn it into a political >> issue then they can involve their clueless congressman to jump in and make >> all sorts of investigations and subcommittees and perhaps they will end up >> with the pseudo-jackpot of a .xxx suffix in their hands. >> >> -Hank >> >> >> >> > > > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

1 0

Would anyone be interested (SQL/Bind)
by Steve Sobol 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Would anyone be interested in doing some testing if I ported the Bind 8 SQL patches to Bind 9? -- Steven J. Sobol/CTO/JustThe.net LLC | sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net SAY IT LOUD: I'M GEEK AND I'M PROUD! | 888.480.4NET (4638) 216.619.2NET (2638) http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net | http://ClevelandProductions.com http://JustThe.net | Powered by Linux, pizza, Coke, Cuervo, and cheap beer.

7 6

RE: new.net
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

That idea sank in WG-C. I saw it go down. The oil-slick has even dissipated and the survivors have been hauled out of the drink and dried off already. I've been one of the chief opponents to trademarked TLDs and Intellectual Property incursions into this DNS mess. Where were you? I could have used the help. I am very much anti-WIPO and the UDRP is a WIPO brain-fart. Over the past five years, I have occasionally gone through here, trying you get NANOG folk involved, even before the ICANN. However, even this subject matter has been suppressed here for a long time. Now that new.net has come up with some serious capital clout, y'all finally wake up. Well, it's about three years late and a whole lot more than a buck short. Hell, I don't even care if you agree with me or not. The issue is to get involved for the long-term. Technical issues are NOT divorced from politics, as much as you would like it to be so. Like business issues control IT policies, ICANN politics will control the Internet, unless y'all speak up, regardless of what you say. What you say, strongly indicates that you have not been following the issues. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 7:26 AM > To: Scott Gifford > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: new.net > > > On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:07:15 EST, Scott Gifford said: > > I like the idea of creating a new ".tm" TLD (or something > less likely > > to conflict with a CCTLD), and requiring anybody who wants trademark > > protection to register there; everything else is a > free-for-all, as it > > pretty much is now. Let them have their little trademark disputes > > over there, and let less litigious heads rule in the other TLDs. > > Still broken. > > Trademarks are for use within a given business segment - that's why > you can have an Apple Computer and an Apple Records - one is in the > computer business, and one is in the music business. Apple Computer > *did* have to promise Apple Records to never engage in the > music business > in order to use the trademark (this became an issue when QuickTime and > other similar technologies threatened to blur the distinction). > > You'd need to have a .computer.tm, a .music.tm, a > .automobile.tm and so > on for all the categories recognized by the trademark office... > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Operating Systems Analyst > Virginia Tech > >

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

> From: Clayton Fiske [mailto:clay@bloomcounty.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:52 PM > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 04:14:50PM -0800, Mike Batchelor wrote: > and otherwise -- I (or the author) shouldn't have to go into. If each > root zone is unique (and they would have to be, else they would be > coordinated and therefore not "multiple root zones"), there is nothing > to stop one root zone from adding a {TLD,SLD} which already exists in > another. Well actually, there is. Leah is exploring that with BIZ as we speak. > Hmm. A "60K text file that scales well" seems oxymoronic to > me. It either > scales, or it's 60K. :) > > Forgive the cheap shot there, but there's a point to it: If > client caches > have to get glue from/for as many different sources as feel > like creating > TLDs, that text file won't be 60K for long. There's no reason > it couldn't > end up being 60M eventually. Of course, a hierarchical glue > system could > be established -- oh wait, that would be coordinated. Currently, the ORSC root zone is around 90KB. However, that id seriously dwarfed by the COM zone file. > This is what I'm referring to above about pretend multiple root zones. > Even if you put different pieces of the root zone on > different servers, > operated by different entities, the only way to ensure there are not > conflicts is by coordinating the information contained in each. And if > you're doing that, it's still a singular root zone, just distributed. You may have a point. But that is exactly what's going on with the ORSC zone file. > Where do I point my client cache to get said glue?) No matter how much > you want to distribute elements of the root zone, if conflicts must be > avoided (as they must in this case) then there has to be a final word > from somewhere to eliminate them. His current name is Richard Sexton. However, some efforts are being made to correct that. > > > And sometime in May, we'll have the complaints that IP > addresses are > > > political because they only allow 256 values per octet, and a > > > class-action lawsuit is planned for the number 257, 258, > -3, and all > > > the fractions. > > > > This is a matter of mathematics, not politics. How to get > root glue to all > > clients that need it is a technical topic. Who should be > the distributor of > > that glue is a political topic. This is the crux of the matter. > > So, since 2826 never states who should be the distributor, it's not > engaging the political topic in question... As Patrick pointed out, the 2826 authors are being somewhat disengenious. The timing is entirely too coincidental. Looking at their local context, it is entirely clear whom they meant to be the distributor.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

> From: David R. Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@nominum.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 7:35 PM > The issue isn't really about this however. New.Net is not a > part of a > cooperative. They are a commercial company deciding on their > own what is > or is not a good top level domain -- they are asserting (with > the help of > @Home, Earthlink, mp3.com, etc.) that they are the unique naming > authority. I, for one, do not believe that this is > appropriate or desirable. Now we are getting to the problem that I have with new.net. They are, like the ICANN, ignoring other efforts completely. The difference is that they are ALSO ignoring ICANN and it's new TLDs. I'd like to say that this is a bed that ICANN has made for itself. It would be a correct statement. However, that does not solve the problem.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Randy, You seem to be comunicating with me just fine. BTW, why is NANOG suddenly sounding like DOMAIN-POLICY circa 3 years ago? I'm even more impressed that this thread hasn't been stomped on yet. > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 7:21 PM > > folk, life can be pretty simple. i recommend all the folk > who want to play > multi-root games please do so. being unable to communicate > with you will be > no problem to me. darwinian effects will do far better than > all the blather > on mailing lists. > > randy >

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Well, that's the point ... isn't it? Marketing gets enoiugh of those requests and maybe they'll tell engineering to install a root zone that resolves SHOP. Uh oh, maybe that is what everyone's worried about? > -----Original Message----- > From: David R. Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@nominum.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 6:12 PM > > John, > > At 02:04 PM 3/13/2001 -0800, John Payne wrote: > >If you don't use the alternative roots, you're not affected by their > >existance... > > Except for the folks at help desks who get calls asking why foo.shop > doesn't work. > > Rgds, > -drc > >

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Stephen J. Wilcox 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

> and otherwise -- I (or the author) shouldn't have to go into. If each > root zone is unique (and they would have to be, else they would be > coordinated and therefore not "multiple root zones"), there is nothing > to stop one root zone from adding a {TLD,SLD} which already exists in > another. Agree, but who will decide who owns which unique block, if new.net is permitted to make money from selling .shop or whatever then I want a piece of that, why should they own it and not me? > Where do I point my client cache to get said glue?) No matter how much > you want to distribute elements of the root zone, if conflicts must be > avoided (as they must in this case) then there has to be a final word > from somewhere to eliminate them. Precisely the reason why new.net should not do this off their own back and without the "okay" from some global central body - regardless of whether you personally agree or not with who that body is. > > This is a matter of mathematics, not politics. How to get root glue to all > > clients that need it is a technical topic. Who should be the distributor of > > that glue is a political topic. This is the crux of the matter. > > So, since 2826 never states who should be the distributor, it's not > engaging the political topic in question... Well it avoids the issue, but I think we already have a distributor, we can change who that is but we shouldnt add another, there should be only one.. Steve

1 0

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: Wednesday, the 14th of March, Verisign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for f.gtld-servers.net in the authoritative NS set serving com/net/org. The new set of servers authoritative for these TLDs will be: A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.41.3.38 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 207.200.81.69 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.35.51.30 J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 210.132.100.101 K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 213.177.194.5 M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 202.153.114.101 G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.41.3.101 C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 205.188.185.18 I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.36.144.133 B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 203.181.106.5 D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 208.206.240.5 L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 192.41.162.30 This will not require any change to root.cache file and both the old and new IP's for f.gtld-servers.net will provide answers for com, net, and org in parallel for enough time to accommodate the zones TTL's. -------------------------------------- Brad Verd Operations Manager Resolution Systems Verisign Global Registry Services Email - bverd(a)verisign.com ---------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Statements against new.net?
by Geoff Huston 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

At 3/14/01 07:56 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote: >That is based on the assumption that consistency is necessary >or desireable :) Of course, it is dear to an engineer's mind, >but the case from the sociological point of view is far from >clear-cut. In fact, way too many woes of human societies can >be (at least indirectly) attributed to the misguided attempts >to enforce consistency. This assumption is explicitly addressed in the RFC - I quote: ------ 1.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set Effective communications between two parties requires two essential preconditions: - The existence of a common symbol set, and - The existence of a common semantic interpretation of these symbols. Failure to meet the first condition implies a failure to communicate at all, while failure to meet the second implies that the meaning of the communication is lost. In the case of a public communications system this condition of a common symbol set with a common semantic interpretation must be further strengthened to that of a unique symbol set with a unique semantic interpretation. This condition of uniqueness allows any party to initiate a communication that can be received and understood by any other party. Such a condition rules out the ability to define a symbol within some bounded context. In such a case, once the communication moves out of the context of interpretation in which it was defined, the meaning of the symbol becomes lost. ------

2 1