I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
I downloaded their plug-in and then: ping www.bull.shit here's what happened std query for www.bull.shit against my name server fails std query for www.bull.shit.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.bull.shit fails netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x3 std query for www.bull.shit against my name server fails std query for www.bull.shit.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.bull.shit fails netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x3 std query for searchpages.newdotnet.net response NS is searchpages.newdotnet.net, IP 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 So, I pinged a nonexistent domain name and got replies from test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com, 64.208.49.135 C:\>ping asldj.asogh.asdlfj Pinging test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com [64.208.49.135] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135 Let's role play: German Customer: "I can't access the Bank of America site. I get something called Google" NOC: "Can you ping www.bankofamerica.com?" German Customer: "Yes" { pinging www.bankofamerika.kom } NOC "Well, you have connectivity since you can ping it. Let's see what else could be wrong. You get Google, you say???" Now, tell me that's OK.
Chris Davis wrote:
I downloaded their plug-in and then:
What happens when you ping www.pie.shop which is in a new.net "private" TLD? (snip)
Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135
That was probably meant to be somewhat meaningfull with names and not IP numbers. BTW, do you mean "everything not ending with an ICANN TLD or "everything not resolvable"? (see above) KL
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Chris Davis wrote:
Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135
I think there are many people who would give millions for having a wildcard record in the root domain, though, gotta appreciate the boldness of that. Must be one big DDoS hosting that IP :) Pi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is the exact scenario that I envision happening and have been complaining about. My operations and tech support staff will become bogged down in this mess, probably to the extent that I have to augment staff. Add in the phone bill and other overhead costs... Suddenly I'm paying out a LOT of money just so a bunch of VCs can make a money grab. tim
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Chris Davis Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 15:23 To: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
I downloaded their plug-in and then:
ping www.bull.shit
here's what happened
std query for www.bull.shit against my name server fails std query for www.bull.shit.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.bull.shit fails netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x3 std query for www.bull.shit against my name server fails std query for www.bull.shit.computerjobs.com against my name server failes wins query for www.bull.shit fails netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x1 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x2 netbios broadcast for www.bull.shit fails x3 std query for searchpages.newdotnet.net response NS is searchpages.newdotnet.net, IP 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135
So, I pinged a nonexistent domain name and got replies from test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com, 64.208.49.135
C:\>ping asldj.asogh.asdlfj
Pinging test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com [64.208.49.135] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244
Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135
Let's role play: German Customer: "I can't access the Bank of America site. I get something called Google" NOC: "Can you ping www.bankofamerica.com?" German Customer: "Yes" { pinging www.bankofamerika.kom } NOC "Well, you have connectivity since you can ping it. Let's see what else could be wrong. You get Google, you say???"
Now, tell me that's OK.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOrALYRRIXzEQLahvEQLbmgCgif4a2NNXOk+mlcnIEwyVci1TW7UAoI2u xO0Fi+5ltaU113yfhysPWXFh =hD7+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This is the exact scenario that I envision happening and have been complaining about. My operations and tech support staff will become bogged down in this mess, probably to the extent that I have to augment staff. Add in the phone bill and other overhead costs... Suddenly I'm paying out a LOT of money just so a bunch of VCs can make a money grab.
you get the pain, they get the pay. cool scam, eh? randy
At 06:54 PM 3/14/01 -0800, you wrote:
This is the exact scenario that I envision happening and have been complaining about. My operations and tech support staff will become bogged down in this mess, probably to the extent that I have to augment staff. Add in the phone bill and other overhead costs... Suddenly I'm paying out a LOT of money just so a bunch of VCs can make a money grab.
you get the pain, they get the pay. cool scam, eh?
So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else would help minimize the load on the network help desks? I'll be taking real world solutions that can be offered here to the New.Net CEO myself. Don't bother to complain if you're not prepared to be part of the solution. Thanks & Best Regards, Simon Higgs -- It's a feature not a bug...
I'll be taking real world solutions that can be offered here to the New.Net CEO myself.
Don't bother to complain if you're not prepared to be part of the solution.
I call bull shit. It is not my job to to resolve those issues. Give me a break...
At 08:33 PM 3/14/2001, Simon Higgs wrote:
So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else would help minimize the load on the network help desks?
Looks like you already have three practical solutions right there.
I'll be taking real world solutions that can be offered here to the New.Net CEO myself.
Don't bother to complain if you're not prepared to be part of the solution.
I won't bother to solve someone else's problems unless I believe in their cause (I don't) or am under their employ (I'm not). The root of the matter (do pardon the pun) is this: New.net is trying to change the way the Internet works, without consulting any of the people or organizations that make it work. They have attempted to do this not at the root-server level, where by all accounts it should be done, but at the end-user level, with an OS specific patch(which, I imagine, flummoxes your resolver timeouts and overall decreases DNS usability). In their attempt to reinvent the wheel, they have ignored published standards, paid no attention to history, scoffed at proper channels, pissed on the correct authorities, attempted to strongarm thousands of businesses into playing their way, made silly promises with no hope for realization, and basically left common sense raped and crying in the corner. Their technical specs are fuzzy, with no end in sight for the new TLD's they introduce (go to the homepage- oh look! you can vote for a new TLD! dear god, what a disaster that could turn into... running-shoes.nike is just a few million bucks away). On top of all this, they have the gall to sell a currently-valueless product to unsuspecting consumers (a process some like to call 'fraud') and nowhere bother to mention that their plugin (or any of their windows-specific hacks on http://www.new.net/help_network.tp) will give them root authority for your nameservice needs. Nor do they mention that email sent to your spiffy domain won't work, aside from a tiny 'white lie' on the FAQ page that would make a tobacco lawyer blush. On top of all this virtual piracy and electronic hijacking, they have the temerity to tell interested end-users that if it doesn't work they should "Contact your ISP and ask them to `turn on' access. The steps for an ISP to provide access are rather simple", never implying that there may be a valid reason for us to all[1] say "No way". The Readers Digest Analogy: Just because I think that 10.0.0.0/8 is perfectly good unclaimed space doesn't mean that announcing routes to it is a bright idea. ~Ben, as always, speaking his mind and not (necessarily) that of his employer [1] Based on reason and logic, what we *should* all say. Last I checked, twenty companies independently deciding not to do something universally stupid is not grounds for an anti-trust case --- Ben Browning <benb@theriver.com> The River Internet Access Co. Network Operations 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com
At 11:54 PM 3/14/01 -0800, you wrote:
At 08:33 PM 3/14/2001, Simon Higgs wrote:
So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else would help minimize the load on the network help desks?
Looks like you already have three practical solutions right there.
Well, two out of three ain't a bad start.
I won't bother to solve someone else's problems unless I believe in their cause (I don't) or am under their employ (I'm not).
Fair comment. But it's not New.net that will take the hit at the help desk. This is like a new neighbor having loud parties disturbing the peace and quiet in your neighborhood which was helping your property value. Ignoring it and letting the neighborhood go downhill is going to cost you something eventually.
The root of the matter (do pardon the pun) is this:
New.net is trying to change the way the Internet works, without consulting any of the people or organizations that make it work. They have attempted to do this not at the root-server level, where by all accounts it should be done, but at the end-user level, with an OS specific patch(which, I imagine, flummoxes your resolver timeouts and overall decreases DNS usability). In their attempt to reinvent the wheel, they have ignored published standards, paid no attention to history, scoffed at proper channels, pissed on the correct authorities, attempted to strongarm thousands of businesses into playing their way, made silly promises with no hope for realization, and basically left common sense raped and crying in the corner.
No arguments there. This is how marketing folk run networks. Different focus entirely. Just be glad Randy Bush doesn't work in an ad agency.
Their technical specs are fuzzy, with no end in sight for the new TLD's they introduce (go to the homepage- oh look! you can vote for a new TLD! dear god, what a disaster that could turn into... running-shoes.nike is just a few million bucks away).
"Voting" has been done by Name Space for what, four years? Their track record isn't exactly astounding, even after plonking down $50k into the ICANN travel-junket fund. Voting is not going to set the world on fire. It's a marketing tool that makes spectacular collisions in DNS.
On top of all this, they have the gall to sell a currently-valueless product to unsuspecting consumers (a process some like to call 'fraud') and nowhere bother to mention that their plugin (or any of their windows-specific hacks on http://www.new.net/help_network.tp) will give them root authority for your nameservice needs. Nor do they mention that email sent to your spiffy domain won't work, aside from a tiny 'white lie' on the FAQ page that would make a tobacco lawyer blush. On top of all this virtual piracy and electronic hijacking, they have the temerity to tell interested end-users that if it doesn't work they should "Contact your ISP and ask them to `turn on' access. The steps for an ISP to provide access are rather simple", never implying that there may be a valid reason for us to all[1] say "No way".
Yeah. This is the stuff that I was looking for. Thanks.
The Readers Digest Analogy:
Just because I think that 10.0.0.0/8 is perfectly good unclaimed space doesn't mean that announcing routes to it is a bright idea.
Hey, I use it all the time. That must make the whole block all mine to resell. Hmmm... and I could sell it over and over again. Just kidding. ;-) Best Regards, Simon Higgs -- It's a feature not a bug...
At 01:50 AM 3/15/2001, Simon Higgs wrote:
At 11:54 PM 3/14/01 -0800, you wrote:
At 08:33 PM 3/14/2001, Simon Higgs wrote:
So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else would help minimize the load on the network help desks?
Looks like you already have three practical solutions right there.
Well, two out of three ain't a bad start.
What isn't practical about using a proper root server? ;)
I won't bother to solve someone else's problems unless I believe in their cause (I don't) or am under their employ (I'm not).
Fair comment. But it's not New.net that will take the hit at the help desk. This is like a new neighbor having loud parties disturbing the peace and quiet in your neighborhood which was helping your property value. Ignoring it and letting the neighborhood go downhill is going to cost you something eventually.
I agree with this fully, which is why, should this situation arise, my response would be "I'm sorry, this is new.net's mess. They have to clean it up. Here's their phone number."
Their technical specs are fuzzy, with no end in sight for the new TLD's they introduce (go to the homepage- oh look! you can vote for a new TLD! dear god, what a disaster that could turn into... running-shoes.nike is just a few million bucks away).
"Voting" has been done by Name Space for what, four years? Their track record isn't exactly astounding, even after plonking down $50k into the ICANN travel-junket fund. Voting is not going to set the world on fire. It's a marketing tool that makes spectacular collisions in DNS.
If they act on the voting, it certainly will. Especially given the catchall domain space they have created for themselves.
Yeah. This is the stuff that I was looking for. Thanks.
Heh. I didn't realize "Fraud and lies are a bad business model" were the kind of suggestions you were fishing or. ~Ben, you know the "my views alone" schtick by now --- Ben Browning <benb@theriver.com> The River Internet Access Co. Network Operations 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:54:48PM -0800, Ben Browning wrote:
At 08:33 PM 3/14/2001, Simon Higgs wrote:
So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else would help minimize the load on the network help desks?
Looks like you already have three practical solutions right there.
the simplest and most obvious solutions are the most frequently overlooked, and the most frequently correct. valiant hackery is the prelude to spectacular demise. -- Sam Thomas Geek Mercenary
valiant hackery is the prelude to spectacular demise.
-- Sam Thomas Geek Mercenary
Not only is this a good quote, I think the name "Valiant Hackery" would make a great character name for someone in a gothic novel. Possibly because one of my grandmothers collected odd names as a hobby, I've always found this kind of indadvertant name creation interesting. The logical extension of it has been taken by the author of novel all of whose characters are named for the exits along I-65 between Birmingham and Mobile, AL. Since these are usually the small towns directly east and west of the route, you get results like "Jemeson Thorsby". Did I mention this was off-topic? regards, Ted
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:54:48 -0800 From: Ben Browning <benb@theriver.com> Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't. [...] ... Last I checked, twenty companies independently deciding not to do something universally stupid is not grounds for an anti-trust case
Of course, if the twenty companies discussed this publicly on nanog, it might be a different matter... -tjs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The first and most obvious thing - that should be done NOW - is : If a domain name doesn't resolve, DON'T REDIRECT IT!!! At the very least put up a page explaining this to the user and give them the OPTION of going to the google page... Don't make it automatic and seamless... Don't even let the user opt to make it automatic, they NEED to know that they misspelled the name. Tim
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Simon Higgs Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 23:34 To: Randy Bush Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
At 06:54 PM 3/14/01 -0800, you wrote:
This is the exact scenario that I envision happening and have been complaining about. My operations and tech support staff will become bogged down in this mess, probably to the extent that I have to augment staff. Add in the phone bill and other overhead costs... Suddenly I'm paying out a LOT of money just so a bunch of VCs can make a money grab.
you get the pain, they get the pay. cool scam, eh?
So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else would help minimize the load on the network help desks?
I'll be taking real world solutions that can be offered here to the New.Net CEO myself.
Don't bother to complain if you're not prepared to be part of the solution.
Thanks &
Best Regards,
Simon Higgs
-- It's a feature not a bug...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOrDXKxRIXzEQLahvEQIW8gCg+KSwL663Wx5x1zBxEageVguZltAAn1ka ygEH9qjdCLan2A41lPf2G5x5 =MEbD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:54:50PM -0800, Randy Bush had this to say:
you get the pain, they get the pay. cool scam, eh?
And here I always thought "No pain, no gain" only applied to individuals. -- Scott Francis scott@ [work:] v i r t u a l i s . c o m Systems Analyst darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t PGP fingerprint 7ABF E2E9 CD54 A1A8 804D 179A 8802 0FBA CB33 CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Chris Davis wrote:
response NS is searchpages.newdotnet.net, IP 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135 echo reply from 64.208.49.135
Just blackhole that route. Then no one from your network can get to it. of course, they would most likely have backup ips.
So, I pinged a nonexistent domain name and got replies from test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com, 64.208.49.135
C:\>ping asldj.asogh.asdlfj
Pinging test.new-net.vegas.idealab.com [64.208.49.135] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.208.49.135: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=244
Seems that everything in the world not ending with an ICANN TLD goes to 64.208.49.135. Have a look at http://64.208.49.135
Let's role play: German Customer: "I can't access the Bank of America site. I get something called Google" NOC: "Can you ping www.bankofamerica.com?" German Customer: "Yes" { pinging www.bankofamerika.kom } NOC "Well, you have connectivity since you can ping it. Let's see what else could be wrong. You get Google, you say???"
Now, tell me that's OK.
participants (13)
-
Ben Browning -
Chris Davis -
Christian Nielsen -
David Klindt -
hardie＠equinix.com -
Kevin Loch -
Pim van Riezen -
Randy Bush -
Sam Thomas -
Scott Francis -
Simon Higgs -
Timothy J. Salo -
Timothy R. McKee