http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it a
legitimate hower single operator? Where to find the legal agreement
with the USG or IANA if any?
jfc
___
Ietf
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it a
legitimate hower single operator?
Neither. .gprs appears to be a private pseudo-TLD inside a walled
garden for GPRS operators.
--On mandag, oktober 03, 2005 09:53:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it a
legitimate hower single operator?
On 09:53 03/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it a
legitimate hower single operator?
Neither. .gprs appears to be a private pseudo-T
OK, as much fun as this is...
GPRS relies heavily on a tunneling mechanism (called GTP) for cellular
mobility. It's IP based.
The DNS that users know ANYTHING about is used INSIDE the tunnel - if a GPRS
user types www.yahoo.com, that's INSIDE the tunnel.
.gprs is used OUTSIDE the tunnel, to
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Spencer Dawkins"
writes:
>OK, as much fun as this is...
>
>GPRS relies heavily on a tunneling mechanism (called GTP) for cellular
>mobility. It's IP based.
>
>The DNS that users know ANYTHING about is used INSIDE the tunnel - if a GPRS
>user types www.yahoo.com,
Wouldn't it at least make sense to require that the .gprs
"pseudo-TLD" be reserved by IANA under Section 4 of RFC 2860 ("technical work
items" and
"assignments of domain names for technical uses"), with the proviso that
this TLD must not be resolved, except locally ?
This is under the theory th
At 11:58 AM -0400 10/3/05, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Wouldn't it at least make sense to require that the .gprs
"pseudo-TLD" be reserved by IANA under Section 4 of RFC 2860
("technical work items" and
"assignments of domain names for technical uses"), with the proviso that
this TLD must not be re
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Hoffman writes:
>At 11:58 AM -0400 10/3/05, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>Wouldn't it at least make sense to require that the .gprs
>>"pseudo-TLD" be reserved by IANA under Section 4 of RFC 2860
>>("technical work items" and
>>"assignments of domain names for tech
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Wouldn't it at least make sense to require that the .gprs
"pseudo-TLD" be reserved by IANA under Section 4 of RFC 2860
("technical work items" and "assignments of domain names for technical
uses"), with the proviso that this TLD must not be resolve
{sort-of IETF off-topic but we have RFC3675}
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 09:59 -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 11:58 AM -0400 10/3/05, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> >Wouldn't it at least make sense to require that the .gprs
> >"pseudo-TLD" be reserved by IANA under Section 4 of RFC 2860
> >("technical wor
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 13:27, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> potentially they could switch
> to using different CLASS (i.e. like HESIOD is locally used in MIT)
Actually, MIT switched to class IN for Hesiod data years ago because
multiple-class support didn't work as well as hoped. With the data in
> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JFC> On 09:53 03/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
>> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>> http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
>>> Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or
> Wouldn't it at least make sense to require that the .gprs
> "pseudo-TLD" be reserved by IANA under Section 4 of RFC 2860 ("technical work
> items" and
> "assignments of domain names for technical uses"), with the proviso that
> this TLD must not be resolved, except locally ?
>
> This is under
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:51:30PM -0400,
Keith Moore wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> IMHO it would make a lot more sense to distribute the (ICANN signed)
> root zone by multicast (or what the heck, even BGP) so that
> resolvers would never refer queries to the root.
It is distribut
At 09:35 06/10/2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:51:30PM -0400,
Keith Moore wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> IMHO it would make a lot more sense to distribute the (ICANN signed)
> root zone by multicast (or what the heck, even BGP) so that
> resolvers would
> Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive
> a personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of
> root related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That
> the root server system works well, does not implies that the
> root servers system concept is still the b
> Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive a
> personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of root
> related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That the
> root server > system works well, does not implies that the root servers
system
> concept is still the
At 02:33 07/10/2005, Thomas Gal wrote:
> Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive
> a personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of
> root related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That
> the root server system works well, does not implies that the
> root
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:03:41PM -0700,
Nick Staff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 45 lines which said:
> The last time I had a reason keep a copy of the root file locally
...
> I think .com alone weighed in at over 3 gigs
So what? We're talking about the root zone, not about ".com".
Sam Hartman wrote:
"JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JFC> On 09:53 03/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
>> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>> http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
>>> Comments welcome. Is it to be understood a
Actually the whole DNS caching and forwarding scheme is simply analagous to
a nice and easy heuristic greedy algorithm. It's not perfect..but it's
about the best you can do without being rediculous.
-Tom
> The last time I had a reason keep a copy of the root file
> locally was back around 19
On 6 okt 2005, at 10.00, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
We now have 1.5 billions (most of the Internet users and many more)
who will access the NewStar root file.
As Spencer pointed out - you won't. .gprs is for the infrastructure
that the users are connected to.
Besides that walled-garden
--On mandag, oktober 03, 2005 09:53:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>> http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
>> Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it
Dear Jaap,
Full agreement, but this does not address my concern.
I fully understand that Internet designers tell what "should" be. As
trying to use the Internet solutions in continuity with others
management tools of the common digital ecosystem, I am more
interested in what "can" be. And how
25 matches
Mail list logo
