- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze
by Dave Crocker 05 May '97

05 May '97

At 2:12 AM -0700 5/5/97, Karl Denninger wrote: >Blackholing the routes would be, IMHO a serious legal issue. Since it is a technique already in significant use and gaining in popularity, its application to this context is unlikely to raise new legal questions. d/ ---------------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segre Place dcrocker(a)imc.org Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Also: iPOC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org

1 0

Re: Peering/Interconnection on the Internet as a Telecom Carrier
by Stephen Balbach 05 May '97

05 May '97

> I am a proponent of some level of regulation in the Internet as soon as > possible. I think this minimal level of regulation is critical to the > Internets open and unrestricted development. David - Is not regulation and unrestricted development at odds? The communications Act of 1996 is an attempt to remove restrictions put in place in 1934. The history of the telephone is an excellent of example of why not to regulate. The 40-years after 1934 was a Tellecommunications dark-age. Little innovation, diversity of service or choice. The Internet industry is too young to keep stagnet and survive in a competitive world market. > As an entrepreneur and a professional in this industry, I urge some > minimal level of immediate regulation such that the application of > accepted telecommunications law and practices are upheld. Are the accepted telecommunications law and practices such a good thing to uphold? > If they are not, I fear we will suffer the consequences of the > accumulation of all the economic power over the Internet in to a very > small number of hands. To me this is a very big problem, perhaps one even > worth losing your job over. David, you stood up for what you believe in and I have a great amount of respect for that. Perhaps in a few years we can look back when UUNET and a few others have put all the other ISP's out of business, and wonder why somthing was not done. You have a major battle to fight to convince people of that fact, and if you can, the rest will fall in place. I personally do not agree that it will happen as I am a great believer in the free markets ability to self-heal. After all, its just people, and no one likes a company that doesnt play fair. .stb

1 0

RE: eDNS - Temporary Freeze
by Geoffrey Waigh 05 May '97

05 May '97

Karl Denninger [SMTP:karl@Mcs.Net] wrote around Sunday, May 04, 1997 12:57 PM (in some timezone, my mail client is useless): > >As long as the Internet's cache files on each and every system out there >point at "a" in their file, there is the potential to break the namespace. > >One rogue server in a confederation will cause serious problems. > >NSI has defacto control, because getting them out of the cache files is a >long and slow process, and until they ARE out their answers will be >believed. That's one of the nice things about widespread backing of the IAHC plan by the big players. It wouldn't be hard for them to blackhole the cached rogue servers and thus cut them out of the loop. No doubt Karl will invoke lawyers at this, but while people are running around seeking injunctions to support their own lawlessness, the net keeps running. I would think that network operators could argue this is no different from filtering out rogue routes coming in from a subverted BGP peer. Geoffrey

3 2

None
by Jeff Young 05 May '97

05 May '97

1 0

Re: DNRC Press Release (fwd)
by Janet Pippin 05 May '97

05 May '97

uhh.. ----- Forwarded message from KathrynKL(a)aol.com ----- Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 23:06:22 -0400 (EDT) To: hostmaster(a)cyberramp.net, kathryn(a)domain-name.org Subject: Re: DNRC Press Release (fwd) Thanks. We are indeed having server problems but they are being fixed. Please try www.domain-name.org tomorrow to see a variety of materials about our organization. Many thanks for your interest, Kathryn Kleiman President, Domain Name Rights Coalition << FYI- Your server www.domain-name.org appears to be down. I could not get to it through a net browser, and could not ping the site (see below). ----- End of forwarded message from KathrynKL(a)aol.com ----- -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020 ----- End of forwarded message from jdp ----- -- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp(a)cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020

1 0

show ip bgp neigh advertised-routes
by Sean Donelan 05 May '97

05 May '97

Oops, I forgot the manuals are just hints and didn't try the only documentation that counts, the "?". It looks like someone added the show ip bgp neigh advertised-routes to the cisco user-interface. Thanks to whoever did it. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Peerage versus Peering
by William Allen Simpson 05 May '97

05 May '97

> From: Peter Lothberg <roll(a)Stupi.SE> > Look up ''peer'' in a dictionary, in this context it means something > like ''networks of equal size''. > This silliness comes up every so often, not always from non-native English speakers. Peer actually means several unrelated things. One of which (the first definition in my Webster's) is a member of a body called "the House of Lords" -- noblemen.... This comes from the Latin for "equal", yet is distinctly not equality. Although it seems that there are some who desire to apply that usage, that certainly is not what the rest of us are talking about here! The 5th definition is the one which I understand to apply: any associate. > The internet is moving towards a scenario with a handfull global > players that will be ''peers'' everyone else will become a customer. > As a matter of network engineering, this Internet has not historically established a peerage, a heirarchy of "first among equals". TCP/IP (and PPP and every other protocol I've worked on in this environment) establishes "peer-to-peer" connectivity. A peer is merely any entity with which you have established communication. More prosaically, someone with whom you "look closely". Where this term comes from, to quote the dictionary, is "entymology uncertain". WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1

Re: UUNET settlement - A call to arms?
by Eric Sobocinski 05 May '97

05 May '97

On Fri, 2 May 1997 at 15:17 PDT, Mike Leber <mleber(a)he.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 2 May 1997, Bownes, Robert M. (EXCH) wrote: > > What I would like to do is to connect to, for example, Sprint *just to > > get to folks who > > buy from Sprint*, not to transit through them to get to a NAP someplace. > > You can already do this. > > Simply buy a T1 from Sprint and filter out all of the non Sprint routes. > Where you might have normally purchased 10 Mbps transit service, you can > now use just a T1 with the appropriate filters. It will become a pain to > load balance and capacity plan all of those little pipes (increased > expense and complexity), but hey, if you don't want to or can't use an > exchange point this is an alternative. Uh, no, but thank you for playing. It's the other direction that is the problem. How does he advertise routes to Sprint so that Sprint customers can reach him but without Sprint advertising his routes at exchange points? That's the other half of what he's asking for, and he can't do it unless Sprint sets up filters to do it for him.

2 1

Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze
by salo＠msc.edu 04 May '97

04 May '97

> Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 09:21:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> > Subject: Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze > [...] > Where does NSI get the idea that it can abscond with the database it > developped under contract when the contractor is the U.S. government. > [...] Perhaps, from the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). Perhaps, from West Publishing. (It may be instructive to examine some of the West Publishing issues.) NSI might assert copyright of the .com database, (the database with, for example, the contact information, payment information, etc.). I believe that Federal contractors own the copyright for work done under government contract. The U.S. government probably has fairly broad rights to the .com database developed by NSI under government contract. However, the U.S. government may not have the right to give it to someone else. (I am not a lawyer...) -tjs

1 0

Re: eDNS - Temporary Freeze
by Paul A Vixie 04 May '97

04 May '97

> You know, all this talk about the Internet and DNS zones and who owns them > has lead me to believe that really, the US government should stay the hell > out of it. I agree. The FCC has reasonable cause to take care of the US domain, but just as international radio frequencies are allocated internationally, so must IP address space and DNS toplevel domains. > Now, 15 years ago, the IANA might have been in the position to delgate > such power, but today... the Internet is radically different, and the > contract between InterNIC & IANA should be void because the IANA doesn't > *OWN* DNS any more. The US government doesn't *OWN* the Internet therefore > control over the root zone shouldn't be relinquished to them. You're confusing IANA with a government entity. IANA is where this stuff comes from because, for 25 years, IANA has been where this stuff comes from. The world has come to trust IANA's judgement in who IANA gets its new TLD's from (which is currently the U.N. and the IETF, and will soon include IAHC's Council of Registrars). For some reason the AlterNIC/eDNS people don't look to IANA like international treaty organizations with strong committments to reflecting public consensus. Your guess as to this reason is probably as good as mine.

1 0