Re: oh, for goodness' sake.
Michael Dillon wrote:
One of the stated uses of .INT is for international databases and that seems to be the reason that the reverse DNS for IPv6 is under .INT rather than .ARPA. Of course it may not be too late for IPv6 to be changes and for all important infrastructure info to be moved to .ARPA. We could even rationalize things somewhat, i.e.
IN-ADDR.ARPA IP6.ARPA NET.ARPA for IP netblock whois info ARIN.NET.ARPA | RIPE.NET.ARPA |-queries to NET.ARPA will be redirected to one of these APNIC.NET.ARPA | RS.ARPA - route servers IANA.ARPA - IANA databases such as MIBs, port assignments
Quoted from RFC 1032: "ARPA" is a temporary domain. It is by default appended to the names of hosts that have not yet joined a domain. When the system was begun in 1984, the names of all hosts in the Official DoD Internet Host Table maintained by the NIC were changed by adding of the label ".ARPA" in order to accelerate a transition to the domain-naming system. Another reason for the blanket name changes was to force hosts to become accustomed to using the new style names and to modify their network software, if necessary. This was done on a network-wide basis and was directed by DCA in DDN Management Bulletin No. 22. Hosts that fall into this domain will eventually move to other branches of the domain tree. IN-ADDR.ARPA. is an obvious exception (reasoning in RFC 973), but I think it's clear that the above info has no place being put in ARPA. My vote's for NIC.INT. I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT rules to see if that's appropriate, however. Stephen -- Stephen Sprunk "Oops." Email: sprunk@paranet.com Sprint Paranet -Albert Einstein ICBM: 33.00151N 96.82326W
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
My vote's for NIC.INT. I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT rules to see if that's appropriate, however.
Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN and the internic. And the Root servers, etc. Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ? Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core" internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can get a delegation under them. I can see one of the questions on the allocation form: 8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status. - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday 8 April, "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@iMach.com> writes:
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN and the internic.
how about .RIPE, or .ARIN, or .HELP, or even .I_AM_SO_IMPORTANT_I_CANT_EVEN_PAY_MY_BILLS_GIVE_ME_A_BREAK ? Cheers, Andy!
Hi. Why it's so many noise around the very simple problem. INTERNET community hired some companies to provide name, address, and other very important services, and allow to get their profit by doing this. What's a problem fo fix some free-of-charge resources such as RIPE.NET, INTERNIC.NET and other domains. Is it so difficult to develop the rules and conditions for this (short) set of important domains, or exactly for this set of _exclusions_?
and the internic.
how about .RIPE, or .ARIN, or .HELP, or even .I_AM_SO_IMPORTANT_I_CANT_EVEN_PAY_MY_BILLS_GIVE_ME_A_BREAK ?
Cheers, Andy!
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
My vote's for NIC.INT. I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT rules to see if that's appropriate, however.
Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN and the internic. And the Root servers, etc.
Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ?
Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core" internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can get a delegation under them.
Yeah, that'll last. How much trouble do you think a porn site would go to to get WWW.HARD.CORE? I thought so. Also - is "being able to download the newest version of Netscape" a core service? You don't think so (I hope), and I certainly don't think so, but Netscape may think so. Microsoft, too. I'm being kinda cynical here, but anything's possible.
I can see one of the questions on the allocation form:
8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status.
That's a *great* idea! Perhaps we just form a "nanog-domain-approve" list, and just have an internet cabal that decides on every domain registration! Remember, the only reason most people don't like dictatorships is because they aren't in charge...:) eric
Long live the cabal! :) -g
That's a *great* idea! Perhaps we just form a "nanog-domain-approve" list, and just have an internet cabal that decides on every domain registration! Remember, the only reason most people don't like dictatorships is because they aren't in charge...:)
eric
participants (7)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
andyr＠wizzy.com -
Eric Osborne -
Forrest W. Christian -
Greg Simpson -
Stephen Sprunk -
Steve Davies