March 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: external issues in dns scalability (1995) (was Re: Namespaces )
by Roeland Meyer 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Closing down COM, et al, isn't going to happen anytime soon. ... or is "King Canute" your real name? Market forces are like the tides, they come and go. The only choices are to work with them or drown. > -----Original Message----- > From: woods(a)weird.com [mailto:woods@weird.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:29 AM > To: Paul Vixie > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: external issues in dns scalability (1995) (was Re: > Namespaces) > > > > [ On , March 8, 2001 at 07:43:37 (-0800), Paul Vixie wrote: ] > > Subject: external issues in dns scalability (1995) (was Re: > Namespaces) > > > > All I can really say is: "I told y'all so." Vadim, thanks > for reminding me > > that there was a time when these problems were still soluble. > > Wow. Re-reading that paper now is like deja vu all over again! Seems > like it was many decades ago.... > > I think, IIRC, I agreed with many points you made back then (and > especially the controversial ones like, avoidance of > government (except > maybe the UN), closing .COM et al, the support of ISO country code > domains, etc.), and I'm almost certain that I fully agree with all of > them now. > > Even though we sort of have shared-registry types of things happening > now I'm not so sure it would hurt to go back to one registry per gTLD. > > The problem is that it all hinges on closing down .COM, et al.... > > -- > Greg A. Woods > > +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods(a)acm.org> > <robohack!woods> > Planix, Inc. <woods(a)planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird > <woods(a)weird.com> >

1 0

RE: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by Karyn Ulriksen 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

:: :: This is hysterical! Great idea! What changes need to be made :: to db.cache in :: order to resolve all these new .sucks domains? :: I also note that there is no whois service for the box. :: Shall we add one? :) add: SUCKS. 86400 IN NS DNS-01-001.ROOT-DNS.COM. SUCKS. 86400 IN NS DNS-01-002.ROOT-DNS.COM. ........ Ahh... the whois... there's the rub. who can we get to do whois for the .sucks. ? Any takers? anyone want to slip it in the backdoor? :: :: - Rob :: :: > -----Original Message----- :: > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu :: [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of :: > Karyn Ulriksen :: > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:37 PM :: > To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' :: > Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play :: > :: > :: > :: > :: Pete Bowden wrote: :: > :: :: > :: > Maybe we can register .com.sucks, and then modify our :: > :: resolver search paths :: > :: > to search ".sucks" ... hmmm... :: > :: :: > :: > I'm there!! :: > :: > http://nsadmin.root-dns.com :: > Username: nanog(a)merit.edu :: > Password: n@nog :: > :: > Now be nice... if you guys get serious, I'll lock it down :: and make it for :: > real. In the meantime, don't change the password, so everyone :: > can play and :: > add .sucks. Maybe I should write a plugin... :: > :: > I'll keep it up for a while unless it gets too wierd. :: > :: > Yes, this is a live DNS server. :: > :: > K :: > :: > :: --------------------------------------------------------------------- :: > Best regards, :: > :: > Karyn Ulriksen :: > Network Operations Manager :: > PublicHost, A VitalStream Company :: > 1 Jenner, Suite 100 :: > Irvine, California 92618 USA :: > Phone: (949) 743-2000 :: > email: kulriksen(a)publichost.com :: > URL: http://www.publichost.com :: > =========================================== :: > :: > :: > :: > ::

1 0

Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by Karyn Ulriksen 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

:: Pete Bowden wrote: :: :: > Maybe we can register .com.sucks, and then modify our :: resolver search paths :: > to search ".sucks" ... hmmm... :: I'm there!! http://nsadmin.root-dns.com Username: nanog(a)merit.edu Password: n@nog Now be nice... if you guys get serious, I'll lock it down and make it for real. In the meantime, don't change the password, so everyone can play and add .sucks. Maybe I should write a plugin... I'll keep it up for a while unless it gets too wierd. Yes, this is a live DNS server. K --------------------------------------------------------------------- Best regards, Karyn Ulriksen Network Operations Manager PublicHost, A VitalStream Company 1 Jenner, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 USA Phone: (949) 743-2000 email: kulriksen(a)publichost.com URL: http://www.publichost.com ===========================================

2 1

Sprint Problem
by Ukyo Kuonji 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Does anyone know the cause and extent of the Sprint problem between Fort Worth and Houston last night? --- Opinions in this email are the personal opinions of the author and are not associated with author's employer. This email account is a not the regular email account of the author and is being used for the protection of the employer. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

Re: [NANOG] Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by Steve Sobol 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Pete Bowden wrote: > Maybe we can register .com.sucks, and then modify our resolver search paths > to search ".sucks" ... hmmm... Anyone see any reason why a couple of us couldn't set ourselves up as authoritative for the .sucks TLD? I doubt ICANN or any other organization is going to want it as a gTLD. :) -- 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.

3 2

Routing Loops in IGRP
by Manish Patil 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Are routing loops possible in IGRP as a protocol with Split Horizon turned ON ? -Manish

2 1

Re: Namespaces (was: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play)
by Sean Donelan 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

On Thu, 08 March 2001, Joshua Goodall wrote: > > The whole idea of unique human-readable names is broken (I would go as far > > as to say that the idea of any global name space is silly :) > > It shouldn't be. The great mistake with DNS was allowing a hierarchical > network engineering convenience to *become* a flat namespace used as a > globally-unique identifier for bodies of data. Somewhere along the process, DNS changed from an address space to to subject space. As an address space, having globally-unique identifiers is important; but as a subject space, searching is more complicated because identifiers aren't unique. Think of the difference between the telephone white pages, and the telephone yellow pages. Or the difference between searching for a book in the library by subject heading, and searching for an street address in a city. Ok, so I wrote the authority control software for MARION database, so I'm a bit biased about how things should work. For example, suppose there is a large corporation which likes to go by the name Disney, and several individuals whose name is Disney. http://www.colapl.org/MARION?key=disney&ind=A Who has priority? Walt Disney, Roy Disney, Rosemary Disney, Dorthy Disney, or Doris Disney? Why does any of them need to have priority over the name used for lookups? If you want their globally unique address (i.e. to send them mail) its not mandatory for it to be the same as the name you search for. How do you go from the name everyone uses, to the "official" name for something. http://www.colapl.org/MARION?key=ibm&ind=A What if someone is trying to find the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company? Other than generating a lot of press, new.net's project doesn't seem to be anything more exciting than a bunch of AOL Keywords (another flat proprietary namespace). DNS is not, nor ever was intended to be a general purpose search tool. That was X.400/X.500's job :-) If someone wanted to do something interesting, they would come up with a new RESOLVER library and interface which searched on something at a higher level than DNS names.

3 2

Telia's looking glass
by Thomas Kernen 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Does anyone know where Telia have moved their main looking glass to? Used to be on http://produktionstest.telia.net/~ah/ but has now vanished. Thomas

1 0

Re: [NANOG] Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by Ben Browning 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

WARNING: This post contains heavy snippage and tongue-in-cheek footnotes. At 07:38 PM 3/7/2001, you wrote: >Build a search engine which takes "old" domain name "WWW.CNN.COM" and >produces URL with 207.25.71.27 in it :) Great. Now I just have to remember the IP address of my favorite search engine. Why don't we simplify it and just remember >Even better, go to a real search engine and look for "CNN news US >edition". I spent a year in the bowels of search engine placement. I can tell you that if there's a resource I am going to use repeatedly, on multiple OSes, multiple machines, and across any length of time, I don't want to find out my favorite search engine purged it's record. Nor do I want to find out it has renumbered, and the search engine has the bad data cached. At least DNS zones have TTL's. No, that won't happen to the big traffic sites, but it sure will happen to the smaller ones. Not only that, but you are swapping apples for oranges here; I don't have to remember "cnn.com", but I have to remember "cnn news us edition"? Not only does this break economical and easy redundancy, it breaks virtual webhosting as well. *That* will certainly be a nice kidney punch to the ailing IPv4 address space. "Excuse me, Arin? Hi. I need a /20."[1] > I'm wondering how people managed to find CNN on TV -- after >all, CNN ads didn't feature local channel numbers :) On cable TV, you have ~200 channels. On the internet, you have 4 billion IP addresses. The analogy doesn't scale. Not to mention the fact that you have a channel guide that serves the same function as DNS. >As for removing environment variables and symlinks... hmmm... people who >built Unix in the first place certainly didn't like these features, and >replaced them with much more generic concepts in Plan 9 and Inferno. I see those OSes *all* the time. Hell, I've seen more copies of Ed Woods "Plan 9 From Outer Space" than I have Plan 9. What you are suggesting is that we remove a universally implemented long-held industry standard and replace it with the equivalent of a lot of kludgy proprietary hacks- which is what DNS was invented to escape from. IMO, this is an astoundingly bad idea. The system as it stands is fault tolerant, distributed, universal[2], and easy. You want to replace it with something that is more susceptible to human error, more likely to break during network renumbering[4], more expensive in both time and money, more wasteful of dwindling IP space, and less functional overall? When your car gets a few scratches on the hood, do you junk it and walk everywhere? At 07:43 PM 3/7/2001, Edward S. Marshall wrote: >On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 07:04:05PM -0800, Ben Browning wrote: > > For some reason, I can't see CNN broadcasting "Come visit our website, at > > 207.25.71.27 or 207.25.71.28 or 207.25.71.29 or 207.25.71.30 or > 207.25.71.5 > >"Find us at AOL keyword 'CNN'". ...at which point AOL Keywords will become even more spammed than domain names, and more broken than DNS. >Please, explain to me how DNS differs from any other resource location >(or perhaps "association") system? Examples that immediately spring to mind: > >- Address books >- URL Bookmarks >- Altavista >- Google "ad words" >- dmoz.org >- doubleclick.net banners All of these currently point to a distributed, authoritative resource system. They cannot be relied upon to be authoritative in and of themselves. I have seen pages on Altavista, for example, that have been defunct for *over a year* and they are stiull listed. Despite numerous attempts to get them unlisted. >- LDAP "Unlike existing database systems, LDAP is not designed to hold many hundreds of thousands of entries. It might be best to think of LDAP as a hierarchically organized lightweight database. An LDAP server may use a small embedded database to contain its information for faster access, but it's nothing like the large commercial databases such as Oracle, Sybase, DB/2 or SQL Server. " http://linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-07/lw-07-ldap_1.html >- AOL keywords No real difference, aside from having 1/3 the amount of address space that the Big Three TLD's have. Then again, do we really want to standardize on an AOL product that remains wholely under their thumb? >- ARIN allocations ...and apnic, and ripe. Aside from a layer or two on the ol' OSI model? >- akamai Difference? Explain the similarity? >- BGP updates My router automagically remembers ASN's it talks to. I have a phone book for a reason. >Some, you can register with for free. Some, you have to pay for. All act as >means to locate resources (URLs, email addresses, etc). The proliferation of >these is, IMHO, an indictment of DNS as a resource locator; obviously, it >isn't usable or general enough to serve the needs of today's Internet, or it >(and its implementors) would have kept up. A Swiss army knife with a hammer attached to it will never equal a true hammer. The only thing that even comes close to DNS in terms of the niche it fills is the AOL keywords thing, and even that already uses DNS as a backend. Bottom line: Just because it ain't perfect don't mean it ain't the best solution. ~Ben, as always, speaking for himself [1] Which, I believe, is a very special level of Hell reserved for people like Hitler, Stalin, and Barney the Dinosaur [2] Although I do agree that unicode support would be nice.[3] [3] Man, the skr1pt k1dd13z domains would go nutso with that one [4] This is the floor right above the one referenced in [1] # # Comment: You may have to Ctrl-C out of the footnote loop above # --- Ben Browning <benb(a)theriver.com> The River Internet Access Co. Network Operations 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com

1 0

Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by Scott Gifford 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

William Allen Simpson <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> writes: > Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote: > > > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder. > > > > Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently > > reverse-hijack domains > > Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the > better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions. > Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned. > > Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision? Assuming that I'm correctly understanding what is meant by "reverse-hijacked", the most notorious case I'm aware of is "walmartsucks.com". This domain was taken from an owner serving up criticism of Wal-Mart, and given to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart apparently claimed that this domain name was so similar to their actual trademark, customers could be confused into visiting the wrong site, and ICANN somehow agreed. I don't know where the official ICANN ruling is on this, but I recall seeing it discussed in a number of places at the time. Let me know if you can't find a reference, and I'll see if I can dig one up. -----ScottG.

8 11