- Test - lists.nanog.org

The .COM Servers
by Jim Fleming 04 Sep '98

04 Sep '98

It is somewhat of a coincidence that the .COM TLD Name Servers just happen to have the same owner/operators as the legacy Root Name Servers. In fact, even the same hardware is used. In this discussion one can set that minor detail aside and imagine that the following 13 servers support the .COM zone which has millions of entries. >1. A - Network Solutions, Inc. (A) >2. B - University of Southern California (ISI2) >3. C - Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER) >4. D - University of Maryland (UMD-TERP) >5. E - NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA) >6. F - Internet Software Consortium (ISC) >7. G - DOD Network Information Center (DIIS-NS) >8. H - Army Research Laboratory (B) >9. I - [No name] (NORDU) (Sweden) >10. J - Network Solutions, Inc. (J) >11. K - European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (K) >12. L - University of Southern California (L) >13. M - WIDE Project (M) (JAPAN) With the end of the U.S. Government involvement with the InterNIC and the .COM zone, how do the above companies plan to transition to industry self-regulation ? What company will be handling the .COM registrations ? Has the IETF arranged for a transition ? With less than 30 days, has the IETF thought about this ? One last topic. Apparently NSI does not want the .COM zone contents to be freely transferred to other companies. The above organizations obviously have to have a copy to operate their servers to support NSI. In some cases above, people apparently can copy the .COM data base freely and in other cases they are blocked. Is there a common policy or RFC that directs the companies above to prevent the transfer of the .COM data base to other parties ? If the parties above allow people to freely copy the .COM data base to other parties, then are they not helping to encourage companies to develop mailing lists for SPAM ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com

1 0

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by Jim Fleming 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan <SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM> <snip> > >Giving NSI the benefit of the doubt, I assume NSI will transfer the >database to whatever the successor organization (or organizations) >is, as NSI has previous done with the .GOV data, and NET-BLK data. > The NSF has announced that they do not intend to be involved any longer. There is no successor. NSI will have no choice but to take on the burden of the .COM domain and the millions of customers that have selected names there because the NSF blocked other companies from adding TLDs to the legacy Root Name Servers controlled by the U.S. Government. That control should end at the end of this month and NSI will be able to add new TLDs. The other RSCs should be able to help NSI determine which TLDs should be added. If NSI does not add new TLDs, then the letters C O and M might as well be combined with the period to form a root of the name space called COM. That could render the other TLDs moot if software developers start to drop the COM. and make the assumption that TLDs are really just the SLD names under .COM. That will effectively create a root with several million TLDs, which is more or less what is happening today because the .COM zone is still hosted on the legacy Root Name Servers. It is surprising that NSI has not moved the .COM zone by now. Because of the GRS people, it may now be impossible to move it. Instead, a new RSC may have to be constructed for ISPs to use with references to the .COM servers. Or, people can just switch to one of the many RSCs that have been working for years. No matter what. October will be an interesting month for people in operations. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com

1 0

Re: Crazy flying netbios packets
by Dean Anderson 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

Has anyone done an estimate on how much traffic is USEFUL? --Dean At 01:35 PM 9/3/98 +0000, Leigh Porter wrote: >Pete Ashdown wrote: > >> Has anyone done any estimates on how much net-wide traffic is useless >> netbios udp? Are there any suggestions for cutting large chunks of this >> out of my network without punishing SAMBA and other users who need it? > >Has anybody done an estimate on how much net-wide traffic is useless ;-) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Dean Anderson 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

Tim Salo just pointed out to me some flaws in my reading of Karls NSF letter, and some history I was unaware of or at least forgotten: The key being that it was SRI who actually created the database under contract from NSF. Meaning the database might not be subject to the FOIA or Privacy acts, and in fact might be property of SRI/NSI. He points out that NSF *probably* directed the SRI to give the database to NSI, and so the NSF in fact may never have actually handled the database at all. Of course, the NSF letter to Karl still claims that the DB was created by NSI, which still isn't correct. In light of that, I suppose one can still argue that if the NSF directed the SRI to give the database to NSI, then the database wasn't property of the SRI, and that its creation was part of the contract. So it would still be property of the NSF. On the otherhand, I suppose that SRI could state it originally owned the DB, and gave it to NSI under private arrangements not related to NSF.... So perhaps one should look for such a directive from the NSF to the SRI, and whether SRI thought the database belonged to it or to the NSF. It seems to me that given these rules, a federal agency could trivially avoid both the FOIA and Privacy Act merely by outsourcing the creation and administration of its records. I don't think that it was the intention for either of these acts to allow that, so perhaps that might be an argument, too. --Dean At 02:14 PM 9/3/98 -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: >>o Is focused on whether the whois database is within the purview of >> the Privacy Act of 1974, but doesn't directly address the ownership >> of the whois database; >> >>o Doesn't discuss the relevance of the FARs, which explicitly talk >> about the ownership rights of government contractors; and >> >>o Says that the NSF asserts that NSI owns the whois database. > >Actually, I just read Karls page. The NSF just says it doesn't maintain the >database and that the database Karl refers to is maintained by NSI, and >therefore NSF isn't subject to or can't respond to Privacy Act requests on >this particular database. (The implication here being that NSI might still >be) Perhaps that is true. > >But where the NSF says the database is created by NSI I think is factually >incorrect. "The so-called domain name database to which you refer consists >of information collected, maintained and used by NSI pursuant to that >cooperative.." NSI did not collect or create the database. It was >transferred to them from the NSF, which formerly maintained the database. >According the NSF letter, there apparently weren't any domain registrations >prior to the formation of NSI, which we know is incorrect. > >Indeed, as the NSF states "the FOIA applies to records which have been in >fact obtained...". The database, having been created by the NSF, was "in >fact obtained" by the NSF. > >Perhaps what Karl should do is write another letter to ask if on say, >December 1st, 1989, did the NSF maintain such a database, and did his name >appear in it. > >I suspect the answer to that question would be in the affirmative, or at >least to the effect that "NSF did maintain such a database at that time, >but we can't determine if your name appeared..." > >Then he should ask NSI the same question, since while the FOIA and privacy >act wouldn't apply to databases CREATED by NSI, it would apply to databases >RECEIVED from the NSF, and subsequently maintained by NSI. And see what >their answer is. I think he could also point out that the database would >be given back to the NSF in the event of contract termination, or to >another subcontractor if the contract were re-assigned to someone else, so >the database is really "materials belonging the the NSF", and subject to >the Privacy and FOIA Acts. > > --Dean >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com > LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by Dean Anderson 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

You are saying that "pummelling the database resources" for marketing info is bad. I presume by pummeling, you mean doing whois queries. Of course, if the database is sold on a CDRom by NSI, then there is no wasted network resources, and hence no "pummeling" While I agree that network whois queries to NSI for marketing information may not be appropriate or at the least, the best use of resources, I don't see that using the information (after appropriately obtaining it) for marketing purposes is wrong. Culling contact information for marketing products is no different than getting conference attendee lists for marketing purposes. Thats just how the system works. You need the marketing information on new products as badly as the companies need to distribute information on their products to make sales. I think the problem of whois database ownership is important because of the potential for unfairness on the part of NSI. Everyone should have equal access to the information. If ESnet gets the whole database in a day, and smaller providers get partial access in a say, a week, or not at all, that is a big source of unfair competitive advantage. That should not be allowed to happen. --Dean At 02:55 PM 9/2/98 -0500, Andy Walden wrote: >> >Yes. Thats not the intent of the whois database in my opinion. Marketing >> >and general greed causes the most problems on the Internet and generates >> >the most instances of someone trying to exploit something for the almighty >> >dollar. >> >> for, or rarely the admin contact), but for others it is the company name. >> What makes their use "WRONG" and mine "RIGHT"? > >Your not doing it for profit's sake, en mass, without consideration for >resources. You manually do a whois when you need a piece of information >about a domain that probably has to do with some technical issue. A >marketing leech would just find a tech guy to write him a program that >would pummel the database so he could use that information to make himself >a profit. That wasn't the intention of the database. What about querying >other database's for marketing information. Such as public court documents >(i'm not sure what the intended market would be), but thats just not the >intended use of the information provided. People exploiting the situation. >Yeah, I know welcome to the real world and such...just stating.. > > >-andy > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Ameritech must be talking to the PA PUC
by Steven J. Sobol 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

"Late news" - Crains Cleveland Business 8/31/98 [Note: How was it determined that these were Internet calls? Well, until recently, ICG did not provide dialtone in Cleveland to anyone except ISP's.] Ameritech Loses Regulatory Dispute The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio last week ended a long battle between Denver-based ICG Communications INC. and Ameritech Corp. over fees charged to connect Internet calls. The PUCO ruled in favor of ICG, which contended that Ameritech owed it $4 million for connecting Ameritech customers' calls to Internet service providers. Ameritech previously refused to pay the charges, arguing that Internet calls are long-distance calls, not local calls, and thus weren't subject to the mandated connection fees. Ameritech spokesman Kim Norris said Ameritech has not decided whether to appeal the ruling. -- "You know, I've decided lizards aren't too smart." --Me, to "Junior", one of my iguanas

2 2

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
by David H. Holtzman 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

I'd like to add some amplifying information : Two companies are responsible for over 30% of the hits coming into Whois. They are not major ISPs. This is almost three times as much as ALL AOL users combined. What we are talking about here is abuse of a needed service and as such should not be confused with peripheral business issues. David H. Holtzman Sr VP Engineering, Network Solutions dholtz(a)internic.net

3 2

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Jim Fleming 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Dean Anderson <dean(a)av8.com> To: Tim Salo <salo(a)networkcs.com> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 1:41 PM Subject: Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5 >>o Is focused on whether the whois database is within the purview of >> the Privacy Act of 1974, but doesn't directly address the ownership >> of the whois database; >> >>o Doesn't discuss the relevance of the FARs, which explicitly talk >> about the ownership rights of government contractors; and >> >>o Says that the NSF asserts that NSI owns the whois database. > >Actually, I just read Karls page. The NSF just says it doesn't maintain the >database and that the database Karl refers to is maintained by NSI, and >therefore NSF isn't subject to or can't respond to Privacy Act requests on >this particular database. (The implication here being that NSI might still >be) Perhaps that is true. > I would think that all people interested in the legal issues of the Registry Industry would want to study these documents closely. http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/ In my opinion, the declaration by George Strawn of the NSF is very misleading. He spends a lot of time pointing out minutia, fails to mention significant history, and then draws conclusions based on technical FUD. Some of the other letters from Don Mitchell of the NSF are also critical to the history here. Don Mitchell works at the NSF for George Strawn. He has been the Program Manager for the InterNIC contracts. It is clear that he has been one of the primary people responsible for the delays in adding new TLDs to the legacy Root Name Servers. Don Mitchell has been responsible for a variety of actions which favor NSI. For example, at one point NSI took over the IS tasks of the InterNIC from General Atomics. Part of that activity was the Network Scout. When NSI needed to divest itself of the costs of the Network Scout to prepare for their IPO, Don Mitchell approved a $3,000,000 NSF grant on the day that the Network Scout was terminated. It remained on the InterNIC web site. This was essentially an indirect $3M grant to NSI which did not have to show up on the books of NSI as additional funding. http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9712163 http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9218749 The NSF has an annual budget of over $3.8 BILLION dollars. With that amount of money they can easily manipulate industries that depend on intellectual property. The Congress continues to allow them to do this with apparently no concern about the negative impacts on society. Apparently, members of Congress do not understand the fragile nature of intellectual property or the service and software based economy that we now have. If they did, they would not allow the 900 lb. NSF gorrilla to run free in these fragile industries. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com

1 0

Re: Director Database Marketing (Herndon VA US) (http://www.saic.com/career/jobs/c5
by Dean Anderson 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

>o Is focused on whether the whois database is within the purview of > the Privacy Act of 1974, but doesn't directly address the ownership > of the whois database; > >o Doesn't discuss the relevance of the FARs, which explicitly talk > about the ownership rights of government contractors; and > >o Says that the NSF asserts that NSI owns the whois database. Actually, I just read Karls page. The NSF just says it doesn't maintain the database and that the database Karl refers to is maintained by NSI, and therefore NSF isn't subject to or can't respond to Privacy Act requests on this particular database. (The implication here being that NSI might still be) Perhaps that is true. But where the NSF says the database is created by NSI I think is factually incorrect. "The so-called domain name database to which you refer consists of information collected, maintained and used by NSI pursuant to that cooperative.." NSI did not collect or create the database. It was transferred to them from the NSF, which formerly maintained the database. According the NSF letter, there apparently weren't any domain registrations prior to the formation of NSI, which we know is incorrect. Indeed, as the NSF states "the FOIA applies to records which have been in fact obtained...". The database, having been created by the NSF, was "in fact obtained" by the NSF. Perhaps what Karl should do is write another letter to ask if on say, December 1st, 1989, did the NSF maintain such a database, and did his name appear in it. I suspect the answer to that question would be in the affirmative, or at least to the effect that "NSF did maintain such a database at that time, but we can't determine if your name appeared..." Then he should ask NSI the same question, since while the FOIA and privacy act wouldn't apply to databases CREATED by NSI, it would apply to databases RECEIVED from the NSF, and subsequently maintained by NSI. And see what their answer is. I think he could also point out that the database would be given back to the NSF in the event of contract termination, or to another subcontractor if the contract were re-assigned to someone else, so the database is really "materials belonging the the NSF", and subject to the Privacy and FOIA Acts. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: Crazy flying netbios packets
by Paul Thornton 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Pete Ashdown wrote: > Has anyone done any estimates on how much net-wide traffic is useless > netbios udp? Are there any suggestions for cutting large chunks of this > out of my network without punishing SAMBA and other users who need it? On the subject of Windows generated useless traffic, I have been woking with RIPE to look at how many queries to k.root-servers.net are for dud TLDs - the majority of which are caused by Windows using the DNS to look up the local NT domain name - requests of the form "FOO." The results are somewhat scary - it seems that around 20% of all queries are generated by this behaviour. I can't give you any more info at present, as we are still working on the data - it is literally something I am in the middle of doing at the moment, but wanted to give a quick heads up to folks in the light of this thread. Paul -- Paul Thornton Office Tel: +44 1733 705000 London Internet Exchange www.linx.net Mobile: +44 467 372205

2 1