RE: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
On Thursday, May 29, 1997 6:03 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@MCS.Net] wrote: <snip> @ @ @ I rest my case. Only one of these has anything approaching reasonable @ connectivity, all appear to be off single-point failure circuits (except @ possibly manhattan.com), and all are running in non-RFC2010 mode. @ Karl, I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS. As I understand the situation, eDNS people are now going to focus on building a more robust version of the BIND software and will be focusing on operational excellance and stability. The uDNS people seem to be more interested in supporting a wide-range of Registration Authorities and new Top Level Domains that are somewhat controversial. There does not seem to be a strong "technical" or "operational" slant to the uDNS movement. I am sure that system administrators will be able to make their decision which Root Name Server Confederation they prefer. With 6 active confederations, companies now have a choice. That is what free market help to create. I look forward to working with you on the new version(s) of BIND, and I also look forward to seeing uDNS take shape. Both groups can make a contribution to the Internet. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp
On Thu, May 29, 1997 at 07:14:29PM -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
On Thursday, May 29, 1997 6:03 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@MCS.Net] wrote: <snip> @ @ @ I rest my case. Only one of these has anything approaching reasonable @ connectivity, all appear to be off single-point failure circuits (except @ possibly manhattan.com), and all are running in non-RFC2010 mode. @
Karl,
I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS.
uDNS is claiming to be what eDNS *was*, which simply isn't true.
As I understand the situation, eDNS people are now going to focus on building a more robust version of the BIND software and will be focusing on operational excellance and stability.
Correct.
The uDNS people seem to be more interested in supporting a wide-range of Registration Authorities and new Top Level Domains that are somewhat controversial. There does not seem to be a strong "technical" or "operational" slant to the uDNS movement.
Actually, unless I grossly misread what I saw last night, there will be no RAs, and the structure is more than a little different.
I am sure that system administrators will be able to make their decision which Root Name Server Confederation they prefer. With 6 active confederations, companies now have a choice. That is what free market help to create.
Correct so long as people don't mislead the public. Unfortunately many people like to do that, and its a bad practice which is not limited to any particular root server set. In fact, it seems to be endemic on the Internet as a whole.
I look forward to working with you on the new version(s) of BIND, and I also look forward to seeing uDNS take shape. Both groups can make a contribution to the Internet.
-- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp
Thanks. -- -- 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
On Thu, 29 May 1997 19:14:29 -0500, Jim wrote:
Karl, I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS.
If by "eDNS" you mean Karl's thing, yes we do claim to be better in the areas that count. We will never dump the entire root zone to a "clean slate" and tell people this is a "good thing". We will supply stable, business grade service with no "Freezes", "Ultimatums", or "Premaddona posturing"... Take care, Ron
On Fri, May 30, 1997 at 12:48:23AM +0000, Ron Kimball wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 1997 19:14:29 -0500, Jim wrote:
Karl, I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS.
If by "eDNS" you mean Karl's thing, yes we do claim to be better in the areas that count. We will never dump the entire root zone to a "clean slate" and tell people this is a "good thing". We will supply stable, business grade service with no "Freezes", "Ultimatums", or "Premaddona posturing"...
Take care, Ron
Yep, stable, business-grade service. On recursion-enabled servers. Yep. BTW, the reason the original system is being re-qualified (which is what it is) is that a bunch of people were cheating. You mean you, and the others, can't qualify under the rules of *stable, business grade service*, defined as: 1) Someone answers your phone. 2) You are actually registered to legally do business in your state. 3) You have real nameservers on real circuits. 4) Someone can actually register electronically in your TLD. 5) Someone can use the web and/or whois to look up who owns a SLD delegation. Well, blow me down. Must be some fancy new definition of "stable, business grade service" here if you folks don't meet these criteria. Oh, and we're not assessing taxes. Still. Ron, all you have to do is file the template. I know that's tough, but the truth of the matter is that 90% of the TLDs which your defectors are now putting up under "uDNS" don't meet the above *FOUR* criteria, say much less being non-collusive and holding 10 or fewer TLDs. -- -- 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
On Thu, 29 May 1997 20:01:29 -0500, Karl wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 1997 at 12:48:23AM +0000, Ron Kimball wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 1997 19:14:29 -0500, Jim wrote:
Karl, I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS.
If by "eDNS" you mean Karl's thing, yes we do claim to be better in the areas that count. We will never dump the entire root zone to a "clean slate" and tell people this is a "good thing". We will supply stable, business grade service with no "Freezes", "Ultimatums", or "Premaddona posturing"...
Take care, Ron
Yep, stable, business-grade service.
On recursion-enabled servers.
Yep.
BTW, the reason the original system is being re-qualified (which is what it is) is that a bunch of people were cheating.
You mean you, and the others, can't qualify under the rules of *stable, business grade service*, defined as:
1) Someone answers your phone. 2) You are actually registered to legally do business in your state. 3) You have real nameservers on real circuits. 4) Someone can actually register electronically in your TLD. 5) Someone can use the web and/or whois to look up who owns a SLD delegation.
Well, blow me down. Must be some fancy new definition of "stable, business grade service" here if you folks don't meet these criteria.
Oh, and we're not assessing taxes. Still.
Ron, all you have to do is file the template. I know that's tough, but the truth of the matter is that 90% of the TLDs which your defectors are now putting up under "uDNS" don't meet the above *FOUR* criteria, say much less being non-collusive and holding 10 or fewer TLDs.
<yawn>
At 20:01 29/05/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: (...)
You mean you, and the others, can't qualify under the rules of *stable, business grade service*, defined as:
1) Someone answers your phone. 2) You are actually registered to legally do business in your state. 3) You have real nameservers on real circuits. 4) Someone can actually register electronically in your TLD. 5) Someone can use the web and/or whois to look up who owns a SLD delegation. (...) Ron, all you have to do is file the template. I know that's tough, but the truth of the matter is that 90% of the TLDs which your defectors are now putting up under "uDNS" don't meet the above *FOUR* criteria, say much less being non-collusive and holding 10 or fewer TLDs.
[puzzled look as he looks at his hands and tries to count fingers...] There's something here I'm missing I think. Karl, you *are* the technical wizard in eDNS (or whatever you're merged into now), aren't you? Never mind. John.
participants (5)
-
hostmaster＠starfire.douglas.ma.us -
Jim Fleming -
John Charles Broomfield -
Karl Denninger -
Karl Denninger