If the information in the following message means what I think it means in then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at exchange points within the USA if not internationally. Can they do this? Or are they bluffing? If you want to comment on issues related to top level domain names but not related to network operations, please, please, please post those comments to newdom@iiia.org only even if it means replying twice to this message. Believe me, you do *NOT* want to crosspost between NEWDOM and NANOG and you do *NOT* want to attract these discussions into NANOG either. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 18:53:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <karl@mcs.com> To: newdom@iiia.org Subject: Re: Issues on the table Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 20:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: newdom@iiia.org
They're the official "top of command" for the root domain...
Hypothetical, to help me understand:
Says who?
IANA runs their roots - what happens if AlterNIC gets enough people to recognize their roots, and serves out their own TLDs? Does the IANA have an enforcement branch?
Please don't flame, I'm not trying to argue, just understand how this all works. Seems to me that 2 entities are trying to be in charge. IANA want to be in charge, and AlterNIC wants to share being in charge. Seems that it can't be both ways, but what if they're both doing it?
Christopher Ambler President, Image Online Design, Inc.
Well, let's see... What if someone, say Eugene, started showing up at major exchange points and major ISPs with, oh, say, "root nameserver in a box" systems? As in public root nameservers. As in distributed, across-the-country, on every major backbone root nameservers. Which, among other things, outperformed and were more stable than the current roots. What do you think might happen? :-) Hint: This is not a hypothetical question. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1 from $600 monthly; speeds to DS-3 available | 23 Chicagoland Prefixes, 13 ISDN, much more Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1] | Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Home of Chicago's only FULL Clarinet feed!
If the information in the following message means what I think it means in then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at exchange points within the USA if not internationally.
Can they do this? Or are they bluffing?
If you want to comment on issues related to top level domain names but not related to network operations, please, please, please post those comments to newdom@iiia.org only even if it means replying twice to this message. Believe me, you do *NOT* want to crosspost between NEWDOM and NANOG and you do *NOT* want to attract these discussions into NANOG either.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Well, without commenting religiously for or against the AlterNIC concept/ reality, I'd say that they can't force the issue since many sites will be unwilling (or unable technically) to change where they point for root DNS. I'm not aware of any huge problems with performance or reliability among the existing roots... <snip>
IANA runs their roots - what happens if AlterNIC gets enough people to recognize their roots, and serves out their own TLDs? Does the IANA have an enforcement branch? <snip> Which, among other things, outperformed and were more stable than the current roots.
What do you think might happen? :-)
Hint: This is not a hypothetical question.
I think some people might use them; others might not; and others claim that they would never use them. The question is whether the others that claim that they would never use them control enough of the 'net to make the new/alternate TLDs useless. Avi
If the information in the following message means what I think it means in then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at exchange points within the USA if not internationally.
Can they do this? Or are they bluffing?
They can buy connections from ISPs and connections at some exchanges. With these connections they may choose to deploy machines that run their version of nameservice. It still does not affect those people who use authorized root servers and the bind code as distributed. Note that some exchanges prohibit this type of service from being offered and there is the other, minor problem of annoucing the exchange prefix. These issues were discussed in the IEPG meeting that was held just prior to IETF. There is a plan to do a couple of interesting things with the authorized root servers which includes relocating them for better coverage. I will also note, yet again, that there are real, technological constraints on the number of root servers. If you buy into the utility of the DNS, then you must abide by these constraints. If you choose to build an alternative universe and you have the cash, you are certainly able, the tools are there. If you simply have a gripe with the IANA and wish to usurp the root by the use of an alternative cache file, you split the Internet into fragments... so much for the fiction of a globally useful activity. Or there is the intent to "chop off" the root and simply coordinate a TLD file distribution, which leads to the HOSTS.TXT madness. Of course this presumes content and clients for the parallel universe. -- --bill
Michael, et. al. ] If the information in the following message means what I think it means in ] then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at ] exchange points within the USA if not internationally. ] ] Can they do this? Or are they bluffing? Of course they can do that. And I can start queuing data at my router to send all tcp packets w/ 1000 bytes, and set the priority bit. I can also send a constant 1M ping stream to every ISP's web server, and I can finger every machine every 5 minutes to see if Sean is on to ask him a question. I can draw OC3 PVCs between the NAPs and sell web content more cheaply than any other ISP can draw a nationwide network. I can send appletalk packets across my WAN and attempt to send them to my peers, I can build my own IXP and sponser, in addition to IP: IPX; and Appletalk traffic! In fact, I can claim 10/8, and if I have enough interests in the world, and enough people can be bullied into it, I can route that to you, and it can appear in the global tables! The larger issue, is who cares? Who will give a whoot about what I do? And what are the ramifications of them doing it? Concisely, how will people deal with it? Perhaps I missed the intent of your letter. Are you implying that an official body is making a change in policy such that a new hw/sw system is used and their geographic points change from pseudo random placement, to NAP/IXP placement? Or perhaps you were a bit dismayed that some entrepeneurs are trying to make things better outside the antiquated^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H 'system'? -alan Chief Promulgator, Second Class, Anarchic Intelligentsia ps -> this system wanted NAP/IXPs to be a free socialist meeting point for providers (beyond hw/colo costs), as well, but capitalist forces changed the economics when people stopped peering freely.....
On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Alan Hannan wrote:
Michael, et. al.
] If the information in the following message means what I think it means in ] then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at ] exchange points within the USA if not internationally. ] ] Can they do this? Or are they bluffing?
Of course they can do that. And I can start queuing data at my router to send all tcp packets w/ 1000 bytes, and set the priority bit. I can also send a constant 1M ping stream to every ISP's web server, and I can finger every machine every 5 minutes to see if
If you did that they would boot you and your equipment out of the XP's co-lo site so fast you wouldn't know what hit you. That's before the lawyers go to work on you.
Perhaps I missed the intent of your letter. Are you implying that an official body is making a change in policy such that a new hw/sw system is used and their geographic points change from pseudo random placement, to NAP/IXP placement?
I'm saying that an unofficial body appears to be implementing a system of alternative root nameservers at exchange points. This is what they claim. I want to know if this could be true, i.e. would an XP allow that sort of colo server for starters. This has nothing to do with the official root nameservers whatsoever except that this group wants people to use their root servers rather than the official ones. I also want to know if this placement of servers would have any impact on network operations. Since this list is filled with the people who run XP's and who colocate at XP's and who understand what's going on, I asked this question here. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
I'm saying that an unofficial body appears to be implementing a system of alternative root nameservers at exchange points. This is what they claim. I want to know if this could be true, i.e. would an XP allow that sort of colo server for starters. This has nothing to do with the official root nameservers whatsoever except that this group wants people to use their root servers rather than the official ones.
The XPs allow colo servers right now (the RAs). Such name servers could be even run on the RA servers, though I doubt that'd happen :)
I also want to know if this placement of servers would have any impact on network operations. Since this list is filled with the people who run XP's and who colocate at XP's and who understand what's going on, I asked this question here.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Avi
The XPs allow colo servers right now (the RAs). Such name servers could be even run on the RA servers, though I doubt that'd happen :)
Avi
The RS machines are a special case and have had a number of "special" modifications to enhance security. In general, we've tried to keep them directly off the exchange media. --bill
The XPs allow colo servers right now (the RAs). Such name servers could be even run on the RA servers, though I doubt that'd happen :)
Avi
The RS machines are a special case and have had a number of "special" modifications to enhance security. In general, we've tried to keep them directly off the exchange media.
--bill
Well, they can't "sniff" things if they're on switched ports... What other "special" modifications had to be performed? Avi
You are correct in stating that servers are collocated at the exchange points. However, their collocation and their associated application (route database server) are sanctioned by the NSF as part of NSF Solicitation 93-52. It would be a grievous error to assume that any NAP operator would want to take on the responsibilities of securing a DNS root server, ensure its availability and take the associated hits. Steve On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
I'm saying that an unofficial body appears to be implementing a system of alternative root nameservers at exchange points. This is what they claim. I want to know if this could be true, i.e. would an XP allow that sort of colo server for starters. This has nothing to do with the official root nameservers whatsoever except that this group wants people to use their root servers rather than the official ones.
The XPs allow colo servers right now (the RAs). Such name servers could be even run on the RA servers, though I doubt that'd happen :)
I also want to know if this placement of servers would have any impact on network operations. Since this list is filled with the people who run XP's and who colocate at XP's and who understand what's going on, I asked this question here.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Avi
You are correct in stating that servers are collocated at the exchange points. However, their collocation and their associated application (route database server) are sanctioned by the NSF as part of NSF Solicitation 93-52. It would be a grievous error to assume that any NAP operator would want to take on the responsibilities of securing a DNS root server, ensure its availability and take the associated hits.
Steve
Again, speaking hypothetically, I wasn't talking about having the NAP operator take responsibility. But if someone wanted to get co-lo space and pay the ethernet or fddi or atm or ... charge and maintain the machine, what issues would there be? Well, you obviously wouldn't let someone just put a web server on the NAP IP space, since most everyone in the world has a route to that block (usually a /24)... So probably the "community" or the exchange point operator would have to feel comfortable that the machine being put at the exchange point was of a community service. Avi
This "Eugene" fellow wouldn't happen to have a last name that started with a "K" and ended in "f" would it? Please say no. On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:
If the information in the following message means what I think it means in then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at exchange points within the USA if not internationally.
Can they do this? Or are they bluffing?
If you want to comment on issues related to top level domain names but not related to network operations, please, please, please post those comments to newdom@iiia.org only even if it means replying twice to this message. Believe me, you do *NOT* want to crosspost between NEWDOM and NANOG and you do *NOT* want to attract these discussions into NANOG either.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 18:53:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <karl@mcs.com> To: newdom@iiia.org Subject: Re: Issues on the table Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 20:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: newdom@iiia.org
They're the official "top of command" for the root domain...
Hypothetical, to help me understand:
Says who?
IANA runs their roots - what happens if AlterNIC gets enough people to recognize their roots, and serves out their own TLDs? Does the IANA have an enforcement branch?
Please don't flame, I'm not trying to argue, just understand how this all works. Seems to me that 2 entities are trying to be in charge. IANA want to be in charge, and AlterNIC wants to share being in charge. Seems that it can't be both ways, but what if they're both doing it?
Christopher Ambler President, Image Online Design, Inc.
Well, let's see...
What if someone, say Eugene, started showing up at major exchange points and major ISPs with, oh, say, "root nameserver in a box" systems?
As in public root nameservers.
As in distributed, across-the-country, on every major backbone root nameservers.
Which, among other things, outperformed and were more stable than the current roots.
What do you think might happen? :-)
Hint: This is not a hypothetical question.
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1 from $600 monthly; speeds to DS-3 available | 23 Chicagoland Prefixes, 13 ISDN, much more Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1] | Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Home of Chicago's only FULL Clarinet feed!
Ed Morin Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice) Professional Internet Services edm@nwnexus.WA.COM
If the information in the following message means what I think it means in then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at exchange points within the USA if not internationally.
Yes. However, we are expecting exchange point operators to show some kind of common sense, which means asking the IANA before they sign onto such a project.
Can they do this? Or are they bluffing?
The right question is: if they build it, will anybody come? I think "not." Karl and Eugene are in this for the money. They would love to live in a world where registry operators had to pay _them_ for TLD's. Wishing won't make it so.
Michael Dillon writes:
If the information in the following message means what I think it means in then somebody is colocating an entire new set of root nameservers at exchange points within the USA if not internationally.
Can they do this? Or are they bluffing?
Karl can do all sorts of things. However, the point is this: unless he can get vast numbers of administrators to give a damn, it makes no difference. Frankly, I'm sick of Karl's lawsuit bluffs, his belligerence, his total lack of sense, and his constant threats. Let him go off and try whatever it is he's trying. Its easier than trying to talk to the man. Perry
participants (8)
-
Alan Hannan -
Avi Freedman -
bmanning＠isi.edu -
Ed Morin -
Michael Dillon -
Paul A Vixie -
Perry E. Metzger -
Steven Schnell