- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

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

14 Mar '01

In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103131054220.42622-100000@localhost>, Patrick Greenw ell writes: (Portions of post elided, in the name of brevity.) > >The fact that there currently exists several different operations root >server networks(ORSC, Pacific Root, Name.Space) to name a few. In fact, >if you ask ICANN board member Karl Auerbach, he'll tell you he uses the ORSC >root servers. > >To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular >efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the >"Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head. > >Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when >the IAB formulated this document? > .... > >What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political, >especially given the timing? Of course we were aware of such efforts -- that's precisely why we wrote the document, to warn that they were bad ideas. And the fact that the Internet "has not come crashing down upon anyones head" is due to their very limited deployment. The Internet is quite large; local disruptions *usually* don't affect most of the net. > ... > >Second, the alternative root server operators have attempted to address >this issue through communication/negotiation, like responsible members of >any community would. My understanding through following the various >mailing lists is that the majority of conflicts have been resolved in this >fashion. Where there is a refusal to communicate, or where conflict still >remains, the various operators act as they best see fit. I understand that >a community-based approach to "claim-staking"/conflict resolution makes >the "command and control" crowd a bit uncomfortable(witness some of the >virulant posters on the subject of new.net, et al.,) but this does nothing >to change the fact that these alternative root server networks exist and >that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree it's always >a little broken.) If our statement has advocated "command and control" as opposed to consensus-based design of the root, it would indeed have been a political statement. But it didn't say that. It said that there needs to be one root, regardless of how that is chosen. The notion that "the various operators act as they best see fit" is precisely the kind of thing we want to discourage, since that leads towards inconsistency. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

4 3

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

14 Mar '01

In message <LLEOLJEDPHOFANPCPKOMGEAPCCAA.mikebat(a)tmcs.net>, "Mike Batchelor" wr ites: > >> Now - I'll *readily* agree that "ICANN versus new.net" is political, >> and probably worth discussing. However, I'm going to have to start >> putting Bozo Flags on people who *still* claim that RFC2826 is political >> just because it points out that Things Will Provably Break if you have >> conflicting roots. > >Well DUH! I totally agree that conflicting roots break things. But I don't >think that conflicting roots is an inevitable consequence of having multiple >roots, or even multiple root zones. > >I still say it's a self-serving statement with political motivations, and I >hope I have adequately explained why I think that. I don't expect you to >agree with me, but I hope I'm not as Bozotic as you thought at first. I'm sorry -- I still don't see your point. We agree that conflicts are bad. *All* RFC 2826 says is that you need to agree on the root zone, assuming that you agree that there's a conflict between a delegation and non-existence of a zone. 2826 says *nothing* about where that zone comes from, how you agree on it, etc. It does not mandate ICANN. It does not mandate the current 13 root servers (though I'll note that that limit comes from the 512-byte limit on DNS packets, and that DNS cache contamination means that you may end up believing in different root *servers* than you thought you believed in, if you send the wrong query to a site that adheres to a different root religion). If you can build a *working* root zone with no conflicts -- full agreement on what all the TLDs are and to whom they're delegated; no conflicting claims (and delegations) to the One True .xxx; no dissatisfied people stomping off and building the Even More Open Pacific Root Zone Conglomerate -- it will be in full compliance with 2826 and I won't have a single technical complaint. To be sure, I might have my doubts that you can build such a thing, especially the part about no conflicts -- but I've been saying ever since this whole topic came up that the worst possible outcome was more than one root. Nothing that has happened in the interim has changed my mind about that. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

1 0

Re: Broken Internet?
by Peter Francis 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

Those T1's can be run directly into your colo as a "private" network. Peter At 8:21 PM -0600 3/13/01, Nathan Mills wrote: >On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Peter Francis wrote: > >> No. Co-lo your website and "intranet". Get two T1's that same provider via two different entry points/carriers to your office (if possible) and you should be about as rock solid you could expect for $2-3000/month or there abouts. > >And how, pray tell, do you plan to have 5 data-entry clerks sitting in a >colo entering their data? The colo doesn't help a damn if you can't get >the orders back to your warehouse or if you can't get the data up to the >server, now does it? > >-Nathan

1 0

The Meat of The Matter
by Timothy R. McKee 14 Mar '01

14 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let's cut to the meat of the 'New.Net' matter... Essentially we, the ISP community, are being invited to help a wanna-be commercial registrar establish a new monopoly (read as 'gold-mine'), not on just a couple of TLDs, but on a LOT of TLDs... I would be one of the first to lament the failure of ICANN to establish new, logically laid out TLDs... But this is NOT the way to force a solution, it will simply result in massive headaches for all of our NOCs and Tech Support organizations as they attempt to explain the resulting mess to John Q. Corporate User. (Maybe all the resultant Tech Support hires will help the unemployment situation??!!) I think it's time for all of us that will end up having to deal with this mess to stand up and say NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO! Tim McKee -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOq7FzBRIXzEQLahvEQLWnACg7dBT2HFbRuquf6RoHlva0fQDoRkAoKAC e/tc8Xh2Ahz9I8AaJ59RjOKT =9EGr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0