- Test - lists.nanog.org

Agenda Topics for May
by Susan R. Harris 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

Greetings - Here's what we've lined up so far for the May 30-31 NANOG agenda: "State of the Internet" - reports from backbone providers, NSPs, NAPs, researchers, and the InterNIC on topology, traffic, stability, and trouble spots Update on the Internet Routing Registry RA Status Report Are there other topics you'd like to hear about? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh(a)merit.edu Phone: (313) 936-2100 Fax: (313) 747-3185 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Domain Parks
by Jim Fleming 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

On Monday, April 22, 1996 11:38 PM, Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] wrote: <snip> @ @What ISP's can do is stop registering trash domains. Tell your users to put @their WWW pages in a domain park of some kind, rather than allocating a TLD @for every one-person "company" whose scope of operations is a local city or @neighborhood. @ With cooperation from the major browser companies, the world could shift to "domain parks" or some directory service scheme. (At least for WWW services) I am really sort of surprised that Netscape and/or Microsoft have not added a more extensive URL equivalent of resolv.conf to their browsers. Netscape does allow people to type a name without the http://www and .com but that seems to be the extent of the "searching". Using http://comm.unety.net/US/IL/Naperville as an example, a browser feature could allow people to enter some arbitrary string that they want to have pre-pended to their entries. Using this example, "http://comm.unety.net/US/IL" could be set by a user that wants to use the entries for Illinois. Maybe the browser companies are waiting for the domain system to get overloaded and will bring out their own "domain parks" and generate revenue by hosting people's pages for a small fee. If that occurs then almost anything could be used as the pre-pended string, and companies could fight for a registration in the directory service of the browser company with the most market share. Of course the large companies would buy an entry from all of the major browser directory services. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Sean Doran 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

| Personally, I like the <eighty-subdomains>.BigCompany.COM. approach; | it just scales better. Less messy. Tastes great. Me too. However, there appears to be some counterpressure to move towards what I perceive as some kind of system which lacks any real hierarchy in the sense of domains. Perhaps instead of trying to "fix" the DNS by creating huge new bunches of things to the right of the last normally-seen dot, we should move towards something completely different. Maybe instead of: <whatever>.COM being considered as three tokens and being looked up as: ask a ROOT nameserver for COM NSes ask a COM nameserver for <whatever> NSes ask a <whatever> nameserver for appropriate info (all modulo caching) instead we treat it as (leaving out the '<' '>' stuff out of laziness): <w><h><a><t><e><v><e><r><.><c><o><m> and look up like this: ask a ROOT nameserver for M NSes ask a M nameserver for O NSes ... ask a <w> nameserver for appropriate info that will scale to a huge number of generally unformatted labels for things. This strikes me as a practical way of moving towards ".Earth" and ".Alt" and thousands of other "top-level-domains". Other than technical scalability, the other general design goal for any changes to the status quo wouuld have to be administrative scalability. As a too-easy example, in this model that's essentially making sure an overworked or evil delegator for $origin ever.com won't break the ability of people wanting $origin whatever.com or $origin never.com from going about obtaining those names. Perhaps some form of automagic registration scheme should be available to allow for others to initiate any rightwards growth of names unless they involve certain charaters (like '.', perhaps, so as not to overly confuse people who are used to foo.bar.com being under the administration of whoever is in charge of bar.com) Again, I worry about being wasteful of other people's time here; this could be a non-issue for operators big and small for all I know, so I'll drop back into read-only mode for a bit, and let smarter DNS people and folks more in the trenches talk it out (or ignore it). Sean.

4 3

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by mbyrnes＠tpoint.net 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

>On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Sean Doran wrote: > >> Looking around a bit, completely unscientifically and without >> more than eyeballing things, it appears that this practice >> is continuing, despite the back-pressure of a registration >> fee levied by the InterNIC. > >Sean, you misunderstand. The fee is not a back-pressure, on the contrary, >it is an IMPETUS. It's like this... > > Company: I want one of thos domain thingies. > > Internic: That'll be 50 bucks. > > Company: 50 bucks? I'll take 5 then; put it on my VISA. This also, has the effect, before the fee, the Internic could say one to a company, with now with the fee the are on shaky ground, when combined with their trademark policy. (if you own the trademark, and pay the fee, the probably can't prevent you from registering as many a you want.) It does ohav ethe positive effet of putting the cost of domain speculation, into the non-trivial range. >> issue on any front, and whether it really needs fixing >> by perhaps us suggesting that subsequent domains be >> charged on an exponential scale, with proceeds going >> into the costs of maintaining the worldwide DNS, particularly >> with respect to user-and-administrator education. > >Someone posted some stats on com-priv a week ago that would indicate >that Internic is raking in $10 million per annum with the current fees. >Are you sure anything needs fixing here? Hm... Internic is raking in "millions" with registration fees, but the root name server operators are getting ZERO. Yet, the real service that you are registering for, is root name service, not the WHOISS database, (root name service is even debateable, since most of the domains are in .com, but the same machines serve .com as ., so its moot.) If I were a root name server opeartor, that could cause major havok, if I decided too, I would be asking Network Solutions, aka internic.NET., where my cut is. If all the root name servers, decided for just 1% of that fee, or the'd drop "internic.net" out of the root zone files, they could probably get away with it. It would also solve the whole issue of resrouces to support root DNS. >> (NANOG or I*-something-or-other); I'm just wondering >> if I'm completely out-to-lunch on this one. > >You have a good idea there in establishing a funding link between the >registrants of domain names and the people who operate the registries and >the root nameservers. Of course, most registries are already funded by >domain fees like the Internic's $50. The missing link is funding for the >root nameservers. Some people also feel that DNS registrations should fund >ISOC/IAB/IETF/IANA or some sub or superset thereof. > >ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt >covers some of this as does the POISED95 WG There is a very dangers path, because once anyone can buy a top level domain form the root name server opeartors, people will, how long before "@aol.", and "@home." show up? About 2 seconds. You would also need some sort of feedback into the referal rate, but with good postive and negative caching that wouldn't be a huge hurdel. >> all clearly able to fit (at least for the moment) into >> <eighty-subdomains>.BigCompany.COM. > >I think human beings like flat hierearchies. In management. In GUI menu >systems. And now in DNS. Certainly they seem to be more efficient in >management and in GUI menu systems and even B+ Trees vs. binary trees. >Maybe they really are more efficient in the DNS as well. Flat space will fail when 50% of the humans on this planet have their own domain. (You think Internet growth is bad now, just wait until a Internet terminal can be had for $100, the $500 ones are only a year or so around the corner, and based on historical trends, the rgowth rate increases every time the the price point drops. (Which could happen, 2.5 billion people on the Net in 6 years...) (Assuming population iof the Net is doubling every 9 months, like bandwidth, and addressable hosts, and domains). >> If people think this sort of thing is OK, I'll shut up now. > >I don't think there really is anything that we can do about it other than >to accomodate it. I fully intend to have a couple of dozen domains just >for myself and run virtual WWW servers on my home LAN in the next century. >But by then that will be the normal state of affairs. Luckyly, all the good names will be taken well before this happens, and there just isn;t that much motiviation, for people to get 6 different domains and pay for them when they look like fsdhwue47.sdfj, etc. We are quite limited by the fact that the DNS protocols seem to limit us to [A-Z][a-z][1-0]-_. We would be really bad off if the DNS implementers had used UNICODE. >The plans to open up the top level domain space by adding 15 or more new >international top level domains per year will make the landscape rather >more interesting. http://www.kirk.tlhIngan.alt :-) Who has proposed this? I don't see it happening. A. it won't scale B. it looks ugly Thus violating the two key reasons the DNS system is so popular today. I think more TLD will be opened, but it will be for a couple of reasons, first off some re-writes DNS so that the clunky concept of a "root" name server is dead, then the commerical giants buy Microtsoft, or your favorite software vendor to implement the new protocol, and with their millions of users for everyone elses network to work they would need to upgrade to the new software to support "aol.". The social reasons with regard to Paul Vixie's "dot envy", are quite clear. I expect there to be a good bit of money made in the "domain length shortening business". I can see that ad now: Domains R Us, get your domain shortened here. Be the envy of major corporations and national governments, meet exiciting women and make money in your new home based business, with Domains R Us. sigh. -- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry(a)fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094 http://www.fc.net -- Mike Byrnes mbyrnes(a)tpoint.net Turning Point Information Services, Inc. Austin, Tx Corporate Online Solutions Since 1991 -----------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by schuyler＠threethirtysix.org 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

At 10:30 PM 4/22/96, Vadim Antonov sez: > The idea of using "randomizing" sub-domain is to get people used > to the idea of randomization in domain names. Then it can be > moved into protocol or implementations. It also fixes the name > collision and transparent introduction of multiple registries. Wasn't that the purpose of the city.state.us naming scheme? Since local laws already account for no two entities having the same name within the same city, it would seem to solve the problem. Just wondering why we'd reinvent the wheel with randomizing domain names unless it's to serve a vendetta against the overregistration of COMs. Then again, how long did the WELL go by well.sf.ca.us before they started using well.com on all their official documents? Marketing departments want to play it safe. If some percentage of their sales leads can't remember sf.ca.us, that's lost business; that's all they see, the dollar signs getting smaller. -- Gabriel M. Schuyler, Outlaw . . . as seen on TV! schuyler(a)threethirtysix.org http://www.threethirtysix.org/pagesix

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Hank Nussbacher 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:31:04 -0700 Paul A Vixie wrote: >One of my clients registered SIKHISM.COM and asked me if I would guest-serve >the WWW.SIKHISM.COM page. This being a religious organization, I refused, and >demanded that he first purge the erroneous domain and register SIKHISM.ORG >instead, which he did, and so I am now serving it. > >I wish the average ISP would be as insistent on proper names. It should not be the ISP but rather Internic that does the screening. In Israel, I wrote the registration rules along with one other person for all *.IL domains. These rules are given to all Israeli ISPs so that they understand the basis for requesting new domains. I present these rules here as food for thought: Current rules for domain name allocation in Israel (*.il) April 1996 --------------------------------------------------------- - Kindergartens, elementary schools, and high schools are to register under k12.il - Non-profit organizations such as amutot and malkarim are to register under org.il - Academic institutions of higher education (with Malkar status) are to register under ac.il - Governmental organizations are to register under gov.il - Commercial organizations are to register under co.il - Internet Service Providers are allowed to register under net.il - No other domain groupings will be opened - Domain names are not allowed to contain obscene words, example: shit.co.il - Domain names are not allowed to allowed to infringe on existing domains: example: besek.co.il would infringe on bezek.co.il This is done on a best effort basis. - Domain names may not contain the following reserved words: www internet example: internet.co.il would not be allowed. inter-net.co.il would be allowed - Domain names may not use well known geographic areas unless they represent an official muncipality, i.e. israel.co.il or telaviv.co.il - Domain names may be generic in nature. example: nadlan.co.il, shuk.co.il - Only Internet Service Providers with a valid operating license from the Ministry of Communication may register under the net.il domain - Domain names are not the property of Internet Service Providers that provide the registration services of their company. Domain names are never owned by ISPs - other than those names that are registered to run their company. - Domain names are portable from ISP to ISP. - No one company may register more than 10 domains on behalf of their company - Domain names are non-transferrable once registered to a company unless said company is bought out or merges with another company. If a company goes bankrupt, the domain names owned by that company are deallocated. - Domain registrations must be related to the business or activities of the company requesting the domain. Requests by individuals or companies to register domains in the attempt to sell them later to other companies will result in all domains owned by said company to be revoked immediately. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The current ruleset is managed by Simon Shikman and an appeals committee exists of: - Hank Nussbacher - Machba - Georges Meyer - Israeli Electric Company - Linda Perlmutter - Ministry of Communication - Izzy Ben Nun - Ministry of Communciation - Simon Shikman - Hebrew University This ruleset is being handed over to the Internet Society of Israel for modification and formalization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1 Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank(a)ibm.net.il ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Israel 2, Weizmann St. Tel Aviv 61336 ====== ======= === === http://www.ibm.net.il/ ====== ======== ==== ==== Dialup registration: 177-022-3993 == == == ==== ==== Company services: 03-6978663 == ====== == === == Internet sales fax: 03-6978115 == == === == = == Enquiries: info(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======== === === Technical support: noc(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======= === === ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Hank Nussbacher 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

Why not use the .US domain which gives lots of depth? Try to move as many .COM domains that are not multinational or even national, but rather are restricted to one state or another to register under that state. Also, keep companies that do not have a US based address to register under .COM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1 Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank(a)ibm.net.il ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Israel 2, Weizmann St. Tel Aviv 61336 ====== ======= === === http://www.ibm.net.il/ ====== ======== ==== ==== Dialup registration: 177-022-3993 == == == ==== ==== Company services: 03-6978663 == ====== == === == Internet sales fax: 03-6978115 == == === == = == Enquiries: info(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======== === === Technical support: noc(a)ibm.net.il ====== ======= === === ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Sean Doran 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

John Riordan gave a good probable reason behind the choice, hearsay or not, and it matches both MAP's and several other people's public and private speculations. (Though I did like the comments about military-industrial complex conspiracies, the military being privatized, and the Great Conspiracy by Yet Another Branch of the US Government to Put Money Into SAIC's Pockets $50 at a Time). I'd like to take a quick poll of feelings about this sort of thing. Many organizations (mine included) have in the past gone for numbers of domain-names, each reflecting some different operating unit or other. A number of these happen because of technical concerns on the part of the holder of a more generic domain, or because of concerns about bureaucratic such-and-so on the part of the people looking for a subdomain. Looking around a bit, completely unscientifically and without more than eyeballing things, it appears that this practice is continuing, despite the back-pressure of a registration fee levied by the InterNIC. I was wondering if, firstly, anybody else thinks that having many second-level domains per company is a real issue on any front, and whether it really needs fixing by perhaps us suggesting that subsequent domains be charged on an exponential scale, with proceeds going into the costs of maintaining the worldwide DNS, particularly with respect to user-and-administrator education. Note that I shall happily ignore the question of who we should suggest this to, or who "we" should be (NANOG or I*-something-or-other); I'm just wondering if I'm completely out-to-lunch on this one. Also I shall happily ignore the issue of how one decides which organizations are considered part of the same <splat> of operations/control/management/ownership, as there be ratholes lurking there. However, I'd like to see something that handles not only <eighty-product-names>.COM being registered by one party, but also <eighty-quasi-independent-orgs>.COM, all clearly able to fit (at least for the moment) into <eighty-subdomains>.BigCompany.COM. The "(for now)" is key; some of the interesting things seen in the past has included people rushing out and grabbing lots of similar-sounding domains prior to a naming decision of a new spin-off-company being made by its board of directors, and also lots of rushing out and acquiring domains by products which think that they _might_, some day, be spun off into completely independent entities. If people think this sort of thing is OK, I'll shut up now. If not, I'm interested in hearing about it. Sean.

5 5

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by avg＠postman.ncube.com 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

>> Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies >> which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts? >I have an idea :-) >Why not create more top level domains to reduce the congestion in >.com? Then let other companies run some of them so a free market can >decide what policies they like best. Because there's already a lot of them (i didn't count but it appears to be close to a hundred) and you'll have real hard time convincing root NS operators (who, FYI, provide that service free of charge) to add any more. And then, if you stopped to think for a minute before writing, it won't fix anything. O(N exp(M)) = O(exp(M)). In other words, if you throw in more TLDs you may (in the absolutely ideal case, when registration suddenly spread equally in all TLDs) it will delay the namespace collapse by 6 months for every doubling of number of TLDs. Since the real-world scenario would be far from the ideal case what you offered would cause a lot more problems and fix nothing. The only way to fix domain name service is to stop the insane flat-tree registration and start growing tree in depth. Which is -- if you want to start a registry ask NIC to allocate you something like MYREG.COM and register whoever you want *under it*. No negotiations with root NS operators. No additional load on root NSes. But, i guess, that solution does not appear to be as "sexy" as screaming bloody murder about InterNIC policies. The only problem i see with what InterNIC is doing now is that they encourage proliferation of the "first-level domains are sexy" hysteria. John et al -- how about stopping to register names under .com *NOW* and start registering them under .AA.COM (with understanding that later there will be .AB.COM etc, some of them delegated to other registries)? Name collisions could be resolved in that way, too, rendering the trademarked-domain wars unnecessary. (I won't say it'll make all lawyers to jump from the bridge, but still). It remains a mystery to me why so many supposedly intelligent people keep running in circles trying to argue against the trivial mathematics. --vadim

3 2

Re: NAVYJOBS.COM
by Paul Ferguson 23 Apr '96

23 Apr '96

Sean, Personally, I like the <eighty-subdomains>.BigCompany.COM. approach; it just scales better. Less messy. Tastes great. - paul

2 1