- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

DNSSEC Course, Prague October 8, 2001
by Olaf Kolkman 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

DNSSEC Course Final Announcement This mail was already sent to both the lir and the techsec-wg mailing list. We forgot to include the most obvious target group: dns-wg. Excuse us for possible receipt of multiple copies. The RIPE NCC will be organising a DNSSEC course The course will be held in Prague on the Monday after the RIPE Meeting, October 8: 9 am to 5 pm. The goal of the course is familiarise the participants with DNSSEC so they can maintain their own secured zone and to identify current difficulties in deployment and possible future directions. To be able to run the program in a day we expect the participants + being able to administer DNS zone files with bind; + to bring their own dummy zone to experiment with; + to bring a laptop running the latest version of bind; + being able to patch bind software if needed; About a week before the course, you will receive a homework assignment. This will take about an hour to complete and has to be done in advance, so that during the course little time will be wasted on configuration issues. The course will consists of two parts: an introduction to DNSSEC and a hands-on part. The hands-on part will cover: + securing zone transfers using TSIG + generating zone keys and signing zones + securing 'corporate' sites with DNSSEC + establishing a chain of trust + key-exchange and rollover The RIPE NCC does not charge for this course but the amount of participants will be limited to 25 persons. If the interest in the course exceeds the number of available places a selection will be made based on first come first serve basis and by limiting the amount of participants from one affiliation. To register please fill in the form below and mail it to disi-ws(a)ripe.net, use subject header: "[DNSSEC RIPE40] Registration". Please, do not reply to the mailinglists. Finally, the RIPE NCC plans to repeat this course on a regular basis in 2002, so if your application for this event is rejected, there will be ample opportunities to take the course at a later time. --Olaf Kolkman RIPE NCC, DISI project http://www.ripe.net/disi - - - - - - - - - - - - ---cut here--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------DNSSEC Course Registration Form.--------------- I hereby register for the DNSSEC course in Prague on October 8, 9am-5pm. Name : E-mail : Affiliation : Job title : Street Address : City : Could you shortly describe why you are interested in participating in this course and what you hope to learn? Your registration will be confirmed within 2 work days after it was received. Since the amount of participants is limited you might be put on a waiting list. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

WG: Update, NGtrans - DNSext joint meeting, call for participation
by Thomas Trede 24 Jul '01

24 Jul '01

FYI: I think this might also be important for the DNS-WG of RIPE. Regards, Thomas Trede -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com]Im Auftrag von Alain Durand Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Juli 2001 22:24 An: ngtrans(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com; namedroppers(a)ops.ietf.org; ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com; dnsop(a)cafax.se Cc: randy(a)psg.com; tony(a)tndh.net; fink(a)es.net; Olafur Gudmundsson Betreff: Update, NGtrans - DNSext joint meeting, call for participation Correction on the previous announcement: The NGtrans/DNSext chairs would like to make a call for participation in the upcoming joint meeting. The goal of the meeting is to facilitate consensus on how IPv6 addresses are represented in DNS and related issues. This meeting requires extensive homework by participants and the chairs would like to request submission of documents for a reading list for this meeting. The output from the meeting will be draft consensus proposal. Here is non exclusive a list of relevant topics: 1 - Design tradeoffs in DNS and IPv6 (AAAA, A6, DNAME, bit string) - DNS operational considerations including DNSSEC costs in regard of address record format - DNS implementation complications due to address record format - IPv6 Remembering requirements and impact on address record format - Case for A6 - Case for AAAA - transition from ip6.int to ip6.arpa - transition from AAAA to A6 2 - tools/protocols/strategies to bridge IPv6 and IPv4 DNS resolution Anybody wishing to make a presentation should send a draft to the chairs of this meeting before July 26th 2001, 21:00 UTC (that is, 2pm PDT, 5pm EDT, 11pm MEST) - Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> - Alain Durand <alain.durand(a)sun.com> - Bob Fink <fink(a)es.net> - Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud(a)ogud.com> - Tony Hain <tony(a)tndh.net> Drafts not yet published by the ID editor are acceptable contributions (please include an URL). The chairs will review the list of submission, derived the actual agenda of the meeting from it and send all reading materials to the DNSext and NGtrans mailing list no later than July 27th, 21:00 UTC. The format of the meeting is going to be: - Short summary of the discussion points from the documents - Technical discussion on the relevance of the points - Technical discussion on the points from documents as measured by Rob Austein's document draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-dns-tradeoffs-00.txt - Brainstorming on the best way to go forward - Straw polls leading to consensus building on a plan of action - the chairs. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Fwd: IN-ADDR.ARPA Progress Report
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 02 Jul '01

02 Jul '01

Dear all, here I forward an announcement from ARIN regarding current progress in the maintainance of the in-addr.arpa zone. Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC >From: ARIN IN-ADDR Role <inaddr(a)arin.net> >Subject: IN-ADDR.ARPA Progress Report >Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10106291525050.10191-100000(a)ops.arin.net> > >Goal: > >Reduce the size of the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file. This file will be reduced >in size by only containing name servers for /8 networks. > > >Completed Steps: > >Apr 2001 - Established relationships with 2 companies to provide >independent server networks for all ARIN IN-ADDR zone files. > >Jun 2001 - Released a new IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file generator to correct >existing erroneous data. > > >Next Step: > >July 9, 2001 - ARIN will begin revising the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone for those >direct /8 delegations to ARIN. These /8 zone files will be serviced by >the two ARIN nameserver networks. These changes will not affect the >performance of reverse lookup in any of the IPv4 Address space. > >Please direct any questions to inaddr(a)arin.net. > > >Ginny Listman >Director of Engineering >American Registry for Internet Numbers --

1 0

Permission to use/adapt RIPE document 192?
by Brad Knowles 21 Jun '01

21 Jun '01

Folks, I've recently found out about the document at <ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-192.txt>. I also happen to be in the process of writing a chapter on the DNS for an upcoming book. Can anyone tell me what the RIPE approval process is that I need to go through in order to be able to make use of some of the configuration file and zone file information contained within this page (making some modifications of my own)? Thanks! -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles(a)skynet.be> /* efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum <root(a)ihack.net> */ /* Represented as 1045 digit prime number by Phil Carmody */ /* Prime as DNS cname chain by Roy Arends and Walter Belgers */ /* */ /* Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob */ /* where title-key = "153 2 8 105 225" or other similar 5-byte key */ dig decss.friet.org|perl -ne'if(/^x/){s/[x.]//g;print pack(H124,$_)}'

1 0

NAMEREGISTRY.COM - NICS.NET - DOMAINAMES.COM
by BucklesBW＠aol.com 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

DOMAIN PRICE 2000nic.net $1,000 800nic.net $1,500 888nic.net $1,500 abbreviaziones.com $3,500 abreger.com $3,000 abreviacao.com $4,500 abreviacao.net n/a abreviacao.org n/a abreviacaos.com $4,500 abreviacaos.net n/a abreviacaos.org n/a abreviacion.com $3,500 abreviaciones.com $4,000 abreviaciones.net n/a abreviar.com $3,000 abreviatura.com $4,000 abreviatura.net n/a abreviaturas.net $3,500 acronimo.net $3,500 acronyme.com $4,000 acronyme.net n/a acronymes.com $4,000 acronymes.net n/a addressmaster.com $3,500 addressregistry.com $12,000 aenic.com $1,500 afix.org $2,000 afrix.com $2,000 ahix.net $2,000 apix.org $2,500 ap-nic.net $2,000 arpanic.com $4,000 arpanic.net n/a arpanic.org n/a artsnic.com $2,500 artsnic.net n/a auix.com $3,000 auix.org n/a autonic.com $4,000 autonic.net n/a aznic.net $1,500 bankdirectory.com $10,000 banknic.net $3,000 bbnic.org $1,500 bdix.net $2,000 bdnic.org $1,500 bhnic.net $2,000 bhnic.org n/a bnnic.com $2,000 bnnic.org n/a boatnic.net $1,500 bonic.org $1,500 brnic.org $1,500 bynic.org $1,500 bznic.net $1,500 carnic.net $3,000 cctld.net $10,000 cctlds.com $15,000 cctlds.net n/a cfpnic.net $2,250 chironic.net $1,750 classifiedchannel.com $10,000 cnix.org $3,500 country-code.com $3,500 country-code.net n/a countrycode.net $4,000 countrycode.org n/a country-codes.com $3,000 countrycodes.net $4,000 countrycodes.org n/a cpanic.net $2,500 cparegistry.com $8,000 cunic.com $2,000 cunic.org n/a cyberegistry.com $5,000 cyberlocation.com $5,000 cybersecurity.com $15,000 cyberswamp.net $5,000 ddsnic.org $1,500 decimals.net $2,500 decimals.org n/a deix.net $2,000 digidomains.com $8,000 diginames.com $4,000 digitaladdress.com $5,000 digitalocation.com $5,000 digitalregistry.com $9,000 digitalwords.com $2,000 dknic.com $1,500 domainame.org $9,500 domainames.com $25,000 domainames.net n/a domainlogic.com $10,000 domainpower.com $13,000 domainshoppe.com $8,000 dznic.org $1,500 ecnic.com $3,500 ecnic.net n/a edunic.com $4,000 edunic.net n/a edunic.org n/a egnic.net $2,000 egnic.org n/a equations.net $4,000 equations.org n/a eurnic.com $3,500 eurnic.org n/a firmnic.com $2,000 firmnic.net n/a fjix.com $2,500 fjix.net n/a fjnic.com $1,500 fmnic.com $2,500 fxnic.com $1,500 gdix.net $2,000 gdnic.com $2,000 gdnic.net n/a grnic.com $1,500 gtnic.net $1,500 gzix.com $2,500 gzix.net n/a gznic.net $2,000 gznic.org n/a hbnic.com $2,500 hbnic.net n/a hbnic.org n/a healthnic.net $2,500 healthregistry.com $4,000 hillarygate.com $4,000 hlthnic.net $1,500 idix.org $2,000 ilix.net $2,000 ilnic.com $2,000 ilnic.net n/a indns.com $4,000 innic.com $4,500 innic.org n/a internetlocation.com $7,000 internetregistry.com $15,000 iprotocol.net $3,500 iqnic.net $1,750 irnic.net $2,000 irnic.org n/a iso3166.com $3,000 iso3166.net n/a iso3166code.com n/a iso-3166code.com n/a iso3166code.net n/a iso3166codes.com n/a iso-3166codes.com n/a iso3166codes.net n/a iso-3166codes.net n/a iso3166countrycode.com n/a iso-3166countrycode.com n/a iso3166countrycodes.com n/a iso-3166countrycodes.com n/a iso3166countrycodes.net n/a itldnic.net $1,500 itlds.com $13,000 itlds.net n/a iwords.net $4,000 jonic.net $1,500 jpix.org $2,000 kgnic.com $1,500 krix.org $2,000 kurzform.com $4,500 kurzform.net n/a kurzform.org n/a kwnic.com $2,500 kwnic.net n/a kwnic.org n/a laix.net $2,500 laix.org n/a lawnic.net $3,250 lawregistry.com $10,000 managedcare.org $10,000 mdnic.net $5,000 mednic.net $3,750 mednic.org n/a milnic.com $4,000 milnic.net n/a mindaddress.com $1,750 mnnic.com $1,500 moix.net $2,500 moix.org n/a movienic.org $1,500 myix.net $3,500 myix.org n/a name4sale.com $5,000 namechannel.com $6,000 namegiver.com $6,000 namehouse.com $4,000 namehut.com $6,000 namelogic.com $10,000 namemaster.com $10,000 nameregistry.com $18,000 namescape.com $10,000 nameservice.com $12,000 nameshoppe.com $6,000 namewarehouse.com $5,000 nanic.net $2,000 nanic.org n/a negatives.net $3,500 negatives.org n/a netlocation.com $10,000 newsnic.net $2,500 ngnic.net $1,500 nics.net $18,000 nlnic.com $2,000 ntlds.com $13,000 ntlds.net n/a numeral.net $3,000 numerals.net $3,000 numerals.org n/a numnic.com $1,750 numnic.net n/a orgnic.net $2,750 palabras.org $2,000 perfectdomains.com $10,000 perfectnames.com $6,000 perfectwords.com $2,000 phix.org $2,000 phnic.com $1,500 pknic.org $1,500 premierdomains.com $10,000 premiernames.com $6,000 premierwords.com $2,000 previewchannel.com $13,000 prnic.org $1,750 ptnic.net $1,500 qanic.com $1,750 qualitynames.com $6,000 qualitywords.com $2,000 recnic.org $2,000 ripe.org $6,000 ruix.com $3,000 ruix.net n/a ruix.org n/a runic.net $1,500 rxnic.com $2,750 rxnic.net n/a rxnic.org n/a sanic.org $1,500 sgix.net $3,500 sgix.org n/a shopnic.com $2,750 shopnic.net n/a siglas.net $4,000 siglas.org n/a storenic.com $2,750 storenic.net n/a strategicwords.com $2,000 superiordomains.com $10,000 superiornames.com $6,000 superiorwords.com $2,000 synic.net $1,500 thix.org $2,000 tjnic.com $2,000 tjnic.org n/a tmnic.com $3,000 tmnic.org n/a tpnic.org $1,500 trnic.org $1,500 tvdirectory.com $15,000 twnic.org $2,000 uanic.org $1,500 unnic.net $1,500 usadns.com $8,000 usadns.net n/a usaix.net $5,000 usaix.org n/a usanic.org $3,000 usanoc.com $4,000 usanoc.net n/a usnic.com $10,000 usnic.org n/a usnoc.net $4,000 uynic.com $1,500 uznic.com $1,500 venic.net $1,500 virtual-broker.com $8,000 vnix.net $2,500 vnix.org n/a vnnic.org $1,500 webword.net $5,000 wordbroker.com $2,000 wordirectory.com $4,000 wordlisting.com $3,000 wordlistings.com $3,000 wordshoppe.com $3,000 wordwarehouse.com $2,000 wordwizards.com $2,000 zaix.net $2,000 zanic.net $2,000 zanic.org n/a zjix.com $2,500 zjix.net n/a zjnic.com $2,500 zjnic.net n/a zjnic.org n/a zmnic.org $1,500 "N/A" indicates that the domain is part of a package. Contact: Brian Buckles 217-787-1701

1 0

Charges Against ICANN In Australia Over TLDs
by Michael Sondow 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

<original message> From: Len Lindon <info(a)humanrights.com.au> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:35:41 +1100 To: <admin(a)tlda.org> Cc: "domain-policy(a)open-rsc.org" <domain-policy(a)open-rsc.org> Subject: .court in court Federal Court of Australia considers .court TITLE: Lindon v Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers CITATION: [2001] FCA 265 URL: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/feddec/0/20011/0/FD002270.htm Justice Alan Goldberg on 9 March 2001 at Melbourne: > 8 In general terms, the complaint which lies behind the proceeding is > that the applicant seeks to enable there to be access over the Internet to > what he calls two non-colliding name spaces, ".human rights" and ".court", > which he has sought to set up and operate. He alleges in the statement of > claim that ICANN and the other respondents, other than the Commission and the > Commission's officer, will be holding a series of meetings, including in > particular a meeting starting this day and ending on 13 March 2001 in > Melbourne, and that they are engaging in conduct, or will engage in conduct, > that constitutes a contravention of ss 45, 45B, 45D, 45DA, 45E and 46 of the > Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act"). It is further alleged that their > conduct constitutes attempting to contravene such provisions, aiding, > abetting, counselling or procuring a person to contravene such provisions, > inducing or attempting to induce a person to contravene such provisions, being > directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in, or party to those > contraventions and conspiring with others to contravene such provisions. > > 9 It will be immediately appreciated that these are serious allegations. > The particulars of the conduct which are then set out are that the proposed > first to tenth respondents will do three things: > > * fail to allow the immediate recognition and resolution of all existing > non-colliding name spaces as currently recognised and resolved by the many > existing root service providers; > > * support the US government legacy root service as the sole and > exclusive root service provider for the whole Internet; > > * actively promote the extinguishment of all other, that is non-ICANN, > name spaces and all other non-US government legacy root service providers. > > 10 There is then an allegation that the Commission has failed to > investigate the allegations which the applicant has made in respect of the > proposed first to tenth respondents and has failed, accordingly, to prepare > any enforcement measures. > > 11 The relief which is sought in the application is a mandatory > injunction, interlocutory and final, ordering the proposed first to > tenth respondents forthwith to recognise and resolve all existing > non-colliding name spaces as currently recognised and resolved by the many > existing root service providers, and an injunction restraining them from any > conduct supporting the US government legacy root service as the sole and > exclusive root service provider for the whole Internet and actively promoting > the extinguishment of all other non-colliding name spaces and all other root > service providers. > > 12 A mandatory injunction, interlocutory and final, is also sought > against the Commission and one of its officers requiring them forthwith to > conduct an expeditious investigation into competition in the markets for > Internet root service providers and non-colliding name space service > providers. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 176 of 2001 BETWEEN: LEN LINDON Applicant AND: INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS First Respondent LOUIS TOUTON Second Respondent VINT CERF Third Respondent ESTHER DYSON Fourth Respondent ICANN MELBOURNE MEETINGS HOST COMMITTEE Fifth Respondent au DOMAIN ADMINISTRATION LTD Sixth Respondent TONY STALEY Seventh Respondent GREG CREW Eighth Respondent CHRIS DISSPAIN Ninth Respondent PROFESSOR PETER GERRAND Tenth Respondent AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Eleventh Respondent MICHAEL COSGRAVE Twelfth Respondent JUDGE: GOLDBERG J DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 2001 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

1 0

RE: A work item?
by Shaw, Robert 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> => the merits are not only technical, the Internet simply > doesn't work with an incoherent root zone. I agree with you. I'm only an observer of what's happening. > I think one needs to reflect on the implications that > a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made > > => the I for these ISPs no more stands for Internet. History is full of examples of ISPs (e.g. AOL) who attempted to "garden wall" customers. Offering "enhanced" DNS is likely to be just one more business tool they use. It's just an observation - one may think it's wrong but that doesn't necessarily stop them from doing it. > If this percentage continues to grow, ICANN's ability to > control what goes into the DNS would seem to be constrained. > > => as a French-speaker I have still troubles with the word control > (French meaning is subtlely different)... So what is control > in your statement? It means that with any significant user base under an alternative root TLD, ICANN may be constrained from entering that TLD in the root - e.g., see http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42373,00.html "During recent ICANN meetings, Cerf said that the existence of new "unauthorized" domains could lead ICANN -- in order to reduce potential ambiguity -- not to approve any similar domain name itself." > => what about a parallel phone numbering system? (:-) Sovereigns control the allocation of the E.164 numbering plan. Robert -- Robert Shaw <robert.shaw(a)itu.int> ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

1 0

RE: A work item?
by Shaw, Robert 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

> Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, > I think one needs to reflect on the implications that > a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made > a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US > Department of Commerce's root zone. > > Which big ones? I've never seen any official message about this. See www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp. Earthlink and Netzero have been listed as the US' second and third largest ISPs (according to http://www.ispworld.com/isp/TRI_census.htm). That's not even counting Excite@Home. > > It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet > users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers > (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now > use their alternative root. > > I've seen various claims by various alternative root operators. None > have been confirmed by independent research as far as I know. New.net claims that 16 million users can resolve their TLDs based on their partnerships with ISPs (like I said, this needs to be confirmed independently). 16 million of 100 million is 16%. Robert -- Robert Shaw <robert.shaw(a)itu.int> ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

2 1

RE: A work item?
by Shaw, Robert 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, I think one needs to reflect on the implications that a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US Department of Commerce's root zone. It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now use their alternative root. If this percentage continues to grow, ICANN's ability to control what goes into the DNS would seem to be constrained. Robert -- Robert Shaw <robert.shaw(a)itu.int> ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

4 3

A work item?
by Daniel Karrenberg 15 Mar '01

15 Mar '01

>X-Recipient: <exp-nanog(a)ripe.net> >Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing(a)merit.edu >X-Sender: hank(a)max.ibm.net.il >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:03:14 +0200 >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >From: Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)att.net.il> >Subject: Statements against new.net? >Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >X-Loop: nanog > > >Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available? > >Thanks, >Hank > >

5 5