Statements against new.net?
Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available? Thanks, Hank
Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available?
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root randy
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available?
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root
It would better be termed "IAB Political Comment on the Unique DNS Root."
It is stupid and irresponsible to setup a new DNS root. End of story, read 2826. And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and what will that achieve? Stick to the single root, stand firm on this policy and new.net wont get far! Steve On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available?
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root
It would better be termed "IAB Political Comment on the Unique DNS Root."
-- Stephen J. Wilcox IP Services Manager, Opal Telecom http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ Tel: 0161 222 2000 Fax: 0161 222 2008
It is stupid and irresponsible to setup a new DNS root. End of story, read 2826.
And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and what will that achieve?
Stick to the single root, stand firm on this policy and new.net wont get far!
Steve
I'm tempted to simply blackhole new.net -- just to keep from having to fix the problems that are sure to arise from customers using the blasted plug-in... Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 833-3635
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
It is stupid and irresponsible to setup a new DNS root. End of story, read 2826.
Is this some scripture to quote? :-)
And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and what will that achieve?
I think that you would find that capitalists tend towards effective market solutions(that is in fact why most of them are capitalists.)
Stick to the single root, stand firm on this policy and new.net wont get far!
Suddenly, I feel like I should be grabbing your hand and engaging in a rousing rendition of "Kumbayah my lord." Rather you or myself like it or not, given the existence of a player that has the capital to make this idea go, the market now has an opportunity to decide for itself. Perhaps next you might wish to stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until they go away?
On or around Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:37:26AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell may have written:
Suddenly, I feel like I should be grabbing your hand and engaging in a rousing rendition of "Kumbayah my lord."
Rather you or myself like it or not, given the existence of a player that has the capital to make this idea go, the market now has an opportunity to decide for itself.
Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large majority of 1) users, and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular segments of the population tend to be.
Perhaps next you might wish to stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until they go away?
let's not forget what mailing list this is - the operators in this forum can have a very real and significant impact on the direction "the market" takes. If, as a group, the NANOG readership decides to take a single position on anything (ha!), then we could very likely effectively determine in which direction "the market" will go. After all, if _nobody's_ customers can access new.net's non-sanctioned gTLDs, they can't very well go to another provider for such access, and new.net will die the quick death that it deserves. (yes, I'm obviously idealistic and naive to think that even a significant majority of NANOG readers could even agree on which way is up, but I think enough people agree on this issue that we don't necessarily have to sit back and let "the market" make decisions that will have real operational impact for the foreseeable future. We can make those decisions ourselves.) -- 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
(yes, I'm obviously idealistic and naive to think that even a significant majority of NANOG readers could even agree on which way is up, but I think enough people agree on this issue that we don't necessarily have to sit back and let "the market" make decisions that will have real operational impact for the foreseeable future. We can make those decisions ourselves.)
Yes we can make those decisions. So set up your own root server (maybe two or three) on your piece of the net, pick a source for an inclusive root zone, and start slaving it (be sure to edit the glue to point to your own roots). That takes care of any doubts you might have about the resiliancy of the inclusive roots, since you are running the roots your caches use. Better yet, start out with the root.zone from ftp.internic.net, add delegations for the expanded set of TLDs, install in private root server. This can all be automated to happen twice a day. Point your caches at it, tell your users about it, and be happy. What is the big deal? It's a 60K text file, it's not like the old hosts.txt, it doesn't need to list every host on the Internet, just the TLD glue, and there's only 253 of those in the ICANN root zone. Is that so hard to deal with? We're all flummoxed by a 60K text file? The internet comes to a halt because of a 60K text file? Right now, you depend on a single party to provide 13 servers to start recursing from. Is that a risk-free arrangement for the long run? Can you imagine something more resilient? Do you have an SLA with Verisign for root service? Think you're going to get one? You have one with your upstream, perhaps, and with other vendors that are essential to your operations. So, what if an inclusive root server operator offered a SLA for root zone service? Is that at all interesting? There are any number of things people can come up with, if they use their imagination, and shed for a moment the idea that there must be one root, and only one. If the root zone is so important, why do people not demand the same level of service that they demand elsewhere? If I may borrow a line from The Matrix: Free Your Mind. (that was kinda corny, I apologize :)
-- 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 Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 05:28:53AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large majority of 1) users, and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular segments of the population tend to be.
Bright or not, these not-so-bright people have a direct impact on your bottom line. Up to you if you want to ignore that, though.
If, as a group, the NANOG readership decides to take a single position on anything (ha!), then we could very likely effectively determine in which direction "the market" will go. After all, if _nobody's_ customers can access new.net's non-sanctioned gTLDs, they can't very well go to another provider for such access, and new.net will die the quick death that it deserves.
I read this and immediately remembered Michael Dillon; is he still around? There were always interesting discussions about collusion and price-fixing back in the good old days. (I'm referring to the idea that the core Internet operators would collude to drive a relatively new entrant to the field (new.net) out of business. Yes, it's an anal way to look at it. No, IANAL. No, I don't have a point, just reminiscing. ;-) -- Edward S. Marshall <esm@logic.net> http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
On or around Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:37:26AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell may have written:
Suddenly, I feel like I should be grabbing your hand and engaging in a rousing rendition of "Kumbayah my lord."
Rather you or myself like it or not, given the existence of a player that has the capital to make this idea go, the market now has an opportunity to decide for itself.
Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large majority of 1) users, and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular segments of the population tend to be.
Well, those are the people defining your paycheck, sure you want to write them off so quickly?
If, as a group, the NANOG readership decides to take a single position on anything (ha!), then we could very likely effectively determine in which direction "the market" will go. After all, if _nobody's_ customers can access new.net's non-sanctioned gTLDs, they can't very well go to another provider for such access, and new.net will die the quick death that it deserves.
You might want to take a long, careful, hard look at who has been doing the sanctioning and how they've been making those decisions before jumping on the bandwagon. Just a friendly suggestion.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:47:05PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell had this to say:
Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large majority of 1) users, and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular segments of the population tend to be.
Well, those are the people defining your paycheck, sure you want to write them off so quickly?
the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for technical expertise - if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make informed decisions on this type of matter, why would he need to hire a network operator? I'm not saying that users, clients and management don't have their place - but I _AM_ saying that place is _not_ in making critical _technical_ decisions that will have a significant, possibly severely detrimental, effect on the future of the networks they have hired _us_ to operate for them.
You might want to take a long, careful, hard look at who has been doing the sanctioning and how they've been making those decisions before jumping on the bandwagon. Just a friendly suggestion.
This whole matter boils down to one question - that being, what way is the Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me (and a few others) that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an ultimate authority - not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying to do: create an alternate ultimate authority. How exactly will a user know which site foo.com takes them to, if new.net's response and the rest of the Internet's response a la *.root-servers.net don't jibe? The concept of unique and separate domains breaks down when you have conflicting responses to the question, "Where does this domain actually point?" What some of us are saying is the new.net concept in its current forms is _guaranteed_ to create exactly that kind of confusion, all arguments about politics or alternate addressing possibilities aside. -- 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 Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:47:05PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell had this to say:
Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large majority of 1) users, and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular segments of the population tend to be.
Well, those are the people defining your paycheck, sure you want to write them off so quickly?
the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for technical expertise - if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make informed decisions on this type of matter, why would he need to hire a network operator?
Consumer demand is not driven by your technical expertise.
This whole matter boils down to one question - that being, what way is the Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me (and a few others) that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an ultimate authority - not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying to do: create an alternate ultimate authority.
DNS as it currently exists is a fixed point in an evolutionary path.
At 09:17 AM 3/14/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for technical expertise - if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make informed decisions on this type of matter, why would he need to hire a network operator?
Consumer demand is not driven by your technical expertise.
I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for AIDS. Regardless of that, Chrysler and the Mayo Clinic tell us it's a no-go, so we believe them. My point here is this: Although consumer demand is not driven by our technical expertise, neither are our networks dictated by consumer demand. Some requests are silly, or uninformed, or simply not feasible on an economic or technical level.
DNS as it currently exists is a fixed point in an evolutionary path.
Actually, DNS as it exists is a fixed niche in an ecological system. Some niches remain filled by the same unchanging creatures for millions of years[1](see examples: "sharks", "alligators"), while some change within a few generations. Perhaps new TLD's are necessary- I have no problem conceding that fact. I do not think, however, that one company should have a chokehold on them. NSI finally got bumped out of the i-am-the-only-registrar-seat. Are we so quick to create another one like this? ~Ben, who speaks for himself alone here, as always [1] Which then translates into about 20 Internet Years --- Ben Browning <benb@theriver.com> The River Internet Access Co. Network Operations 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Ben Browning wrote:
At 09:17 AM 3/14/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for technical expertise - if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make informed decisions on this type of matter, why would he need to hire a network operator?
Consumer demand is not driven by your technical expertise.
I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for AIDS.
And people are working towards both. In fact, there are a couple of "flying cars"(different companies implementations) out there. What's your point?
Although consumer demand is not driven by our technical expertise, neither are our networks dictated by consumer demand.
Without consumer demand, it is highly unlikely that you'd have a network to speak of.
Perhaps new TLD's are necessary- I have no problem conceding that fact. I do not think, however, that one company should have a chokehold on them.
I agree with you, 100%. I don't believe one company should either, rather it be NSI, ICANN, New.net, or any other player. But that is exactly what the majority of individuals appear to be rather voiceferously advocating, saying anything outside the "sanctioned root"(whatever that means) should be blackholed, the people offfering such TLDS are "frauds", etc.
At 12:59 PM 3/15/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Ben Browning wrote:
I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for AIDS.
And people are working towards both. In fact, there are a couple of "flying cars"(different companies implementations) out there. What's your point?
My point is that the laws of physics do not bend to allow an Edsel to sail through the air with the greatest of ease, regardless of how fervently Joe Sixpack may wish it. My point is that, although I could drive the aforementioned Edsel off a cliff and market it as a way to make a backwards-compatible flying car upgrade, it still ain't. The only difference here is new.nets stupidity is a bit more subtle. Please do not duck the next time the clue-by-four swings your way.
Although consumer demand is not driven by our technical expertise, neither are our networks dictated by consumer demand.
Without consumer demand, it is highly unlikely that you'd have a network to speak of.
Without us, it's highly unlikely consumers would have a network to demand. Symbiotic relationships are not necessarily causal.
I agree with you, 100%. I don't believe one company should either, rather it be NSI, ICANN, New.net, or any other player. But that is exactly what the majority of individuals appear to be rather voiceferously advocating, saying anything outside the "sanctioned root"(whatever that means) should be blackholed, the people offfering such TLDS are "frauds", etc.
"The Board of ICANN is composed of nineteen Directors: nine At-Large Directors, nine selected by ICANN's three supporting organizations, and the President/CEO (ex officio). Five of the current At-Large Directors were selected according to a vote of Internet users worldwide." As opposed to "New.net was started in May 2000 by idealab!, a leading Internet incubator. We have developed proprietary technology that allows our domain-naming system to exist alongside the traditional naming systems currently in use on the Internet. New.net has applied for patent protection for this technology." At least ICANN has some pretense of democracy. And before you climb on to the trusty soapbox, please don't. I think we are all familiar with your "Damn the [ICANN|NSI] man!" tirade. ~Ben, as always, speaking for himself. --- Ben Browning <benb@theriver.com> The River Internet Access Co. Network Operations 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Ben Browning wrote:
At 12:59 PM 3/15/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Ben Browning wrote:
I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for AIDS.
And people are working towards both. In fact, there are a couple of "flying cars"(different companies implementations) out there. What's your point?
My point is that the laws of physics do not bend to allow an Edsel to sail through the air with the greatest of ease, regardless of how fervently Joe Sixpack may wish it. My point is that, although I could drive the aforementioned Edsel off a cliff and market it as a way to make a backwards-compatible flying car upgrade, it still ain't. The only difference here is new.nets stupidity is a bit more subtle.
I doubt that you'll find that new.net's efforts or those of the other alternate root sever efforts has in any way has attempted to defy or cirvumvent any law of physics.
Please do not duck the next time the clue-by-four swings your way.
Back atcha. :-)
Without consumer demand, it is highly unlikely that you'd have a network to speak of.
Without us, it's highly unlikely consumers would have a network to demand.
You(theriver.com) exist because the commerical Internet exists. The commercial Internet exists because people found value that extended beyond the uses the DoD/ARPA and acedemics had for the early Internet. The Internet was created by a need/desire, it did not spring forth from heaven.
I agree with you, 100%. I don't believe one company should either, rather it be NSI, ICANN, New.net, or any other player. But that is exactly what the majority of individuals appear to be rather voiceferously advocating, saying anything outside the "sanctioned root"(whatever that means) should be blackholed, the people offfering such TLDS are "frauds", etc.
"The Board of ICANN is composed of nineteen Directors: nine At-Large Directors, nine selected by ICANN's three supporting organizations, and the President/CEO (ex officio). Five of the current At-Large Directors were selected according to a vote of Internet users worldwide."
As opposed to "New.net was started in May 2000 by idealab!, a leading Internet incubator. We have developed proprietary technology that allows our domain-naming system to exist alongside the traditional naming systems currently in use on the Internet. New.net has applied for patent protection for this technology."
At least ICANN has some pretense of democracy.
And that is all you will find it is, a pretense. The elections of 9 "at-large" directors was reduced to 5. The decisions on new TLDs were made by an unelected board. A study is currently underway to determine if "At large directors" are appropriate at all. A contract that was sprung on the rest of the ICANN supporting organizations at the last minute as a fait accompli is currently being considered that was would remove the requirement that NSI seperate their registry and registrar operation, in effect give them the right to operate the .com registry in perpetuity including changes in pricing, and force .org registrants to be non-profit organizations. Now, tell me about democracy.
And before you climb on to the trusty soapbox, please don't. I think we are all familiar with your "Damn the [ICANN|NSI] man!" tirade.
Perhaps it would help if you were educated on the subject before so quickly dismissing it. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just that you actually have some knowledge on the subjects you are speaking about.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
Perhaps next you might wish to stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until they go away?
let's not forget what mailing list this is - the operators in this forum can have a very real and significant impact on the direction "the market" takes. If, as a group, the NANOG readership decides to take a single position on anything (ha!), then we could very likely effectively determine in which direction "the market" will go. After all, if _nobody's_ customers can access new.net's non-sanctioned gTLDs, they can't very well go to another provider for such access, and new.net will die the quick death that it deserves.
(yes, I'm obviously idealistic and naive to think that even a significant majority of NANOG readers could even agree on which way is up, but I think enough people agree on this issue that we don't necessarily have to sit back and let "the market" make decisions that will have real operational impact for the foreseeable future. We can make those decisions ourselves.)
Actually, I'm enamoured of someone's idea to just blackhole new.net and let them figure out how to sort that. Saves me a whole lot of trouble, I just get to ask the customer where they got the idea that .xxx was a valid tld. If we all do that (And yes I can see a significant [10%+] fraction of this group's readership doing it), then the problem goes away soon. An elegant fix, except that new.net would probably sue anyone who blackholed them... --Matthew Devney
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 06:23:57PM +0000, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
It is stupid and irresponsible to setup a new DNS root. End of story, read 2826.
Such reasoned and well thought out discussion points thrown out on NANOG? I'm in shock.
And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and what will that achieve?
Uhhh, so what if they do? Nobody is forcing you to use new.net, or ORSC or TINC or whoever, or even setup your own roots with the "pick of the bunch" from ORSC or TINC or whoever. If you don't use the alternative roots, you're not affected by their existance... so you can just pretend they don't exist and live life in your 2826 compliant happy world. -- John Payne http://www.sackheads.org/jpayne/ john@sackheads.org http://www.sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954 To send me mail, use the address in the From: header
folk, life can be pretty simple. i recommend all the folk who want to play multi-root games please do so. being unable to communicate with you will be no problem to me. darwinian effects will do far better than all the blather on mailing lists. randy
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Randy Bush wrote: You won't find the owners of new.net or their ilk using exclusively names like new-domains.shop since they know only a small segment will see them. They will use the standard old names like .com and .net so 100% of the Internet can contact them. Food for thought for all the sites buying these new domain names. -Hank
folk, life can be pretty simple.i recommend all the folk who want to play multi-root games please do so.being unable to communicate with you will be no problem to me.darwinian effects will do far better than all the blather on mailing lists.
randy
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 06:11:39PM -0800, David R. Conrad wrote:
John,
At 02:04 PM 3/13/2001 -0800, John Payne wrote:
If you don't use the alternative roots, you're not affected by their existance...
Except for the folks at help desks who get calls asking why foo.shop doesn't work.
If your helpdesk doesn't have a script for common questions, can I become a customer please? -- John Payne http://www.sackheads.org/jpayne/ john@sackheads.org http://www.sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954 To send me mail, use the address in the From: header
sackhead by email header sackhead by message body! i dont want them on my helpdesk!!! it costs me money it gives me hassle! On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, John Payne wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 06:11:39PM -0800, David R. Conrad wrote:
John,
At 02:04 PM 3/13/2001 -0800, John Payne wrote:
If you don't use the alternative roots, you're not affected by their existance...
Except for the folks at help desks who get calls asking why foo.shop doesn't work.
If your helpdesk doesn't have a script for common questions, can I become a customer please?
And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and what will that achieve?
Uhhh, so what if they do? Nobody is forcing you to use new.net, or ORSC or TINC or whoever, or even setup your own roots with the "pick of the bunch" from ORSC or TINC or whoever.
If you don't use the alternative roots, you're not affected by their existance... so you can just pretend they don't exist and live life in your 2826 compliant happy world.
Oh yes I am (or may (will ?!)) be, because it does not depend on which root I am using, but which root anyone wanting to send me email is using, as with multiple roots there is potential that email sent by them (or though them) is either not going to make it (becausethey or an intermediate site cannot resolve my email address) or to someone else (because there is a duplication of domains). Same goes for web etc. The larger damage is going to be the legal fallout when multiple 'owners' of the same domain (owned by different roots) start fighting for the right to 'their' name. It will take many courts many years to decide that, with decisions even worse and diverse than are right now coming out of the UDRP. Moreover, it will take just to decide on which courts have jurisdiction (or if a court declares itself competent to make owners, registries etc in other jurisdictions comply). This is a can of worms we should *not* open. The only ones profiting by it would be lawyers, and I think even they would not really welcome this. Mathias
It is stupid and irresponsible to setup a new DNS root. End of story, read 2826.
Such reasoned and well thought out discussion points thrown out on NANOG? I'm in shock.
I try to be consistent :)
And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and what will that achieve?
Uhhh, so what if they do? Nobody is forcing you to use new.net, or ORSC or TINC or whoever, or even setup your own roots with the "pick of the bunch" from ORSC or TINC or whoever.
If you don't use the alternative roots, you're not affected by their existance... so you can just pretend they don't exist and live life in your 2826 compliant happy world.
But of course I am!!! If I dont use them then it creates problems because users on my networks cant reach the new.net sites. If I do use them then other people copy new.net and all of a sudden we get conflicting resolution which as mentioned before means you have no idea what site you are going to hit - what good is that. You dont have to use ARIN/RIPE allocated IPs on your network, you can pick your own (non-RFC1918) addresses just dont advertise them, but again what good is that to users on my network who wont be able to see the sites. Look: "Internet" its single, not plural that would be "Internets" there are certain uniquenesses which must be maintained if you want all users on "The Internet" to receive the same results no matter who's network they are on. I dont think RFC2826 does suggest you "choose" whether to obey or not, I think it says you have to follow the single root if you want to be global, if you want to be local then you dont. Also, WHY??? is everyone on this list so obsessed with freedom, choice.. look around, you are not free, you do not have the choice. You are only free and able to choose within your local environment, once you step outside you must comply otherwise things diverge rapidly. Yes you CAN do what you want, you can CHOOSE to do something different but only if you want to do it for a limited set that is your local network. If you start selling things that are "new global names" I would say thats false for a start, how many ISPs support these new.net addresses? Oh, none so its not very global then. Okay, so theres a plugin, the ISP doesnt have to comply and yuo can get around it.. hmm.. and what about when theres 50 or 1000 plugins and theres conflicts or non-technical people dont realise and start hassling ME because they cant get to new.net's local TLDs?? I dont want that!!! I'm really worried by some responses here, I mean comparing it to usenet jeez!!! Apart from the fact usenet isnt a good analogy its in a right mess! Theres new hierarchies born all the time, junk - tell me otherwise! That is what will happen when new TLDs start becoming more common. NANOG - take off your blinkers, look around, think practical, think real world. This is NOT a good idea!! Steve
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
You dont have to use ARIN/RIPE allocated IPs on your network, you can pick your own (non-RFC1918) addresses just dont advertise them, but again what good is that to users on my network who wont be able to see the sites.
Look: "Internet" its single, not plural that would be "Internets" there are certain uniquenesses which must be maintained if you want all users on "The Internet" to receive the same results no matter who's network they are on.
Hrm. Somewhere along the line I remember the Internet being defined as a bunch of networks cooperating in order to exchange information. When did that change? :-) I'll be happy when more companies start to see that they canactually make money by fostering internet growth rather than making money by abusing internet growth. Adrian -- Adrian Chadd "The fact you can download a 100 megabyte file <adrian@creative.net.au> from half way around the world should be viewed as an accident and not a right." -- Adrian Chadd and Bill Fumerola
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:17:35PM +0800, Adrian Chadd had this to say:
Look: "Internet" its single, not plural that would be "Internets" there are certain uniquenesses which must be maintained if you want all users on "The Internet" to receive the same results no matter who's network they are on.
Hrm. Somewhere along the line I remember the Internet being defined as a bunch of networks cooperating in order to exchange information.
multiple networks, yes; but globally UNIQUE addresses _and_ globally unique domain names that map to those addresses. Otherwise, it's like if you went to buy a road map, and the street locations given on the map varied according to the company that published the map. Not knowing where you are going does no-one any good. -- 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 Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 06:23:57PM +0000, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
It is stupid and irresponsible to setup a new DNS root. End of story, read 2826.
End of story for you. Others here would appear to prefer to discuss the issue.
And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and what will that achieve?
If you let BigCompany operate a top-level Usenet hierarchy, then every other capitalist in the world will start doing it and then Usenet will become disfunctional, and what will that achieve? Oh, that's right, Usenet is still usable, with fairly comprehensive guidelines on how hierarchy and group maintainers can keep things running smoothly. Even in the face of different news servers having different namespaces. Funny, that. (Usenet has it's problems, but distributed management of a hierarchy isn't one of them, and hasn't been for a very long time.)
Stick to the single root, stand firm on this policy and new.net wont get far!
What exactly scares you so much about this? The fact that individual nameserver operators are realizing that they are the ultimate authorities over their DNS infrastructure, rather than a political commitee? (Why am I suddenly reminded of the "Grassroots DNS" effort that someone put forth a few years back?) For the record, I don't think this is being handled well, by any of the parties involved. But I'm not concerned at all about new roots; in fact, I'm very interested in seeing how this plays out. I see three possibilities: a) The new alt. root on the block loses its funding, and we keep going under the same strained system. Until next year's entrant to the alt. root camp (the pattern is becoming fairly obvious at this point). b) The alternative roots start gaining ground, and we begin seeing individual ISPs operating "." zones for customers, tracking top-level delegations themselves ala Usenet to ensure maximum availability of names for their customers. c) DNS shows its age and melts down, making way for more effective resource location schemes. <URL:http://advogato.org/article/109.html> -- Edward S. Marshall <esm@logic.net> http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]
It is stupid and irresponsible to setup a new DNS root. End of story, read 2826. End of story for you. Others here would appear to prefer to discuss the issue.
talk is cheap. please go do it. and use it for the in-addr.arpa of your mail smtp sender, please. or better yet, do your own special zone for inverse. at least i won't have to read the blather any more. randy
Oh, that's right, Usenet is still usable, with fairly comprehensive guidelines on how hierarchy and group maintainers can keep things running smoothly. Even in the face of different news servers having different namespaces. Funny, that.
Usenet is awash in hierarchical disorder. Different servers have different groups, at the whim of the server operator. Please let's not make DNS work like Usenet. Thanks. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Usenet is awash in hierarchical disorder. Different servers have different groups, at the whim of the server operator. Please let's not make DNS work like Usenet. Thanks.
I'm afraid you are fairly wrong there. 90% if the differences are in the alt.* hierarchy which is explicity and area set aside for groups to be created at random by anyone. Even in that area sites will have most of the popular groups. Most other hierarchies are either local or fairly well controlled (rec, nz, uk) and groups are added and removed by pgp signed crontrol messages. But this isn't really the place to discuss Usenet hierarchy policy. -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall@ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | | Home: simon@darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
Oh, that's right, Usenet is still usable, with fairly comprehensive guidelines on how hierarchy and group maintainers can keep things running smoothly. Even in the face of different news servers having different namespaces. Funny, that.
DO you think so? It *is* acceptable (to some, not everyone) that an article posted in a group may not make it all the way around the world because my server's copy of a NG is different from one with the same name over there. But I don't think it would be at all acceptable if my email address had a different owner over there. There *is* a difference in a basic naming scheme that is the basis for a large multitude of communication systems and one that is specific to one non-mission critical service.
What exactly scares you so much about this? The fact that individual nameserver operators are realizing that they are the ultimate authorities over their DNS infrastructure, rather than a political commitee? (Why am I suddenly reminded of the "Grassroots DNS" effort that someone put forth a few years back?)
I don't know what scares him. What scares me is that a decision made by my brother's ISP back in Germany might impact whether email he sends to me could go to a different person altogether. And he would not have an easy choice which ISP to chose, because each one might have a different view of the DNS and namespace, thus making it impossible to decide which ISP to use at all. The fact that services like email perform DNS lookups at every hop along the way (from the initial MX lookups via the reverse lookps, sender-domain checks to fight SPAM etc) would mean that no-one could say whether the emailevenhad a chance reaching me. And this is only email. Other services will introduce other chances for amiguities etc altogether. The upshot of all this would be that no-one can rely on email and the Internet as a medium for communication (and e-commerce etc) would be finished. And don't think once this mistake is realized it would be easy (or fast) to turn bak the time to a sane state, as AFAIK there is no complete record of the current state and disputes over what is and is not to be part of the restored Internet would be legion. Mathias
participants (16)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Ben Browning -
David R. Conrad -
Edward S. Marshall -
Eric A. Hall -
Hank Nussbacher -
John Payne -
Mark Radabaugh - Amplex -
Mathias Koerber -
mdevney＠teamsphere.com -
Mike Batchelor -
Patrick Greenwell -
Randy Bush -
Scott Francis -
Simon Lyall -
Stephen J. Wilcox