- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

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

08 Mar '01

I'm going to start a company and introduce a new TLD. .sucks. I wonder what ICANN would have to say about that. :) At 13:18 03/07/01, you wrote: Which brings me to the interesting borderline case: companyname.sucks.com Can WIPO take away hostname records?:) Pi

4 3

Performance at the limits
by Sean Donelan 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

The traditional telephone system has several well-known difficulties dealing with wide-spread emergencies. However, traditional reliability numbers don't tell the whole story. Emergency planners need to be careful when hearing that the telephone system is 99.999% reliable. The quoted figures exclude performance during periods of extreme stress. While other technologies may appear to have less reliability, you need to look at performance at the limits of the curve. Other technologies may have better performance characteristics at the extreme limits. Likewise, you need to be careful about applying solutions developed for the telephone system to other types of networks. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/08/technology/08TOWE.html While fiber optic technology proved invaluable, other technology fell short. The cellular telephones that controllers had come to rely on were useless after the earthquake, and land lines were jammed. The walkie- talkies they had kept after converting to cell phones were few and old. "We discovered that reverting back to basic two-way radios was what we really needed," Mr. Owen said. "If there is a next time, we'll have better two-way radio communications."

1 0

BGP deployment
by Ankur Goyal 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Short time listener & first time caller. I have some questions regarding, the kind of configuration that is typically done, on a BGP-enabled router sitting at the edge of the network. My questions may have already been answered earlier, if that's the case, then someone please point me to the relevant mails... 1. In general, how many BGP peers should an edge router be capable of handling, more specifically, how many E-BGP peers and how many I-BGP peers are typically incident on one edge router. 2. In most situations the routes to the stub networks are manually injected into BGP. I feel that's the most common scenario but was wondering if running some IGP between the stub network and the provider edge router and then importing the routes from this IGP into BGP is also common ? Is this also done frequently enough ? Another option could be to run a BGP session between the stub network and provider edge router. Is this preffered ? Any help/suggestions would be highly appreciated. --Ankur

2 1

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

08 Mar '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- So the short answer minus the marketing-speak is that new.net is offering domains in new TLDs without having them in *.root-servers.net. The idea isn't new; people have been doing this for years with limited success. As domains in the new TLDs are obviously only useful if people can reach them, new.net is offering a variety of ways to be able to resolve them. Anyone in control of a recursive nameserver can: - - Slave a root zone with the new TLDs appended. - - Add stubs for the new TLDs pointing at udns[12].newdotnet.net. (I'm pleased with the UltraDNS infrastructure, which is serving similarly here to the gtld-servers.net but for new.net's TLDs. For those using the stub-zone hack, these are the only servers they ever see.) - - Replace the root cache with one pointing to ns[123].newdotnet.net, which will delegate as appropriate to the various TLD servers. (There are obviously too few of these available with not enough diversity, but more will be added soon.) The "launch partners" are listed as Earthlink, Excite@Home, NetZero. These shortly will be using one of the above to allow their users to reach the new TLDs. Given that the whole goal is for the domains to be resolvable, expect to see more. But these options aren't available to the average end user. Rather than setting up a few centralized recursive nameservers and trying to get every desktop in the world to send their traffic to them, new.net has elected to also make the domains reachable with ".new.net" appended. This allows for proper local caching and search-path related tricks. For all desktop users, the option is available to just add new.net to the search path. One of the functions of the Windows client offered on the site is a resolver plugin that appends ".new.net" on to some queries. It tries to cut down on the number of failed DNS requests that just would be generated by just adding new.net to the search path. It will also act as a sub-proxy for proxy users, appending ".new.net" on to some HTTP proxy requests. I'm not sure whats going on with a patent application on this. This is obviously less clean than just having ICANN list new TLDs. But given the ongoing frustration with ICANN, there is significant interest in a different approach, and new.net is taking one. I'm pretty sure that I didn't want it to come to this, and I'm not entirely convinced that anyone should be doing it. But personal reservations aside, its happening. And I intend to see that its done as well as possible. Aaron Hopkins Systems Engineer, idealab! Acting VP of Engineering, new.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iQCVAwUBOqXvPEfJWHAEvsjBAQFgAQQAmtREC7ZCYLVrA2biCzriM1z07Jrk7oAc fG9znSGC7gtHrcsad2N7SR+wFsWP2v8I546zYMvpcfHDClRFyS11tohi85W/CfEQ 9kaWfe01Jzqri37v+jHfAyX7k7OrSz+9wRJoh72rTItMWgaLECA1wync//EJ7EYc o+zS2KTe2P4= =kJXu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3