Is there a new top-level whois server or did shared registry whois stop providing references to the appropriate whois servers for .org? At least a pair of domain registars cannot adjust any .org records claiming that the domains not exist. Alex --
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:40:00PM -0500, alex@yuriev.com wrote:
Is there a new top-level whois server or did shared registry whois stop providing references to the appropriate whois servers for .org? At least a pair of domain registars cannot adjust any .org records claiming that the domains not exist.
I noticed this a few days ago -- I thought it was because the domain in question was being transferred, but after reading your post it seems it was much more than that. The root servers aren't providing referrals to the gtld-servers for .org anymore.. Instead they're referring to here: ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: org. 172800 IN NS A7.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800 IN NS L7.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800 IN NS G7.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800 IN NS F7.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800 IN NS M5.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800 IN NS J5.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800 IN NS I5.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800 IN NS C5.NSTLD.COM. org. 172800 IN NS E5.NSTLD.COM. Anyone know anything about this? I can't find anything on ICANN's web site regarding a switch. --Adam
AM> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:44:05 -0800 AM> From: Adam McKenna AM> The root servers aren't providing referrals to the gtld-servers for .org AM> anymore.. Instead they're referring to here: [ snip new .org glue RRs that point to nstld.com ] AM> Anyone know anything about this? I can't find anything on AM> ICANN's web site regarding a switch. See previous posts. It's part of the move away from NSOL. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
Hi, Adam. ] Anyone know anything about this? I can't find anything on ICANN's web site ] regarding a switch. I noticed it on 8 Jan, and adjusted my monitoring accordingly. http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html Thanks, Rob. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:11:07PM -0600, Rob Thomas wrote:
] Anyone know anything about this? I can't find anything on ICANN's web site ] regarding a switch.
I noticed it on 8 Jan, and adjusted my monitoring accordingly.
Jan 2, 2003 http://news.com.com/2110-1023-978940.html Seems to be fairly public knowledge and in the 'media' for a bit. -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
.org is being moved into new Public Internet Registry away from NSI Their whois server can be found at http://www.orgtransition.info And if you prefer to get all info at once, I run recursive server at completewhois.com. It can be used from command-line (unlike PIR's server) - "whois -h completewhois.com pir.org" for example. On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 alex@yuriev.com wrote:
Is there a new top-level whois server or did shared registry whois stop providing references to the appropriate whois servers for .org? At least a pair of domain registars cannot adjust any .org records claiming that the domains not exist.
Alex
-- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:40:00PM -0500, alex@yuriev.com wrote:
Is there a new top-level whois server or did shared registry whois stop providing references to the appropriate whois servers for .org? At least a pair of domain registars cannot adjust any .org records claiming that the domains not exist.
The notice which netsol sent out: Notice: .ORG Registry Transition Scheduled for January 25 - 26 On January 1, 2003, the Public Interest Registry (PIR) became the new registry for the .org domain name extension. PIR will now maintain the authoritative directory of all .org domain names. Beginning January 25, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. EST, VGRS Registry will disable its connection to all registrars for .org to begin the transition process. On January 26, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. EST, PIR will re-establish its connection with all registrars. However, to ensure all functionality is appropriately in place, account modifications to current .org domain names cannot be made for approximately 48 hours following the transition. During the initial transition period, January 25, 2003 from 9:00 a.m. EST until January 26, 2003 6:00 p.m. EST, you will not be able to purchase new .org domain name registrations, transfer .org domain names or make DNS changes. Be assured that this maintenance period will not affect the ability for customers to view your Web site, and it will not impact the delivery of any of your e-mail. Please note that Network Solutions(R), Inc. has no control over this registry transition and all registrars will be affected. We appreciate your patience as this transition occurs. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
on the 31st of December, 02, VeriSign was no longer the registry operator for .org. The new registrar is called "Public Interest Registry" One can only speculate why the whois servers have vanished, however it should be noted that as of about an hour ago, all sorts of odd whois output was being served - including incorrect contact information for domains -- for example, all Dotster-registered .org domains now show a Mr. George Decarlo as the registrant, admin, billing and tech contact. You can use their web-based whois for the time being, but again, be warned that the data is very much incorrect at this point. http://www.pir.org/whois/ - Tim In previous mail, alex@yuriev.com said:
Is there a new top-level whois server or did shared registry whois stop providing references to the appropriate whois servers for .org? At least a pair of domain registars cannot adjust any .org records claiming that the domains not exist.
Alex --
TY> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:53:20 -0500 TY> From: Tim Yocum TY> One can only speculate why the whois servers have vanished, TY> however it should be noted that as of about an hour ago, all TY> sorts of odd whois output was being served - including TY> incorrect contact information for domains http://www.postgresql.org/ Has the cutover taken place, or might there be some fubar data conversion in the works? Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
On Wednesday, Jan 29, 2003, at 12:53 Canada/Eastern, Tim Yocum wrote:
on the 31st of December, 02, VeriSign was no longer the registry operator for .org.
The new registrar is called "Public Interest Registry"
One can only speculate why the whois servers have vanished,
whois.crsnic.net was the old whois server which reported data from the verisign thin registry for ORG. It still provides information for COM and NET, since those zones are still run by Verisign Registry. whois.publicinterestregistry.net is the whois server being run by the PIR, who are running the new ORG registry. The output format of the PIR whois service is possibly slightly confusing; the PIR's plan is to transition ORG from a thin registry to a thick registry, and right now the whois server is showing responses which look like thick registry responses, based on thin registry data. (if you knew this, and by "vanished" you meant something else, then apologies). The response formatting looks weird to me: "Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.networksolutions.com"? What? Maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. wrt data inaccuracies, the ISC's administrative addresses are not in Canada, and I guess the available.org people are having fun with all the spam from whois-harvesting spambots. Perhaps "NOT ACCURATE" should be substituted for "NOT AUTHORITATIVE". Joe
[jabley@hyperion]% whois -h whois.publicinterestregistry.net isc.org NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the PIR registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and PIR does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. PIR reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Domain ID:D2338103-LROR Domain Name:ISC.ORG Created On:04-Apr-1994 04:00:00 UTC Last Updated On:05-Mar-2002 02:24:11 UTC Expiration Date:05-Apr-2004 04:00:00 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:R63-LROR Status:OK Registrant ID:63-C Registrant Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.networksolutions.com Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.networksolutions.com Registrant City:N/A Registrant Postal Code:N/A Registrant Country:CA Registrant Email:not@available.org Admin ID:63-C Admin Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.networksolutions.com Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.networksolutions.com Admin City:N/A Admin Postal Code:N/A Admin Country:CA Admin Email:not@available.org Billing ID:63-C Billing Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.networksolutions.com Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.networksolutions.com Billing City:N/A Billing Postal Code:N/A Billing Country:CA Billing Email:not@available.org Tech ID:63-C Tech Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.networksolutions.com Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.networksolutions.com Tech City:N/A Tech Postal Code:N/A Tech Country:CA Tech Email:not@available.org Name Server:NS1.GNAC.COM Name Server:NS-EXT.VIX.COM
[jabley@hyperion]%
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:40:00PM -0500, alex@yuriev.com wrote:
Is there a new top-level whois server or did shared registry whois stop providing references to the appropriate whois servers for .org? Alex --
Alex- The new whois server for the .ORG TLD can be found at whois.publicinterestregistry.net. Web interface for .ORG WHOIS can be found at <URI:http://www.pir.org/whois/>. The VGRS -> PIR migration has been mentioned in sibling messages. For more information on current status and future plans you can consult the PIR website at <URI:http://www.pir.org/>. Note that PIR has contracted with Afilias (think .INFO) for operations of .ORG. Afilias' .INFO is a "thick" registry, with centralized WHOIS, not referral WHOIS. .ORG is planned to make the transition to a "thick" registry with centralized WHOIS, but at this time it is in a state of in-between. WHOIS output from whois.publicinterestregistry.net is of a nearly identical format as that of whois.afilias.info. Difference with .ORG is that all of the contact information looks similar to this example: Registrant ID:11-C Registrant Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.opensrs.net Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.opensrs.org Registrant City:N/A Registrant Postal Code:N/A Registrant Country:CA Registrant Email:not@available.org Some whois clients will see the "Whois Server:" referral and follow it, some will not. At some point in the future, PIR has stated that they plan to have centralized whois, which leads me to assume that the referrals will go away.
At least a pair of domain registars cannot adjust any .org records claiming that the domains not exist.
These registrars have yet to catch up to the VGRS -> PIR migration, perhaps. There may have been a few complications in the migration that I have caught wind of, but not being a registrar, I don't have much in the way of an inside track. hope this helps, -jeff -- Jeff Godin Network Specialist Traverse Area District Library / Traverse Community Network jeff@tcnet.org
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeff Godin wrote: The new whois server for the .ORG TLD can be found at whois.publicinterestregistry.net. Web interface for .ORG WHOIS can be found at <URI:http://www.pir.org/whois/>. Wed Jan 29 11:08:09 matt@pants:~$ whois -h whois.publicinterestregistry.net unibrow.org whois: whois.publicinterestregistry.net: host unknown --mghali@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Flowers on the razor wire/I know you're here/We are few/And far between/I was thinking about her skin/Love is a many splintered thing/Don't be afraid now/Just walk on in. #include <disclaim.h>
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:13:27AM -0800, just me wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeff Godin wrote:
The new whois server for the .ORG TLD can be found at whois.publicinterestregistry.net. Web interface for .ORG WHOIS can be found at <URI:http://www.pir.org/whois/>.
Wed Jan 29 11:08:09 matt@pants:~$ whois -h whois.publicinterestregistry.net unibrow.org whois: whois.publicinterestregistry.net: host unknown
$ whois -h whois.publicinterestregistry.net unibrow.org [whois.publicinterestregistry.net] [snip whois disclaimer] Domain ID:D59154800-LROR Domain Name:UNIBROW.ORG Created On:09-Feb-2001 06:42:45 UTC Last Updated On:05-Nov-2001 19:14:56 UTC Expiration Date:09-Feb-2003 06:42:45 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:R23-LROR Status:OK [snip registrant, admin/billing/tech POC fields] Name Server:NS1.SECONDARY.COM Name Server:NS2.SECONDARY.COM $ host whois.publicinterestregistry.net whois.publicinterestregistry.net. has address 129.33.96.137 -jeff -- Jeff Godin Network Specialist Traverse Area District Library / Traverse Community Network jeff@tcnet.org
I tried an nslookup about 20 minutes after I sent that mail, and it succeeded as well. Probably a pbi.net barf near my end as all three auth nameservers returned me the correct info. Of course, there's still the issue of the whois returning complete garbage, aside from the two nameserver entries.. matto On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeff Godin wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:13:27AM -0800, just me wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeff Godin wrote:
The new whois server for the .ORG TLD can be found at whois.publicinterestregistry.net. Web interface for .ORG WHOIS can be found at <URI:http://www.pir.org/whois/>.
Wed Jan 29 11:08:09 matt@pants:~$ whois -h whois.publicinterestregistry.net unibrow.org whois: whois.publicinterestregistry.net: host unknown
$ whois -h whois.publicinterestregistry.net unibrow.org [whois.publicinterestregistry.net] [snip whois disclaimer] Domain ID:D59154800-LROR Domain Name:UNIBROW.ORG Created On:09-Feb-2001 06:42:45 UTC Last Updated On:05-Nov-2001 19:14:56 UTC Expiration Date:09-Feb-2003 06:42:45 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:R23-LROR Status:OK [snip registrant, admin/billing/tech POC fields] Name Server:NS1.SECONDARY.COM Name Server:NS2.SECONDARY.COM $ host whois.publicinterestregistry.net whois.publicinterestregistry.net. has address 129.33.96.137 -jeff -- Jeff Godin Network Specialist Traverse Area District Library / Traverse Community Network jeff@tcnet.org --mghali@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Flowers on the razor wire/I know you're here/We are few/And far between/I was thinking about her skin/Love is a many splintered thing/Don't be afraid now/Just walk on in. #include <disclaim.h>
Hi, Does anybody know how/if I can force cisco router to consider ospf route (I'll consider other igp protocol if its possible) from particular source to be prefereble over connected and locally-entered static routes. This is needed for failover project I'm doing. Please note that especially big question is with "connected" route through subinterface, which I can't find any way to override with igp, for static I could at least make them learned igp routes. I'd apprecitate to know how somebody has done something this or at least find for sure that its impossible. If it matters, I'm trying to do it on 7500 running 12.0 ios and interfaces are ethernet isl vlans. --- William Leibzon Elan Communications william@elan.net
Does anybody know how/if I can force cisco router to consider ospf route (I'll consider other igp protocol if its possible) from particular source to be prefereble over connected and locally-entered static routes. This is needed for failover project I'm doing. Please note that especially big question is with "connected" route through subinterface, which I can't find any way to override with igp, for static I could at least make them learned igp routes.
You can change the administrative distance/protocol priorities, but I think this only works for everything but connected. If I'm not mistaken (not at a router) connected is set to 0 and can't be changed. What you are proposing is dangerous. There's usually a better way to handle a backup. I'm guessing that you have a distant connection at least two hops away that when it goes down you want to activate a pvc into a frame or atm cloud. If all end points in such a cloud are routers, it's best to use a routing protocol across the cloud and make the routes unprefered. When the other routes go down, the new routes come up. With statics, the administrative distance is the last number. In BGP, we often set our null routes to 254 or 255 so that the null route is NEVER prefered over another route. Jack Bates BrightNet Oklahoma
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 william@elan.net wrote:
Does anybody know how/if I can force cisco router to consider ospf route (I'll consider other igp protocol if its possible) from particular source to be prefereble over connected and locally-entered static routes. This is needed for failover project I'm doing. Please note that especially big question is with "connected" route through subinterface, which I can't find any way to override with igp, for static I could at least make them learned igp routes.
Static is simple: just enter an administrative distance (extra argument at the end) that is higher than OSPF's. Connected has a fixed distance, as far as I know. But you can get around this by simply putting more specifics in your IGP. For instance, if the interface has a /24, you let the router elsewehere announce the two /25s that make up this /24.
Does anybody know how/if I can force cisco router to consider ospf route (I'll consider other igp protocol if its possible) from particular source to be prefereble over connected and locally-entered static routes. This is needed for failover project I'm doing. Please note that especially big question is with "connected" route through subinterface, which I can't find any way to override with igp, for static I could at least make them learned igp routes.
For a static route you can force another metric: ip route x.x.x.x y.y.y.y z.z.z.z metric <worse than ospf> afaik a connected interface will always have a weight of 0 (best) and it's not changable. BUT you can force the OSPF metric when importing that connected-route into OSPF. ! router ospf 123 redistribute static metric xxxxx ! This will not change the "best route" locally on the router, but only on the rest of your OSPF network... P.
You have to change the admin distances. Unfortunately for you, I don't think there is a way to change the admin distance for a connected interface which has a default of zero. Anyone know of a selective way to do that? OSPF is 110 by default, statics are 1 by default, but you can set their distance on a per route basis, 'ip route x.x.x.x y.y.y.y v.v.v.v distance'. What exactly are you trying to do? There may be other mechanisms to accomplish what you want. Tim McKee -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of william@elan.net Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:38 To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Routing preferences question Hi, Does anybody know how/if I can force cisco router to consider ospf route (I'll consider other igp protocol if its possible) from particular source to be prefereble over connected and locally-entered static routes. This is needed for failover project I'm doing. Please note that especially big question is with "connected" route through subinterface, which I can't find any way to override with igp, for static I could at least make them learned igp routes. I'd apprecitate to know how somebody has done something this or at least find for sure that its impossible. If it matters, I'm trying to do it on 7500 running 12.0 ios and interfaces are ethernet isl vlans. --- William Leibzon Elan Communications william@elan.net
participants (15)
-
Adam McKenna -
alex＠yuriev.com -
E.B. Dreger -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Jack Bates -
Jared Mauch -
Jeff Godin -
Joe Abley -
just me -
Pascal Gloor -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Rob Thomas -
Tim Yocum -
Timothy R. McKee -
william＠elan.net