- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Top Level Domain Finder Tools
by Roeland Meyer 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

> From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 3:29 PM > .. also ORSC sounds techie friendly - it has the word open in > so it must > be good - but c'mon theres no difference between it and new.net or > whoever? having said that maybe it would be better than icann.. only > problem is who has to give them the authority and make > everyone abide by > it? The effort to remove colliders has been on-going for a little over a year. Over much discussion it was decided that, if a TLD was in contention, none of the zone servers would be referenced for that TLD. Many of the colliders got together and ironed out their differences. In some cases, one party sold their interest to the other party. In other cases, they merged. Yet, in other cases, one-side capitulated. In the remaining cases, neither of the parties are in the ORSC root zone. That sets the initial entry. However, it doesn't resolve the case where a usurper comes along later (like ICANN, with the BIZ TLD, or new.net) The obvious answer is to keep the incumbent and ignore the usurper. However, one can only play that game with commanding market-share and solid FCFS historical precedent. ICANN desires to not play there and refuses to acknowlege FCFS. Therefore, taking their cue from ICANN, new.net plays likewise. Both ignore ORSC efforts. Given new.net resources, comparative to ICANN, we may be facing a serious threat of DNS name space fragmentation. Seeing at least a three-way fracture, of the root, it looks as if this will be resolved in the law. Remember, the law is not about moral rectitude or justice. It is about who can field the most effective squadron of attorney's. The first requirement of that is money which Idealabs has in abundance, ICANN is short of (unless WIPO gets involed), and ORSC has none of.

1 0

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Simon Higgs 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

At 05:08 AM 3/17/01 -0500, you wrote: >If it's *my* DNS server running on *my* equipment using *my* bandwidth, >then I can do whatever I want to with it, right? Good punt. But you're returning data owned elsewhere (like someone else's A record). If you are responsible for returning accurate data to a public audience, and it's not your data to alter, then you are liable for the consequences. If you want to run a different .COM in private (i.e. no public audience and no consequences), go right ahead. >Why doesn't new.net start sending me monthly paychecks? Since they're >*all* about money, then if I am going to help them get their business off >the ground, then where's mine? Go ask them. (626) 229-7800. Best Regards, Simon Higgs -- It's a feature not a bug...

1 0

.mn.rr.com dns possibly hacked?
by Kevin Day 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

One of my customers, who's got a cable modem off of mn.rr.com is reporting that roughly half the DNS lookups being done on their servers are returning the IP to www.lolitasex.com. I have no idea how widespread this is, but apparently others in minneapolis are seeing the same thing. If any of you have customers asking why their website is now a porn site, this may be why. :) -- Kevin

4 4

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Mathew Butler 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

Adrian: The key word is "cooperating". New.net (and its brethren that are being born in technology incubators as we speak) are not "cooperating", they're intentionally "culture-jamming" for their own gain. -Mat Butler Speaking for himself, not his company -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Chadd [mailto:adrian@creative.net.au] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:18 AM To: Stephen J. Wilcox Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? On Wed, Mar 14, 2001, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > You dont have to use ARIN/RIPE allocated IPs on your network, you can pick > your own (non-RFC1918) addresses just dont advertise them, but again what > good is that to users on my network who wont be able to see the sites. > > Look: "Internet" its single, not plural that would be "Internets" there > are certain uniquenesses which must be maintained if you want all users on > "The Internet" to receive the same results no matter who's network they > are on. Hrm. Somewhere along the line I remember the Internet being defined as a bunch of networks cooperating in order to exchange information. When did that change? :-) I'll be happy when more companies start to see that they canactually make money by fostering internet growth rather than making money by abusing internet growth. Adrian -- Adrian Chadd "The fact you can download a 100 megabyte file <adrian(a)creative.net.au> from half way around the world should be viewed as an accident and not a right." -- Adrian Chadd and Bill Fumerola

11 17

Statements against new.net?
by Hank Nussbacher 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available? Thanks, Hank

16 32

Re: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Kevin Loch 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

So the plug-in does *not* change which dns server you query. if a query fails against your normal name server it just appends .newdotnet.net or, if that fails, makes stuff up. Of course if your regular resolver server was a UDNS server or Earthlink or an ISP that adopted the new.net TLD's you would have found an A record for pie.shop with or without the plug-in. This also means that if your reguler resolver server had your own private .shop zone (perhaps empty), that would take precedence for regular and plug-in queries for that TLD. KL Chris Davis wrote: > > I removed the plug-in already, but pinging www.pie.shop went like this: > > ping www.pie.shop > > std query for www.pie.shop against my name server fails > std query for www.pie.shop.computerjobs.com against my name server failes > wins query for www.pie.shop fails > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x1 > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x2 > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x3 > std query for www.pie.shop against my name server fails > std query for www.pie.shop.computerjobs.com against my name server failes > wins query for www.pie.shop fails > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x1 > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x2 > netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x3 > std query for www.pie.shop.newdotnet.net against my name server > > newdotnet's NS replied with the IP for www.pie.shop.newdotnet.net & the > echos came back. > > I did mean to say in my last posting, everything *non-resolvable* outside > the ICANN TLD's is resolved to 64.208.49.135 > > Existing new.net TLD domains resolve to whatever their IPs are. > > The plug-in, however, sends ANY query outside the ICANN TLDs to > 64.208.49.135. > This usurps any and every other imaginable future TLD, ie www.bull.shit > They're not advertising a 'shit' domain (um, literally), and yet requests > for 'shit' go to their NS. > > Their scheme, if successful, takes over service for EVERY TLD domain not > already in operation by ICANN. > > Who's the monopoly? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Loch [mailto:kloch@opnsys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:57 PM > To: Chris Davis; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. > > Chris Davis wrote: > > > > I downloaded their plug-in and then: > > What happens when you ping www.pie.shop which is > in a new.net "private" TLD? > > (snip) > > Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to > > 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135 > > > > That was probably meant to be somewhat meaningfull with names > and not IP numbers. BTW, do you mean "everything not ending > with an ICANN TLD or "everything not resolvable"? (see above) > > KL

4 3

Metro area fiber market issues - May 2001 Cook Report contents
by Gordon Cook 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

******************************** The COOK Report on Internet May 2001 (Vol. 10, No. 2) ******************************** CONTENTS LayerOne Gear in Telco Hotels Provides Cost Effective Optical Interconnect for Carriers --- Ciena Core Director Provides Service that Grooms Circuit Interconnection Between Fiber of Many Carriers, pp. 1-14 Changing Bandwidth Provisioning Models in Metro Area Fiber Markets --- Net Access Chooses Acquisition of Dark Fiber and Self Provisioned Circuits Over Purchase of Shared Gig Ethernet Prices of Telseon and Yipes! Viewed as Too High and Cogent's Business Model Seen to Be Unsustainable, pp. 15 - 25 ICANN and Verisign in Alliance to Reinstate De-facto NSI Dot Com Monopoly in Return For Financial Support of ICANN --- ICANN's Pattern of Fraudulent and Deceitful Action Continues With Board's Capitulation to Staff and Vint Cerf in Melbourne, pp. 26-35 Optical Border Gateway Protocol Now Internet Draft, pp. 36 -37 Letter to the Editor: DANTE Objects to Description by Kees Neggers, pp. 37 -38 Executive Summary, pp. 39-40 ================== COOK Report Summary or cookrepsum(a)compucomis.net is a distribution list for the monthly free summary of the COOK Report on Internet. You should expect to receive the monthly summary that is usually between 7 and 15 thousand characters long. You may get one or two other messages a month. This list is intended for distribution and not discussion. Anything posted to the list will bounce to me. I regard this as an experiment and reserve the right at my discretion to change list policy. To subscribe by sending a message to majordomo(a)compucomis.net with 'subscribe cookrepsum' in the body. To unsubscribe send mail to majordomo(a)compucomis.net with 'unsubscribe cookrepsum" in the body Full text of executive summary is also available at http://cookreport.com/10.02.shtml -- **************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook(a)cookreport.com Index to 9 years of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com For info on new report go to http://cookreport.com/lightipgige.shtml . 'Light IP & Gig E" serves as tutorial on on going economic model of Internet infrastructure - $375.00 ****************************************************************

2 1

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Simon Higgs 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

At 10:03 AM 3/16/01 -0500, Charles Scott wrote: >Frankly, that kind of approach sets me >off pretty quick and my natural reaction is to get in their face and >become a roadblock. Still, if I was one of the few selected ones >benifitting from this rollout, I'd be working to see it succeed >also. Could that be why we see what appears to be competing opinions on >this topic? I'm going to answer that as I'm probably one of those competing opinions. Einar Stefferud (ORSC Chairman) and myself (I have no personal stake in either Verisign or New.net) had a good long conversation with New.net today. New.net have a business plan and are just doing what all the other .COMs are doing - trying to make a living as fast and quickly as the next. They are an incubator company within IdeaLab. They don't even have their own dedicated office space yet, they pool resources (conference rooms/copiers) with the other IdeaLab companies. They do know how register domain names and how to contact the media and government. They are not so good at juggling breakable objects. The Internet works on the principles of cooperation and this is the driving force behind ORSC. The basic premise of ORSC is an idea - of how trust and cooperation functions on the Internet regardless of any financial consideration or marketing budget. It helps to have money, but ORSC has existed without it since 1997. The ORSC root contains women-owned small businesses and giant multi-nationals side-by-side. As a result, it's an idea that can't be killed just by pulling the plug on the funding. New.net, on the other hand, will last as long as there is money in the bank. As far as the ORSC goes, there is no financial incentive or kickback to ORSC. It is possible that TLD managers recognized by the ORSC root may enter into relationships with New.net, just like they do with Verisign or Tucows or their local pizza delivery service or upstream provider (let's not go there!). I'm not aware of any such relationships but wouldn't be surprised if they happened as a result of ironing out the New.net TLD collisions. Unfortunately, the most interesting remark I found was one describing Bill Gross, the founder of IdeaLab. Somebody mentioned about him "having an idea and funding it without thought for the real world consequences". So yes, what New.net have done was not thought through as carefully as it might have been. Chalk it up to experience. Y'all can now say "we told you so". If New.net carry on without thought for the consequences, I'm sure they will become as popular as the other defunct IdeaLab ventures. If they choose to cooperate with the rest of the community, avoid the TLD naming conflicts somehow (we're trying to find some common ground to make this a reality), and stop making big waves into your routers and help desks then there has been some positive progress. Best Regards, Simon Higgs -- It's a feature not a bug...

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by smd＠clock.org 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

| Yup, it's all about capitalism, and nothing about technical correctness.*sigh* The long-term maximization of ROI requires technical correctness. Unfortunately there is often alot of arbitrage by people with very short-term goals. Sadly, some of the worst technologies are the ones that get lots of short-term interest. Sean.

4 3

RE: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam@flounder.net] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:26 AM > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:08:53AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > Aha! I remember you now ... > > > > Say "multi-site distributed cluster". Other sites have to > talk to it. > > What other sites? Is Colonel Beauregard[1] your DBA? My point, you haven't the foggiest idea what my business is and yet you have the cajones to make judgements against it in public. > > > You decided to run a business on DSL, and now you're paying > > > the price for > > > that. You really have nothing to complain about except > your own bad > > > judgement. Why is this thread still going? > > > > Now, the last I looked, DSL was SUPPOSED to be sold to > businesses. The poor > > consumer is stuck the cable. BTW, the DSL worked fine, > right up until Covad > > cut it off. > > DSL has always been a cheap, semi-reliable solution for > people that didn't > want to pay the money for a dedicated circuit. If you > believe otherwise then > you were duped by a sales droid. DSL has been very reliable. Moreso than some client's T1's have been. The outage was caused by a business failure between my IAP and my ISP. All I know is that the lights went out on 7Feb01, without warning. DSL behaves like a dedicated circuit and 1.1Mbps SDSL is close enough to 1.54Mbps T1, at 1/4 the price, to make it worthwhile. Additionally, you don't have to tune the link and it doesn't need to be hand-rebooted when the CSU/DSU drops (all the things they don't tell you about T1's). You've been listening to too many telco sales-droids. > > Do you always blame your sister for getting raped? > > You're an ass. You started the name-calling son ... and this victim doesn't appreciate being made into a criminal. If I'm an ass then you're a judgemental ass... and an ignorant one. > By the way, tell your broken mailer to stop CC'ing me on every post. Not broken ... done on purpose. My poor DSL connection isn't that reliable so I want to make sure that you get the message. I wouldn't want you to think that I'm talking behind your back.

5 4