- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NSI and competition to RIPE and APNIC
by Carl Oppedahl 12 May '97

12 May '97

At 10:23 PM 05/11/97 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote: >randy(a)psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: >>who in ops cares? please keep the sicko domain name messes on other lists. >>the infrastructure will run no matter what you call the interfaces. > >I think ops people pay too little attention do the domain name mess >(and other higher-than level 3 messes). The mess is precisely due >to the fact that the development was allowed to be hijacked by a >band of idiots and demagogues. [...] >But i think >the issue of domain service in US is entirely within scope of >interests of ISPs and other northern american network operators. >Users _do not_ care about OSI levels. Broken domain registration >_is_ an operational issue. And it is not the first time the activities >of network operators have legal repercussions. > >My crystal ball says that in the end it will be ISPs who will be >cleaning up the domain mess. They're the only people out there >who have serious vested interests in keeping Internet running. It is true that network operators, ISPs, sysops, all have paid far too little attention to domain name issues. This failure to pay attention has allowed some bad things to go too far. All around you, it happens far too often: someone who is innocently using a COM, NET, or ORG domain name receives a dreaded "30-day letter" saying that NSI has conducted a proceeding (to which the domain name owner was not invited) and has determined that the domain name will be cut off 30 days hence. This sort of cutoff causes harm to the unfortunate domain name owner, sure, indeed has often put the domain name owner out of business. But the harm goes far further. Webmasters' hard work finding links and putting them into web sites end up with web sites having broken links. Individuals who use those web sites to find things click on links and find they are broken. Individuals who have set up bookmarks find that some bookmarks are broken. The Internet in general, and the Web in particular, depend on stability of domain names and stability of URLs, and this activity by NSI with respect to domain name owners who are innocent of any legal infringement harms that stability. Try to imagine how you would feel if you were the recipient of one of these 30-day letters. You would suddenly find yourself facing the prospect of having to hire a law firm (perhaps one of the sickos referred to above) and having to spend large amounts of money, with NSI and its tens of millions of dollars. You would find an NSI opposing you, and you might see (as I did) a deposition where the domain name owner sent one lawyer (me) and NSI sent *three* lawyers to the deposition. If you decide you can't afford to fight in court, then you lose the domain name, pure and simple. If that destroys your business, well, then, it destroys your business. The lawyers, at least, have spoken up about this (perhaps again among the sickos referred to above), even as the network operators, ISPs, and sysops have nearly all been silent. The moral unfairness of NSI's actions, as well as the legal wrongness of NSI's actions, have been written up by now in law review articles and other places, by several lawyers. The International Trademark Association, nearly all the members of which are lawyers, has said that NSI's policy should be called a "failure" and should be abandoned. Up until now, NSI has been a contractor of the National Science Foundation under a five-year contract. But NSI has said explicitly that when the NSF contract runs out in 1998, it intends to keep running COM, but answering to no one. If it is tough to fight NSI now when it wrongly concludes that your domain name should be cut off, imagine how tough it would be when NSI, with tens of millions of dollars in the bank itching to be spent on lawyers, is secure in its position of not answering to NSF or to anyone else. The network operators, ISPs, and sysops have nearly all been silent about what ought to happen in 1998 when the NSI-NSF contract expires. I have seen nearly nothing in the Nanog list from Nanog members about this critically important subject. There is one, count them, one well-organized and viable effort that represents the one possible future for domain names other than NSI's answering-to-no-one future. It is the Internet Ad Hoc Committee effort. Where have network operators, ISPs, and sysops been in the discussions and comment periods for that effort? Largely silent. The IAHC proposal would call for COM to be shared, just as 800 and 888 numbers are shared in North America. There would be more than one company doing what NSI does now, receiving annual fees and processing domain name assignment and update requests, just as there is more than one long-distance telephone company. There is a shared database (run by a trusted and neutral party) that is used to keep track of which 800 and 888 numbers are available and which are taken, and for the taken ones it indicates which long-distance carrier is handling the number. There would be a shared database (run by a trusted and neuteral party) that would be used to keep track of which COM domains are taken and which are available, and for the taken ones would indicate which registrar (NSI or someone else) is administering them. If this "shared TLD" plan were to be adopted, it would mean that someone who was dissatisfied with NSI for some reason could switch to a competing registrar, just like you can switch from AT&T to Sprint if you want to (without having to change your telephone number). Why might you be dissatisfied with NSI? Maybe because you don't want NSI cutting off your domain name on 30 days' notice for no valid reason. Or let's say you think that $50 per year is unreasonably high for a service that actually costs far, far less to provide. Or let's say you just prefer to see several companies, rather than one company, just as you prefer to see several long-distance companies rather than one monopoly provider of long-distance service. Right now, some eighty organizations have signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that signifies support for the IAHC proposals. Right now, a small handful other other persons and organizations have said they don't like the IAHC proposals, the practical effect of which is to increase the likelihood that NSI's proposal (the one where they are a monopoly controller of COM, answering to no one) will be the one to prevail. Right now, it's as simple as that. The IAHC proposal gets adopted, or the NSI proposal gets adopted. There are no other viable proposals for the organization of domain names after the expiration in 1998 of the NSF contract. Yes, there are other proposals, but IAHC's and NSI's are the viable ones. So where are the network operators, ISPs, and sysops in all this? Supporting the IAHC proposal? Supporting NSI's proposal? Expressing disapproval of the IAHC proposal (which amounts to the same thing as supporting NSI's proposal?) As far as I can see, none of the above. Silent, or nearly so. And the outcome of all this affects every Nanog member. It affects every network operator, every ISP, every sysop. It affects the 1.2 million owners of the 1.2 million domain names in COM and NET and ORG. Every network operator, every SIP, every sysop, every domain name owner, should pay attention to all of this and speak up. If you don't mind your domain name being cut off with only 30 days' notice, even though you weren't doing anything wrong, then hey, maybe it is rational for you to sit there silently, saying nothing about how you think the Internet should work after the NSF contract expires in 1998. But otherwise, you should educate yourself, and speak up, so that the rest of the Internet community knows what you think.

1 0

Re: NSI and competition to RIPE and APNIC
by Vadim Antonov 12 May '97

12 May '97

randy(a)psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: >who in ops cares? please keep the sicko domain name messes on other lists. >the infrastructure will run no matter what you call the interfaces. I think ops people pay too little attention do the domain name mess (and other higher-than level 3 messes). The mess is precisely due to the fact that the development was allowed to be hijacked by a band of idiots and demagogues. Compare that to the development of classless routing and the renumbering issue -- there the same induhviduals faced quite strong opposition from ops people and so the right thing was accomplished. I have nothing against keeping the sicko politikos waving their dicks in public to see whose's bigger out of NANOG list. But i think the issue of domain service in US is entirely within scope of interests of ISPs and other northern american network operators. Users _do not_ care about OSI levels. Broken domain registration _is_ an operational issue. And it is not the first time the activities of network operators have legal repercussions. My crystal ball says that in the end it will be ISPs who will be cleaning up the domain mess. They're the only people out there who have serious vested interests in keeping Internet running. --vadim PS And don't start me ranting on application-level stuff. In most areas it's worse than sicko domain name mess.

1 0

Spammer looking for service alert
by Barry Shein 11 May '97

11 May '97

This just from Sprint: > Online Svcs has lost their service through Sprint. Last Monday in fact. Their >IP blocks used to be 208.1.232.0 and 208.1.237.0. Their most famous domain >name was seductress.com, though at various times I was sure they were >associated with honeys.com and sweeties.com. Also inupiak.com, rasha.com, >redrove.com, orderamerica.com, and zilo.com. You probably want to pass this around and not sell these people services. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989

1 0

Re: NSI and competition to RIPE and APNIC
by randy＠psg.com 11 May '97

11 May '97

>>>>>>> It appears NSI is establishing franchises throughout the world and the >>>>>>> franchisees get commissions on domains and IP nets handed out. >>>>>> And what justification do you have for this rumor? Or is it more black >>>>>> helicopters? >>>>> I just spoke to a franchisee who gave me all the information listed. He >>>>> says NSI has something known as "levels" and he is known as a Level II >>>>> franchisee (total of 3 levels - with small local ISPs being level III). >>>>> He did not know who the other franchisees are but did say he saw >>>>> something in the paper about one being set up in UK and in Switzerland. >>>> To allocate IP space? >>> So said the franchisee to me by phone. >> Well, since we can be fairly confident that part is false, we should be very >> suspicious of the rest, eh? > He is a new IBM customer in Israel and has no reason to be pulling my leg. > I figure in a few weeks time it will become clearer. Cool. Then maybe we should wait until then to start the rumors, paranoia, FUD, etc. randy

1 0

Trick ?
by Jim Fleming 10 May '97

10 May '97

@@@@@@ http://www.ar.com/lists/newdom/1158.html Re: NEWDOM: STOLEN ".com" domain belongs to Nynex reseller? Paul Svensson (paul(a)svensson.org) Sat, 10 May 1997 15:09:20 +0200 (MET DST) If you take a closer look, you'll find that audcom doesn't resolve, just www.audcom; that should be enough to clue anyone in on how Eugene's little "trick" is done, and also why it's not likely to become common practice. <...> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ "Eugene's little trick" is a known operational loop-hole. I would hope that all of the people representing the following Root Name Server Confederations be fully aware of this loop-hole and the long term need to evolve DNS to a more bullet-proof, industrial-strength solution. ===================================== AlterNIC - (4-5 servers) ........Eugene Kashpureff ........??? IAHC Member/Advocate ??? eDNS - (5 servers) ........Karl Denninger ........Chris Ambler InterNIC (9 servers - U.S. Government, et. al.) ........Dr. Joseph Bordogna (NSF) ........William Schrader (PSI) name.space - (12 servers) ........Paul Garrin ........??? NSI/ISI - (4 servers) ........Gabe Battista (NSI) ........Jon Postel (ISI) ===================================== -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall

1 0

ATM (was: Re: Coincidence...)
by Bradley Dunn 10 May '97

10 May '97

> Part of the story. US, Japanese and European telco manufacturers had > different perceptions of 'optimal' atm cell size. Depending upon the mix > voice/video/data different results were obtained; believe 32 and 64 byte > were mentioned. The powers that be decided upon a compromise and chose a > value 'in the middle' causing everyone to redesign their equipment. The > compromise value was not a power of two. Must have been '89 or > thereabouts. Yep...Microprocessors and powers of two don't have any special relationship. Could the ITU really put politics over technical requirements? Gee, sounds like a good orginization to help out with the DNS. (Yeah, I know, I know. The ITU is "better" now.) pbd -- Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

1 0

MCI Planned Maintenance
by James Farrar 09 May '97

09 May '97

To NANOG Members: As you know, in order to keep our Internet backbone operating at peak performance levels, it is necessary to provide periodic maintenance and upgrades to the network. This note is to let you know that such maintenance will occur this weekend during non-peak hours -- Saturday, May 10 from 2 a.m. to 7 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. During this period, some customers may experience sub-optimal routing, delays, and brief periods of lost connectivity to some sites. We apologize for any problems this may cause you or your customers. However, we believe this maintenance will enable MCI to better serve our customers and the Internet community. MCI Internet Operations

1 0

Re: REMINDER
by Brad Miller 09 May '97

09 May '97

There are no rooms left at the discount rate. The current rate is $195.00. Wow. At 08:36 AM 5/9/97 -0400, Pam Ciesla wrote: > >The Hyatt Regency room rate cut-off date is May 15. The phone number >is 1-800-233-1234 or (813) 874-1234, be sure to mention NANOG. The >attendee list has been updated. If you are not on the list and should >be please contact me. If you are planning on calling with payment info >please note that I will be out of the office Monday, 5/12 & Tuesday, 5/13. >Registration fee of $100.00 is due by May 28. Cost after the 28th is $120.00. > >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Pam Ciesla 313-936-0172 - phone >Merit Network, Inc. 313-647-3185 - fax >University of Michigan >4251 Plymouth Road >Bldg. I, Suite C >Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ____________________________________________________________________________ ___________ Brad Miller 703-448-4470 ext. 424 Director of Operations bmill(a)cais.com CAIS Internet

2 1

Re: Coincidence...
by Vadim Antonov 09 May '97

09 May '97

On Mon, 5 May 1997, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: : :When Sprint initially enacted peering requirements, I asked several :UUnet employees whether they were planning to do the same. The answer :was without exception that UUnet pursues peering with all technically :qualified providers at all exchange points, because that results in :the best connectivity for UUnet customers. Edward Fang <edfang(a)visi.net> wrote: > >Actually I think this was once one of their boasting points. Boasting is fine until economic realities start to affect your bottom line. I always held to the opinion that stratification of Internet is inevitable. Neither it is a bad phenomenon per se -- it reflect shifing of Internet being add-on service to being a core business of facilities based telecom companies. The ultimate win will be a network which is a lot more useful, with solid and sustainable business model. --vadim

5 4

Re: NAP building
by randy＠psg.com 09 May '97

09 May '97

>> This is NAnog. Can you folk keep your local war over there, please? >> Thanks. > Randy, we'll do that if you promise to stick your head between your > legs and kiss your arse. If it will shut up your pathetic whining. randy

2 1