nanog@riva.net (Randall Pigott) writes:
I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number of independent ISPs and network operators to install their form of DNS redirection at the ISP-level, until all or most of the end-users out there were getting redirected.
It would be no worse than NEW.NET or any other form of DNS pollution/piracy (like the alternate root whackos), as long as it was clearly labelled. As an occasional operator of infrastructure, I wouldn't like the complaint load I'd see if the customers of such ISP's thought that *I* was inserting the garbage they were seeing. So I guess my hope is, it'll be "opt-in" with an explicitly held permission for every affected IP address (perhaps using some kind of service discount or enhancement as the carrot.)
Yup. This is the form I saw in the PRC, both with the CNNIC provisioned means for resolving names using Big5 and/or GB encodings, and the Microsoft and RealNames provisioned means for resolving names not in ASCII (with the added benefit of a bug in MS's IE navagator's handling of Unicode). There was a visible operational impact of the second service -- ever n2a for n not in (ASCII or Big5 or GB) resulted in overseas b/w use, first to Redmond, then to Redwood City, and finally to Reston. My hosts complained of the cost of every browser in the PRC generating trans-pacific packet streams. North Americans on fat pipes may not care, but where the meter is running, and ASCII is awkward, there will be operational measureables. Eric