At 08:37 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 04:42:51PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Hi. I'm a root name server operator.
[snip] Paul operates f.root-servers.net.
I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from stargate 0.
Really?
Explain this trace please.
[snip]
Nice try.
What's your point? generic-prompt % traceroute f.root-servers.net. traceroute to f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 ult-mbo-1-fe0.mbo.ma.ultra.net (199.232.56.65) 1 ms 1 ms 0 ms 2 904.Hssi4-0.GW2.BOS1.ALTER.NET (137.39.135.213) 3 ms 4 ms 4 ms 3 422.atm11-0.cr2.bos1.alter.net (137.39.13.250) 52 ms 255 ms 5 ms 4 103.Hssi12-0.CR2.PAO1.Alter.Net (137.39.71.169) 84 ms 93 ms 84 ms 5 312.atm2-0.br1.pao1.alter.net (137.39.13.145) 89 ms 86 ms 97 ms 6 fw.bryant.vix.com (198.32.176.3) 86 ms 91 ms 84 ms 7 f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241) 94 ms 86 ms 89 ms
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 10:50:27PM -0400, Dwight Ernest wrote:
At 08:37 PM 5/3/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 04:42:51PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Hi. I'm a root name server operator.
[snip]
Paul operates f.root-servers.net.
I take my root zone from the IANA. Not NSI and especially not from stargate 0.
Really?
Explain this trace please.
[snip]
Nice try.
What's your point?
generic-prompt % traceroute f.root-servers.net. traceroute to f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 ult-mbo-1-fe0.mbo.ma.ultra.net (199.232.56.65) 1 ms 1 ms 0 ms 2 904.Hssi4-0.GW2.BOS1.ALTER.NET (137.39.135.213) 3 ms 4 ms 4 ms 3 422.atm11-0.cr2.bos1.alter.net (137.39.13.250) 52 ms 255 ms 5 ms 4 103.Hssi12-0.CR2.PAO1.Alter.Net (137.39.71.169) 84 ms 93 ms 84 ms 5 312.atm2-0.br1.pao1.alter.net (137.39.13.145) 89 ms 86 ms 97 ms 6 fw.bryant.vix.com (198.32.176.3) 86 ms 91 ms 84 ms 7 f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241) 94 ms 86 ms 89 ms
That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled by NSI. If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Cc's trimmed. What's so difficult to understand about what Paul said? If IANA calls Paul and says "Hey paul, starting tonight, get your zone files from here instead of from NSI", guess what? The next morning, the root servers show IANA's zones and the InterNIC is out of the loop. They're *in* the loop now because they are the sole arbiter of the zones, it only makes things easier. Karl wrote:
7 f.root-servers.net (192.5.5.241) 94 ms 86 ms 89 ms
That Mr. Vixie's server loads from a.root-servers.net, which is controlled by NSI.
If NSI makes changes in that zone, Mr. Vixie's server will reflect them.
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
-- jamie g.k. rishaw <jamie@@iagnet.net> Internet Access Group Chance favors the prepared mind. __ [http://www.iagnet.net] DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800:800.637.4IAGx5455
On Sun, May 04, 1997 at 10:00:48AM -0400, Jamie Rishaw wrote:
Cc's trimmed.
What's so difficult to understand about what Paul said?
If IANA calls Paul and says "Hey paul, starting tonight, get your zone files from here instead of from NSI", guess what? The next morning, the root servers show IANA's zones and the InterNIC is out of the loop.
They're *in* the loop now because they are the sole arbiter of the zones, it only makes things easier.
jamie g.k. rishaw <jamie@@iagnet.net> Internet Access Group Chance favors the prepared mind. __ [http://www.iagnet.net] DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800:800.637.4IAGx5455
You don't understand how DNS works. As long as the Internet's cache files on each and every system out there point at "a" in their file, there is the potential to break the namespace. One rogue server in a confederation will cause serious problems. NSI has defacto control, because getting them out of the cache files is a long and slow process, and until they ARE out their answers will be believed. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
What's so difficult to understand about what Paul said?
You don't understand how DNS works.
I think he does.
As long as the Internet's cache files on each and every system out there point at "a" in their file, there is the potential to break the namespace.
Heck, I guess that would be true of "F" as well. Shall I break the name space? No? Why not? Is it because coherence has great value? OK, so how shall we determine the synchronization signal for this coherence -- that is, who can vary and who is required to follow? The answer is that the owner of a zone can vary, and the publishers of a zone have to follow.
One rogue server in a confederation will cause serious problems.
Which is why I expect that the current InterNIC contractor (NSI) will do whatever the owners of its published but unowned zones (".", MIL, EDU, GOV) tell them to do.
NSI has defacto control, because getting them out of the cache files is a long and slow process, and until they ARE out their answers will be believed.
If NSI tried to become a DNS pirate, I expect that IANA would publish a new "named.cache" file without NSI in it, and that the world would switch in a week or less. Nobody likes DNS pirates -- or hadn't you noticed, Karl?
To Sum up.. so I stop getting practically spammed about this.. IAHC's proposal I think stinks.. its horrible.. gTLDs are a waste and it makes trademarking issues 10x as complex because now you have to register 11 TLDs for your company instead of 2 or 3. You can disagree if you want to.. I think 2nd level domains in .US would make more sense.. every other country does this and it WORKS. Nuff' said. IAHC's proposal may stink, it may be the salvation of the net, take your pick. But UNFORTUNATLY -NO- other group has come up with a counter proposal that makes ANY sense that gets feedback from the same broad-based membership IAHC's signees have. IAHC went out of their way to make it non-partisan. Every other DNS hack out there has said "our way is best, use us!" without issuing any type of public proposal, publish forums, and public comments. So for better or worse we are stuck with IAHC's proposal and solution because NOBODY else came up with ANYTHING better. If the 4-5 other DNS groups had banded together at the onset instead of knifing each other in the back for $50 than maybe something good would have come out of their efforts. Give it up. IAHC wins... because nobody opposed it with a REASONABLE counter-proposal... Matt ------------------------------------------------- Matthew E. Pearson Vice President of Development Games-Online Inc. http://www.games-online.com
participants (5)
-
Dwight Ernest -
jamie＠dilbert.iagnet.net -
Karl Denninger -
Matthew E. Pearson -
Paul A Vixie