August 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Campbell, Alex 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

> Maybe marketing would learn to spell after a few costly mistakes. Any policy strategy that relies on marketing people learning to spell is flawed from the outset. Domain tasting is a real problem. 1 year domain registrations are very cheap. Who then does the waiting period benefit? (hint: not grandma) -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Eddings Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2007 7:46 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy... At 4:32 PM -0400 8/13/07, Justin Scott wrote: > > Do people really not plan that far ahead, that they >> need brand new domain names to be active (not just >> reserved) within seconds? > >I can say from my experience working in a web development environment, >yes. I can recall several cases where we needed to get a domain online >quickly for one reason or another. Usually it revolves around the >marketing department not being in-touch with the rest of the company >and the wrong/misspelled domain name ends up in a print/radio/tv ad >that is about to go to thousands of people and cannot be changed. We >end up having to go get the name that is in the ad and get it active as >quickly as possible. Been there. But it's rare enough in real life that I'd happily waive the right for full refund return for immediate domain publishing. Maybe marketing would learn to spell after a few costly mistakes. Any other domain registrations getting a 3 day wait before publishing can have a more lenient return policy, maybe with a small processing fee. That's not unreasonable, and has something for the registrars. And grandma would be able to correct her typo, and the regstrars would have time to check grandma's credit card, since she's so typo-prone. >Personally I'm all for things working as quickly as possible, and I'm >all for being able to "return" a domain within a reasonable time if >needed. Perhaps it would be better to allow for domain returns, but >shorten the time limit to 24 hours. That should be long enough to >catch a typo, but too short to be much use for traffic tasting. > > >-Justin Scott | GravityFree > Network Administrator > >1960 Stickney Point Road, Suite 210 >Sarasota | FL | 34231 | 800.207.4431 >941.927.7674 x115 | f 941.923.5429 >www.GravityFree.com -- Ken Eddings, Hostmaster, IS&T, eddingsk(a)apple.com, eddingsk(a)mac.com Work:+1 408 974-4286, Cell: +1 408 425-3639, Fax: +1 408 974-3103 Apple Computer, Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, M/S 60-MS Cupertino, CA 95014 The Prudent Mariner never relies solely on any single aid to navigation.

1 0

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Paul Ferguson 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Carl Karsten <carl(a)personnelware.com> wrote: >Oddly enough I am in possession of 20+ fee samples that were the left >overs from a hand out, and I was cleaning up the place. pretty sure I did not break any laws. I know that isn't what you meant, but it is what you said. One of the tricky parts about law is defining it. If you can't define it, it is really hard to make it illegal. > It's called "gaming the system". While not expressly illegal (IANAL), it damned well should be. - - ferg p.s. I realize that "closing the loop" on this behavior could be result in more badness, and in fact a certain "tragedy of the commons". This is where we find ourselves, apparently. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGwUixq1pz9mNUZTMRArm8AKDPqGvx25L9ZcsypwA4rQ7uoS+hHwCeO0A7 XuP7TEUbDQWzxrPxJamK9cc= =8sf9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

RE: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Campbell, Alex 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

> Maybe marketing would learn to spell after a few costly mistakes. Any policy strategy that relies on marketing people learning to spell is flawed from the outset. Domain tasting is a real problem. 1 year domain registrations are cheap. Who then does the waiting period benefit? (hint: not grandma) -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Eddings Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2007 7:46 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy... At 4:32 PM -0400 8/13/07, Justin Scott wrote: > > Do people really not plan that far ahead, that they >> need brand new domain names to be active (not just >> reserved) within seconds? > >I can say from my experience working in a web development environment, >yes. I can recall several cases where we needed to get a domain online >quickly for one reason or another. Usually it revolves around the >marketing department not being in-touch with the rest of the company >and the wrong/misspelled domain name ends up in a print/radio/tv ad >that is about to go to thousands of people and cannot be changed. We >end up having to go get the name that is in the ad and get it active as >quickly as possible. Been there. But it's rare enough in real life that I'd happily waive the right for full refund return for immediate domain publishing. Maybe marketing would learn to spell after a few costly mistakes. Any other domain registrations getting a 3 day wait before publishing can have a more lenient return policy, maybe with a small processing fee. That's not unreasonable, and has something for the registrars. And grandma would be able to correct her typo, and the regstrars would have time to check grandma's credit card, since she's so typo-prone. >Personally I'm all for things working as quickly as possible, and I'm >all for being able to "return" a domain within a reasonable time if >needed. Perhaps it would be better to allow for domain returns, but >shorten the time limit to 24 hours. That should be long enough to >catch a typo, but too short to be much use for traffic tasting. > > >-Justin Scott | GravityFree > Network Administrator > >1960 Stickney Point Road, Suite 210 >Sarasota | FL | 34231 | 800.207.4431 >941.927.7674 x115 | f 941.923.5429 >www.GravityFree.com -- Ken Eddings, Hostmaster, IS&T, eddingsk(a)apple.com, eddingsk(a)mac.com Work:+1 408 974-4286, Cell: +1 408 425-3639, Fax: +1 408 974-3103 Apple Computer, Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, M/S 60-MS Cupertino, CA 95014 The Prudent Mariner never relies solely on any single aid to navigation.

1 0

Re: US transit providers with slightly better than average International connectivity?
by Sargun Dhillon 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Drew Weaver wrote: > How about to this IP? > > 62.150.200.10 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sargun Dhillon [mailto:sdhillon@decarta.com] > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:58 PM > To: Drew Weaver > Cc: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' > Subject: Re: US transit providers with slightly better than average International connectivity? > > Drew Weaver wrote: > >> Howdy, I know with the trans-atlantic and trans-pacific connectivity >> being what it is these days that getting reliable (i.e. low latency < >> 200, low packet loss < 5% total round-trip) to countries such as AE >> and others is kind of a "shot in the dark". However, I wanted to ping >> the list and see if anyone has had 'better luck/worse luck' with >> particular transit providers. We're currently utilizing Time Warner >> Telecom, Level3, and Global Crossing as our transit partners and we're >> shopping for a fourth at this time, we would really like to find a >> transit provider with 'better' international presence. >> >> Any suggestions based on experience? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Drew >> >> > As a test point let's try: 212.58.224.131 > That's the BBC. Posting traceroutes would be the best. Here is mine from > internap: > core1.t6-1-bbnet1.sje.pnap.net 0.0% 2895 2.1 21.3 1.9 1671. 101.6 > xe-1-3.r02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 1.7% 2895 2.1 25.7 2.0 1301. 92.6 > xe-1-2.r03.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.8% 2895 2.2 25.5 2.0 1764. 108.7 > sjo-bb1-link.telia.net 0.0% 2895 2.3 15.3 2.1 1680. 109.5 > nyk-bb1-link.telia.net 0.2% 2895 73.8 86.1 73.7 1596. 101.4 > ldn-bb1-pos7-1-0.telia.net 0.0% 2895 143.1 155.5 141.8 1551. 100.4 > ldn-bb1-link.telia.net > ldn-bb1-link.telia.net > 9. ldn-b1-pos3-0.telia.net 0.0% 2895 144.9 163.2 141.8 1470. 99.8 > ldn-b1-link.telia.net > 10. siemens-118436-ldn-b1.c.telia.net 0.0% 2895 144.8 165.2 141.9 1470. > 106.4 > 11. 212.58.238.153 0.1% 2895 143.3 157.7 141.9 1386. 97.5 > 12. rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk 0.1% 2895 146.3 156.0 141.8 1636. 99.4 > > > -- > > Sargun Dhillon > deCarta > sdhillon(a)decarta.com > www.decarta.com > > > ATT: Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 200/203/208 ms Global Crossing: 283 msec SAVVIS: 245.461 msec QWEST: min/avg/max = 312/313/317 UUNET: 379 msec Level3: min/avg/median/max/mdev/stddev = 244/252.8/252/280/2.332/9.432 ms I just used the looking glasses to check latency -- Sargun Dhillon deCarta sdhillon(a)decarta.com www.decarta.com

2 1

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Paul Ferguson 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)cisco.com> wrote: >There's a case to be made that a policy which results in organizations registering and owning domain names which are close to the intended domain anme but represent a common typographical transition is desirable from a security standpoint . . . > I don't think anyone could reasonably question the legitimacy for someone like, say, Google, registering "gogle.com" or "goggle.com". It should raise eyebrows, however, if "goggle.com" was registered to RBusiness Network. Or "allitalia.org", etc. You get the idea. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGwOB3q1pz9mNUZTMRAtaCAKCKJPbiGqAAYeaUHnWL5aFxzKjrhgCgkY4W ruSoXSTqVYbpLarBVmSXgbE= =kB6m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Anyone from Senderbase, or ironport around?
by Drew Weaver 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Please tag me off-list, also if anyone knows of any way to reach anyone there please let me know. Thanks, -Drew

1 0

Re: [ppml] too many variables
by Joel Jaeggli 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

John Paul Morrison wrote: > Can't any network problem can be solved by adding another layer of > indirection? > > Don't all the various nodes in a system simply "disappear" when another > technology comes along to organize, replace and manage the problem > differently? With iBGP there's been confederations and route-reflectors > to divide the problem into smaller pieces, even MPLS to remove a lot of > the scalability issues. > > But perhaps in the future, after many more consolidations and > bankruptcies, there may only be a couple of major carriers left. This > would solve a lot of BGP decision making algorithms. Not if one of them is covad... > You'd either go with the Red ISP or the Blue ISP, just like politics! Leaving most stake holders poorly served just as they are by blue party red party. I don't think hoping for a high level of monopoly consolidation to address the issue of table growth is reasonable. As an enterprise or individual I'm still going to choose both meaning my stub-AS and address space will continue to consume slots in the routing table. > > > > Paul Vixie wrote: >>>> ... is that system level (combinatorial) effects would limit Internet >>>> routing long before moore's law could do so. >>>> >>> It is an easy derivative/proxy for the system level effect is all. Bandwidth >>> for updates (inter and intra system) are another choking point but folks >>> tend to be even less aware of those than cpu. >>> >> >> is bandwidth the only consideration? number of graph nodes and number of >> advertised endpoints and churn rate per endpoint don't enter into the limits? >> at what system size does speed of light begin to enter into the equation? >> >> (note, as i told geoff huston: if it seems like john scudder's outbound BGP >> announcement compression observations are relevant, or that moore's law is >> relevant, then you're misunderstanding my question or i'm asking it wrong.) >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy >> Mailing List (PPML(a)arin.net) >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services >> Help Desk at info(a)arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML(a)arin.net) > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info(a)arin.net if you experience any issues.

1 0

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Brandon Butterworth 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

> I picked on example, there have been plenty of examples in the past of > folks just barely able to come up with 7$/yr for domain registration and > using donated hosting for their non-profit thing. It's a shame, they can probably find other benefactors. I doubt there are many cases though so is the benefit to those few worth the cost to the masses? > there is consumer protection today in the purchase system, do we want > to remove that in the future. Or do we want to find another method to > crack down on this problem without hurting consumers? I've not noticed any registrars offering to refund Still, plenty of smart people are controlling this so either it's a terribly hard problem or they feel it's better this way. I'm sure they could come up with a compromise such as registrars only get the refund if they do less than x% per month, the genuine refunds are likely to fit within a small x that makes the tasting not worthwhile. brandon

1 0

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Chris L. Morrow 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, William Herrin wrote: > Chris, > > Suggestion B in ICANN's information request was: > > "making the ICANN annual transaction fee (currently 0.20 USD per year) > apply to names deleted during the [5-day Add Grace Period]," > > Wouldn't this essentially end the bad-behavior domain tasting without > hurting grandma-jones with her typo? This would incur a 20 cent/domain fee for return of the domain inside the grace period, yes? that would add a slow drain to the taster's pocketbooks, is that slow-drain enough to make tasting less profitable? or 'not profitable'? If so, then yes probably it'd slow tasting or end it. I don't think that a 'processing fee' is abnormal on returned items so that might even sit well enough with grandma-jones (in my example). > And if it was still profitable to taste domain names, wouldn't it pump > so much money into ICANN that they could lower the annual fees for the > rest of us? hey lookie, a nice side effect :)

1 0

Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
by Brandon Butterworth 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

> but today that provision is: If you buy a domain you have 5 days to > 'return' it. The reason behind the return could be: "oops, I typo'd" Fine, I don't recall that being the case previously so somone thought to introduce it > "hurray, please refund me for the 1M domains I bought 4.99 days ago!". The > 'protect the consumer' problem is what's enabling tasting. but it's not rocket science to see this simple abuse nor to stop it "one mistake, fine. N mistakes? better take more care, sorry" Sounds like poor management, they can easily redeem the situation by changing the rules again. Why haven't they? This is now sounding like willful negligence brandon

1 0