On Monday, February 17, 1997 8:56 AM, Robert E. Seastrom[SMTP:rs@bifrost.seastrom.com] wrote: @ @ I have J and K in my named.ca file, but not L and M. It is reasonable @ to assume that they are not available for public use yet, as they are @ not listed in the currently-available named.root file available from @ the InterNIC. @ By the way, are you mixing TRUE Root Name Servers with legacy Root Name Servers in your root.cache ? Also, is it possible that the recent problems NANOG people have been discussing regarding Root Name Servers is really the result of these transitions to TRUE Root Name Servers ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net JimFleming@unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)
Jim, I really have to ask. Doesn't acknowledging them as TRUE root name servers serve as little more than fodder for The Man's giant propoganda machine? By referring to them as TRUE nameservers, aren't you just lending those bastards at the IANA et al. more credibility? After all, a noted net.koo^H^H^Hpersonality such as yourself must be careful which labels he gives institutions on the network. Others are surely likely to modify their estimation thereof in light of your opinions, are they not? I know I sure have been. __ Todd Graham Lewis Mindspring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com
Also, is it possible that the recent problems NANOG people have been discussing regarding Root Name Servers is really the result of these transitions to TRUE Root Name Servers ?
If whatever you are doing, however you are implimenting it for whatever reasons, caused corrupted data in h.root-servers.net and the subsequent failures, then you are a menace to the network and should cease and desist activities. You have clearly stated that your servers don't carry the .com domain directly; if you do something which crashes the servers that do carry .com you will likely find yourself sucking air over your ether pipes. You could, of course, merely be confused about what happened a few days ago. I would hope this is the case. -george william herbert gherbert@crl.com It's time for another run of my occational disclaimer: I have not been a CRL employee for over 2 years now and in no way am associated with it at this time except as a end-user of shell account services.
Again, I have redirected followups to newdom@vrx.net since this is not a NANOG issue.
Also, is it possible that the recent problems NANOG people have been discussing regarding Root Name Servers is really the result of these transitions to TRUE Root Name Servers ?
If whatever you are doing, however you are implimenting it for whatever reasons, caused corrupted data in h.root-servers.net and the subsequent failures, then you are a menace to the network and should cease and desist activities. You have clearly stated that your servers don't carry the .com domain directly; if you do something which crashes the servers that do carry .com you will likely find yourself sucking air over your ether pipes.
You could, of course, merely be confused about what happened a few days ago. I would hope this is the case.
Older BIND servers do in fact become confused in the presence of multiple (disparite) authority declarations for the same domain ("." for example). Anyone who has a primary/secondary relationship (direct or indirect) with a server who subscribes to private "." data is likely to become confused in a way that only occasional nameserver restarts will repair. BIND 8.1 is more immune to this than BIND 4.9.5 was, but in fact there is no "final and complete" solution to this problem other than DNS Security. I do not think the problems with H recently had to do with AlterNIC, though.
Again, I have redirected followups to newdom@vrx.net since this is not a NANOG issue.
Also, is it possible that the recent problems NANOG people have been discussing regarding Root Name Servers is really the result of these transitions to TRUE Root Name Servers ?
If whatever you are doing, however you are implimenting it for whatever reasons, caused corrupted data in h.root-servers.net and the subsequent failures, then you are a menace to the network and should cease and desist activities. You have clearly stated that your servers don't carry the .com domain directly; if you do something which crashes the servers that do carry .com you will likely find yourself sucking air over your ether pipes.
You could, of course, merely be confused about what happened a few days ago. I would hope this is the case.
Older BIND servers do in fact become confused in the presence of multiple (disparite) authority declarations for the same domain ("." for example). Anyone who has a primary/secondary relationship (direct or indirect) with a server who subscribes to private "." data is likely to become confused in a way that only occasional nameserver restarts will repair.
Balderdash. If that were true, we'd have to restart occasionally to clear this, and we don't.
BIND 8.1 is more immune to this than BIND 4.9.5 was, but in fact there is no "final and complete" solution to this problem other than DNS Security.
I do not think the problems with H recently had to do with AlterNIC, though.
Ie: "I intend to break alternative, private root arrangements, by including code which prevents people from doing this". Good luck Paul. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
participants (5)
-
George Herbert -
Jim Fleming -
Karl Denninger -
Paul A Vixie -
Todd Graham Lewis