June 2005 - dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
by Marcel Schneider 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

On Friday, 10 Jun 2005, Doug Barton writes: Dear Doug Thanks for responding to Jim's questions. Reading your mail I still have difficulties understanding two issues: a) You state in [1] that after editing the root zone, VerSign experienced an "unexpected result". What exactly was the result what caused it ? Whould also appreciate if you could elaborate on how VerSign was able to fix this "unexpected result". b) When this "unexpected result" was regarded by IANA staff as temporary and as having minimal operational impact, why was AFNIC then sent this response to their application: "IANA is no longer adding additional examples of host names in delegation records where multiple host names point to the same IP address". The "no longer" suggests a policy change. Why did IANA not just say: "Folks we have a problem here, wait a moment until we've fixed it" ? Marcel > Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss these issues. I hope that the > group finds these answers satisfactory. We are of course happy to discuss > this in further detail if desired. > [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented > multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved? > In November of 2004 AFNIC asked to have several hostnames added to the root > zone that resolved to the same IPv4 addresses as hostnames that already > existed. When VeriSign edited the root zone to include these new names, an > unexpected result occurred. In some of the TLDs that had the pre-existing > hostnames for these servers, the new hostnames appeared in the delegations > inappropriately. This problem was identified within several hours of the > zone going live by VeriSign staff, as well as at least one member of the > ccTLD community. The VeriSign and IANA staffs communicated immediately about > this issue, and the specific problem related to this request was fixed > manually by VeriSign in the next zone revision after it was identified. > Because in any pair of hostnames affected by this result the IPv4 address > was the same, the operational impact of this problem was minimal, if it was > identifiable at all. > [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed? > The specific problem applied only to new instances of duplicate names, it > did not affect existing duplicate names for which no change was in process. > The total number of these duplicate hostnames is very small relative to the > rest of the zone (less than 3%), and requests to modify domains which have > these hostnames in their delegations are rare. There were no instances of > such a request from November of 2004 through March of 2005, when AFNIC > submitted the request for the RE ccTLD. > Because the issue affected only a small number of TLDs and name server > operators, IANA staff chose to address the issue with those individuals > directly. Often TLD managers appreciate such specific cases being dealt with > on a personal level. > [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem recurring? > Yes. VeriSign has informed us that the general problem which produced the > original unexpected result has now been corrected. Additionally, IANA staff > have enhanced efforts to monitor the "live" root zone from several different > servers, and use that data to proactively monitor the results of change > requests. > [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that changes > to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process are properly > communicated to its stakeholders? > The procedure that IANA uses to communicate changes in the TLD delegation > process follows the typical ICANN formula of involving key stakeholders at > early stages, opening proposals up for public comment, incorporating > appropriate comments into the final version, and posting the procedure for > its stakeholders. A relevant example of this process is the "Delegation Data > Procedure," which is posted at > http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html. > Specific problems in the root management process are evaluated on a case by > case basis. When necessary, there is a mailing list composed of the contact > addresses for each of the TLD managers that can be utilized for any issue of > wide interest to the TLD manager community. As noted above, cases which > affect one, or a few TLDs are often dealt with on a one-to-one basis, with > the appreciation of the relevant TLD manager(s). > [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not? > The procedure for communicating changes to the TLD delegation process was > not followed in this specific case because there was no formal change of > process. > The specific problem which produced the delay in processing AFNIC's request > for RE was always understood to be temporary. As discussed above, rather > than widely disseminate the information about this issue to the TLD manager > community, IANA staff chose to communicate directly with those affected by > the issue. > ICANN's goal, as always, is to cooperate with the TLD managers in > implementing the changes they feel are appropriate for their TLDs, while > also maintaining the stability of the DNS. We regret if our cautious > handling of this particular request, or the timing of our responses to the > group's reasonable questions, has caused any undue confusion in the DNS > community about ICANN's dedication to that goal. We welcome comment and > discussion on these topics. > I am enclosing below some information about the current (at this writing, > 2005061000) root zone that may be relevant to this discussion. The first > part is the complete list of IPv4 addresses that have multiple hostnames > associated. There are no IPv6 addresses with multiple hostnames. The second > part is a compilation of statistics about the current zone. > Regards, > Doug > 128.112.129.15: dns.princeton.edu c.ext.nic.fr > 192.134.0.49: c.nic.fr ns3.nic.fr > 192.36.144.116: slave.sth.netnod.se slave1.sth.netnod.se > 192.93.0.1: a.nic.fr ns1.nic.fr > 192.93.0.4: b.nic.fr ns2.nic.fr > 193.176.144.6: e.ext.nic.fr ns3.domain-registry.nl > 193.51.208.13: dns.inria.fr a.ext.nic.fr > 204.152.184.64: ns-ext.vix.com ns-ext.isc.org > 204.74.112.1: tld1.basicfusion.net tld1.ultradns.net ud1.ns.net.ua > 204.74.113.1: tld2.basicfusion.net tld2.ultradns.net > Statistics > ========== > Number of gTLDs: 15 > Number of ccTLDs: 245 > Total number of TLDs: 260 > Number of IPv4 hosts: 798 > Number of IPv4 addresses: 798 > Number of IPv6 hosts: 40 > Number of IPv6 addresses: 41 > TLDs with IPv6 glue: 50 > Total TLD name server hosts: 797 > -- > Doug Barton > General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

5 5

Re: [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
by Doug Barton 15 Jun '05

15 Jun '05

Jim, Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss these issues. I hope that the group finds these answers satisfactory. We are of course happy to discuss this in further detail if desired. [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved? In November of 2004 AFNIC asked to have several hostnames added to the root zone that resolved to the same IPv4 addresses as hostnames that already existed. When VeriSign edited the root zone to include these new names, an unexpected result occurred. In some of the TLDs that had the pre-existing hostnames for these servers, the new hostnames appeared in the delegations inappropriately. This problem was identified within several hours of the zone going live by VeriSign staff, as well as at least one member of the ccTLD community. The VeriSign and IANA staffs communicated immediately about this issue, and the specific problem related to this request was fixed manually by VeriSign in the next zone revision after it was identified. Because in any pair of hostnames affected by this result the IPv4 address was the same, the operational impact of this problem was minimal, if it was identifiable at all. [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed? The specific problem applied only to new instances of duplicate names, it did not affect existing duplicate names for which no change was in process. The total number of these duplicate hostnames is very small relative to the rest of the zone (less than 3%), and requests to modify domains which have these hostnames in their delegations are rare. There were no instances of such a request from November of 2004 through March of 2005, when AFNIC submitted the request for the RE ccTLD. Because the issue affected only a small number of TLDs and name server operators, IANA staff chose to address the issue with those individuals directly. Often TLD managers appreciate such specific cases being dealt with on a personal level. [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem recurring? Yes. VeriSign has informed us that the general problem which produced the original unexpected result has now been corrected. Additionally, IANA staff have enhanced efforts to monitor the "live" root zone from several different servers, and use that data to proactively monitor the results of change requests. [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process are properly communicated to its stakeholders? The procedure that IANA uses to communicate changes in the TLD delegation process follows the typical ICANN formula of involving key stakeholders at early stages, opening proposals up for public comment, incorporating appropriate comments into the final version, and posting the procedure for its stakeholders. A relevant example of this process is the "Delegation Data Procedure," which is posted at http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html. Specific problems in the root management process are evaluated on a case by case basis. When necessary, there is a mailing list composed of the contact addresses for each of the TLD managers that can be utilized for any issue of wide interest to the TLD manager community. As noted above, cases which affect one, or a few TLDs are often dealt with on a one-to-one basis, with the appreciation of the relevant TLD manager(s). [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not? The procedure for communicating changes to the TLD delegation process was not followed in this specific case because there was no formal change of process. The specific problem which produced the delay in processing AFNIC's request for RE was always understood to be temporary. As discussed above, rather than widely disseminate the information about this issue to the TLD manager community, IANA staff chose to communicate directly with those affected by the issue. ICANN's goal, as always, is to cooperate with the TLD managers in implementing the changes they feel are appropriate for their TLDs, while also maintaining the stability of the DNS. We regret if our cautious handling of this particular request, or the timing of our responses to the group's reasonable questions, has caused any undue confusion in the DNS community about ICANN's dedication to that goal. We welcome comment and discussion on these topics. I am enclosing below some information about the current (at this writing, 2005061000) root zone that may be relevant to this discussion. The first part is the complete list of IPv4 addresses that have multiple hostnames associated. There are no IPv6 addresses with multiple hostnames. The second part is a compilation of statistics about the current zone. Regards, Doug 128.112.129.15: dns.princeton.edu c.ext.nic.fr 192.134.0.49: c.nic.fr ns3.nic.fr 192.36.144.116: slave.sth.netnod.se slave1.sth.netnod.se 192.93.0.1: a.nic.fr ns1.nic.fr 192.93.0.4: b.nic.fr ns2.nic.fr 193.176.144.6: e.ext.nic.fr ns3.domain-registry.nl 193.51.208.13: dns.inria.fr a.ext.nic.fr 204.152.184.64: ns-ext.vix.com ns-ext.isc.org 204.74.112.1: tld1.basicfusion.net tld1.ultradns.net ud1.ns.net.ua 204.74.113.1: tld2.basicfusion.net tld2.ultradns.net Statistics ========== Number of gTLDs: 15 Number of ccTLDs: 245 Total number of TLDs: 260 Number of IPv4 hosts: 798 Number of IPv4 addresses: 798 Number of IPv6 hosts: 40 Number of IPv6 addresses: 41 TLDs with IPv6 glue: 50 Total TLD name server hosts: 797 -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

4 3

[Fwd: [centr-fm] Re: IANA TLD delegation issue]
by Kim Davies 13 Jun '05

13 Jun '05

Dear all, Olivier Guillard of AFNIC has described in the attached document the details of their attempts to redelegate their domains. It is a useful summary of the issue as they experienced it. kim -- Kim Davies, Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries Avenue Louise 327, B-1050 Brussels; Tel. +32 2 627 5550

10 31

Re: [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
by Jim Reid 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Barton <doug.barton(a)icann.org> writes: Doug> Jim, We're happy to provide answers to these Doug> questions. Given that Monday is a holiday in the US, may I Doug> suggest that we will provide answers to the questions listed Doug> on Tuesday 31 May unless you or the WG indicate that more Doug> time is needed for you to formulate the list? Hi Doug. You'll have seen that there's been no detailed discussion in the last week or so on the mailing list about this issue. Most of the comments have seemed to echo the questions that were in my earlier mail. Assuming that you're back from paternity leave, I think it would now be helpful for these questions to be answered. This would allow us to finally resolve this issue and hopefully prevent it flaring up again in some other forum. Here are those questions once again: [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved? [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed? [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem recurring? [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process are properly communicated to its stakeholders? [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not?

2 1