June 1997 - dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

STOP gTLD-MoU
by Ray Davis 13 Jun '97

13 Jun '97

Since the IAHC/iPOC folks keep pointing to their list of signatories as an argument for how much support they have in the Internet community, we felt it fair to offer a list of signatories against the gTLD-MoU: http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ If you are against the gTLD-MoU and its implementation, please sign up yourself or your organization. You can do this via the above web site or by email to admin(a)stop-gtld-mou.org. Thanks, Ray

1 0

Re: A proposal about hostcount and DNS
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 13 Jun '97

13 Jun '97

What we might want to think about is *if* it is useful to come up with some recommendations (RIPE-Document? BCP?) as to the *access* to that ionformation from the sites in the network which perform the tree walk. E.g. things like refusing zone transfers, address filters, and the like. I don't think it's up to RIPE or any other outsider to make any recommendations for a company's or institute's policy regarding access to its nameservers (other than the normal access needed to make the service work for purpose it's meant for). Good point, Piet! When and if there is a need for such activities, I'd propose to leave that to commercial entities. In that case it is extremely likely that the number of sites that close their nameservers for zone transfers will grow immensely. Probably. But then it might be deemed useful to still allow access to the "RIPE Approved" sites doing the walk, and when there is a published document which describes the AUP for the data obtained? Wilfried.

2 1

Re: A proposal about hostcount and DNS
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 13 Jun '97

13 Jun '97

Hi Magnus at.al.! > First, this is certainly not an intent to get precise numbers, > just geting somewhat closer. > Secondly, I assumed that there would be a separate discussion > on the need for better values. This was just a small proposal > to maybe provide better numbers >That's turning the world upside down: it should be >determined whether there is a need for "better" >figures *before* coming up with a proposal how to >get those "better" figures. Two observations from my point of view: 1) We (to be better defined someday :-) are doing the hostcount in a very simple way which is easy to understand. We're simply pulling (accessible) zones, walking the DNS name tree, picking up the A entries and trying to sort out obvious duplicates. We're doing that once a month, and there is some variation as to exactly when during the month this is done. What we might want to think about is *if* it is useful to come up with some recommendations (RIPE-Document? BCP?) as to the *access* to that ionformation from the sites in the network which perform the tree walk. E.g. things like refusing zone transfers, address filters, and the like. Personally, I don't see a need to do some fancy new stuff, which would simply replace one educated guess with a different one, and at the same time would be open to "bending", like freely configurable meta entries. 2) I don't think that it is reasonable for the RIPE-NCC or the RIPE Community as a whole, to try to perform - or even support - any particular interpretation of data! When and if there is a need for such activities, I'd propose to leave that to commercial entities. Both to provide reasonable incentives to invest resources to come up with "better" data, and to provide some sort of responsibility about the interpretations and/or accumulated data and findings. An example of what I'm thinking about, including a coarse translation to english is appended below for your information :-) Wilfried. ~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:58:13 +0200 From: Andreas Monari <monari(a)aic.at> To: helpdesk(a)aco.net Subject: Hosts Es w|rde mich iteressieren ob es mvglich ist eine Liste oder (evt. grafische) Tabelle von den vsterreichen Internethosts bzw. Benutzern bei Ihnen oder bei einem anderem Provider zu bekommen. M.f.G. Andreas Monari [ I would be interested to find out if it is possible to obtain a table (maybe in a graphical format) of the Austrian Internet hosts and/or Users from your site or from any other provider. ] ~~~~~~~~~~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: A proposal about hostcount and DNS
by Magnus Danielson 13 Jun '97

13 Jun '97

>>>>> "PB" == Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema(a)cwi.nl> writes: Hi Piet! PB> The current hostcount methods builds it's counting on the DNS A PB> records but nowdays is there a lot of machines which is not being PB> registred in DNS while they can make use of the Internet resources. PB> Example of such machines may be machines behind firewalls, private PB> addresses (193.168/16 and 10/8) or dial-in machines. These machines PB> will not be found in the DNS and therefore will not be counted. PB> In the effort of possibly make the hostcount values show more of the PB> reality in some sense it would be good to get some method of collecting PB> such hidden information. PB> I'd suggest to first pose the question what the *need* is PB> of a more accurate hostcount. It's good to have a rough PB> idea about the number of hosts, but I fail to see any use PB> for an *accurate* hostcount (other than perhaps for even PB> more unwanted "commercial interest"). And if we would come PB> up with even the possibility of an accurate hostcount, the PB> next request would be for an accurate user count... First, this is certainly not an intent to get precise numbers, just geting somewhat closer. Secondly, I assumed that there would be a separate discussion on the need for better values. This was just a small proposal to maybe provide better numbers (it may very well fail, infact there is very good chanses for it). So, IF people want better numbers here is a proposal of a method to get those. If no one sees an interest in such numbers then we can just forget the whole thing. Cheers, Magnus

2 1

Re: A proposal about hostcount and DNS
by Magnus Danielson 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

>>>>> "PB" == Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema(a)cwi.nl> writes: PB> In the days before HTTP1.1 and virtual interfaces, it would be PB> easier to count the number of physical nodes on the Internet PB> Not really: long before that machines could have multiple PB> interfaces and thus multiple A records, and based on that PB> counted as more than 1 physical node. PB> As for private machines, running through a proxy, do we count PB> these as Internet hosts, since they are not directly connected PB> to the Internet and merely request proxies to contact internet PB> services and relay information. PB> Something similar goes for hosts on private internets: PB> I wouldn't count those as Internet hosts. PB> When we start talking dialup machines, it becomes more obvious PB> that the count should try and focus on physical nodes. If an PB> ISP has 2,000 customers and 30 modems, only 30 hosts will ever PB> be using the internet at any one time, and only 30 IP addresses PB> are being used to accomodate all 2,000 people. Therefore I would PB> suggest that the ISP has 30 nodes. PB> Again, this depends on the purpose of the hostcount. If PB> you want to count the number of hosts that can be active PB> at any time on the Internet, then this ISP should indeed PB> be counted as 30 nodes/hosts. If however you want to count PB> the number of hosts that comprise all of the Internet, then PB> hosts that *can access* the Internet should be counted; in PB> that case this ISP should be counted as 2000 nodes/hosts. Surely must a discution and definition of various types of numbers be done and one or more of those be coarsly measured. If the usefullness of the statistics can be found by changing measurement method and definitions by which it is done, then could we go further and really measure it that way. PB> But I still don't see the purpose of any attempt to give PB> an "exact" hostcount: what difference does it make if a PB> count would give 15.000.000 or 15.478.329 hosts/nodes? I am not out to find an "exact" host count, that would be a way too overambigous goal. But surely would diffrences like 15.000.0000 compared to say 17.000.000 or so be worth discussing. But then, it may very well be that there is no interest in better numbers and then we can just forget about it. Cheers, Magnus

1 0

Re: A proposal about hostcount and DNS
by Magnus Danielson 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

>>>>> "MN" == Mike Norris <mnorris(a)hea.ie> writes: Hi Mike! MN> Magnus MN> thanks for your thoughts and suggestions. They MN> are worthy of discussion in other lists too, but you're MN> probably right to start with the experts in the DNS MN> WG, of which I am not one. Mirjam did ask me to drop a proposal at DNS WG. Obviously she thougth there where some content in it... When I wrote the mail I did leave some things out and some of that has obviously created questions. I did assume that people would update their hostcount number in time for the hostcount (at the end of each month) and that this hostcount represents some number close to (but not necessarilly at) the reality. I did assume that a definition of the word hostcount (or which ever term would be prefered) would be done in some document so that no alternative interpretations would arise on a wide scope. MN> I don't think that at any time the DNS host count has MN> ever pretended to give even an approximate measure of MN> the number of Internet hosts, let alone the number of MN> Internet users. For example, there are some hostmasters MN> who use DNS as a database for all systems in their MN> jurisdiction, whether such systems have Internet access MN> or not; this has been going on for a long time. More MN> recently, there are many Internetters using machines hidden MN> behind application firewalls and filter lists which do not MN> appear in the host count. Well, I have personally never assumed much correctness from the hostcount myself, rather a good hint on where things is moving. However, as new people enter the stage they may not even take the time to understand the missing pieces and therefore could some closer numbers be of interest. This is not a main point, but could have some influence. MN> Perhaps the main use for the host count has been its MN> recording of growth in individual countries (and gTLDs), MN> in regions and in the world. It's really the change and MN> the rate of change that we get from the host count; the MN> absolute numbers are not that meaningful. Absolute/Exact numbers is not the goal, just numbers which is closer in some sense. Maybe will this hidden factor have a greater influence than we think and therefore would the hostcount be somewhat false numbers. MN> There are many factors causing the increase in the host MN> count. These include more desk-top computers (and less MN> multi-user systems), more ISPs, more connectivity, etc. MN> These factors and others seem so far to have outweighed MN> the advent of firewalls, as the curve continues inexorably MN> upwards. Of course it would be nice to know the number MN> of 'hidden' hosts, and this could only be done on a MN> trusted basis and with full cooperation from people at MN> all levels - not an easy task. No, it is not a easy task, but maybe is there enougth interest in doing this. MN> If this could be done, do you think there should be two MN> separate hostcounts - visible and hidden? If we combine MN> both in a single figure, we lose important information and MN> also change the meaning of historic data - there will be MN> a discontinuity in the curve. I agree that one cannot just change method overnigth and I also agree that just cludge the visible and hidden number together would be to loose interesting information. If it is feasable to do a separate report of hidden and visible hosts then I think it should be done. Cheers, Magnus

1 0

A proposal about hostcount and DNS
by Magnus Danielson 12 Jun '97

12 Jun '97

Hi all! During a private mail discussion with Mirjam Kuehne I got an idea that she requested that I presented it here as a proposal. #ifdef DISCLAIMER This idea may or may not be a good idea and is just presented as an possible solution on how to get more accurate hostcount numbers. If it is found useful you migth have it and if it is totally unintressting please discard it, I just presents it to see if someone migth have use for it. Also, this idea cover the areas of some DNS details as well as some security/privacy issues and I does not claim to be a master in either of those fields, possibly a happy beginner ;) #endif /* DISCLAIMER */ The current hostcount methods builds it's counting on the DNS A records but nowdays is there a lot of machines which is not being registred in DNS while they can make use of the Internet resources. Example of such machines may be machines behind firewalls, private addresses (193.168/16 and 10/8) or dial-in machines. These machines will not be found in the DNS and therefore will not be counted. In the effort of possibly make the hostcount values show more of the reality in some sense it would be good to get some method of collecting such hidden information. A method that would allow for the form of automation that the current hostcount has would be a good thing. One method that came to mind was to allow for some extra DNS entry to hold a domains true hostcount. I also thougth that some ISPs for instance migth object to have thier customer count out public since this migth be of sensitive nature. If (and I really mean if) they would trust some party (like RIPE NCC) with the number for the only purpose of creating a total host count and in that it would be hard to pinpoint a specific ISPs customer count. With this in thougth that one could have a public encryption key and private (to RIPE NCC or whoever does the hostcount for the region) decryption key scheme to hide this information, such a scheme that came to my mind was PGP. To aid that people would supply this information througth their DNS and also describe what a hostcount meant I think that some sort of Best Current Practice could be issued. There are of course a lot of difficulties involved here, and among them is to get ISPs and others to use it. So, my dear colleagues I now let this idea into your hands and I will be around to answer some questions. I hope it can at least give some inspiration to others to figure out something better. Cheers, Magnus

5 5

(no subject)
by N Gnanamurugan 07 Jun '97

07 Jun '97

subscribe dns-wg __________________________________________________ N Gnanamurugan, Engineer, Gulfsat Communications Company, P.O Box 2400, | email:murugan@gulfsat.com Safat, | Ph:+965-328-0770 Kuwait. | Fax:+965-328-1311 _________________________________________________

1 0

gTLD-MoU Web Site
by Robert Shaw 06 Jun '97

06 Jun '97

Hi, The gTLD-MoU web site is now officially available and can be found at: http://www.gtld-mou.org Some important information is now available. 1. Draft application form for becoming a Registrar under the aegis of the gTLD-MoU. Applications cannot yet be made but there is a draft of the near finalized application form with the probably final criteria. 2. Draft of the Council of Registrars (CORE) Memorandum of Understanding. 3. Draft of the Council of Registars (CORE) Articles of Association. Queries/comments concerning these and related documents should be addressed to poc-submit(a)gtld-mou.org Robert

4 4

Re: gTLD-MoU Web Site
by Simon Higgs 02 Jun '97

02 Jun '97

At 10:23 AM +0000 6/2/97, Hank Nussbacher wrote: Some people just have no sense of humour. I now have a mailbox full of proof. If you put broken stuff up, you should expect to get ribbed about it. Especially when you advertise the fact it's broken in ten foot tall letters. Most normal folks would just put a place holder up for a broken form, or just comment out the form so it couldn't be used. It's Human Interface Design 101 (maybe you need to hire Chris Ambler to build you a web site!). [And yes my own hack of a DNS Walker resolves 3 and 4LDs to the right name server.] Lighten up guys. > On Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:38:24 -0700 you said: > >At 10:34 PM -0700 6/1/97, Robert Shaw wrote: > > When you go to dnswalk there is in big bold letters: > NOTE THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS DNS WALK > TEST AND A NEW VERSION WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE > WHEN THE GTLD REGISTRAR APPLICATION PROCESS > STARTS. > > What is your point to do the test on a broken dnswalk and to post those > results to hundreds of people - when it clearly states it has "problems". > > -Hank > > > > >I thought the best part of the site was DNS Walk: > >http://www.gtld-mou.org/dnswalk.html > > > >dnswalk -F for www.iahc.org. > > > >warning: www.iahc.org. has NO authoritative nameservers! > >Cannot check www.iahc.org.: no available nameservers! > > > >dnswalk -F for www.gtld-mou.org. > > > >warning: www.gtld-mou.org. has NO authoritative nameservers! > >Cannot check www.gtld-mou.org.: no available nameservers! > > > >dnswalk -F for www.itu.int. > > > >warning: www.itu.int. has NO authoritative nameservers! > >Cannot check www.itu.int.: no available nameservers! > > > >I hope the new TLDs resolve better than the existing ones do... > > > >;-) > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> The gTLD-MoU web site is now officially available and > >> can be found at: > >> > >> http://www.gtld-mou.org > >> > >> Some important information is now available. > >> > >> 1. Draft application form for becoming a Registrar under > >> the aegis of the gTLD-MoU. Applications cannot yet be > >> made but there is a draft of the near finalized application > >> form with the probably final criteria. > >> > >> 2. Draft of the Council of Registrars (CORE) Memorandum > >> of Understanding. > >> > >> 3. Draft of the Council of Registars (CORE) Articles of > >> Association. > >> > >> Queries/comments concerning these and related documents > >> should be addressed to poc-submit(a)gtld-mou.org > >> > >> Robert > > > > > >

1 0