Far be it from me to introduce operational content into the mix of the usual suspects referring to anyone that doesn't adhere to their worldview as ranting or being sociopaths, however there doesn't seem to be any announcements for ICANNs address space at the moment as near as I can tell from polling the various route servers, rendering them unreachable.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Far be it from me to introduce operational content into the mix of the usual suspects referring to anyone that doesn't adhere to their worldview as ranting or being sociopaths, however there doesn't seem to be any announcements for ICANNs address space at the moment as near as I can tell from polling the various route servers, rendering them unreachable.
I know of no critical Internet infrastructure service which requires www.icann.org to be reachable in order to function. I suspect even cybernothing.org occasionally does maintenance, and it is unreachable for periods of time. But the Internet survives without cybernothing.org being reachable.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
I know of no critical Internet infrastructure service which requires www.icann.org to be reachable in order to function.
I don't believe I ever said it did. If you think that I get some sort of pleasure out of them being down, I don't.
As far as I can tell, DNS for icann.org is functioning as designed. It has several name servers dispersed across geographical areas and network topology which continue to give authoritative answers for the icann.org zone without interruption. Isn't that how its supposed to work? ICANN has nothing to do with routing, the world wide web, or lots of other things on the Internet.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
I don't believe I ever said it did. If you think that I get some sort of pleasure out of them being down, I don't.
As far as I can tell, DNS for icann.org is functioning as designed. It has several name servers dispersed across geographical areas and network topology which continue to give authoritative answers for the icann.org zone without interruption. Isn't that how its supposed to work?
ICANN has nothing to do with routing, the world wide web, or lots of other things on the Internet.
No but the fact that sh ip bgp 192.0.0.0 results in "Network not in table" from every publicly available route server I've checked has everything to do with routing thus it would seem that this is somewhat operationally on topic. This isn't about ICANN per se, but rather about a good chunk of address space being unreachable for some unknown reason that has very little to do with "normal maintenance." That the people that want to run the Internet are too incompetent to sign up with Akamai or utilize some other mechanism to ensure that people can reach their site in the event of an outage like any reasonably serious business would do is a seperate matter. But since you bring it up, if they can't run a website, do you want them running the Internet?
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 08:15:39PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell <patrick@cybernothing.org> wrote a message of 34 lines which said:
That the people that want to run the Internet are too incompetent to sign up with Akamai or utilize some other mechanism to ensure that people can reach their site in the event of an outage like any reasonably serious business would do is a seperate matter.
ICANN is a customer of Abovenet (apparently, they don't use multi-homing). Abovenet had connectivity problems that week-end (Core3.sjc2 rebooting) and that may explain the trouble. May be ICANN should multi-home to avoid depending on one provider. But, as someone said, www.icann.org is not critical for the daily operation of the Internet.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
ICANN is a customer of Abovenet (apparently, they don't use multi-homing). Abovenet had connectivity problems that week-end (Core3.sjc2 rebooting) and that may explain the trouble.
May be ICANN should multi-home to avoid depending on one provider. But, as someone said, www.icann.org is not critical for the daily operation of the Internet.
If they are single homed, what's this about: ICANN (ASN-L-ROOT) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina Del Rey, California 90292 US Autonomous System Name: L-ROOT Autonomous System Number: 20144 Coordinator: Crain, John (JC2032-ARIN) crain@icann.org +1 3108239358 Record last updated on 30-Mar-2001. Database last updated on 18-Nov-2001 19:53:59 EDT. Maybe I'm just being dense - it wouldn't be the first time - but if ICANN isn't multi homed, or *about* to be multihomed, why are they holding on to scarce resources like an ASN? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:27:52AM -0600, measl@mfn.org wrote:
If they are single homed, what's this about:
ICANN (ASN-L-ROOT) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina Del Rey, California 90292 US
Autonomous System Name: L-ROOT Autonomous System Number: 20144
Given that this is ASN-L-ROOT, I'd imagine it's because while ICANN may be single homed to MFN, L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET isn't. I'm currently seeing a 2914 path and I'm willing to bet that there's more that is either down or used solely as backup transit. Is it so hard to check before posting? --msa
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
May be ICANN should multi-home to avoid depending on one provider. But, as someone said, www.icann.org is not critical for the daily operation of the Internet.
Neither is www.whitehouse.gov or thousands of other sites on the net that have the sense to use some mechanism to address single point outages.
At 08:15 PM 11/18/2001 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
But since you bring it up, if they can't run a website, do you want them running the Internet?
The only people who claim ICANN has a goal of "running the Internet" are people outside of ICANN. ICANN, itself, has a far more modest and mundane goal. That you would insist that an organization with non-critical hosts incur the cost of an Akamai service, or the like, rather than simply enjoy basic co-location with an ISP that has a good track record, bespeaks of the mission creep people keep trying to impose on ICANN. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 08:15 PM 11/18/2001 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
But since you bring it up, if they can't run a website, do you want them running the Internet?
The only people who claim ICANN has a goal of "running the Internet" are people outside of ICANN.
Actions speak louder than words Dave.
At 08:33 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
The only people who claim ICANN has a goal of "running the Internet" are people outside of ICANN.
Actions speak louder than words Dave.
My point exactly. d/ ps. and no, folks, this exchange will not continue. ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 08:15:39PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: [snip]
ICANN has nothing to do with routing, the world wide web, or lots of other things on the Internet.
No but the fact that sh ip bgp 192.0.0.0 results in "Network not in table" from every publicly available route server I've checked has everything to do with routing thus it would seem that this is somewhat operationally on topic.
This isn't about ICANN per se, but rather about a good chunk of address space being unreachable for some unknown reason that has very little to do with "normal maintenance."
% whois -h whois.arin.net NET-ICANN ICANN c/o Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (NET-ICANN) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 US Netname: ICANN Netblock: 192.0.32.0 - 192.0.47.255 [snip] % host www.icann.org www.icann.org has address 192.0.34.65 192.0.0.0/24 != 192.0.32.0/20 Sorry to throw cold water of facts onto politics, but if they were publishing bad DNS info, they stopped. -- Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375 Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo@rcn.com>
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Joe Provo wrote:
Netname: ICANN Netblock: 192.0.32.0 - 192.0.47.255 [snip]
% host www.icann.org www.icann.org has address 192.0.34.65
192.0.0.0/24 != 192.0.32.0/20
That was a typo on my part. It didn't change the situation and much more thatn 192.0.32.0/24 was affected.
On 11/18/01, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
I suspect even cybernothing.org occasionally does maintenance, and it is unreachable for periods of time. But the Internet survives without cybernothing.org being reachable.
Heh, tell that to some of my users. -- J.D. Falk "you can bomb the world to pieces, <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> but you can't bomb it into peace" -- Michael Franti
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:31:27 PST, "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> said:
On 11/18/01, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
I suspect even cybernothing.org occasionally does maintenance, and it is unreachable for periods of time. But the Internet survives without cybernothing.org being reachable.
Heh, tell that to some of my users.
Try telling them this: "Calm Down. It's only ones and zeros...." Wish I knew who said that. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
participants (9)
-
Dave Crocker -
J.D. Falk -
Joe Provo -
Majdi S. Abbas -
measl＠mfn.org -
Patrick Greenwell -
Sean Donelan -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu