Is there any alternative to the orsc.org root server at 199.166.24.1 ? Thanks. Chris
Chris Beggy wrote:
Is there any alternative to the orsc.org root server at 199.166.24.1 ?
; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 33079 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 14, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 13 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 172800 IN SOA a.public-root.net. hostmaster.public-root.net. \ 2005060112 43200 3600 1209600 14400 . 172800 IN NS a.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS b.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS c.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS d.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS e.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS f.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS g.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS h.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS i.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS j.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS k.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS l.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS m.public-root.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: a.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 205.189.71.2 b.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 61.9.136.52 c.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 68.255.182.111 d.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 205.189.71.34 e.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 216.138.219.83 f.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 66.15.237.185 g.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 199.5.157.131 h.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 65.118.74.205 i.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 203.187.202.205 j.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 57.73.7.89 k.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 81.19.74.67 l.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 195.214.191.125 m.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 205.189.71.26 ;; Query time: 135 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.208.228#53(192.168.208.228) ;; WHEN: Thu Jun 2 08:39:06 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 481 It is more up to date. It has got ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any eu. +norecursion ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 8684 ;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;eu. IN ANY ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: eu. 172800 IN NS a.eu.dns.be. eu. 172800 IN NS b.eu.dns.be. eu. 172800 IN NS l.nic.eu. eu. 172800 IN NS m.nic.eu. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: a.eu.dns.be. 172800 IN A 193.194.136.29 b.eu.dns.be. 172800 IN A 193.190.135.100 l.nic.eu. 172800 IN A 195.66.241.178 m.nic.eu. 172800 IN A 217.29.76.13 ;; Query time: 32 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.208.228#53(192.168.208.228) ;; WHEN: Thu Jun 2 08:42:51 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 161 If care about 100% availability have in your named.config: # zone "." in { # type hint; # file "/etc/root.hint"; # }; zone "." in { type slave; file "/slave/a.public-root.net.axfr"; masters { 205.189.71.2; }; }; Here is how often my own DNS-server updates: axfr_in("Jun-01","13:31:05","205.189.71.2","."). axfr_in("Jun-01","02:25:33","205.189.71.2","."). axfr_in("May-31","16:19:16","205.189.71.2","."). axfr_in("May-31","09:16:24","205.189.71.2","."). axfr_in("May-31","06:22:35","205.189.71.2","."). I could live without the root-servers for about two weeks. Public-Root gets you ALL the IANA zones plus practically all publically available zones like: xn--55qx5d try and see: http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/ and more than 2000 others. More information on http://public-root.com/ http://inaic.com/ Regards, Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:19:37 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
and more than 2000 others.
Apparently, the ICANN crew are finally doing *something* (even if they're doing so while not having read RFC3675): http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/index.html Hopefully none of their 10 conflict with any of your 2000, and nobody will have to go re-read RFC2826 just yet.....
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Apparently, the ICANN crew are finally doing *something* (even if they're doing so while not having read RFC3675):
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/index.html
Hopefully none of their 10 conflict with any of your 2000, and nobody will have to go re-read RFC2826 just yet.....
I am not afraid of ICANN. They are predictable and fast as an iceberg. Chinese governements are far less predictable but they try to be ICANN compatible. I am really afraid of Microsoft: Last time they have broken "localhost" now they do it again with "local" and what new toplevel domains next windows update will bring - not even Bill Gates knows. "local" did collide! What ever you answer for "*.local" will break their directory services. The only reliable solution seems to be: $TTL 2D $ORIGIN local. @ 2D SOA dns.cp.msft.net. msnhst.microsoft.com. 2005053100 300600 2419200 3600 MX 10 maila.microsoft.com. MX 10 mailb.microsoft.com. MX 10 mailc.microsoft.com. TXT "v=spf1 mx redirect=_spf.microsoft.com" NS ns1.msft.net. NS ns2.msft.net. NS ns3.msft.net. NS ns4.msft.net. NS ns5.msft.net. ns1.msft.net. A 207.46.245.230 ns2.msft.net. A 64.4.25.30 ns3.msft.net. A 213.199.144.151 ns4.msft.net. A 207.46.66.75 ns5.msft.net. A 207.46.138.20 I guess that would solve the "localhost" problem too - but it does not give the right answer :) Reagards, Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root http://iason.site.voila.fr
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/index.html
|ICM contends the "xxx" Web addresses, which it plans to sell for $60 a |year, will protect children from online smut if adult sites voluntarily |adopt the suffix so filtering software used by families can more |effectively block access to those sites How is charging $60/year going to protect children from "online smut"? if anything it'll still be that less reputable will continue to use less expensive domains. Also I'm curious how much of that $60 will go to ICANN packet? If not much then ICM is getting really good deal, amazingly good deal, a monopoly heaven in fact that reminds me of another TLD decision mentioned at nanog that ICANN is about to make official... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 03:28 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/index.html
|ICM contends the "xxx" Web addresses, which it plans to sell for $60 a |year, will protect children from online smut if adult sites voluntarily |adopt the suffix so filtering software used by families can more |effectively block access to those sites
How is charging $60/year going to protect children from "online smut"? if anything it'll still be that less reputable will continue to use less expensive domains.
IANA doesn't read rfc3675 I guess.... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt RFC 3675 - .sex Considered Dangerous 8<--------- Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical points of view. --------->8 or to make it very easy, for the folks who don't want to read it, here is a nice ascii-art picture from the RFC: 8<----------------- +-----------------------------------------+ | . (root) zone | | .com .org .net .us .uk .sex ... | +---+---------------------------+---------+ | | V V +--------------------+ +--------------------+ | .com zone | | .sex zone | | example.com ... | | example.sex ... | +---------------+----+ +---------------+----+ | | V V +---------------------+ +----------------------+ | example.com zone | | example.sex zone | | | | | | purity.example.com -+--+ +---+- obscene.example.sex | | virtue.example.com | | | | porn.example.sex | | | | | | | | | +------+--------------+ | | +--------+-------------+ | +------+------+ | | +-------------+ | | V V V V +-----------------+ +------------------+ | Virtuous Data | | Salacious Data | +-----------------+ +------------------+ -------------->8 Now can IANA stop doing silly stuff like earning money and start working on managing IP resources properly?
Also I'm curious how much of that $60 will go to ICANN packet? If not much then ICM is getting really good deal, amazingly good deal, a monopoly heaven in fact that reminds me of another TLD decision mentioned at nanog that ICANN is about to make official...
per country tld's was a good idea, they should have required [com|org| ersonal].cc-tld though. The addition of com/net/org. could then be used for international stuff. All those silly new things like .jobs/travel/museum/aero etc don't make sense, those are either org's or com's. Too late to fix that now... Greets, Jeroen
On 02 Jun 2005, Peter Dambier <peter@peter-dambier.de> wrote:
Public-Root gets you ALL the IANA zones plus practically all publically available zones like:
juniata# dig @a.public-root.net doesnt.suck ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> @a.public-root.net doesnt.suck ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 46372 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;doesnt.suck. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: suck. 172800 IN NS tld1.public-root.net. suck. 172800 IN NS tld2.public-root.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: tld1.public-root.net. 172800 IN A 84.22.100.6 tld2.public-root.net. 172800 IN A 57.67.193.188 ;; Query time: 119 msec ;; SERVER: 205.189.71.2#53(a.public-root.net) ;; WHEN: Thu Jun 2 08:40:20 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 114 OK! public-root.net does resolve the important publicly available zones. Thanks.
participants (6)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Chris Beggy -
Jeroen Massar -
Peter Dambier -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
william(at)elan.net