Jim Reid wrote:
Wearing my Board hat, I am extremely uncomfortable with the NCC straying from its core function (running an IP registry) by offering non-core services that could and should be provided by others. I hope DNSMON doesn't turn into a repeat of the current layer-9 issues with DNS hosting at the NCC.
Then you're also uncomfortable with RIPE being tier-0 ENUM registry. This keeps popping up. If RIPE offers services outside their IP registry task, it should accomodate for it. Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 680 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525500 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/
On May 9, 2007, at 13:18, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
Then you're also uncomfortable with RIPE being tier-0 ENUM registry.
I was not on the Board when this activity started. However, this is a very different service from DNS monitoring. There can only be one Tier-0 registry and it needs to be at a stable, neutral venue. There is no technical or operational reason for there to be exactly one entity offering DNS monitoring services: if anything the opposite is true.
If RIPE offers services outside their IP registry task, it should accomodate for it.
I am sorry to violently disagree with you Antoin. The NCC should stick to its core (monopoly) role and keep away from other activities. The further the NCC deviates from its core function, the more likely the authorities are going to start asking awkward questions about cross-subsidies and potential abuse of the NCC's monopoly position. Or mumbling about regulating the NCC in the way that incumbent telcos get regulated. It's fairly straightforward to defend those sorts of questions in the context of running a Tier-0 registry for the general public benefit. Answers when those sorts of questions are raised about providing things like DNS monitoring services (for a fee) are much, much harder to find. More so when the NCC competes with its members. FYI one NCC member was forced to abandon its plans for a commercial DNS monitoring service because the NCC started doing this "for free" (at first) and cherry-picked all the best customers. Bad. Very very bad. BTW, please note there's a difference between RIPE (the open meetings that get held twice a year) and RIPE NCC (the legal entity that co- ordinates Internet number resources in Europe and the Middle East).
Jim Reid píše v St 09. 05. 2007 v 13:45 +0100:
If RIPE offers services outside their IP registry task, it should accomodate for it.
Answers when those sorts of questions are raised about providing things like DNS monitoring services (for a fee) are much, much harder to find. More so when the NCC competes with its members. FYI one NCC member was forced to abandon its plans for a commercial DNS monitoring service because the NCC started doing this "for free" (at first) and cherry-picked all the best customers. Bad. Very very bad.
I seems to me that you are mixing "DNS monitoring" (in general) and "DNS monitoring for TLD operators". Here we are speaking about "monopoly for monopoly". Speaking for .cz I would very much doubt that we would buy such commercial DNS monitoring if it wasn't from RIPE NCC. We would rather build some platform ourselves and offer it to other TLD operators (on CENTR, OARSI or whatever grounds). Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
On May 10, 2007, at 07:05, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I seems to me that you are mixing "DNS monitoring" (in general) and "DNS monitoring for TLD operators". Here we are speaking about "monopoly for monopoly".
I'm not mixing these things. From my perspective there's no difference. I'm looking at non-core services that the NCC provide which could and should be offered by others, not by the NCC. DNS monitoring in any form (except for the NCC's internal operations) is such a service IMO. The de facto monopoly in DNS monitoring that the NCC enjoys is regrettable. The fact the NCC is in this business distorts the market and has deterred others, including NCC members, from entering that market. What worries me is an official complaint to the competition authorities which results in them reviewing every aspect of the NCC operations, introducing regulation because it's a monopoly, etc, etc.
Speaking for .cz I would very much doubt that we would buy such commercial DNS monitoring if it wasn't from RIPE NCC. We would rather build some platform ourselves and offer it to other TLD operators (on CENTR, OARSI or whatever grounds).
I think that proves my point. There would be more diversity and competition in DNS monitoring services in the marketplace (such as it is) if the NCC would leave it alone to develop naturally.
I see a number of different questions being discussed here, and I think we should try to separate them: 1. RIPE NCC is running DNS for e164.arpa 2. RIPE NCC should "protect their skin" and monitor the e164.arpa zone, so they can show their service is up to current standards 3. Registry operators run DNS for zones delegated from e164.arpa, and the delegation itself should be of some quality for ENUM to work -- who has responsible for this? 4. Registry operators have interest in being monitored, should they be monitored, or (via opt-in) on request? 5. If there is a need for monitoring of DNS operation, is RIPE-NCC to do that monitoring (they already do in the case of dnsmon)? One can probably slice and dice this in different ways and different layers, but still, different questions. Mixed up, a mess. Patrik
Ccing to ncc-services-wg. Short summary: Discussion started on enum-wg whether DNSMON service should be extended to ENUM registry operators as well. Patrik summarized discussion so far in several points in mail I am replying at. You can find start of the thread at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/enum-wg/2007/msg00024.html Patrik Fältström píše v Čt 10. 05. 2007 v 15:08 +0300:
I see a number of different questions being discussed here, and I think we should try to separate them:
1. RIPE NCC is running DNS for e164.arpa 2. RIPE NCC should "protect their skin" and monitor the e164.arpa zone, so they can show their service is up to current standards
Shouldn't RIPE NCC do the same for all its delegations. I would broaden scope of this point to monitoring reverse delegations as well.
3. Registry operators run DNS for zones delegated from e164.arpa, and the delegation itself should be of some quality for ENUM to work -- who has responsible for this?
I think that responsibility lies in registry operators hands, but NCC should do monitoring and step-in if quality is too low. I don't have idea right now what "step-in" and "quality is too low" definition is.
4. Registry operators have interest in being monitored, should they be monitored, or (via opt-in) on request?
You probably already know my opinion on that point :-), but together with previous points it gets more complicated. If answer to 2 and 3 is YES, then I think that they should be monitored and on opt-in request they could receive results/warnings/etc. Without opt-in it would be only from RIPE NCC internal needs.
5. If there is a need for monitoring of DNS operation, is RIPE-NCC to do that monitoring (they already do in the case of dnsmon)?
Let's put another POV in play. If DNSMON was outsourced to let's say commercial service, who will ensure quality of such monitoring? I don't think that niche in this market is so big, that it will self-regulate, because of competition. Then there would be need to _monitor_ monitoring to ensure 2 and 3. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Jim Reid píše v Čt 10. 05. 2007 v 12:45 +0100:
On May 10, 2007, at 07:05, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I seems to me that you are mixing "DNS monitoring" (in general) and "DNS monitoring for TLD operators". Here we are speaking about "monopoly for monopoly".
I'm not mixing these things. From my perspective there's no difference. I'm looking at non-core services that the NCC provide which could and should be offered by others, not by the NCC. DNS monitoring in any form (except for the NCC's internal operations) is such a service IMO. The de facto monopoly in DNS monitoring that the NCC enjoys is regrettable. The fact the NCC is in this business distorts the market and has deterred others, including NCC members, from entering that market.
I am not sure if that market is so wide. (Still with my TLD hat on.) See my comment bellow.
What worries me is an official complaint to the competition authorities which results in them reviewing every aspect of the NCC operations, introducing regulation because it's a monopoly, etc, etc.
Ok, I understand your worries.
Speaking for .cz I would very much doubt that we would buy such commercial DNS monitoring if it wasn't from RIPE NCC. We would rather build some platform ourselves and offer it to other TLD operators (on CENTR, OARSI or whatever grounds).
I think that proves my point. There would be more diversity and competition in DNS monitoring services in the marketplace (such as it is) if the NCC would leave it alone to develop naturally.
Sorry, but no. You may have little bit twisted my argument to fit your needs, but my point was that: 1. there is a need to monitor TLDs 2. there is a need to save costs 3. TLD operators are very cautious when it come to outsourcing So my point was that sooner or later something like DNSMON would be created in exactly same way as it is now. Ie. joint project of TLD operators. NCC already had nice infrastructure due TTM, so it allowed to save little bit of money to create such infrastructure on green field. I don't think that DNSMON (as is done by RIPE NCC) is deforming the market, because this market is already so much deformed. Market where customers are monopoly with big share of them being not-for-profit couldn't behave normally. But that's just my opinion and it could heavily differ from "authorities" view. But I would suggest to wrap up this discussion and continue with separate points as Patrik Fältström suggested. Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Antoin Verschuren -
Jim Reid -
Ondřej Surý -
Patrik Fältström