- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play (fwd)
by Shawn McMahon 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 05:56:38PM -0500, Tuc wrote: > > > heimdall% whois verizonshouldspendmoretimefixingtheirnetworkandlessmoneyonlawyers.com > > Whois Server Version 1.3 > > Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered > with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net > for detailed information. > > No match for "VERIZONSHOULDSPENDMORETIMEFIXINGTHEIRNETWORKANDLESSMONEYONLAWYERS.COM". Ok, if you must; it wasn't taken away, they simply didn't choose to keep it. If you're using that as proof that they can't keep a domain with a trademark in the name: [smcmahon@qward smcmahon]$ whois verizonreallysucks.com [whois.crsnic.net] Whois Server Version 1.3 Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: VERIZONREALLYSUCKS.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com Name Server: FOO.NOTWORK.NET Name Server: PHALSE.2600.COM Updated Date: 04-apr-2000 >>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:19:00 EST <<< The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and Registrars.

1 0

RE: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

> You could have built a shared > registration system that could have encompassed all the non-ICANN TLDs, and > helped create something that would have really given serious challenge to > ICANN. With duplication it just adds weight to the ICANN "I told you so" arguments for not letting people decide this stuff for themselves "they'll only mess it up" and makes alternate root acceptance less likely brandon

1 0

Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by Richard A. Steenbergen 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 05:36:13PM -0500, David R. Dick wrote: > > I wish more people would understand that just because > no one has implemented their idea before doesn't mean > that it wasn't thought of, then discarded as a bad idea. > > Then again, that sort of humility is probably not > prevalent at a company named "IdeaLab!" http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-5046211.html?tag=lh >From the company that brought us eToys.... 'nuf said... -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
by Richard A. Steenbergen 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 04:04:17PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > > Parody and criticism are protected under trademark law(although those > > rights are being eroded quickly.) > > No one has a sense of humor any more. A lot of folks have had > <companyname>sucks.com taken away from them due to "trademark > violations". Among the many domains registered to "Bell Atlantic Trademark Services LLC": VERIZONSUCKS.COM VERIZONBLOWS.COM VERIZONBITES.COM VERIZONSHITS.COM VERIZONWIRELESSSUCKS.COM VERIZONWIRELESSBLOWS.COM VERIZONWIRELESSBITES.COM VERIZONWIRELESSBITES.NET VERIZON-TELEKOM.ORG etc etc etc... You could almost make a case that they're preventing people from making criticisms, but given Verizon's level of performance its entirely possible these are domains for a soon-to-be-launched new product line. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

GSR and bgp maximum-paths
by James DeMong 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Long time listener, first time caller. I would like to enable multipath bgp on a GSR running 12.0(10)S that has two bgp neighbors in the same AS connected via OC-3 pos in order to load balance outbound traffic across the two pos connections. I've checked out the cisco bug search and haven't found any for this feature on this release of IOS. Is anyone else have any problems with "maximum-paths" on a GSR and if yes, what release of IOS? Any other issues I should be aware of? Thanks, James __ James DeMong Network Design Specialist TELUS Advanced Communications Phone: (403) 503-3718 Email: James.DeMong(a)telus.com

2 1

An example of reverse-hijack (was: new.net: yet another dns names pace overlay play)
by Doane, Andrew 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Scott, I registered "aol.org" in 1995. It stood for "Andy On-Line" (my name). I used it for almost five years without any problems from America Online, mainly for email and to ftp back into my home network, etc. I did not have a website up. America Online sued and won a judgment without even my being present. They stated that it violated their trademark of "AOL", as they had used it first in commerce. They used the fact that I had no web site at www.aol.org to justify this claim, ignoring the fact that their was an MX record and some other A records. A few "interesting facts": 1. In 1995, even if America On-Line wanted to registered .org they couldn't. Back then the rules were followed, and .org was for "private organizations and individuals". I registered it as an individual for non-commerce use. So their argument that they used it in commerce first is moot - as a .org domain you weren't supposed to. 2. America Online just recently acquired the right to protect "AOL" from the courts. Traditionally speaking, initials cannot be trademarked. If a company reaches "household word" status then they can get protection. IBM and GM would be examples. In 1995 when I registered aol.org, America Online did NOT have this protection. 3. Network solutions suspended the domain without warning by request of America On-Line. My phone calls to network solutions resulted in "call this person", which turned out to be America On-Line's attorneys. NS did this before America Online had received a judgment from the court. 4. Network Solutions and America Online claim they tried to reach me. They didn't. The address on WHOIS was wrong, however the email addresses and phone numbers were valid. Very convenient for them. However, the automatically generated renewal notice that I needed to pay my $35/year fee from NS made it to me. Funny, eh? 5. I hired an attorney to fight it, not because I wanted cash out on America Online (in fact, I didn't ask for this - I just wanted my personal domain back that I had been using for almost 5 years without issue). The net result was it would have cost me a mint to fight it against a multi-billion dollar company with endless resources. I caved and just let them have it. To date, they have not used it. They blackholed the domain. Someone explain the point in that. Obviously they felt people could confuse "aol.com" and "aol.org". So much so that they pointed www.aol.org to www.aol.com? No. So much that they put in MX records so email accidentally sent to joeuser(a)aol.org got delivered or at least a response back to the person who sent the email that they have the email address wrong? No. Big business wins against the individual by manipulating our government to draft legislation in their favor and then using it after the fact. There's your example. -Andrew NOT andy(a)aol.org -----Original Message----- From: Scott Gifford [mailto:sgifford@tir.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:16 AM To: William Allen Simpson Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play 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.

2 1

Re: Loose Source Routing
by smd＠clock.org 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Jared Mauch writes: | The reason to permit this is to verify peering policy. This | allows people to traceroute to verify packet path. Example: | I announce 172.16.0.0/16 only. I want to verify that you are not | pointing default at me, so I can do a loose source | traceroute to 10.0.0.0 via the peering point. Yes, this is one use of LSRR, but this can be accomplished through a standard looking-glass, also, which in my opinion is a much better requirement of one's potential peers (and suppliers). The major cost to LSRR is not in security (LSRR doesn't open any new attacks, it just makes some that require handshaking easier, when IP addresses are used as "authentication"), but rather in slow-path performance in some types of router/software combinations. LSRR is a phenomenally useful feature that simply was never popularized at the client level; few people used the "telnet @gateway1@gateway2:destination" syntax in those telnets that supported LSRR, and nearly no other clients offered any way to construct LSRR, pace traceroute and some pings. As a result, barely any effort goes into LSRR support in intermediate systems (routers, gateways, NATs, you name it) -- vicious circle. SSRR is even less well known/supported in the network. On the other hand, haha, that's what we have MPLS for (puke puke puke). There is an important lesson here for people who suggest that route optimization policy should be done on hosts rather than in the network. Sean.

4 3

Loose Source Routing
by David McGaugh 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

What are people's feelings on loose source routing? The general sentiment around here is that it is a very evil thing. The reason I ask is that there is a certain network out there (who will remain nameless) who refuses to peer unless loose source routing is enabled. I can somewhat understand their reasoning (they can reroute traffic on OUR network as necessary) but the security implications far out way the benefits. Not only this I'm not comfortable with an outside source having control over routing on our network anyway. -Dave -- +------------------------------+ Dave McGaugh, CCNA Peering & IP Backbone Engineer Electric Lightwave, Inc. E-mail: dmcgaugh(a)eli.net Direct Dial: 360.816.3718 Fax: 360.816.3522 +------------------------------+

7 7

Call for Whitepapers / Research
by Kevin Facinelli 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

I am asking the NANOG group of industry experts to submit relevant white papers, articles or information regarding: Bandwidth, Colocation Selection, Computer Hardware Selection, Network Operations Centers, Legal Issues SLA's/QOS, Peering and Interconnection, Power Systems, and Service Models. This information is available free of charge from the web resource www.colosource.com. Since first publishing information a couple of months ago many papers have been downloaded over 1000 times. If you know of information that is not your own but have deemed it of value to the industry, send me the url and I will contact the publisher and attempt to get it listed. If you have ideas on how to improve content let me know and we will make every consideration to implement your ideas. Please feel free to email me directly information that you may have for publish that can help educate our community of users. Thank You, Kevin Facinelli www.colosource.com webmaster(a)colosource.com ===== Kevin Facinelli www.colosource.com webmaster(a)colosource.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

RE: An example of reverse-hijack (was: new.net: yet another dns n ames pace overlay play)
by Doane, Andrew 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

After reviewing my post, I must admit, that this thread was ICANN decisions, not NS/the Courts. Of course ICANN was involved in the legislation, so the content of my previous email is at least partially valid. I could bring up that I applied for the use of ".BIZ" in 1995 and that somehow all these other registrars now have the rights to it, despite the fact they applied for that right several years later. Alas, that's a different topic for another day. Cheers all. -Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Doane, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:19 AM To: 'Scott Gifford' Cc: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: An example of reverse-hijack (was: new.net: yet another dns names pace overlay play) Scott, I registered "aol.org" in 1995. It stood for "Andy On-Line" (my name). I used it for almost five years without any problems from America Online, mainly for email and to ftp back into my home network, etc. I did not have a website up. America Online sued and won a judgment without even my being present. They stated that it violated their trademark of "AOL", as they had used it first in commerce. They used the fact that I had no web site at www.aol.org to justify this claim, ignoring the fact that their was an MX record and some other A records. A few "interesting facts": 1. In 1995, even if America On-Line wanted to registered .org they couldn't. Back then the rules were followed, and .org was for "private organizations and individuals". I registered it as an individual for non-commerce use. So their argument that they used it in commerce first is moot - as a .org domain you weren't supposed to. 2. America Online just recently acquired the right to protect "AOL" from the courts. Traditionally speaking, initials cannot be trademarked. If a company reaches "household word" status then they can get protection. IBM and GM would be examples. In 1995 when I registered aol.org, America Online did NOT have this protection. 3. Network solutions suspended the domain without warning by request of America On-Line. My phone calls to network solutions resulted in "call this person", which turned out to be America On-Line's attorneys. NS did this before America Online had received a judgment from the court. 4. Network Solutions and America Online claim they tried to reach me. They didn't. The address on WHOIS was wrong, however the email addresses and phone numbers were valid. Very convenient for them. However, the automatically generated renewal notice that I needed to pay my $35/year fee from NS made it to me. Funny, eh? 5. I hired an attorney to fight it, not because I wanted cash out on America Online (in fact, I didn't ask for this - I just wanted my personal domain back that I had been using for almost 5 years without issue). The net result was it would have cost me a mint to fight it against a multi-billion dollar company with endless resources. I caved and just let them have it. To date, they have not used it. They blackholed the domain. Someone explain the point in that. Obviously they felt people could confuse "aol.com" and "aol.org". So much so that they pointed www.aol.org to www.aol.com? No. So much that they put in MX records so email accidentally sent to joeuser(a)aol.org got delivered or at least a response back to the person who sent the email that they have the email address wrong? No. Big business wins against the individual by manipulating our government to draft legislation in their favor and then using it after the fact. There's your example. -Andrew NOT andy(a)aol.org -----Original Message----- From: Scott Gifford [mailto:sgifford@tir.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:16 AM To: William Allen Simpson Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play 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.

1 0