On 3 mar 2006, at 17.58, Peter Dambier wrote:
To best of my knowledge, that there are no new Chinese root-
servers - despite what the press says. And at least we have not
seen a drop in queries to our anycast instance in Beijing yet so
there even seems to be data to support that...
But
On 3 mar 2006, at 18.15, Joe Baptista wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
To best of my knowledge, that there are no new Chinese root-
servers - despite what the press says. And at least we have not
seen a drop in queries to our anycast instance in Beijing yet so
there even seems to be
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 3 mar 2006, at 18.15, Joe Baptista wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
To best of my knowledge, that there are no new Chinese root- servers
- despite what the press says. And at least we have not seen a drop
in queries to our anycast instance in Beijing yet
On 5 mar 2006, at 11.11, Peter Dambier wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 3 mar 2006, at 18.15, Joe Baptista wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
To best of my knowledge, that there are no new Chinese root-
servers - despite what the press says. And at least we have
not seen a drop in
In the hope of closing a loop, I trust that everyone who has
tried to turn this into a big deal and a huge international
crisis, or has otherwise gotten worked up about it, has seen the
statement in Friday's _People's Daily_. For those who have not,
I recommend a quick reading of
Dear John,
thank you to make the point.
At 17:35 05/03/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
There are no independent root-servers in China, or at least
none that anyone official is willing to claim.
This IS the point. There is no independent root-servers. The other
point is: there is no change for
Dear John,
thank you to make the point.
At 17:35 05/03/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
There are no independent root-servers in China, or at least
none that anyone official is willing to claim.
This IS the point. There is no independent root-servers. The other
point is: there is no change
Facility
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:02:01 -0500
Para: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Beyond China's independent root-servers -- Expanding and Fixing
Domain Notation
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
There is nothing to do
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:26:59 +0800, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
Stephane On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:26:23AM -0800,
Stephane Jefsey Morfin, disguised as Mohsen BANAN
Stephane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Stephane a message of 551 lines which said:
Hello Stephane
At 05:36 03/03/2006, Mark Andrews wrote:
They are still a problem whether you think they should exist
or not. The problem is that they are added unilaterally
and people using them expect everyone else to be able to
resolve them as well. The method of adding them
On 2 mar 2006, at 09.26, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
More than 5 years ago I predicted what the Chinese
government announced today.
What happened today:
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10411slug=INTERNET-
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2 mar 2006, at 09.26, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
More than 5 years ago I predicted what the Chinese
government announced today.
What happened today:
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
To best of my knowledge, that there are no new Chinese root-servers -
despite what the press says. And at least we have not seen a drop in
queries to our anycast instance in Beijing yet so there even seems to
be data to support that...
There are. Check Peter
Mark Andrews wrote:
They are still a problem whether you think they should exist
or not. The problem is that they are added unilaterally
and people using them expect everyone else to be able to
resolve them as well. The method of adding them was wrong
Peter,
you can call them root servers, but actually they are servers listed
in the NTIA root. So they are TLD servers used as by the ISP as root
servers. This only seem to mean that the concept of root is not used.
This is a TLD forest. Experimentation we carried with dot-root made
us to
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
There is nothing to do for the IETF or the Internet technical
community (whatever it is). The problem is 100 % political and should
be addressed in ICANN / WSIS / IGF / whatever but not in the IETF.
Good Lord - your spewing the crapola far and wide today. Like I
More than 5 years ago I predicted what the Chinese
government announced today.
What happened today:
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10411slug=INTERNET-POLICY-MII-DOMAIN%20NAME-DNS
Mohsen BANAN wrote:
More than 5 years ago I predicted what the Chinese
government announced today.
This action by the chinese was done three years ago. This is not a new
event.
regards
joe
What happened today:
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:26:23AM -0800,
Jefsey Morfin, disguised as Mohsen BANAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 551 lines which said:
The Internet technical community is now given a unique opportunity
There is nothing to do for the IETF or the Internet technical
community (whatever it
Mohsen,
it seems that Stephane tested the Chinese open root too much and
meets some naming problems.
Or that Stephane wants you, and others may-be, to be PR-defamacted
one shot with me.
jfc
PS. I note his technical evaluation that The problem is 100 %
political and should be
20 matches
Mail list logo
