Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries, but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what about .name or .info or) I am not The Public-Root. I am only one of the volonteers. :) fine, save 12 USD/11EU/year by not drinking 1 coke each week. My point was it's a little nutty that you can afford a .de domain at 10USD/9EU/year and you can't afford (supposedly) .com/net/org. Anyway, I should have learned my lesson a while ago and not started this landslide of food. Thank you for the food. When I got my homepage for free, I did not care about the domain. It was part of the contract for my mailer. I did not know I would ever need a homepage. I did not know I would ever leave this country. I know I will have to think of ".com" or ".net" soon. But I did not yet look for the prices. When this mess is cleaned up: === the public-root representative is providng full disclosure. http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ === I might come back to your offer. Kind regards Peter and Karin Oh, yes, Karin is reading this too. I have to translate it. But she knows what it is about. She is the BOSS. -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: j19n
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: wearing my worked-on-p3p-for-years hat, jurisdiction matters. how this translates into operational issues is: whois nonsense sld namespaces deresolution (upon local rule) process pricing and non-cash predicate and post-conditions moronic (or not) primary geolocs encodings and equivalancies (actually an interesting issue, the ietf not withstanding) safe harbor and data protection scope and semantics enjoy, eric Eric, you name it. Here is the details: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ Kind regards, Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Dep(3)(3)ring
Appears to be. XO's looking glass for BGP looking is broken (did it break today?), however, traceroute shows: 1 ge5-3-0d4.RAR2.NYC-NY.us.xo.net (65.106.2.1) 0 msec 4 msec 4 msec 2 * * * L3's looking glass: Show Level 3 (San Jose, CA) BGP routes for 207.155.252.78 No matching routes found for 207.155.252.78. Fun. On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Since it hasn't hit nanog yet, I guess I'll go ahead and go ahead and be the first to point it out. It seems that Level 3 (3356) and XO (2828) are no longer carrying each other's routes. :) And just when I was about to release http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/failure.jpg :) -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:07:19 +0200, Peter Dambier said: As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need for any other domain. Remember this fact for a moment.. The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. OK. So yours is bigger than mine. Now keep in mind this: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050821&mode=classic (Yes, it's totally relevant) How about this one: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ Seems to be growing more files every day. Kind regards, Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Dep(3)(3)ring
Since it hasn't hit nanog yet, I guess I'll go ahead and go ahead and be the first to point it out. It seems that Level 3 (3356) and XO (2828) are no longer carrying each other's routes. :) And just when I was about to release http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/failure.jpg :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
Mehmet Akcin wrote: We , a small group of researchers , have started a Project called Prix [ http://prix.uprr.pr ] which has the intentions of creating a large table for those who would like to sit down, in other terms an internet exchange point where all the participants can peer. Our main goal is to improve the existing connectivity between the major backbone providers and improve the connectivity between them with peering locally instead of peering somewhere in the states, which is couple of thousands miles far from Puerto Rico. excellent idea! We believe improving the network connectivity of the island will definately led those who live in Puerto Rico to think of using VoIP technologies more often. We, myself and a friend of mine who is also participating in this project, will be participating in NANOG and hopefully can meet with those who has experience in order to get recommendations about hardware/software and policies. Now that the juvenalia have stopped making fun of homonyms, yes, there is a lot of expertise around here, and I'm sure folks will help. Thank you Mehmet Akcin, PRIX PS: if you want to join our discussions you can also subscribe http://lists.uprr.pr/mailman/listinfo/prix so we don't interrupt here :-) good idea, too. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: > > Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > > uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries, > > but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what > > about .name or .info or) > > > > I am not The Public-Root. I am only one of the volonteers. :) fine, save 12 USD/11EU/year by not drinking 1 coke each week. My point was it's a little nutty that you can afford a .de domain at 10USD/9EU/year and you can't afford (supposedly) .com/net/org. Anyway, I should have learned my lesson a while ago and not started this landslide of food.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Dambier) writes: > Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) > > problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no > > way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other > > things along the way? > > Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. did i? did you read them? did you read the part where i said: | ... thus there's plenty of money and power ready to back the next | hair-brained scheme to break the lock, even if (as i expect) lack of | naming universality would be worse than lack of naming autonomy. if you can't see yourself in that picture, let me draw a clearer one: i am not nec'ily an admirer of the US-DoC/ICANN/VeriSign trinity, but i work to uphold it in spite of its flaws and my misgivings, simply because of the end-game mechanics. if any hair-brained alternate root schemes -- including yours, peter dambier! -- ever gets traction and starts to be a force to be reckoned with, then THAT is when the gold rush will begin. instead of a few whacko pirates like new.net and unidt, we'll be buried in VC-funded "namespace plays". every isp will have to decide whether to start one, join one, or stay with the default. most will decide to outsource or consort, but the money plays and consortia will come and go and fail and merge just like telco's and isp's do today. the losers will be my children, and everybody else who just wants to type a URL they saw on a milk carton into their browser and have it work. naming universality is not merely a convenience. (nor an inconvenience!) you don't get to be the last one if you succeed. (nor if you fail!) you, like all alternate namespace operators, are either a pirate or a fool. do you still think that "Paul Vixie has given very good arguments?", peter? -- Paul Vixie
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:56:50 EDT, Robert Boyle said: > I don't think Cisco, Sun, Microsoft, or any other companies do either. When > I look for a company, I don't care or need to know where they are located > most of the time - unless I am ordering a pizza, but that is a different > story... You have it totally backwards. The problem is that with a single flat .com space, you have *NO WAY* of knowing where a company is located most of the time, and a lot more things resemble pizzas than they resemble cookie-cutter computer hardware sold to us by cookie-cutter salesdroids... Consider smartway.com and smartways.com and smartwaybus.com. Only one of them has the bus schedule I needed. And I'm pretty sure that neither shelor.com nor glo-dot.com doesn't need to be taking a slot in the *global* address space. In fact, they have a number of things in common - neither is a global concern in any realistic sense, I've done business with both of them, in both cases the business was entirely due to geographic location, and in neither case did their presence in the .com domain make *any* difference in the slightest. And in both cases, their name precludes the usage by *anybody* *else* *anywhere* in *any* field. I've bought a *lot* of music gear at Rocket Music. But rocketmusic.com isn't them. It isn't rocket-music.com either. They're actually at rocketmusic.net. More trademark collision at its finest. Let's face it - 40 million things dumped into one .com without a yellow pages is a stupid way to run a network. But it's what we're stuck with. pgpiH2cuEHTLG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Why use ccTLDs? [was: Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers]
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Robert Boyle wrote: At 10:39 PM 9/27/2005, you wrote: Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and equality across borders, not intensify their differences. Well said! Other than government entities, I never understood why anyone would want a country specific name. Tellurian Networks provides the same services to our clients in AU as we do to those in DE and PK and those in the US of course (where we are located.) I don't want 200+ domain names and I don't think Cisco, Sun, Microsoft, or any other companies do either. When I look for a company, I don't care or need to know where they are located most of the time - unless I am ordering a pizza, but that is a different story... Communities of interest - such as my personal favorite 356registry.org are global in scope and by their very nature! My $0.02 and contribution to the non operational noise on nanog today. A few issues: There are a lot of parts of the world that don't have very good external connectivity. ccTLDs often have local servers in the locations they're supposed to serve. .Com's footprint is somewhat limited [1]. If you're on one end of a flaky satellite link, and those you are trying to communicate with are on the same end of that flaky satellite link, but you're trying to use a DNS zone that's served from something on the other end of the satellite link, that's not going to work all that reliably. ccTLDs often allow people to get their domains from a local organization which speaks the local language, accepts the local currency, and charges a locally affordable amount. $15 per year sounds cheap in the US (or in Germany, for that matter), but there are places where that's a lot of money. Location-based domains can also separate out the trademark space. Businesses with the same name in completely different markets generally don't conflict, but do if they're both trying to share the .com namespace. [1]: .Com is served from three locations in DC/Northern Virginia, Miami, Los Angeles, Seattle, the SF Bay Area, Atlanta, Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore, Amsterdam, Stockholm, and London. -Steve
Corruption and Monopoly is the real Issue (was Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers)
> > Is your problem that it takes X months/years to get a new TLD put into the > normal ICANN Root system? Or is it that you don't like their choice of > .com and want .common (or some other .com replacement?). There is a > process defined to handle adding new TLD's, I think it's even documented > in an RFC? (I'm a little behind in my NRIC reading about this actually, > sorry) Circumventing a process simply because it's not 'fast enough' > isn't really an answer (in my opinion atleast) especially when it > effectivly breaks the complete system. > No, the process is locked up by monopolistic ICANN. There is one issue no one has mentioned lately. There are people who have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars developing their TLD properties and they are effectivly being shut out of the market by ICANN. We shouldn't need ICANN's permission to operate our TLDs and if ICANN wont support our TLDs, then we need an alternative way to operate our businesses. We have a right to operate our TLDs and the Inclusive Namespace is the way, since it does not force us to pay "protection money" or force us to impose the horrid UDRP on our customers. A free market system would allow all business models to exist. ICANN and its bureaucracy is not needed, just a contractor to maintain the root zone file. ICANN was supposed to be a bottom-up, democratic, consensus driven organization and board members (a significant portion of them) elected by the internet citizens of the world. Almost before the ink was dry on the MOU, ICANN, under Mr. Roberts began backing down on their responsibility to operate the organization in a democratic way. Now very few (if any) of the board members are directly elected by internet citizens. The result: ICANN is a corrupt monopoly that attempts to shut out competitors. If they want something, the steal it, just like they stole .BIZ from Leah Gallegos. THAT is the problem with ICANN, and you know damn well it is.
j19n (was: Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers)
wearing my worked-on-p3p-for-years hat, jurisdiction matters. how this translates into operational issues is: whois nonsense sld namespaces deresolution (upon local rule) process pricing and non-cash predicate and post-conditions moronic (or not) primary geolocs encodings and equivalancies (actually an interesting issue, the ietf not withstanding) safe harbor and data protection scope and semantics enjoy, eric
Apologies...
...for the terrible grammar and incomplete sentences in the message I just sent. It was the result of replying to a post while performing other tasks and not taking the time to properly proofread before hitting send. -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
At 10:39 PM 9/27/2005, you wrote: Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and equality across borders, not intensify their differences. Well said! Other than government entities, I never understood why anyone would want a country specific name. Tellurian Networks provides the same services to our clients in AU as we do to those in DE and PK and those in the US of course (where we are located.) I don't want 200+ domain names and I don't think Cisco, Sun, Microsoft, or any other companies do either. When I look for a company, I don't care or need to know where they are located most of the time - unless I am ordering a pizza, but that is a different story... Communities of interest - such as my personal favorite 356registry.org are global in scope and by their very nature! My $0.02 and contribution to the non operational noise on nanog today. -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
At 05:46 PM 9/27/2005, Peter Dambier wrote: I have a ".de" domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to france. I cannot get a ".eu" domain because of bureaucratic reasons. Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains are of no use to me. A significant number of country registrars have NO residency requirements. I would guess almost half of the 2-letter country codes will sell their domains to anyone in the world with a credit card. Explore some registrars via http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm For example, alldomains.com alone is a re-seller of 16 country domains (.us, ca, cc, tv, DE, md, bz, ws, it, at, nu, nl, fr, ch, be, cn) ___ Russ Haynal - Internet Instructor, Speaker and Paradigm Shaker "Helping organizations gain the most benefit from the Internet" [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://navigators.com 703-729-1757
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
.com is an abomination, as are the other gTLDs to a lesser extent. .gov, .mil, .edu, .info, and .biz need to be shifted under .us immediately, and everyone under .com, .net, and .org needs to be gradually moved under the appropriate part of the real DNS tree. I can live with .int continuing on, but only because no better solution immediately comes to mind. Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and equality across borders, not intensify their differences. Tony
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Thus spake "Peter Dambier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > James R. Cutler wrote: > > I must have missed something here. > > > > Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, > > not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each > > ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? > > > > Please explain this in simple words. > > The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why > you find organisations, companies and whatever in ".com", ".net" and > ".org" No, .com, .net, and .org became popular because (a) the entity that .us was assigned to was both incompetent and hostile, and (b) Americans are, for the most part, blissfully unaware that anyone exists outside their borders. .com is merely a historical substitute for .us. If .us had been used correctly, we wouldn't have needed gTLDs at all. > I have a ".de" domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to > france. I cannot get a ".eu" domain because of bureaucratic reasons. > Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains > are of no use to me. There are plenty of ccTLDs that will sell you a domain regardless of residency, nearly all of them for less than you pay your own country's registrar for a "correct" domain. > Sooner or later I will end up in ".com", ".net" > or ".org". Right now I dont have the money to bye me a ".com", ".net" > or ".org" domain. You can afford EUR 116/yr for a .de domain but not USD 15/yr for a .com domain? (pricing from DENICdirect and my Dotster, respectively) > That is why I join with people like me building our own root and selling > toplevel domains to people who cannot afford bying ICANN for monetarian > or religious reasons :) So petition ICANN to create a new TLD for poor people, since you believe that more gTLDs are the answer. Using an alternate root means only other poor people will be able to reach you (since they're the only ones who need that alternate root), which appears acceptable at first but will quickly become untenable. Not to mention it'll be quickly taken over by spammers, as .info and .biz have been. Adding gTLDs is a bad solution to the wrong problem. S Stephen Sprunk"Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Thus spake "Peter Dambier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) > > problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no > > way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other > > things along the way? > > Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. > > Let me add a design fault: > > As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need > for any other domain. > > Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com. > > Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and > we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want. No, what you'd get is 25M top-level domains and virtually no hierarchy. That is _not_ what we want. .com is an abomination, as are the other gTLDs to a lesser extent. .gov, .mil, .edu, .info, and .biz need to be shifted under .us immediately, and everyone under .com, .net, and .org needs to be gradually moved under the appropriate part of the real DNS tree. I can live with .int continuing on, but only because no better solution immediately comes to mind. > Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root: ... > The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. > > There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got > enough toplevel domains. > > DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. > > DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. What you're proposing is eliminating what little tree-like elements are left and making a totally flat system. Can't you see that you're arguing against your own position here? S Stephen Sprunk"Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Peter,
OK, now I understand. It is not the DNS hierarchy which is the
problem. Or, even the rDNS oot or the various DNS server sets.
Yours is a personal difference with the assignment process which causes
operational issues for you when you migrate.
Thank you for your clarification. Perhaps you should approach ICANN
with alternate proposals.
Regards.
Cutler
At 9/27/2005 11:46 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
Hi James,
James R. Cutler wrote:
Peter,
I must have missed something here.
Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country,
not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each
ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US?
Please explain this in simple words.
The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why
you find organisations, companies and whatever in ".com",
".net" and
".org"
I have a ".de" domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I
move to
france. I cannot get a ".eu" domain because of bureaucratic
reasons.
Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250
domains
are of no use to me. Sooner or later I will end up in ".com",
".net"
or ".org". Right now I dont have the money to bye me a
".com", ".net"
or ".org" domain. That is why I join with people like me
building our
own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford
bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons :)
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin
Thank you.
Cutler
t 9/27/2005 10:07 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'm confused by the reasoning
behind this public-root (alternate root)
problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is
no
way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break
other
things along the way?
Paul Vixie has given very good arguments.
Let me add a design fault:
As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no
need
for any other domain.
Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com.
Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it
and
we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we
want.
Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root:
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
#
SOA(".","2005092401","A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.","NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.","1800","900","604800","86400").
# lines: 2334, NS: 1380, A: 878, : 65, SOA:
2, domains: 263 servers: 64
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
#
SOA(".","2005092512","a.public-root.net.","hostmaster.public-root.net.","43200","3600","1209600","14400").
# lines: 11640, NS: 10479, A: 1085, : 66,
SOA: 2, domains: 3043 servers: 65
The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263.
There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got
enough toplevel domains.
DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised.
DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was.
It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single
registry.
No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but
compatible
to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name
changed.
The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root
compared
to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of
customers
gets more.
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier
-
James R. Cutler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason
-
James R. Cutler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:07:19 +0200, Peter Dambier said: > As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need > for any other domain. Remember this fact for a moment.. > The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. OK. So yours is bigger than mine. Now keep in mind this: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050821&mode=classic (Yes, it's totally relevant) pgpg6s9XlLYhR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On 9/27/05, Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > or ".org". Right now I dont have the money to bye me a ".com", ".net" > or ".org" domain. That is why I join with people like me building our > own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford > bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons :) Let me be the first to offer the free registration of the com net or org of your choice if it will end this alternate root nonsense.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
David Conrad wrote: On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code- lists/list-en1-semic.txt hey look, that's in switzerland! :) So, not US controlled. (tinfoil hat off) It is an ISO list, but isn't the ISO-3166 list still maintained by DIN in Germany? Rgds, -drc The DIN is ISOed. They say DIN/ISO-... sometimes. Often they forget the "DIN/" part. Regards, Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries, but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what about .name or .info or) I am not The Public-Root. I am only one of the volonteers. :) -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code- lists/list-en1-semic.txt hey look, that's in switzerland! :) So, not US controlled. (tinfoil hat off) It is an ISO list, but isn't the ISO-3166 list still maintained by DIN in Germany? Rgds, -drc
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: > I have a ".de" domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to > france. I cannot get a ".eu" domain because of bureaucratic reasons. > Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains > are of no use to me. Sooner or later I will end up in ".com", ".net" > or ".org". Right now I dont have the money to bye me a ".com", ".net" > or ".org" domain. That is why I join with people like me building our uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries, but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what about .name or .info or)
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Jared Mauch wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:42:22PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, James R. Cutler wrote: > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > I must have missed something here. > > > > > > Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered > > > country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains > > > for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? > > > > I'm not up on this exactly, but my reading of the NRIC report says that > > some ISO document has all the 'official' (for ISO I suppose atleast) 2 > > letter abbreviations for country codes. These end up in the ccTLD list, > > and then in the root servers delegated to the proper ccTLD auth servers > > for that 2 letter code. > > > > The ISO list isn't a US owned thing at last I recall... > > ISO 3166 is what you want. > > http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1-semic.txt hey look, that's in switzerland! :) So, not US controlled. (tinfoil hat off)
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:42:22PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, James R. Cutler wrote: > > > Peter, > > > > I must have missed something here. > > > > Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered > > country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains > > for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? > > I'm not up on this exactly, but my reading of the NRIC report says that > some ISO document has all the 'official' (for ISO I suppose atleast) 2 > letter abbreviations for country codes. These end up in the ccTLD list, > and then in the root servers delegated to the proper ccTLD auth servers > for that 2 letter code. > > The ISO list isn't a US owned thing at last I recall... ISO 3166 is what you want. http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1-semic.txt -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Hi James,
James R. Cutler wrote:
Peter,
I must have missed something here.
Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country,
not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each
ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US?
Please explain this in simple words.
The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why
you find organisations, companies and whatever in ".com", ".net" and
".org"
I have a ".de" domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to
france. I cannot get a ".eu" domain because of bureaucratic reasons.
Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains
are of no use to me. Sooner or later I will end up in ".com", ".net"
or ".org". Right now I dont have the money to bye me a ".com", ".net"
or ".org" domain. That is why I join with people like me building our
own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford
bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons :)
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin
Thank you.
Cutler
t 9/27/2005 10:07 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root)
problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no
way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other
things along the way?
Paul Vixie has given very good arguments.
Let me add a design fault:
As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need
for any other domain.
Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com.
Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and
we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want.
Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root:
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
#
SOA(".","2005092401","A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.","NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.","1800","900","604800","86400").
# lines: 2334, NS: 1380, A: 878, : 65, SOA: 2, domains: 263
servers: 64
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
#
SOA(".","2005092512","a.public-root.net.","hostmaster.public-root.net.","43200","3600","1209600","14400").
# lines: 11640, NS: 10479, A: 1085, : 66, SOA: 2, domains: 3043
servers: 65
The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263.
There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got
enough toplevel domains.
DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised.
DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was.
It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry.
No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but
compatible
to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The
name changed.
The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root
compared
to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of
customers
gets more.
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier
-
James R. Cutler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, James R. Cutler wrote: > Peter, > > I must have missed something here. > > Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered > country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains > for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? I'm not up on this exactly, but my reading of the NRIC report says that some ISO document has all the 'official' (for ISO I suppose atleast) 2 letter abbreviations for country codes. These end up in the ccTLD list, and then in the root servers delegated to the proper ccTLD auth servers for that 2 letter code. The ISO list isn't a US owned thing at last I recall... > > Please explain this in simple words. >
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: > > Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) > > problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no > > way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other > > things along the way? > > Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. paul often does, yes. > > Let me add a design fault: > > > The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. > > There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got > enough toplevel domains. 'not enough'... how much is 'enough'? by your calculations or mine or pauls or G.W. Bush's? Is your problem that it takes X months/years to get a new TLD put into the normal ICANN Root system? Or is it that you don't like their choice of .com and want .common (or some other .com replacement?). There is a process defined to handle adding new TLD's, I think it's even documented in an RFC? (I'm a little behind in my NRIC reading about this actually, sorry) Circumventing a process simply because it's not 'fast enough' isn't really an answer (in my opinion atleast) especially when it effectivly breaks the complete system. > > DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. > > DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. > uhm, how so? certainly the tree and decentralized functions still exist. > It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry. > huh? how so? Because 25M of the 35M 2nd level domains are in .com? isn't that more a function of 'everyone knows www.company.com' than anything else? I can't get people inside my company to realize (well, couldn't when it mattered to me) remeber that my email address was [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... they always wanted to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .COM got more registrations simply, it seems to me, via marketting. > No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but > compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never > stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new > version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of > players gets more. The number of customers gets more. people love crack, it's still not a good idea to smoke it.
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
On 27-Sep-2005, at 16:03, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: There is already an IX called DIX (Denmark) so PRIX should work as well :) There's an exchange called the PNIX in Palmerston North, New Zealand, too.
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-) >> >> yes it would be. >> >> everything in language A has a strange connotation in some other >> language B. e.g., my name is great fun in brit-english speaking >> land. > > There is already an IX called DIX (Denmark) so PRIX should work as well :) A few years ago there was also a small-scale (couple of hundred megs of traffic, mostly netnews) exchange point known as the Avi and RS Exchange. The acronym is left as an exercise to the reader. ---Rob
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers gets more. Aww, thats cute. While I'm sure you've read RFC 2826 and disagree completely with it, what happens if some other schmoe starts public-root2 and duplicates some of your TLD. Then you have different users resolving the same hosts ending up at different destinations. There has to be 1 globally unique root. ICANN is currently it. Sorry. sam
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Peter,
I must have missed something here.
Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country,
not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each
ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US?
Please explain this in simple words.
Thank you.
Cutler
t 9/27/2005 10:07 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'm confused by the reasoning
behind this public-root (alternate root)
problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is
no
way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break
other
things along the way?
Paul Vixie has given very good arguments.
Let me add a design fault:
As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no
need
for any other domain.
Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under
'.com.
Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it
and
we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we
want.
Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root:
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
#
SOA(".","2005092401","A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.","NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.","1800","900","604800","86400").
# lines: 2334, NS: 1380, A: 878, : 65, SOA:
2, domains: 263 servers: 64
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
#
SOA(".","2005092512","a.public-root.net.","hostmaster.public-root.net.","43200","3600","1209600","14400").
# lines: 11640, NS: 10479, A: 1085, : 66,
SOA: 2, domains: 3043 servers: 65
The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only
263.
There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got
enough toplevel domains.
DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised.
DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was.
It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single
registry.
No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but
compatible
to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name
changed.
The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root
compared
to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of
customers
gets more.
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason
-
James R. Cutler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 209.68.1.140 (209.68.1.0 /24) blocked by bellsouth.net for SMTP
Could you guys change the subject if you want to have flame wars... This stuff has nothing to do with "209.68.1.140 (209.68.1.0 /24) blocked by bellsouth.net for SMTP". --- Alan Spicer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Original Message - From: "Gadi Evron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hannigan, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 4:43 PM Subject: Re: 209.68.1.140 (209.68.1.0 /24) blocked by bellsouth.net for SMTP ---snip--->
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 22:07 +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: > No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but > compatible > to ICANNs root. Peter, Thanks for notifying that one of your "Internet Root Zone" "root-servers" defected to another alternate root without even telling you. It nicely shows that "Public Root" is already something that that "root-server" in Turkey doesn't want to be a part of. Guess Why. Btw, look up the word 'hierarchy' in the dictionary and become amazed. You can find a good description at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy Do use the ICANN DNS for resolving it though, you might end up at some other site with different content if you don't. This might have caused you a lot of confusion already in the past. Say hello to Karin btw. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root)
problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no
way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other
things along the way?
Paul Vixie has given very good arguments.
Let me add a design fault:
As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need
for any other domain.
Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com.
Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and
we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want.
Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root:
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
#
SOA(".","2005092401","A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.","NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.","1800","900","604800","86400").
# lines: 2334, NS: 1380, A: 878, : 65, SOA: 2, domains: 263 servers: 64
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
#
SOA(".","2005092512","a.public-root.net.","hostmaster.public-root.net.","43200","3600","1209600","14400").
# lines: 11640, NS: 10479, A: 1085, : 66, SOA: 2, domains: 3043
servers: 65
The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263.
There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got enough
toplevel domains.
DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised.
DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was.
It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry.
No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible
to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name
changed.
The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared
to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers
gets more.
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Randy Bush wrote: Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-) yes it would be. everything in language A has a strange connotation in some other language B. e.g., my name is great fun in brit-english speaking land. There is already an IX called DIX (Denmark) so PRIX should work as well :) -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
Actually the list will be in English mostly since we will have international participants who will be honoring us with their great helps. I think PRIX is a good name , I mean the name is not really important, we can even name it as NONAMEIX as long as it's working and helping the community to grow and to work better. Mehmet Quoting Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:55:51AM -0600, John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 10 lines which said: Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-) Mehmet did not say so, but I assume his mailing list will be in spanish and that PRIX is OK in his language.
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:55:51AM -0600, John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 10 lines which said: > Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-) Mehmet did not say so, but I assume his mailing list will be in spanish and that PRIX is OK in his language.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: So, I think I'm off the crazy-pills recently... Why is it again that folks want to balkanize the Internet like this? Why would you intentionally put your customer base into this situation? If you are going to do this, why not just drop random packets to 'bad' destinations instead? There are actually quite a few parties advocating dropping packets to 'bad' destinations. Each of them usually has a different set of criteria to define the 'bad'. Pete
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Christopher L. Morrow") writes:
> So... Why is it again that folks want to balkanize the Internet like this?
the dreams fulfilled and/or still promised by the internet mostly involve
some kind of disintermediation, increases in freedom or autonomy, that kind
of thing.
in that context, centralized control over things like address assignments
and TLD creation is like fingernails on a chalkboard. a lot of folks feel
that "if it has to be centrally controlled, then $me should be in charge"
or at best "if it has to be centrally controlled, then $me want a voice."
this desire is more powerful than any appreciation or understanding of the
benefits of naming universality or address uniqueness. human nature,
especially when individuals interact with herds, is predictable but not
necessarily rational.
> I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root)
> problem... It seems to me ... that there is no way for it to work, ever.
> So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way?
i think it's because of what margaret mead wrote:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
the internet is supernational. control over it is held by the ruling
political party, and their backers, in one country. thus there's plenty of
money and power ready to back the next hair-brained scheme to break the
lock, even if (as i expect) lack of naming universality would be worse
than lack of naming autonomy.
--
Paul Vixie
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Steve Gibbard wrote: > > So the basic story here is not really "Turkey is using a new DNS root," > but rather, "users of alternate root servers notice alternate root > inconsistency," which is exactly what those opposed to alternate roots > have been predicting. > > There's also a real root server in Turkey. According to > www.root-servers.org, there's an anycast copy of i.root-servers.net in > Ankara. So, I think I'm off the crazy-pills recently... Why is it again that folks want to balkanize the Internet like this? Why would you intentionally put your customer base into this situation? If you are going to do this, why not just drop random packets to 'bad' destinations instead? I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way?
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
> What do you suggest? Puertorican Exchange Lan Office :-)
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
> Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-) yes it would be. everything in language A has a strange connotation in some other language B. e.g., my name is great fun in brit-english speaking land. randy
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
No, I think we all need the comic relief, I say leave it :) -SteveOn 9/27/05, John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We , a small group of researchers , have started a Project called Prix [> http://prix.uprr.pr ] which has the intentions of creating a large table for> those who would like to sit down, in other terms an internet exchange point > where all the participants can peer.Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-)John-- -Steve
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
go ahead :) What do you suggest? Mehmet Quoting John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: We , a small group of researchers , have started a Project called Prix [ http://prix.uprr.pr ] which has the intentions of creating a large table for those who would like to sit down, in other terms an internet exchange point where all the participants can peer. Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-) John
Re: PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
> We , a small group of researchers , have started a Project called Prix [ > http://prix.uprr.pr ] which has the intentions of creating a large table for > those who would like to sit down, in other terms an internet exchange point > where all the participants can peer. Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-) John
PRIX - Puerto RIco Internet Exchange
Hi, I'd like to speak with people who were / are working in IX points and/or have knowledge about the infrastructure of IX points. We , a small group of researchers , have started a Project called Prix [ http://prix.uprr.pr ] which has the intentions of creating a large table for those who would like to sit down, in other terms an internet exchange point where all the participants can peer. Our main goal is to improve the existing connectivity between the major backbone providers and improve the connectivity between them with peering locally instead of peering somewhere in the states, which is couple of thousands miles far from Puerto Rico. We believe improving the network connectivity of the island will definately led those who live in Puerto Rico to think of using VoIP technologies more often. We, myself and a friend of mine who is also participating in this project, will be participating in NANOG and hopefully can meet with those who has experience in order to get recommendations about hardware/software and policies. Thank you Mehmet Akcin, PRIX PS: if you want to join our discussions you can also subscribe http://lists.uprr.pr/mailman/listinfo/prix so we don't interrupt here :-)
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: Evren Demirkan wrote: Ok So what, I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in plain English? Evren Demirkan Hi Evren Demirkan, there has been for about one year a turkish root-server: l.public-root.com That server did not resolve the ICANN root but The Public-Root. Until some ISPs in Turkey started selling turkish language toplevel domains nobody noticed because in the legacy domains ICANN and Public-Root are compatible. So the basic story here is not really "Turkey is using a new DNS root," but rather, "users of alternate root servers notice alternate root inconsistency," which is exactly what those opposed to alternate roots have been predicting. There's also a real root server in Turkey. According to www.root-servers.org, there's an anycast copy of i.root-servers.net in Ankara. -Steve
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Evren Demirkan wrote: Ok So what, I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in plain English? Evren Demirkan Hi Evren Demirkan, there has been for about one year a turkish root-server: l.public-root.com That server did not resolve the ICANN root but The Public-Root. Until some ISPs in Turkey started selling turkish language toplevel domains nobody noticed because in the legacy domains ICANN and Public-Root are compatible. As I am comparing the root-servers to check compatibility I had to find out sooner or later that l.public-root.com was drifting away from the rest of our root-servers. I found out that l.public-root.com was not only missing updates and losing compatibility with ICANN but it started servicing a completely new root: *.united-root.com Except for the root-servers themselves and the names of the root-servers united-root.com did run old Public-Root data. You can check from which root your DNS comes by asking this simple querey using dig on linux or unix: dig -t any . My dig, in the Public-Root, answers: ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37356 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 14, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 172800 IN SOA a.public-root.net. \ hostmaster.public-root.net.\ 2005092712 43200 3600 1209600 14400 . 172800 IN NS a.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS b.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS c.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS d.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS e.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS f.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS g.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS h.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS i.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS j.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS k.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS l.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS m.public-root.net. ;; Query time: 207 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.48.228#53(192.168.48.228) ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 27 17:16:12 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 273 If you are in the ICANN root your answer should be: ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @a.root-servers.net ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 60636 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 14, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 3 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 518400 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. \ NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. \ 2005092601 1800 900 604800 86400 . 518400 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 518400 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
RE: Address Space & ASN Allocation Process
I think this is operational... I beg to differ: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four3 I have done this for a customer, and they got a /22. There is also a policy proposal right now that would allow an end user to get a BGP ASN, get RIR IP space and do it all at once... http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_7.htmlh Robert Seastrom is the author of this... Robert, you out there ?? 4.3.2. Minimum assignment 4.3.2.1 Single Connection The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is a /20. If assignments smaller than /20 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider. 4.3.2.2 Multihomed Connection For multihomed end-users, the minimum block of IP address space assigned is a /22. If assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, multihomed end-users should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are assigned which are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved for that purpose. I hope this helps... Jim -Original Message- From: sjk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:47 PM To: Vicky Rode Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Address Space & ASN Allocation Process On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Vicky Rode wrote: > Hi, > > Just trying to get some clarity and direction regarding obtaining > address space/ASN for my client. > > Is there a minimum address space (?) an entity would need to justify > to go directly to RIR (ARIN in this case) as opposed to the upstream > provider? Is /20 the minimum allocation? Can my client approach RIR > and request for a /23? > > If my client do procure a /23 how do they make make sure that this > address space will be globally routable? > > Multihome will also be part of their network implementation, can they > apply for an ASN number? Yes, minimum assignment is /20 (and this is considered temporary, as the official minimum is /19) -- there used to be some experimental /24s, but I believe these are now gone. ARIN will only assign /20 or more -- larger prefixes must come from your upstream provider. Being multihomed means you will be required to get an AS number. Once you have your address block, you can fill out the request from ARIN. --sjk
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On 27/09/05, Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is the birth of a new root-server system: > > *.united-root.com > Please, put the alternate root crack-pipe down and back slwly away from it Setting up an alternate root server in turkey and claiming that turkey has switched root servers is quite specious .. even for drinkers of the alternate root koolaid -- Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:45:33PM +0300, Evren Demirkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 29 lines which said: > I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in > plain English? There is nothing related with your country in the whole thread. The subject is misleading. (You can do a "dig NS ." on your machine to be sure.)
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Ok So what, I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in plain English? Evren Demirkan
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Roy Arends wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: Here is the birth of a new root-server system: What does Turkey have to do with this ? Sensationalistic headlining; one of the IP addresses quoted is located within Turkey. Worlds different from the implication that 'All Internet users in Turkey now use this new root-server system'. One of these days, people will learn that unless everyone plays from the same root zone, you effectively end up with seperate Internets. Boo, hiss and all that. -- Bruce Campbell As long as you point your resolvers at 192.168.123.34, I can be reached by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
>> Here is the birth of a new root-server system: > What does Turkey have to do with this ? only turkeys switch root servers. [ sorry, turkey is american slang for fool ]
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: > Here is the birth of a new root-server system: What does Turkey have to do with this ? Roy
Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Here is the birth of a new root-server system:
*.united-root.com
; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any . @l.public-root.net.
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 11820
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 11, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;. IN ANY
;; ANSWER SECTION:
. 172800 IN SOA a.united-root.com.
hostmaster.united-root.com.\
2005091400 43200 3600 1209600 14400
. 172800 IN NS g.united-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS ns1.public-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS tld1.public-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS tld2.public-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS a.united-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS b.united-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS c.united-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS d.united-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS e.united-root.com.
. 172800 IN NS f.united-root.com.
;; Query time: 182 msec
;; SERVER: 195.214.191.125#53(l.public-root.net.)
;; WHEN: Mon Sep 26 16:04:25 2005
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 248
; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any a.united-root.com @l.public-root.net.
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37370
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;a.united-root.com. IN ANY
;; ANSWER SECTION:
a.united-root.com. 86400 IN A 69.20.9.165
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
united-root.com.86400 IN NS ns2.solfix.com.
united-root.com.86400 IN NS ns1.solfix.net.
;; Query time: 4639 msec
;; SERVER: 195.214.191.125#53(l.public-root.net.)
;; WHEN: Mon Sep 26 16:10:33 2005
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 104
host_look("69.20.9.165","a.united-root.com","1158941093").
host_look("72.3.230.81","b.united-root.com","1208215121").
host_name("72.3.230.81","us2.tandtt.com").
host_look("83.138.163.17","c.united-root.com","1401594641").
host_name("83.138.163.17","uk1.tandtt.com").
host_look("203.142.18.40","e.united-root.com","3415085608").
host_look("202.157.188.44","f.united-root.com","3399334956").
host_look("202.157.179.24","g.united-root.com","3399332632").
host_look("195.214.191.125","h.united-root.com","3285630845").
look("207.228.237.52","i.united-root.com","3487886644").
host_look("209.172.35.234","j.united-root.com","3517719530").
host_name("209.172.35.234","ip-209-172-35-234.reverse.privatedns.com").
host_look("84.0.0.0","j.united-root.com","1409286144").
host_name("84.0.0.0","catv5400.pool.t-online.hu").
host_look("46.99.111.109","j.united-root.com","778268525").
host_look("76.111.110.100","j.united-root.com","1282371172").
host_look("209.172.35.241","k.united-root.com","3517719537").
host_name("209.172.35.241","ip-209-172-35-241.reverse.privatedns.com").
host_look("84.0.0.0","k.united-root.com","1409286144").
host_name("84.0.0.0","catv5400.pool.t-online.hu").
host_look("46.99.111.109","k.united-root.com","778268525").
host_look("76.111.110.100","k.united-root.com","1282371172").
Not all their servers are working. Some return ICANN.
tld1.public-root.com.
tld2.public-root.com.
are nonsense. They return ICANN.
Right now they seem to run old Public-Root data
except for the '.' domain
G.UNITED-ROOT.COMA 202.157.179.24
D.UNITED-ROOT.COMA 202.157.181.78
F.UNITED-ROOT.COMA 202.157.188.44
E.UNITED-ROOT.COMA 203.142.18.40
A.UNITED-ROOT.COMA 69.20.9.165
B.UNITED-ROOT.COMA 72.3.230.81
C.UNITED-ROOT.COMA 83.138.163.17
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason
