- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Charging by local IRs
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 29 Apr '96

29 Apr '96

= > Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema(a)cwi.nl> writes: = > = > Hyperlinking documents in a national language into some = > international document is pretty useless. = =I do not agree. Someone local searching for the document =may find it through the international document. =Why don't you let the user decide? While I do not want to comment on the usefulness of this approach - I'm certainly worried with the logistics. How would you keep the links "healthy" in the long run and the referred-to documents up-to-date? . Either store the documents where they are maintained --> broken links, eventually. . Or store the documents alongside with the parent doc at the RIPE-NCC --> non-trivial to make the access "secure" and at the same time resonably comfortable to ensure regular updates. = > The best = > compromise would be a short description in English of = > the procedures and policies, provided that is made very = > clear that said description does *not* formally take the = > role of the original documents. = =That would be excellent service o course. Nice to have, I agree. Otoh, I don't really understand the rationale to register a name in country when there is nobody available to cope with a local-language document... (Yes we keep getting such requests more frequently these days :-) =Daniel Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Charging by local IRs
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Apr '96

29 Apr '96

On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:12:45 +0100 you said: > Charging by Local Internet Registries > > ripe-xxx ... >5. Recommendations >To meet with the objectives outlined in this paper, it is recommended that >all registries: > > - publish their operating procedures; > > - publish details of the services they offer and the conditions and > terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable; Why not have these procedures and national policies hyperlinked into this document, or have RIPE act as a repository for such docs such that countries exploring this area can compare "notes" with what other countries do? Hank

3 2

Windows NT and UDP checksums (fwd)
by David.Kessens＠ripe.net 29 Apr '96

29 Apr '96

> Peter Lothberg writes : > From roll(a)Stupi.SE Sun Apr 28 15:37:15 1996 > Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 15:35:17 MET DST > From: Peter Lothberg <roll(a)Stupi.SE> > Subject: Windows NT and UDP checksums > To: staff(a)ripe.net > Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.0.830698534.roll(a)Junk.Stupi.SE> > > > It was discussed at the ripe meeting, if NT could support UDP checksums or not, > it turns out that it can... > > --Peter > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > REG: TCP/IP Transport Entries, PART 1 > Article ID: Q102973 > Revision Date: 05-APR-1996 > > The information in this article applies to: > > - Windows NT operating system version 3.1 > - Windows NT Advanced Server version 3.1 > > > The article contains REGISTRY entries for the TCP/IP Transport Entries, Part > 1. These subgroups are included: > > - TCP/IP Parameters Subkey Entries > - Adapter Card Parameters for TCP/IP > > > This is the first of two articles on these entries; for the other entries, > see "TCP/IP Transport Entries, Part 2." > > TCP/IP TRANSPORT ENTRIES > > The various TCP/IP keys do not appear in the Registry unless TCP/IP is > installed using the Network icon in Control Panel. > > With Registry Editor, you can modify the following parameters for the TCP/IP > transport. This section does not include all the TCP/IP > parameters that can be set using the Networks application in Control Panel. > > The startup parameters defined in this section are found in these subkeys of > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services: > > TCPIP\Parameters > adapter_name#\Parameters\TCPIP, (where adapter_name# indicates a > Services subkey for a network adapter > card) > Ftpsvc\Parameters > NBT\Parameters > Streams\Parameters > > > Parameters for network bindings for this service are described in the > article "NetRules Subkey Entries." See also > IsDomainMasterBrowser in the article "Browser Service Entries." > > TCP/IP PARAMETERS SUBKEY ENTRIES > > The entries for TCP/IP parameters appear under the following Registry path: > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters > > > ArpCacheLife REG_DWORD Number of Seconds > > Default: 600 (10 minutes) > > > Determines the default lifetime for entries in the ARP cache table. Once an > entry is placed in the ARP cache, it is allowed to remain > there until its lifetime expires or until its table entry is reused because > it is the oldest entry. > > ArpCacheSize REG_DWORD Number Default: 62 > > Determines the maximum number of entries that the ARP cache table can hold. > The ARP cache is allowed to grow dynamically until > this size is reached. After the table reaches this size, new entries can > only be added by replacing the oldest entries that exist. > > DatabasePath REG_EXPAND_SZ Pathname Default: > %SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\etc > > Determines where TCP/IP and NBT look for the hosts, services, networks, > protocols, NETRC, and LMHOSTS files. > > IpEnableRouter REG_DWORD 0 or 1 Default: 0 (false) > > Determines whether IP routing is enabled between local interfaces. IP > routing is always enabled for packets generated by the local > host. This parameter determines whether, for packets received on an > interface and not destined for this host, IP will attempt to actively > forward the packets to hosts that can be reached via its other interfaces. > > IpReassemblyTimeout REG_DWORD Number of seconds Default: 60 seconds > > Determines how long IP accepts fragments when attempting to reassemble a > previously fragmented packet. That is, if a packet is > fragmented, all of the fragments must make it to the destination within this > time limit; otherwise, the fragments will be discarded and > the packet will be lost. > > TcpDisableReceiveChecksum REG_DWORD 0 or 1 Default: 0 (false, that is, > checksums will be checked on receives) > > Specifies whether Checksums is disabled on receive. > > > TcpDisableSendChecksum REG_DWORD 0 or 1 > > Default: 0 (false, that is, checksums will be generated on sends) > > Specifies whether Checksums is disabled on send. > > > TcpKeepCnt REG_DWORD Number in Minutes > > Default: 120 > > > Specifies how often TCP/IP will generate keep-alive traffic. When TCP/IP > determines that no activity has occurred on the connection > within the specified time, it generates keep-alive traffic to probe the > connection. After trying TcpKeepTries number of times to deliver > the keep-alive traffic without success, it marks the connection as down. > > TcpKeepTries REG_DWORD Number Default: 20 > > Specifies the maximum number of times that TCP/IP will attempt to deliver > keep-alive traffic before marking a connection as down. > > TcpLogLevel REG_DWORD Number Default: 16 (log everything) > > Specifies how verbose TCP/IP should be about logging events in the event > log. The highest level of verbosity is 16, and 1 is the > lowest level. The following shows general information about these levels. > > Level Events to be included > --------------------------------------------- > 1 Only the most critical errors > 4 Serious protocol violations > 8 Nonserious protocol violations > 12 Information about unusual events > 16 Information about unusual events that > some networks normally allow > > > TcpMaxConnectAttempts REG_DWORD Number > > Default: 3 > > > Specifies the maximum number of times TCP/IP attempts to establish a > connection before reporting failure. The initial delay between > connection attempts is 3 seconds. This delay is doubled after each attempt. > > TcpMaxRetransmissionAttempts REG_DWORD Number Default: 7 > > Specifies the maximum number of times that TCP/IP attempts to retransmit a > piece of data on an established connection before ending > the connection. The initial delay before retransmitting is based on the > current estimate TCP/IP makes of the round-trip time on the > connection. This delay is doubled after each retransmission. Acknowledgment > of the data results in a recalculation of the estimate for > the round-trip time. > > TcpNumConnections REG_DWORD Number Default: 64 > > Specifies the maximum number of TCP endpoints. > > > TcpRecvSegmentSize REG_DWORD Bytes > > Default: 1460 > > > Specifies the maximum receive segment size. > > > TcpSendDownMax REG_DWORD Number > > Default: 16384 > > > Specifies the maximum number of bytes queued by TCP/IP. > > > TcpSendSegmentSize REG_DWORD Bytes > > Default: 1460 > > > Specifies the maximum send segment size. > > > TcpWindowSize REG_DWORD Number > > Default: 8192 > > > Sets the size of the TCP send and receive windows, which is the amount of > data that can be accepted in a single transaction. This > parameter is important in transferring files between a client and a server > and is critical for performance for one-way traffic, such as for > FTP. > > UdpDisableReceiveChecksum REG_DWORD 0 or 1 Default: 0 (false--that is, > checksums will be checked on receives) > > Specifies whether Checksums is disabled on receive. > > > UdpDisableSendChecksum REG_DWORD 0 or 1 > > Default: 0 (false--that is, checksums will be generated on sends) > > Specifies whether Checksums is disabled on send. > > > UdpNumConnections REG_DWORD Number > > Default: 64 > > > Specifies the maximum number of UDP endpoints. > > > ADAPTER CARD PARAMETERS FOR TCP/IP > > These parameters for TCP/IP are specific to individual network adapter > cards. These appear under the following Registry path, where > adapter name# refers to the Services subkey for the specific adapter card: > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services > \adapter name#\Parameters\Tcpip > > > BroadcastType REG_DWORD 0 or 1 > > Default: 1 (all 1 s) > > > Determines whether broadcast packets contain all 0 s or all 1 s as the > broadcast address. The most common broadcast type is all 1 s. > The all-0 s setting is provided for compatibility with BSD 4.2 systems. > > ForwardBroadcasts REG_DWORD 0 or 1 Default: 0 (false) > > Specifies whether broadcasts should be forwarded between adapters. If > enabled, broadcasts seen by this interface are forwarded to > other IP interfaces. > > KeepAlive REG_DWORD 0 or 1 Default: 1 (true) > > Determines whether TCP connections that request keep-alive packets result in > keep-alive packets being sent. This feature is used to > determine when inactive connections can be disconnected. When a connection > becomes inactive, keep-alive packets are periodically > exchanged. When 20 (the default value for TCPKeepTries) consecutive > keep-alive packets go unanswered, the connection is broken. > This disconnect is initiated by the endpoint that is sending keep-alive > packets. > > MTU REG_DWORD Number in octets Default: 0 (That is, use the value supplied > by the adapter.) > > Specifies the maximum transmission unit size of an interface. Each interface > used by TCP/IP may have a different MTU value specified. > The MTU is usually determined through negotiation with the lower driver, > using that lower driver s value. However, that value may be > overridden. > > Ideally, the MTU should be large enough to hold any datagram in one frame. > The limiting factor is usually the technology making the > transfer. Some technologies limit the maximum size to as little as 128; > Ethernet limits transfers to 1500; and proNet-10 allows as many as > 2044 octets per frame. > > Datagrams larger than the MTU value are automatically divided into smaller > pieces called fragments; size is a multiple of eight octets. > Fragmentation usually occurs somewhere through which the traffic must pass > whose MTU is smaller than the encapsulated datagram. > If fragmentation occurs, the fragments travel separately to the destination > computer, where they are automatically reassembled before > the datagram is processed. > > RouterMTU REG_DWORD Number in octets Default: 0 (That is, use the value > supplied by the lower interface.) > > Specifies the maximum transmission unit size that should be used when the > destination IP address is on a different subnet. Each > interface used by TCP/IP may have a different RouterMTU value specified. In > many implementations, the value of RouterMTU is set > to 576 octets. This is the minimum size that must be supported by any IP > node. Because modern routers can usually handle MTUs > larger than 576 octets, the default value for this parameter is the same > value as that used by MTU. > > Trailers REG_DWORD 0 or 1 Default: 0 (false) > > Specifies whether the trailer format is used. This feature provides > compatibility with BSD 4.2 systems. When this feature is enabled, > TCP/IP header information follows the data area of IP packets. > > Reference: "The Windows NT Resource Kit for Operating System Version 3.1" > > Additional reference words: prodnt 3.10 > > > > KBCategory: kbother > KBSubcategory: ntregistry > > THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE MICROSOFT KNOWLEDGE BASE IS > PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. MICROSOFT DISCLAIMS > ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES > OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO > EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT CORPORATION OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR > ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, > CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF > MICROSOFT CORPORATION OR ITS SUPPLIERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION > OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES > SO THE FOREGOING LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY. > > Copyright Microsoft Corporation 1996. > > > > >

1 0

Charging by local IRs
by mnorris＠dalkey.hea.ie 26 Apr '96

26 Apr '96

Please see the following paper on "Charging by Local Internet Registries". This was enhanced by the Local IR working group and adopted by RIPE earlier this week as a brief statement of current practice in Europe, together with some guidelines for registries. I'm sending this to the Local IR and the DNS lists, and will also copy the European TLD administrators, so apologies for multiple instances of the same mail. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome. Regards. Mike Norris Charging by Local Internet Registries ripe-xxx 1. Abstract This paper deals with charging for services by Internet registries, and indicates acceptable practice for such charging. It identifies name- and address-space as finite resources with no intrinsic value; as such, direct costs cannot be ascribed to such space. It also makes recommendations for the operation of European registries in general, and additionally for those with monopoly positions. 2. Internet services In Europe as elsewhere, providers offer a range of services relating to Internet access. These include Internet connectivity, the provision of applications to end-users, design, consultancy and training services, as well as system services such as IP registration, DNS, routing and packet forwarding. With some identifiable exceptions (to which we shall return), there is generally an open market in the provision of such services. On the supply side, there is freedom to enter the market, to compete for business, and to charge for services in order to stay in business. In this context, it is acceptable practice for Internet service providers (ISPs) to charge for services such as domain registration, routing services, packet forwarding and IP services. On the demand side, the general plurality of service providers means that the customer has a choice; if not satisfied with the terms of one supplier, she can take her business to another. 3. Registries and Resources Two of the above services involve the assignment of finite resources to customers; these are domain name space and IPv4 address space. They are managed and assigned by registration agencies, respectively domain name registries and IP registries. By themselves, these resources have no intrinsic value; their worth is only realised in conjunction with the provision of Internet access. Thus, while registries may charge for their administrative and technical services, they may not charge for namespace or address space as such; no unit cost or price tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or private. This principle must be made clear to the market in general and to the customer in particular. The customer must be aware of precisely what she is getting from the registry, whether it is paid for or not. Where there is a charge, the customer must not be under the illusion that this translates into a unit cost per resource assigned, nor that the transaction is an indefinite transfer of ownership of the merchandise. Finally, the customer must accept the terms under which name or address space is assigned. In the case of IP address space, these include the contractual term that the assignment is only valid for so long as the criteria of the assignment are valid [ref 1]. As soon as the original criteria no longer apply, the address space must be returned without penalty or premium to the assigning registry. 4. Special Case Registries As indicated above, there are certain exceptions to the market principle in the Internet registration services. These occur where, by virtue of their location in the hierarchy of Internet registration, certain registries find themselves in a monopoly position. In the case of namespace, this applies to top-level domain (TLD) registries (in Europe, these are all country registries), as well as certain administratively unique second-level domain registries (such as .co.uk, .ac.at etc). When it comes to IP address allocation, regional registries constitute monopolies within the communities they serve. In Europe, one instance is the RIPE NCC, registry for the European region [ref 2]. Other possible examples are the last resort (non-provider) IP registries, although nowadays the customer has an alternative to their services. It is important that there be transparency in the procedures and accounts of such "special case" registries. They must not generate excessive profits by virtue of their monopoly position. 5. Recommendations To meet with the objectives outlined in this paper, it is recommended that all registries: - publish their operating procedures; - publish details of the services they offer and the conditions and terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable; - explicitly publish the fact that they do not sell name or address space as such. As for "special case" registries as defined above, it is recommended that where such a registry charges for service, it should, in addition to complying with the recommendations listed above: - relate charges to costs of operation and apply all revenues to such costs; - regularly publish a budget of its anticipated operating costs and revenue; - publish guidelines and apply these uniformly; - ensure equality of access to registration services; - aim to achieve consensus within the community it serves as to the disposal of any surplus revenues; - regularly publish accounts of income and expenditure; - refrain from using their unique position as leverage in any other business venture. Daniel Karrenberg and Mike Norris 22nd April 1996 References 1. "European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures" by Orange, C., Kuehne, M., Karrenberg, D. (ripe-104, 1996) 2. "RIPE NCC - Delegated Internet Registry" (ripe-112, 1994)

1 0

[Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsind-serial-03.txt]
by Lars-Johan Liman 24 Apr '96

24 Apr '96

Regarding the documents that Blasco forwarded to the list (in the agenda): The one regarding DNS serial numbers has just been uptated. ------- Forwarded Message Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce:; cc: namedroppers(a)internic.net Sender: ietf-announce-request(a)IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Internet-Drafts(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US Reply-to: Internet-Drafts(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsind-serial-03.txt Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 08:57:06 -0400 X-Orig-Sender: cclark(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US Message-ID: <9604230857.aa11201(a)IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Status: O - --NextPart A Revised Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the DNS IXFR, Notification, and Dynamic Update Working Group of the IETF. Note: This revision reflects comments received during the last call period. Title : Serial Number Arithmetic Author(s) : R. Elz, R. Bush Filename : draft-ietf-dnsind-serial-03.txt Pages : 8 Date : 04/22/1996 This draft defines serial number arithmetic, as used in the Domain Name System. The DNS has long relied upon serial number arithmetic, a concept which has never really been defined, certainly not in an IETF document, though which has been widely understood. This draft supplies the missing definition. It is intended to update RFC1034 and RFC1035. Internet-Drafts are available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-dnsind-serial-03.txt". A URL for the Internet-Draft is: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsind-serial-03.txt Internet-Drafts directories are located at: o Africa Address: ftp.is.co.za (196.4.160.8) o Europe Address: nic.nordu.net (192.36.148.17) Address: ftp.nis.garr.it (193.205.245.10) o Pacific Rim Address: munnari.oz.au (128.250.1.21) o US East Coast Address: ds.internic.net (198.49.45.10) o US West Coast Address: ftp.isi.edu (128.9.0.32) Internet-Drafts are also available by mail. Send a message to: mailserv(a)ds.internic.net. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsind-serial-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ds.internic.net can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e., documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. For questions, please mail to Internet-Drafts(a)cnri.reston.va.us. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. - --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" - --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv(a)ds.internic.net" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19960422112750.I-D(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsind-serial-03.txt - --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dnsind-serial-03.txt"; site="ds.internic.net"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19960422112750.I-D(a)CNRI.Reston.VA.US> - --OtherAccess-- - --NextPart-- ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

RIPE24 DNS-WG proposed agenda
by Antonio_Blasco Bonito 19 Apr '96

19 Apr '96

Hi everybody, sorry to be so late. The following is my poor proposal for the agenda of the DNS-WG. Please: - *contribute* to improve the agenda - come to the meeting having seletected your preferred candidate for the WG chairman position Agenda ------ 1. Scribe 2. WG-agenda bashing 3. Nomination of the DNS Working Group chair 4. Status of discussions about TLDs administration 5. Report of problems experienced 6. AOB ---------- ---------- Antonio-Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito(a)nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ----------

4 8

DNS and UDP checksumming
by Geert Jan de Groot 31 Mar '96

31 Mar '96

Hi folks, Increasingly I get reports on bogus DNS records that are apperently caused by bitflips, possibly caused by bad lines and line protocols without error detection. The UDP protocol does not protect against this as the base spec does not require checksumming; a packet without checksum normally gets accepted and its poisenous contents processed by the DNS system. Of course, the best thing to do is to have everybody generate and verify checksums, but this is hard to change now because of the installed base. To the best of my knowledge, the only wide-spread platform that does not do UDP checksumming by default is 'solaris classic' aka SunOs. Even for this platform, enabling UDP checksumming is a simple command. The impact of this bogus information is obviously quite severe and once a bogus record is inserted, it does not die immediately but may stay in the caches for quite some time. RFC1122 (4.1.3.4) keeps the possibility open that apps ignore UDP packets that do not have checksums on them. On BSD-deratives this is hard to verify since the checksum of a packet is not easily obtained. However, it seems quite simple to modify a BSD-kernel to ignore all UDP packets without checksum; yielding the same result. I'm wondering if the RIPE community would concider this acceptable behaviour - it would mean that a host which doesn't do checksumming, will not be able to talk to one which enforces it. This obviously helps to get the message across, the same way as valid reverse lookup mapping for access to many FTP sites is an incentive for people to make their reverse lookup mapping work. What does the DNS working group think on this matter? Geert Jan

2 1

Can I have a look at your named cache please?
by Geert Jan de Groot 25 Mar '96

25 Mar '96

Hi, ns.ripe.net is stormed with IN A requests for @.root-servers.net. It looks like this isn't an isolated incident; I received similar reports from one of the other nameservers of root-servers.net. Given the intensity of the incident (we get 2 times as much requests on this than all other requests combined), I don't believe this is caused by a single bitflip somewhere. It would be real nice if the maintainers of some 'popular' caching nameservers would do a cache dump (kill -INT named), look if @.root-servers.net is listed somewhere, and send me the details if you find it in your cache. Thanks, Geert Jan

4 3

Re: Can I have a look at your named cache please?
by Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no 24 Mar '96

24 Mar '96

Hi, the relevant things I find are on aun.uninett.no (nothing much interesting): $ORIGIN ROOT-SERVERS.net. ;@ 548 IN A NXDOMAIN ;-$ ;[193.0.0.193] A 38874 IN A 198.41.0.4 ;NT=112 Cr=auth [193.0.0.193] B 444608 IN A 128.9.0.107 ;NT=136 Cr=auth [193.0.0.193] C 445485 IN A 192.33.4.12 ;NT=1361 Cr=auth [193.0.0.193] D 451625 IN A 128.8.10.90 ;NT=245 Cr=auth [193.0.0.193] E 574845 IN A 192.203.230.10 ;NT=483 Cr=auth [193.0.0.193] F 156088 IN A 192.5.5.241 ;NT=245 Cr=auth [198.41.0.5] G 477455 IN A 192.112.36.4 ;NT=92 Cr=auth [193.0.0.193] H 437295 IN A 128.63.2.53 ;NT=225 Cr=auth [193.0.0.193] I 442643 IN A 192.36.148.17 ;NT=71 Cr=auth [193.0.0.193] However, on runix.runit.sintef.no I find: COM 461985 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 461985 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 461985 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 461985 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 461985 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 461985 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 461985 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 461985 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 461985 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 202438 IN NS @.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;Cr=addtnl [204.96.68.1] 77368 IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. HOSTMASTER.INTERNIC.NET. ( 1996032200 10800 900 604800 86400 ) ;Cr=addtnl [192.36.148.17] 296566 IN NS F.I.ROOT-SERVERS.net. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 336242 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.LET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 336242 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.LET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 336242 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.LET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] 336242 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.LET. ;Cr=addtnl [198.6.197.1] Not good at all. 204.96.68.1 is olympic.pacificrim.net. It appears to be running 4.9.3, and does not appear to be the source of the bad data. 198.6.197.1 is unregistered (it's located somewhere behind net99.net and cais.net) It also appears to be running a recent version of BIND and does also not appear to be the source of the bad data. This looks suspiciuosly like the ns.uu.net fun, and my bet is that it will be real difficult to track down the real source of this bogus information. - Havard

1 0

ripe23-dns draft minutes
by Antonio_Blasco Bonito 20 Mar '96

20 Mar '96

Hi folks, here are (thanks Carol!) the draft minutes of the last DNS working group. You are encouraged in reading and reporting about any wrong or missing part. Please do that before friday march 5th. I will then finalize the minutes. ---------- ---------- Antonio-Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito(a)nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ---------- ======================================================================= DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT RIPE-23 dns-wg Meeting Monday, January 29, 1996 14.00 - 16:15 Chair: Antonio-Blasco Bonito Scribe: Carol Orange Attended by 93 people (see below for the list) Agenda ------ 1. Scribe 2. WG-agenda bashing 3. DNS Working Group chair needed 4. Status of 'in-addr.arpa' automatic checking and delegation 5. Status of the BIND software 6. Report of problems experienced 7. Report on European TLDs administrator's questionnaire 8. Delegation of International TLDs (Randy Bush) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Scribe Carol Orange took notes. 2. Agenda The agenda was agreed to without changes. 3. DNS Working Group Chair Rob Blokzijl: + announced that the former DNS-WG chair (Leonid A. Yegoshin) had to resign due to a change in both job and residence. + invited people to suggest candidates for the DNS working group chair. Hopefully a new chair will be appointed during the next RIPE meeting. 4. Status of 'in-addr.arpa' automatic checking and delegation David Kessens gave an update on the tool he created for 'in-addr.arpa' automatic checking and delegation. His report included the following information: To use the tool, one must: + submit the appropriate RIPE database template (inetnum or domain). + send the template to <auto-inaddr(a)ripe.net>. The tool will: + check the setup of the primary and secondary name servers. + if no errors are detected, forward request to human operator for final approval. + report back to user. The tool will *not*: + check the relative location of servers. + check whether the corresponding address space is allocated or assigned. + check whether /24's which fall under a /16 to be delegated, have been delegated. The latest version has several software improvements including: + a standardised output transaction format. + tools for RIPE support staff to check what the tool does not check (see above). + a number of bug fixes. Currently under development: + a tool to automatically update RIPE NCC zone files after human approval. Plans to integrate the tool in RIPE database will mean: + requests should be submitted to database with keyword. + the RIPE database authentication mechanism will be used to validate requests. The tool is available in: + ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/inaddrcheck-960110.tar.gz Following David's report, the following discussion ensued. Documentation about reverse delegation procedures was requested. David replied that the necessary information will be provided in ripe-104++. Whether the automated mechanisms for inverse delegations will work with IPv6 came up. There was some discussion as to whether this is important given the slow progress of IPv6. However it was also mentioned that as test beds are becoming operational, these and other tools will be needed to support them. It is expected that at most minor modifications to these mechanisms will be required for use with IPv6. Randy Bush raised the issue of data integrity of DNS, and asked whether steps are being taken to prevent corruption of the inaddr.arpa name space delegated in Europe. After some discussion on this topic, Randy said he has some tools available for inspecting the integrity of DNS name space. Those interested are welcome to contact him. This was followed by a discussion of how lame delegations come into being and why they need to be cleaned up. It was pointed out that the number of bad entries in the inaddr.arpa name space will increase as renumbering goes in to effect. It was also mentioned that currently the integrity of the European inaddr.arpa name space data is quite good. 5. Status of the BIND software Blasco Bonito announced that a the final version of Bind 4.9.3 has been released. Geert Jan de Groot recommended using the "no recursion" option available in version 4.9.3 to prevent data pollution, and to control data sizes. This is useful if resources are limited. ** Action: Geert Jan offered to write up recommendations for managing large databases. Finally, Randy Bush reported that a new version of TGV is available for VMS users. Their new release contains, among much other stuff, a modern version of BIND with all the recent improvements (performance, security, etc). Folks should be strongly encouraged to upgrade. By the way, TGV was recently bought by cisco. 6. Report of problems experienced There have been some problems with the delegation of TLD names under non TLD domains. For example, someone recently delegated the name sgi.net.co.uk. The result is that sgi.com couldn't be resolved anymore when using some old resolvers. As a large number of similar names were generated, the DNS name space became severely polluted, and it took two days to clear it up. According to Geert Jan, the problem is caused in part by old bind software, which in accordance with RFC1535 should no longer be used, but in practice is. Guy Davis says that in the UK, delegation of top level domain names under TLD's (e.g. net.uk) will no longer be permitted. It was reported that this is already the case in other countries (i.e. Germany, Italy, ...) and that DNS second level administrators are also discouraged from allowing top level domain names to be used. There was some discussion as to whether the problem should be solved by getting administrators to replace old resolver software or by getting them to abstain from delegating TLD names. In the end, there was consensus that the problem should be tackled as a combined effort. It was mentioned again that the security issues are discussed in RFC-1535 and that DNS administrators should be reminded to review that document carefully. 7. Report on European TLDs administrator's questionnaire Guy Davis reported on a questionnaire he sent out to European TLD administrators. The questionnaire was designed to determine the policies used in DNS delegations by the TLD administrators. A summary of the report he presented follows. Anyone interested in the full set of information gathered can send a request to <guyd(a)pipex.net>. DNS TLD - Questionnaire - 22 response for 24 top level domains - Full set of answers available on request email: guyd(a)pipex.net EDITED HIGHLIGHTS 1. Who defines your policies? Org Running TLD - 15 1/2 The Government - 1 1/2 ISPs by consensus - 4 2. How do you establish your policies? By Working Group - 2 Told by Govt. - 1 1/2 Decided by Org Running TLD - 7 1/2 ISPs by Concencus - 10 3. What Legal Status do your decisions/policies have? None - 19 1/2 As defined by Govt. - 1 1/2 4a Public Subdomains? Yes - 7 No - 15 b Geographic Subdomains? Yes - 6 No - 16 c 2nd level categories (private & public) in parallel? Yes - 6 No - 16 d If you have public subdomains must everybodies request be accepted? Yes - 7 N/A - 15 e How would you split your TLD See full listing - 6 N/A - 16 5a Sub. TLD? Yes - 20 No -2 b Sub. public TLD? Yes - 7 No - 15 6a Who can obtain domains? Anyone - 11 Just Orgs - 11 8 Must the requester be local? Yes - 16 No - 6 9a More than one domain per Org. ? Yes - 12 No - 10 17a Do you charge ? Yes - 5 No - 16 19 Are you likely to change the system within 12 months? Yes - 14 No - 5 Don't know - 3 22 Do you use automation? Yes - 11 No - 11 After Guy's presentation of the above data, a discussion started regarding the charging fees and schedules. Most TLD administrators presently don't charge, but are thinking about doing so to cover their costs. Among those who do charge, some have only a one time fee, and some have a yearly administration fee. There does not appear to be competition among the national TLD administrators. Moreover, running a TLD is primarily performed as a nonprofit service to the Internet community. Blasco suggested a need for better coordination among TLD administrators, so they can consult one another on technical and policy matters. It was pointed out that this does not mean they will all follow the same policy. The question was raised as to whether some private forum for communication among TLD administrators should be created, so they can exchange information easily. Whether or not 2nd level domain administrators might be included in the "private" communication was considered. ** Action: Daniel offered that the RIPE NCC will set up a mailing list for TLD administrators. A need was also expressed that the policies of TLD administrators be made public. ** Action: The RIPE NCC will incorporate a page where TLD policies can be published at its WWW site. It was suggested the questionnaire be repeated in 6 months so that changes in policy can be monitored. 8. Delegation of International TLDs (Randy Bush) Randy Bush explained that there is a lot of talk in the US at the moment about whether and why new TLD's should be created. International TLD's are com, org & net. The main reason for expanding these is to create healthy competition in the market. Also, the US government (NSF here) wants to be out of the IP and DNS delegation business. Randy also presented a set of guidelines that should be used in determining whether a new TLD can be created. There was some discussion as to whether or not names should be used for profit. Also, whether a white pages service (which is what DNS provides) is sufficient, or whether we should start looking into yellow page models for directory services. Back to the name space: it is perceived that the US wants to control the name space. Who gave them the right to edu, mil, and gov? Basically, it was stated that the US came up with those names, so they have a right to them. Still the process remains unclear. Piet Beertema said the US should use the extension "us" just as other countries use country extensions. Randy then summarised the proposal they are submitting to slowly expand the number of TLD's. The number of TLD's would be increased at a rate of about 3-5 per year. Basically, anyone suggesting a new domain should argue that it will serve some purpose that none of the currently existing TLD's do, and agree that it will be managed responsibly following the guidelines agreed to in RFC1591 (as well as some new ones: nondiscrimination policies, appeals procedures, etc.). Piet B. pointed out that those changes only generate a false sense of order in the chaos. The new policies only apply to new TLD's, not to the old ones. No similar restrictions are applied to second level domain administrators. Mike Norris pointed out that DNS administration is experienced as a public service in Europe. Randy said that "com" on the other hand is turning into a high profit monopoly, and the new suggestions are intended to curb its power. A discussion surrounding the trademark wars surrounding domain names started up. Should the names be delegated on a "first come, first served" or should DNS administrators be required to control trademarks. Back to the issue as to whether new TLD's should be created: It was suggested that whereas the US TLD's fall under ".", they should be placed under "us" (e.g. com.us, mil.us, edu.us, etc). In other words, the problems surrounding "name for profit" monopolies are US based, and should be solved there. To clarify, this Randy asked the audience whether they should be removed from the root. There was general consesus about that. That was about it for the DNS working group. Attendees list -------------- Antonio-Blasco Bonito GARR-NIS Rob Blokzijl RIPE Jiri Orsag Eunet CZ Jan HrJonka -U- Kurt Kayser ECRC Marc Pichon TRANSPAC Bernard Tuy CNRS / UREC Arnold Nipper NIG/Xlink Elise Gerich Merit Havard Eidnes NORDUnet/Uninett Alfons Friedl SERVICOM Dirk Pantring DENIC Sabine Dolderer DENIC Guy Davies Unipalm PIPEX Lars-Johan Liman Ebone NOC Geert Jan de Groot RIPE NCC Hans Petter Holen SCHIBSTED NETT AS Ivan Sedinic HPT - Croatian Post and Teleco Stephan Biesbroeck BELNET Christophe Huygens Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Sean Doran Sprint Els Willems RIPE NCC Randy Bush Michel Colin Brussels University/Service Te Steve Druck TERENA Ariel T. Sobelman TERENA Hatice Kuey RIPE NCC John Crain RIPE NCC Johannes 5 Joemann Object Factory GmbH Oliver Mandischer Object Factory GmbH ??? RENATER Paul Rolland Oleane Ireneusz Neska NASK Simon Cavendish EuroNet Internet Erwin Blekkenhorst EuroNet Internet Astrid Nijenhuis EuroNet Internet ??? A. Vrivine SKYWORLD Ivan Communod FTNSNL Alina Dodescu Research Institute for Informa Jan-Pieter Cornet NL.XS4ALL Erik Bos nl.xs4all Cor Bosman XS4ALL Kimmo Kosonen Telecom Finland Jarmo Oksanen Telecom Finland Willi Huber SWITCH Per Mattsson Unisource Business Networks Hakan Hansson Unisource Business Networks Harm Werkman Unisource Business Networks NL Geza Turchanyi INFO-C Nick Shield UKERNA/JANET Kevin Hoadley ULCC/JANET Asquith Bonaparte JANET NOSC Bettina Kauth DFN-NOC Steven Bakker DANTE Daniele Bovio America OnLine Vaclav Novak CESNET Tomas Marsalek GTS CzechCom Juergen Rauschenbach DFN Anne Lord PIPEX International Stef Van Dessel INnet Magnus Danielson KTH Nigel Titley BTnet Giovanni Armanino GARR-NIS Piet Beertema CWI/NL TLD registry Francis Dupont INRIA Wilfried Woeber VUCC / ACOnet Tibor Weis SANET - Slovakia Barbara Dooley CIX Frank Slyne Telecom Eireann Oliver Smith Demon Internet Cliff Stanford Demon Internet Limited Dusan Keprta EuroTel Bratislava Ltd. Pavel Mikus EuroTel Bratislava Ltd. Oliver Doll EUnet Deutschland GmbH Janos Zsako BankNet Pulak Rakshit Cable Online Javed Mirza Cable Online Holger Weinhardt EUnet Deutschland GmbH Balazs Martos HUNGARNET Janos Bajza HUNGARNET Ton Windgassen= IBM Global Network Europe= Carol Orange RIPE NCC Daniel Karrenberg RIPE NCC Bill Cessna IBM Global Network Matt Fakray IBM Global Network Helena Svensson Tele2 / SWIPnet Armando Domingues FCCN/RCCN Graca Carvalho FCCN/RCCN Miguel Sanz RedIRIS Ruediger Volk Deutsche Telekom Hans Frese DESY Elisabetta Ghermandi I.N.F.N. - CNAF Rushdul Mannan Xara Networks Ltd DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT =======================================================================

1 1