And most of the domains never have working name servers at all. The internic rules say you're supposed to have name service first. This isn't always practical, but if speculative domains don't have DNS within a few days, I'd think that'd be enough to wipe the allocations.
So many people keep harping on the point of having name servers first. But that's a silly and moot point. The name servers may well be behind a firewall and the use of the domain name is intended for internal use and needs to be registered externally for the same reason one should use allocated address space from ARIN instead of picking random addresses.
If you are behind a firewall, you can use RFC 1918 addresses. You don't need addresses from ARIN, and you don't need to pick at random. Relaxing the requirements for name servers seems like an excellent way of making the DNS even more broken than it already is. A number of TLDs (.no being one of them) will *enforce* a minimum of two functioning name servers for each domain. If you don't like this, you can of course take your business elsewhere.
This is like telling people they have to be routed on the Internet to be able to get an address allocation.
Sure. Why should they be allocated global addresses when RFC 1918 is available? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
And most of the domains never have working name servers at all. The internic rules say you're supposed to have name service first. This isn't always practical, but if speculative domains don't have DNS within a few days, I'd think that'd be enough to wipe the allocations.
So many people keep harping on the point of having name servers first. But that's a silly and moot point. The name servers may well be behind a firewall and the use of the domain name is intended for internal use and needs to be registered externally for the same reason one should use allocated address space from ARIN instead of picking random addresses.
If you are behind a firewall, you can use RFC 1918 addresses. You don't need addresses from ARIN, and you don't need to pick at random.
<insert well known arguments against private addresses here>
Relaxing the requirements for name servers seems like an excellent way of making the DNS even more broken than it already is. A number of TLDs (.no being one of them) will *enforce* a minimum of two functioning name servers for each domain. If you don't like this, you can of course take your business elsewhere.
As do more than a couple of million .com domains.
This is like telling people they have to be routed on the Internet to be able to get an address allocation.
Sure. Why should they be allocated global addresses when RFC 1918 is available?
There are many reasons. It's all been said before, but if you'd like to have real life examples, reply in private as I don't want to rehash all that on the list. It's bad enough that _this_ thread is even going on at all (should be moved over to some domain list). -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* phil at intur.net * --
At 23:54 1/19/99 +0100, you wrote:
Relaxing the requirements for name servers seems like an excellent way of making the DNS even more broken than it already is. A number of TLDs (.no being one of them) will *enforce* a minimum of two functioning name servers for each domain. If you don't like this, you can of course take your business elsewhere.
I really can't understand why there'd be a problem with a pay-first policy. If a registration is accompanied by CC#, check, etc., it's registered. If two registrants want the same domain: first paid, first served. Third party registrars (ISPs, other registries) could execute a "statement of purpose"-type document with NSI that would allow them to register without paying first. That privilege could be revoked if it's abused. The typical spammer and/or speculator isn't going to sink his/her/it's money into a throwaway domain name, and legit third-party registrants aren't likely to deal with a speculator/abuser if their payment privilege is at risk. Simple, easy to put into effect, easy to police, solves most of these problems without hurting service...all of which is, of course, why InterNIC/NSI won't do it. At least, in the past they've avoided the simple solution whenever possible... Spammers should be investigated by Ken Starr! Dean Robb PC-EASY computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
participants (3)
-
Dean Robb -
Phil Howard -
sthaugļ¼ nethelp.no