October 2004 - dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [dns-wg] Elimination of 2nd level ccTLD domain names
by Jim Reid 25 Oct '04

25 Oct '04

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad(a)stop.mail-abuse.org> writes: Brad> I have been talking about nothing *but* ccTLDs in Brad> Europe, and how this flat namespace model will not continue Brad> to scale. Brad, you're being silly. The only real constraint on scaling will be the availablity of names to register. That is inherently self-correcting by the market place. People will register names in a given TLD for as long as they perceive those registrations to have some meaning and value. Whether that limit is reached after 1 name or 1 billion names is irrelevant. Sure, as the registrations increase, the operational problems and data management issues for the registry will increase. But so too will the amount of money and other resources needed to solve those problems. >> Plus the fact that a generic, worldwide and *flat* TLD like >> .com still hasn't grown such as to become unmanageable? Brad> It has grown to the point where it is not manageable. Brad> It was unmanageable a long time ago, and things have been Brad> going further down the toilet ever since. This will come as a big surprise to the tens of thousands of people who register or renew .com domain names every day. And to the folk at Verisign's registry. FYI, the gtld-servers.net run ATLAS, Verisign's own DNS implementation. It has a database back-end and does multi-site replication. Rapid propagation of changes is easy. Verisign no longer generate a 1-2 Gb zone file and load it into BIND servers twice a day. If they did, your point about the manageability of .com might have some credence. Brad> And you're going to have a problem that will be an Brad> order of magnitude larger than .com. So what? To get to that problem, the zone would have to have an order of magnitude more registrations than .com has today. Assuming .eu was ever be that popular, which is at best a highly debatable assumption. Let's do some back of the envelope calculations. A zone that was an order of magnitude as big as .com would have around 200M entries. At 5 Euro/registration/year -- comparable to the wholesale prices most TLD registries charge today -- this would yield an annual income of 1B Euro. With that amount of money at the .eu registry's disposal, any hardware or software limitations in their DNS (related) operations could be solved from petty cash. I can't be alone in wanting to have as little as 1% of that sort of budget to solve DNS problems. :-)

1 0

Re: [dns-wg] Elimination of 2nd level ccTLD domain names
by Jim Reid 25 Oct '04

25 Oct '04

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad(a)stop.mail-abuse.org> writes: Brad> Oh, wait -- they bought the business from Nominum, who Brad> was using ANS for their customers, and UltraDNS almost Brad> certainly still using ANS today.... Sorry Brad you are quite wrong. UltraDNS have never used Nominum's ANS. However there was a brief transition period after the GNS hosting business was sold when GNS customers still used its ANS-based service until they got migrated to the UltraDNS platform. Even then, I'm fairly sure that Nominum remained in control of the GNS infrastructure throughout that migration exercise. My understanding was that UltraDNS was primarily interested in the GNS customer base. Besides, since they already had their own DNS implementation they had no real need for Nominum's ANS. UltraDNS didn't need the GNS infrastructure either, since they already had their own. To the best of my knowledge UltraDNS has always run its hosting service on its own DNS implementation.

2 1

Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
by Piet Beertema 24 Oct '04

24 Oct '04

No comment... Piet ----- Forwarded Message ----- This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: jim(a)rfc1035.com SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:<Piet.Beertema(a)cwi.nl>: host gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.67]: 550 5.0.0 Mail from spammers is refused - get lost. ----- End of Forwarded Message -----

1 0

HEAnet comments on Future of RIPE Hostcount Document
by Brian Nisbet 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

Hi, These are some comments that HEAnet would like to submit on the "Future of the RIPE Hostcount" Document presented at RIPE 49. - perhaps the paper should refer to the current distributed nature of the host count; this is something which might or might not be possible with the alternatives suggested - the current host count also gathers the numbers of SOAs, also a measure of the size and growth of the Internet - and the host count also generates an error file per TLD; this could be useful in maintaining the integrity of the DNS - in #2.1, I think attribution should be made to the author of the host program, the late Erik Wassenaar. - in #2.2, it should be said that the RIPE host count is used as a metric of Internet size, and an index of its growth. Certainly, we use it in HEAnet. - it might be argued that the host count also could provide some KPIs (key performance indicators) for RIPE NCC, its members, and other bodies - in #2.3, it mentions used addresses not entered in the DNS. The converse also occurs i.e. A records for hosts which are not reachable. We know that some people use the DNS as a database and that it often includes firewalled machines and even rfc-1918 addresses - in #3, another possibility to estimate the size of the Internet is to measure the number of domains. This might be done by the CC TLDs in Europe, for example Regards, Brian. -- Brian Nisbet, HEAnet, Brooklawn Hse, Crampton Ave, Shelbourne rd, Dublin 4. Tel:+35316609040/Fax:+35316603666 email:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie

2 1

Re: ORSN-SERVERS.NET
by Marco Huggenberger 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

Hi Folks! Markus Grundman, founder of the ORSN project has asked me to post the following: "Dear list members! ORSN is not transparently enough? Sorry! But I must laughing about this posting. We do provide all needed information for interested users. You must read our homepage carefully before you can write about our project. The independent mode of ORSN was implemented to disable the automatic synchronization of the database. Regards, Markus Grundmann ORSN, Open Root Server Network Germany" A detailed view about network/server transparency is and was always available at: http://european.ch.orsn.net/servers.php If you have any questions about ORSN, please feel free to contact us directly on our mailinglist: http://european.ch.orsn.net/lists.php Cheers Marco Huggenberger Init Seven AG, Switzerland AS13030 Operator of the ORSN Root Server H

1 0

Re: ORSN-SERVERS.NET
by Marco Huggenberger 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

Hi Folks! Markus Grundman, founder of the ORSN project has asked me to post the following: "Dear list members! ORSN is not transparently enough? Sorry! But I must laughing about this posting. We do provide all needed information for interested users. You must read our homepage carefully before you can write about our project. The independent mode of ORSN was implemented to disable the automatic synchronization of the database. Regards, Markus Grundmann ORSN, Open Root Server Network Germany" A detailed view about network/server transparency is and was always available at: http://european.ch.orsn.net/servers.php If you have any questions about ORSN, please feel free to contact us directly on our mailinglist: http://european.ch.orsn.net/lists.php Cheers Marco Huggenberger Init Seven AG, Switzerland AS13030 Operator of the ORSN Root Server H

1 0

Re: [dns-wg] Re: ORSN-SERVERS.NET
by Jim Reid 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

>>>>> "Steffen" == Steffen Reithermann <dns-wg(a)Reithermann.de> writes: Steffen> Don't get me wrong ... I don't say ICANN's decisions are Steffen> transparent all or even most of the time. Some Steffen> independence of Europe regarding DNS and other critical Steffen> Internet infrastructure is a creditable goal, but I think Steffen> it needs a stronger basis and a broader support in the Steffen> ISP community than ORSN seems to have currently. Personal opinion: People who are unhappy with ICANN -- and who isn't? -- should be working to reform it from within. ICANN's processes are open and everyone is free to participate. [Sort of.] Supporting or encouraging efforts like alternate DNS roots undermines ICANN. That could lead to the replacement of ICANN with something even less palatable to Internet people: internet governance by international civil servants through some part of the United Nations.

1 0

ORSN-SERVERS.NET
by Yiorgos Adamopoulos 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

[ Sorry if this has been discussed before ] Recenlty I came across ORSN <http://www.orsn.net/>. Soonafter I discovered that one of our peers is using their rootzone (and we are forwarding queries to them). So, the question is: What do you think of this effort? o any members of the group use the ORSN-SERVERS.NET root instead of the traditional one? If so why? If not why? TIA, -Yiorgos.

10 17

Re: [dns-wg] ORSN-SERVERS.NET
by Jim Reid 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

>>>>> "Jeroen" == Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> writes: Jeroen> RFC's are still Request For Comments, not Standards, Some RFCs *are* standards and get labelled as such. Sadly 2826 isn't one of them. :-( Jeroen> nevertheless anyone can choose to use any infrastructure, Jeroen> rootserver, firewalling policies, routing policies and a Jeroen> whole lot of other politics that that person/organisation Jeroen> whishes to follow. For that matter if someone would setup Jeroen> his/her/it's own RIR and started giving out IPv4 or IPv6 Jeroen> addresses, who is going to stop you? That it won't Jeroen> interoperate with what most of the people on this globe Jeroen> call 'the internet' is another question, but isn't that Jeroen> their problem? Not really. Granted, they have the lion's share of the problems. But those problems won't stop at the boundary of their net. For example, a bogus TLD will leak out to people on the real internet, links on web pages can't be resolved (or point elsewhere), users get confused, mail gets bounced or treated as spam, etc, etc. Once that happens, bogus root servers and suchlike become a serious problem for the helpdesks and support people at ISPs on the real internet. If only there was a Protocol Police to deal with these impostors.

2 1

Re: [dns-wg] blackhole-*.iana.org gone ?
by James Aldridge 06 Oct '04

06 Oct '04

Dave Knight wrote: > At 19:36 01/10/2004 +0200, Dave Knight wrote: > >Hi, > > > >The RIPE NCC AS112 server, as112.ripe.net [195.69.144.39] is up and > >running again and is advertising the 192.175.48.0/24 network. > > As we are continuing to have issues with this machine and have decided > to take it offline until they are definitively fixed. We plan to replace > the hardware and bring it back online next week. Since around 13:00 UTC yesterday afternoon, as112.ripe.net has been running on new hardware (with a software upgrade at the same time for good measure). Regards, James

1 0