RE: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
I wonder how many unsophisticated network operators are going to give up the existing root server infrastructure for this obviously problematic layer: ; . 3600000 IN NS ns1.newdotnet.net. ns1.newdotnet.net. 3600000 IN A 206.132.100.43 ; . 3600000 IN NS ns2.newdotnet.net. ns2.newdotnet.net. 3600000 IN A 64.209.213.126 ; . 3600000 IN NS ns3.newdotnet.net. ns3.newdotnet.net. 3600000 IN A 209.151.233.13 ; yeah. I want to rely on three root level name servers. Really, I do! I do! Can't we knock off some of the root servers like the one at MIT or something? Besides, I'm certain that idealabs! has much better experience in creating scalable nameserver systems than Vix, etc. <cough> The stub config is interesting, though. Maybe run it until ICANN figures out what they are going to do. Since the users pay the bills for the most part... K :: -----Original Message----- :: From: Kevin Loch [mailto:kloch@opnsys.com] :: Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:30 AM :: To: Brian :: Cc: nanog@merit.edu :: Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play :: :: :: :: Brian, :: :: I'm curious, the use of UDNS1 and UDNS2 in your nameserver :: host names seems to suggest that UltraDNS is affiliated :: with this somehow. Is that true or was it just a bad :: choice of hostnames? :: :: KL :: :: Brian wrote: :: > :: > Here's the part of new.net that seems not well thought :: out. So if you don't :: > wanna dink with system settings to be an end user, and are :: not on a partner :: > network, then too bad, is that what I appear to be seeing? :: > :: > 2. Are there differences between how New.net domain names :: and .COM/.NET/.ORG :: > domain names work? :: > There are some differences, but in many ways the domain :: names work the same. :: > :: > One difference is that in order for people to see New.net :: domain names they :: > must be either accessing the Internet through one of our :: many ISP partners :: > or they must have downloaded and installed our Web browser plug-in. :: > :: > If either one of these requirements is met, then New.net :: domains will work :: > just as you are used to .com and .net domains working. :: > :: > 3. Who is helping to shape New.net? :: > New.net has many partners who are working with us to make :: New.net domains :: > widely recognized around the world. Some of our current :: partners include: :: > Earthlink, NetZero, Excite@Home, .KIDS Domains, Inc., and MP3.com. :: > :: > Brian :: > :: > ----- Original Message ----- :: > From: "Brian Wallingford" <brian@meganet.net> :: > To: "Patrick Greenwell" <patrick@cybernothing.org> :: > Cc: "Paul A Vixie" <vixie@mfnx.net>; <nanog@merit.edu> :: > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:30 AM :: > Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play :: > :: > > :: > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote: :: > > :: > > : :: > > :On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote: :: > > : :: > > :> :: > > :> [ this came from http://www.new.net/about_us_press.tp :: and appears not :: > to be :: > > :> a joke. its operational impact will not be felt :: today, but if it's :: > even :: > > :> moderately popular before it dies, operational :: impact WILL be felt. :: > i'm :: > > :> quite surprised by some of the folks they list as their :: > artners. --vix ] :: > > : :: > > :Too bad ICANN has been such a complete and utter failure that an :: > > :organization felt it necessary to start such a business, huh? :: > > :: > > Sounds like this was driven more by carelessness and :: greed than by :: > > necessity. :: > > :: > > ::
DNS "binds" the Internet together. I would contend that splitting "." is a very dangerous thing to do. This type of action *will* turn the Internet into a Tower of Babbel. So what good is the browser plugin to my mail server? How about my web cache? Karyn Ulriksen wrote:
I wonder how many unsophisticated network operators are going to give up the existing root server infrastructure for this obviously problematic layer:
; . 3600000 IN NS ns1.newdotnet.net. ns1.newdotnet.net. 3600000 IN A 206.132.100.43 ; . 3600000 IN NS ns2.newdotnet.net. ns2.newdotnet.net. 3600000 IN A 64.209.213.126 ; . 3600000 IN NS ns3.newdotnet.net. ns3.newdotnet.net. 3600000 IN A 209.151.233.13 ;
yeah. I want to rely on three root level name servers. Really, I do! I do! Can't we knock off some of the root servers like the one at MIT or something? Besides, I'm certain that idealabs! has much better experience in creating scalable nameserver systems than Vix, etc. <cough>
The stub config is interesting, though. Maybe run it until ICANN figures out what they are going to do. Since the users pay the bills for the most part...
K
Other DNS dialog clipped off ... -- Joseph T. Klein +1 414 915 7489 Senior Network Engineer jtk@titania.net Adelphia Business Solutions joseph.klein@adelphiacom.com "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..." -- John W. Stewart III
The stub config is interesting, though.
Will be interesting to see if it even works. If they are just stubs for the fakeTLD.newdotnet.net., then all client requests will have to be properly formatted on send, meaning that it will only work if the plugin is used. Stuff like ping won't work. Nasty. If they are supporting an alias function (assuming ISPs are able to control the DNS settings on their users systems), then the ISP partners' DNS servers will have to run fake roots in order catch the requests for fake.zone. If they do that, are they going to answer with fake.zone. RRsets? or are they going to DNAME/CNAME everything? Neither mechanisms are pretty, both are required, it'll never last. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
participants (3)
-
Eric A. Hall
-
Joseph T. Klein
-
Karyn Ulriksen