- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Search Engine Accountability (was RE: Reality Check)
by Karyn Ulriksen 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Perhaps the search engine manages the key. Perhaps the search engine charges to be listed. Perhaps you can choose not be on that search engine. Perhaps the users like to use that search engine because you can find something pertinent on it to your keywords. Perhaps I am on crack. Perhaps I don't want to share my crack. Perhaps I just wanted to know if anyone else ever fondled this particular idea fondly. Perhaps I thought this was a forum for fondling ideas fondly. Perhaps a few people have gotten a little too uptight fondle ideas fondly or otherwise. Fondly, Karyn :: -----Original Message----- :: From: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] :: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:04 PM :: To: Karyn Ulriksen :: Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu :: Subject: Re: Search Engine Accountability (was RE: Reality Check) :: :: :: :: On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:36:31 PST, Karyn Ulriksen said: :: > Search Engine requires a key certificate style license :: embeded in :: > the html or website (whether it's internet centralized or :: just for the :: :: And the key came from *where*? And this would be different from the :: current hassles of getting a PKI certificate *how*? :: :: > search engine). A "rating" and "type" is associated with :: the license for :: > the type of site it is. As the search engine crawls the :: site, if the :: > license is gone... it doesn't get listed. If the type and :: rating doesn't :: :: Woo woo.. So I have to fork over $$$ to a company to publish :: stuff on the :: web? Or is this license "for free" - in which case it's :: probably worth :: what you paid for it? :: :: > match the information associated with the license data... :: it doesn't get :: :: OK.. A .JPG of a man and a giraffe would probably be :: acceptable for all :: ratings. A .JPG of a man and a giraffe having sex would :: probably NOT be :: acceptable. How did you tell the difference? :: :: > listed. If the license certificate doesn't match the :: IP(s) associated with :: > the certificate... it doesn't get listed. Has anybody :: tried something like :: :: Great. I relocate my server to a new co-lo and I drop off :: the search engines :: unless I fork out new money for a new license. And if you :: don't think this :: won't happen, I'll point you at all the companies that we :: currently license :: software from who are *always* ready at the drop of a hat to :: ship us a new :: license for a machine "because the CPU planar died and was :: replaced so the :: hostid is now different". Yeah. We *never* have a problem :: getting new :: licenses. ;) :: :: > this before? :: :: Umm.. there's PICS and other web rating systems already extant. :: :: They've worked wonders, haven't they? :: :: Valdis Kletnieks :: Operating Systems Analyst :: Virginia Tech :: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

gTLD Informational Message
by Brad Verd 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

This is an Informational Message to the internet community: Saturday, the 17th of March, Verisign Global Registry Services will be changing the IP address for c.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 192.35.51.30 E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 207.200.81.69 F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 6D IN A 198.17.208.67 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 192.26.92.30 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 c.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: Broken Internet?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr@latency.net] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:23 AM > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 02:34:35AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > > DSL has always been a cheap, semi-reliable solution for people > > > that didn't want to pay the money for a dedicated circuit. > > This, I agree with. > > > DSL behaves like a dedicated circuit > > Dedicated in what sense? "Always up" nature? Aggregation hierarchy / > topology? Bandwidth, considering your provider might be _losing_ > money with transit/ops/etc costs factored in, if you're using it al > full line rate 24x7? Well, all of the above, except that there is no way to tell if your upstream is losing money or not. Not if their market-communications folks know what they're doing and they're privately-held. > > 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). > > What circuit-level fine tuning and rebooting do you speak of? Is the > telco running Microsoft DACS Server(TM) in the CO? ;) I'm speaking from having spent many nights and week-ends waiting for the telco to bring the line back up, after my CSU lost power/went down/died/etc. That's why we went with DSL (besides straight cost). Granted, after initial build, this didn't happen. Mainly, because the CSU never went down again. > But yeah, putting all your eggs in one basket could make for a nice > single point of failure. Or calculated risk. Your call... That's my point, small shops don't have much choice. Typical Inet start-ups are cases where headcount is far less than server count. Granted, most of the H/W is in a co-lo. <sigh> You guys just don't want to allow a small business to run their own data center, do you? Can't y'all understand that there are serious business reasons for a company to do so?

2 1

Search Engine Accountability (was RE: Reality Check)
by Karyn Ulriksen 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

How about something like this (not suggesting as an DNS replacement!): Search Engine requires a key certificate style license embeded in the html or website (whether it's internet centralized or just for the search engine). A "rating" and "type" is associated with the license for the type of site it is. As the search engine crawls the site, if the license is gone... it doesn't get listed. If the type and rating doesn't match the information associated with the license data... it doesn't get listed. If the license certificate doesn't match the IP(s) associated with the certificate... it doesn't get listed. Has anybody tried something like this before? Karyn :: -----Original Message----- :: From: owen(a)dixon.delong.sj.ca.us [mailto:owen@dixon.delong.sj.ca.us] :: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:18 AM :: To: nanog(a)merit.edu; smcmahon(a)eiv.com :: Subject: Re: Reality Check :: :: :: :: :: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 03:07:30PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: :: > > :: > > The same way people have learned to make sure that a :: search for "Anna :: > > Kournikova" (for instance) returns, say, 200 records :: that are sites/pages :: > > that have nothing whatever to do with Anna Kournikova, :: and a whole LOT to do :: > > with bringing in cash to the sites in question. :: > :: > This is self-defeating in the end; if your search site :: doesn't work, people :: > will stop using it. :: > :: Yes, but it's not the search engines that do it. It's the :: web sites that :: have learned how to put stuff in the view of the crawlers :: the search engines :: use that will show up when someone is looking for unrelated content. :: :: Since they do this in such a way that virtually EVERY search :: engine finds :: their bogus content, they don't care how many search engines :: go out of :: business, they'll just afflict the next one to come up. :: :: > If they stop using it, the advertising dollars will stop :: rolling in. :: > :: > Thus, it's in the best interest of the owner of the search :: site to fix :: > the problem. Hence why people are flocking to the latest :: best technology :: > they can find, such as Google. :: > :: Google is not immune to this, althoug it is better than some. :: :: :: Owen ::

3 2

Sad state of affairs
by Timothy R. McKee 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It is indeed a sad state of affairs when I see so many operations people caught up in DNS and IP portability religious wars that our very reason for existence is forgotten. Lest anyone not know what I am referring to, our primary purpose in life is to operate our autonomous networks in such a way that our subscribers can *easily* and *transparently* participate in the global cooperative collectively know as the Internet. The evolution of this entity has progressed so rapidly that it is sometimes difficult to remember the sheer numbers of ordinary citizen/corporate subscribers that ultimately pay our salaries. Our duty/task is to provide them with *easy* and *transparent* access to the Internet and to prevent instabilities that threaten that access. If we fail to do that we will intimately find ourselves without a paycheck. We may disagree with the way certain things are implemented, but we must always remember that our subscribers provide an enormous amount of inertia against major change. Change must be CAREFULLY thought out, meticulously planned and scheduled. It cannot be allowed to disrupt subscriber service... Not if we want to keep subscribers paying us... I was there in the old days... When we could test a new idea online in production mode and announce it in a week or two... Unfortunately those days are long gone. Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOrIs/xRIXzEQLahvEQLf0gCgq00fiTfX7yOssU9bzZTyQHJo4jwAoJsV Gm+d64TduOnCGkiHCeiTrXFA =+TPY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by Chris Davis 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

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

10 14

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr@latency.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:44 PM > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 07:20:55PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > ISP specific > > ...works reasonably well if you want to multihome w/ BGP, but cannot > honestly justify a provider-independent IP allocation as per registry > guidelines, assuming some level of common sense is exercised when > planning things. > > > CIDR swamps are not cool. > > Sorry I'm not an authority on what's cool in your book, but why not? Because you can't change your upstream and keep your net-block. 'tis the nature of CIDR, non? BTW, you are SERIOUSLY missing the point. Please pardon my clue-bat. > > It must be portable and routable. See, I just created a market > > differentiator. > > So, encourage the ARIN to offer micro-allocations today, and upstreams > to listen to /24 (or whatever) and shorter out of this space, if and > when it does become available. With the backing of MHSC, I'd imagine > such a task should be effortless. I was answering the point, that there was no particular advantage between one IP addr block and another. I was disproving that statement. Please learn to understand the difference between making a point and advocating a position. BTW, ARIN is perfectly willing to delegate portable /24's, they just won't do you any good because of route prefix filtering, at /20 or greater. This is one clue that you may be missing. Personally, I think there is a problem, but I'm the first one to admit that I may not have the ultimate answer. Extending prefixes to /24's may be AN answer. I wouldn't want to see it longer than that, however. That would be inefficient. Most sites that I work with are perfectly happy with a /24, but may not fit in a /25. Mind you, this does NOT include workstations. A /24 is a good sized data center. You might also catch the clue that, as folks migrate more to RAIC (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Computers) configurations, they will swallow more IP addrs. When I can get a 100 node Linux cluster to do the job of a Sun e6500, for one-tenth the cost, I'll be more than happy to burn the IP addrs. Now, try and renumber/test/redeploy that mess in a day, or even a week. > > BTW, i've been getting comments that some folks are biasing > > evaluations of some clients, based on the ip addrs of the client's > > hosts. > > Oh my. I thought all one needed to be stylin' was a low AS number. > Do tell, which IP blocks are prestigious, and which are not? Actually, investor folk look at some of that for obvious (to everyone but you) reasons. Which co-los are being used, as well as how many of them, make a big statement on robustness. However, too many locations indicate wastage of funds. It also indicates access to bandwidth and scaleability.

2 1

RE: Statements against new.net?
by Roeland Meyer 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

We are now getting into areas that are better covered on their appropriate lists; www.icann.org www.dnso.org www.dnso.net www.open-rsc.org Notably, the DOMAIN-POLICY list, run by NSI, it the longest-lived of these and seems to be the central watering hole. Next is the DNSO General Assembly. I strongly encourage you ALL to get involved. If you want your views watered-down, you could buy into the constituency structure and have your representative speak for you (there is an ISP constituency). However, there is value in numbers and your rep can't do a good job on their own. The single biggest problem with the ICANN is the general lack of involvement, by folks that care. This is regardless of their views. -- ROELAND M.J. MEYER Managing Director Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. TEL: +001 925 373 3954 FAX: +001 925 373 9781 http://www.mhsc.com mailto: rmeyer(a)mhsc.com

1 0

RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 16 Mar '01

16 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. > > In case you haven't noticed, today's capitalist is not interested in long term ROI. It's all about put bucks in, churn fast, get bucks out before anyone notices that it's not as good as the hype has everyone believing. That scenario is playing out over and over all over the market and is the source of many of the woes being blamed on day traders, etc. The reality is that the true capitalists, the ones with control of the majority of the capital love the day traders. They get to deliver an innuendo, then watch the day traders create all kinds of momentum behind said innuendo, and proffit from the market moving in the predictable direction as a result. These are the people that put up a lot of the money that went into the internet stocks before they got so high. They're also the ones that sold out early and have been shorting them for the last 6 months. Hopefully, someone will eventually find a way to force a long term ROI to be an important factor to the market makers, but right now, the quick buck reigns supreme, at least in the US markets. This has been to the detriment of society in general, IMHO. Owen

1 0

Re: Reality Check
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 03:07:30PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > > > The same way people have learned to make sure that a search for "Anna > > Kournikova" (for instance) returns, say, 200 records that are sites/pages > > that have nothing whatever to do with Anna Kournikova, and a whole LOT to do > > with bringing in cash to the sites in question. > > This is self-defeating in the end; if your search site doesn't work, people > will stop using it. > Yes, but it's not the search engines that do it. It's the web sites that have learned how to put stuff in the view of the crawlers the search engines use that will show up when someone is looking for unrelated content. Since they do this in such a way that virtually EVERY search engine finds their bogus content, they don't care how many search engines go out of business, they'll just afflict the next one to come up. > If they stop using it, the advertising dollars will stop rolling in. > > Thus, it's in the best interest of the owner of the search site to fix > the problem. Hence why people are flocking to the latest best technology > they can find, such as Google. > Google is not immune to this, althoug it is better than some. Owen

1 0