k claffy wrote:
>...
> please send any hard data reflecting observed ramifications on
> security and stability of Internet infrastructure to
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> no hard data will be refused service
Here's a glimpse of some data for a small ISP (bcc'd to secsac).
This mail serv
On Oct 16, 2003, at 9:39 PM, Dan Riley wrote:
And write your congressmen to explain how Verisign is abusing a
government granted monopoly to stop others (including M$ and AOL) from
innovating at the edge, because that's where this is headed--Verisign
is ultimately counting on having better lobb
At 09:27 PM 10/16/2003, you wrote:
I agree that an application level solution at the edge is the best.
I like the idea of having a user configurable parameter in the client
browser to allow the ``finder'' URL to be set. The browser
``manufacturer'' would of course put their own default and the ISP
Gerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Having been a part of many fraternity pranks along this line, I might
> remind some of a glitch with this line of thinking.
>
> VeriSign employees read this list. (Verisign shows up with tomatoes & red
> "I love VeriSign" shirts saying if you like the idea...w
Showing our displeasure to Verisign (and potentially getting media coverage which
explains why nanog-l posters are mad at verisign) is indeed operational... Unless you
enjoy monopolistic corporations breaking significant features of the Internet without
prior notice?
At 03:30 PM 10/16/2003 -0
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> Yes, I will heartily agree with this. Having this functionality be
> triggered by a wildcard in the DNS records is the wrong approach. It's
> the application that should be taking care of this
>
> if (NXDOMAIN)
> redirect(preferences->sitefinde
May I suggest.
pumpkins
A pumpkin per complainant would make a nice visual symbol,
one the press could grasp.
And afterwards, they could be donated
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unle
A proposal was made some years ago, which I thought was by Tony Li,
but, IIRC, he says it wasn't original with him. It does require
cooperation from competitors, but can reduce the number of
announcements. Under some circumstances, it may cause blackholing,
but so can /24 filtering.
The idea
That is a positive note, hopefully the new group will give us a public statement
of its intentions.
-HenryMark Vallar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just got this email from Network Solutions...Hm--mvalFrom: Network Solutions, Inc.[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:3
Paul Vixie wrote:
While I agree that handling of NXDOMAIN needs to improve, such handling
must be done by the application. Popular browsers have already started ...
i think i agree with where this was going, but it would be a fine thing if
we all stop calling this NXDOMAIN. the proper term is
jlewis wrote:
> On the topic of announcing PA /24's, what procedures do
> you take to make sure that a new customer who want's to
> announce a few PA (P being one or more P's other than
> yourself) IP space is legit and should be announcing
> that IP space?
I'm also interested in hearing cur
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: October 16, 2003 7:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect service]
>
>
> ken is right and i apologize for the confusion. most of the
i just got done reading http://news.com.com/2008-7347_3-5092590.html,
so now at least i know why my phone was ringing so much earlier today.
anyway, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ken emery) quotes me as saying...
> > let me just emphasize that the default is OFF. BIND doesn't break
> > sitefinder; nameser
On 16 Oct 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
Good writeup Paul.
> > To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND
> > version truly break sitefinder?
>
> in my last conversation with a verisign executive, i learned that there is a
> widely held misconception that the last BIND
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/security/story/0,248600,20279775,00.htm
Backdoor Trojan behind BigPond, Internet spam woes
By Andrew Colley, ZDNet Australia
15 October 2003
U.S.-based Internet security researchers have confirmed that a worm is
behind the sharp jump in spam activity batter
On the topic of announcing PA /24's, what procedures do you take to make
sure that a new customer who want's to announce a few PA (P being one or
more P's other than yourself) IP space is legit and should be announcing
that IP space?
I'm not sure what they do internally, but I know Sprint, C&W
lots of misconceptions here today. declan, you ought to pay closer attention.
verisign didn't say at the meeting yesterday that they were planning to revive
the redirect service, in fact they used the term "if or when" when describing
their plans in that area. furthermore they did not commit to
In reference to some earlier politically active days:
Hey! Hey! Ver - i - sign !
How Many Domains Do You Think Are Thine?
Hilton
By my count there have been 23 odd messages in which the subject contains
the word tomatoes, this is out of 96 messages I've recieved on this list
since midnight pdt. Isn't there something more useful people on this list
could be doing.
joelja
--
-
I think that the number of people showing that they oppose Verisign would
still carry the day on the meaning of the tomatoes and red shirts. Verisign
could try to delude themselves into believing it was ambiguous, but, I don't
think the press or the attendees would buy it.
Also, I don't think Veri
KH> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:23:41 -0400
KH> From: Kee Hinckley
KH> Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
KH> serves the end-user. They are doing this because the public
KH> understands that, and because they know they can't win the question
KH> of what best ser
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:38:57 EDT, "Vachon, Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are
> proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the
> recipient(s) named above.
Well.. I severely doubt that any of t
I have to agree with Scott. Be professional.
Y'all can use tomato.net as examples if you want
(though actually that one belongs to buydomains.com,
which buys potentially resellable domain names.)
A more important concern is that they keep mentioning that they've
been talking to web users and lo
The two options are not mutually exclusive, and, since Verisign has
chosen to turn this into a press-battle, I think it would be good not
to ignore that battlefield.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 14:56 -0400 Chris Strandt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe a "vote" at the end of the present
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
> Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
> serves the end-user. They are doing this because the public
> understands that, and because they know they can't win the question
> of what best serves the infrastructure providers.
I have no religion about the particular choice of fruit/vegetable (yes, I
know
tomatoes are technically fruit).
However, I think we should try to stick to Red and the symbolism of the
tomato
cannot be denied. It has long been used as a response to bad implementation
and that is exactly what we
on 10/16/2003 2:26 PM k claffy wrote:
> caida has the following request on behalf of icann's secsac committee
> a common theme over the last week is an admitted lack of hard data
> [rather than lists of theoretical breakages, and anecdotal evidence,
> and predictions] from the operational com
>>Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
serves the end-user.<<
This doesn't matter, their point should be moot. Verisign is charged with
managing the .com and .net domains for the public. They DO NOT OWN those
domains so they are not allowed to use them for their o
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, JC Dill wrote:
> Great idea! Can we count on Dan for tomato acquisition and for Owen for
> post-protest dispersal to a foodbank?
Having been a part of many fraternity pranks along this line, I might
remind some of a glitch with this line of thinking.
VeriSign employees rea
>> I would also suggest that we try to make contact with a second-harvest or
>> other organization that may be able to use the tomatoes afterwards.
Or just use your time and resources to do some good for
those who are less fortunate in the first place. Using
food of any ki
I will do my best to get the tomatos. How many do you think we will
need?
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JC Dill
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:12
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Tomatoes for Verisign at NANOG 29
At 12:00 PM 10/16/20
> all
> those who approve
> of the wildcards would put their token-of-choice in another pile.
>
Might I suggest the "joker" out of a deck of playing cards ? ; )
Learn more about Paymentech's payment processing services at www.paymentech.com
THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message
At 03:30 PM 10/16/2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:
Bruce Campbell wrote:
[much snipped]
> Also, did the query that I'm debugging really go to the same host that I
> just got the real IP address from?
I believe I covered that in my initial response to Randy which you
snipped. I said:
"> Dan Senie has s
At 12:45 PM -0700 10/16/03, JC Dill wrote:
At 11:56 AM 10/16/2003, Chris Strandt wrote:
Maybe a "vote" at the end of the presentation would be better.
After Verisign has to say what they want, it would be interesting
to see what the participants think of starting Site Finder again.
Its not as p
My bad I should've been more specific, that is indeed what I will
personally be doing on any networks that I can, which should be basically
everything.
I'm also considering the other alternative suggested by some, which is to
push traffic to a host of my own.
I will have to do something about
On 16 Oct 2003, at 11:25, Bruce Campbell wrote:
I know to look for 'version.bind', 'id.server', 'version.server' and a
few
others, but I hadn't considered asking for 'whoareyou.arbitary.domain'.
Why would other people consider it?
Incidentally, there is a similar mechanism available for the F r
> Ahem. Many of us are Star Trek experts, and it will take a LOT more
> than this to get people to wear a red shirt.
A red EFF t-shirt (as a sign of recent donation) would be a good choice :)
--vadim
At 11:56 AM 10/16/2003, Chris Strandt wrote:
Maybe a "vote" at the end of the presentation would be better.
After Verisign has to say what they want, it would be interesting to see
what the participants think of starting Site Finder again.
Its not as press worthy... but it lets Verisign have th
: >Agreed. I plan to wear a red shirt and bring a tomatoe. The tomato will
: >sit quietly on the table near me. It will not be used as a projectile
: >no matter how much Verisign tries to convince me it should. Really.
: >I will not throw the tomato at Verisign no matter how much they deserv
At 4:07 PM +0100 10/16/03, Ray Bellis wrote:
Quoting Rusty Lewis from
http://verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031007b.html?sl=070804
"We will continue to take feedback from both Internet users and the
technical community on how we can ensure that the service is available
for the many Internet
as already mentioned, fascinating public policy theatre
is going on in DC on the verisign wildcard issue, see
http://secsac.icann.org/
[all video and even transcripts of both meetings online. go icann.]
you are encouraged to read through all of it before making public comments
on this is
You have to give Verisign some props for having the balls to present at
NANOG...and those props should be in the form of not chasing them from the
room with angry threats and pitchforks.
Mark and the rest of the folks from Verisign, formerly NSI, formerly
Internic, etc, etc have long been CONTRI
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
> --On Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:57 -0600 Michael Loftis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
> > anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
> >
> This isn'
If you are attending NANOG 29, please attend this session and wear a
red shirt.
Ahem. Many of us are Star Trek experts, and it will take a LOT more than
this to get people to wear a red shirt.
Huh? I'm somewhat familiar with Star Trek, and, I realize the red shirts
are usually the first to die
Ri
Bruce Campbell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> > However as the dns was walked, if indeed a server had a problem, in a
> > non-anycast implementation you could tell which server ip address had
> > the problem. But you could not always tell which actual machine had a
> > p
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 03:03:44PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:
> > > Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
> > > distribution committee.
> > lets not
> >
> > tomatoes != knowledge (nor are an indicator of same)
> Nope, they're a
At 12:00 PM 10/16/2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
Agreed. I plan to wear a red shirt and bring a tomatoe. The tomato will
sit quietly on the table near me. It will not be used as a projectile
no matter how much Verisign tries to convince me it should. Really.
I will not throw the tomato at Verisign no
> I for one am going to dumping all traffic bound to SiteFinder.
One (operational) suggestion.
Kindly return an icmp [net|host|port] unreachable, not just a route to
/dev/null.
Just a thought about the (waste of) client retrys and timeouts.
Thank you,
-bryan bradsby
==
"The
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:57 -0600 Michael Loftis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
This isn't necessarily a great analogy for this situation. It is li
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:
>
>
> > Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
> > distribution committee.
>
> lets not
>
> tomatoes != knowledge (nor are an indicator of same)
Nope, they're an indicator of distaste and disrespect.
I don't think anybody wants
Maybe a "vote" at the end of the presentation would be better.
After Verisign has to say what they want, it would be interesting to see
what the participants think of starting Site Finder again.
Its not as press worthy... but it lets Verisign have their say, and
gives the community a voice righ
I would also suggest that we try to make contact with a second-harvest or
other organization that may be able to use the tomatoes afterwards.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:36 -0700 "Wayne E. Bouchard"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a brief statement that kinda goes without saying but
Agreed. I plan to wear a red shirt and bring a tomatoe. The tomato will
sit quietly on the table near me. It will not be used as a projectile
no matter how much Verisign tries to convince me it should. Really.
I will not throw the tomato at Verisign no matter how much they deserve it.
Wayne is
I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
NEVER. We're not qualified to make decisions like that because we don't
know what the effects could or would be. Likewise VeriSign obviously
doesn't, no
Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
distribution committee.
To recap: At NANOG 29 in Chicago, on Monday October 20th at 9:15 am
a session on "VeriSign's Wildcard Record: Effects and Responses"
will be held, with Mark Kosters and Matt Larson from VeriSign and
Suzan
> Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
> distribution committee.
lets not
tomatoes != knowledge (nor are an indicator of same)
Scot
Just a brief statement that kinda goes without saying but I'll say it
anyway.
Although I'm not going to be there personally, I do intend to watch
the netcast.
I would just ask (and I'm sure merit folks share this) that despite
the actions that have been taken by verisign and the conflicts etc,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:08:41PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I've been thinking that there should be a new type of
> record introduced to be application specific for HTTP, just as
> MX only applies to smtp.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically what SRV records
(rfc2782) are intended
Owen DeLong wrote:
They claim to be representing the "USER" community and to know better
than we what they end users want. They think we're just a bunch of
geek engineers that are unwilling to embrace new ideas. Most of all,
they think they can make money this way, and, they don't really care
Dan and Owen, I nominate you two for the tomato acquisition and
distribution committee.
To recap: At NANOG 29 in Chicago, on Monday October 20th at 9:15 am a
session on "VeriSign's Wildcard Record: Effects and Responses" will be
held, with Mark Kosters and Matt Larson from VeriSign and Suzanne
I've been thinking that there should be a new type of
record introduced to be application specific for HTTP, just as
MX only applies to smtp.
Due to a wide variety of applications relying upon A
records as their method, or method of last resort (eg: if no MX,
go directly to the IN
Email me if you are familiar with the fiber landscape (dark/lit)
or lack thereof in the Portland/Beaverton areas.
Thanks,
BM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or
OK, so who is responsible for bringing the fruit? Does our registration
fee cover that? :D
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JC Dill
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:05
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect se
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:41:52 +0100, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know if this includes ALL of Network
>> Solutions or just the Registrar? Does Verisign
>> plan to keep the Registry or does it go along
>> with the Network Solutions sale?
>
>According to the press release they plan to keep t
I like it. I'm game.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:04 AM -0700 JC Dill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 02:56 AM 10/16/2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Ouch.
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5092133.html
VeriSign to revive redirect service
by Declan McCullagh
VeriSign will give a 30
> >So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry
> services
> >operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be
> owned by
> >different companies?
>
> Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no longer
> based so much on serving customers but more on l
At 9:19 AM -0700 10/16/03, Owen DeLong wrote:
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are
doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY.
Or did I miss something?
No, that's correct. I just can't keep them straight in my fingers
(and neither can Veris
CW> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:19:25 -0400
CW> From: Chris Woodfield
CW> So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the
CW> registry services operations and the GTLD maintenance
CW> operations for .com/.net will be owned by different
CW> companies?
I wonder just how different they a
Correction... People would prefer that Verisign keept the REGISTRAR
operations for .com/.net and sold the REGISTRY operations. REGISTRY
is the monopoly part that the REGISTRARs feed into.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:58 PM +0100 Simon Lockhart
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu Oct 16,
Yes, I will heartily agree with this. Having this functionality be
triggered by a wildcard in the DNS records is the wrong approach. It's
the application that should be taking care of this
if (NXDOMAIN)
redirect(preferences->sitefinder_host, url);
If verisigin wants to partner with someone to
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 5:08 PM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry
services
operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be
owned by
different companies?
Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no
> Does anyone know if this includes ALL of Network
> Solutions or just the Registrar? Does Verisign
> plan to keep the Registry or does it go along
> with the Network Solutions sale?
According to the press release they plan to keep the registry.
Ray
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the
> registry services operations and the GTLD maintenance operations
> for .com/.net will be owned by different companies?
Yep.
Uh, actually, no. They're spinning off the registRAR
They claim to be representing the "USER" community and to know better than
we what they end users want. They think we're just a bunch of geek
engineers
that are unwilling to embrace new ideas. Most of all, they think they can
make money this way, and, they don't really care about anything else.
At 02:56 AM 10/16/2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Ouch.
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5092133.html
VeriSign to revive redirect service
by Declan McCullagh
VeriSign will give a 30- to 60-day notice before resuming a
controversial and temporarily suspended feature that redirected many
.com a
ICANN threatened legal action before, effectively. Are they doing
anything this time?
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:56:47 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>He's right, and we should actually take our business elsewhere.
>Unfortunately,
>we can't. They have a monopoly. No matter what registrar we use to
> What effective action can we take as a collective group to
> get the point across that we will not tollerate this type of behavior?
Internet death penalty? (at last a topic you can configure
your router for)
Having been provided a mechanism to catch all those typos what ISP
wouldn't want that
Hello;
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 11:57 PM, Forrest wrote:
True enough, but are there any providers currently that filter /24's
from
the old Class C space that /24's were assigned directly from?
As someone who is multihomed but uses others /24's, I am sensitive to
this.
I do not _thin
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are
doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY.
Or did I miss something?
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:46 AM -0400 Kee Hinckley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, [EMAIL PROTECT
Does anyone know if this includes ALL of Network Solutions or just the
Registrar? Does Verisign plan to keep the Registry or does it go along
with the Network Solutions sale?
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:40 AM -0400 Mark Vallar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just got this email from Netw
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
> credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
> existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info.
Most of my s
>So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry
services
>operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be
owned by
>different companies?
Yep. And it means that Verisign business is no longer
based so much on serving customers but more on leveraging
v
On Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 11:19:25AM -0400, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry services
> operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be owned by
> different companies?
>
> Isn't that what we wanted all along?
Yes, e
Recognizing that I am not an 'expert', I have got to ask just one
question. Can these people at Verisign really think that they know
better than all of the real experts that have worked with/on the DNS
over the years. It seems rather silly to assume that a few people have
more knowledge than the
He's right, and we should actually take our business elsewhere.
Unfortunately,
we can't. They have a monopoly. No matter what registrar we use to
register
our domains, that registrar is paying the part of Verislime that is
inflicting
this on us to run the REGISTRY for .com and .net.
The only
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
> on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
We've been moving all our domains to OpenSRS for a year, but doing it as
they come up for renewal.
It is a much better idea that these functions are performed by a
seperate (IMHO). Of course they are doing it to resolve the conflict of
interest issue, and the people saying (and filing suit) about the fact
that SiteFinder is un-fair competition between them and the other
registrars.
I'm not rea
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
> This point just became moot.
> Versign is selling the registry business. Network Solutions is being
> spun off. They retain the back end DNS.
They're selling the _registrar_ business off. They retain the _registry_
and the associated stuff to the bac
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > and what assurance do you have that the traceroute is to the same
> > server to which the original query failed?
> >
> > difficulty debugging anycast dns was the major reason for sceptisim
> > re anycast auth servers.
>
> However
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> Joe sent a note that identified a possible common thread in the version
> of bind the recursive servers were using. Could you perhaps look at that
> and see if there is any commonality?
I'll see what I can do about that. Unfortunately, the folks complai
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry services
operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be owned by
different companies?
Isn't that what we wanted all along?
-C
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:58:11AM -0400, Adam C. Greenfield wrote:
>
> Yea,
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of credibility
given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably existed for quite
a bit longer than a .biz or .info. Although looking at that list I might note that I
probably would include .us with .com and
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Adam C. Greenfield wrote:
: Yea, looks like (after a brief reading of the press release on their
: site) that they are just selling their registrar business off, but will
: still be the people maintaining the com and net registries.
Which sounds like an attempt to prevent co
so, luxury hotels, japanese fiber, and registery services?
I guess booking is a booking.
http://www.pivotalgroup.com/newsopen.html
Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services
Computing CenterUniversity of Oregon
llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu
Quoting Rusty Lewis from
http://verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031007b.html?sl=070804
"We will continue to take feedback from both Internet users and the
technical community on how we can ensure that the service is available
for the many Internet users who clearly like it."
Well that's ve
I have received many very helpful responses to that question. In summary,
the majority common practice for the case I presented seems to be:
1. run BGP on all routers in the core, even those that do not have
interfaces to the outside of the AS. Here, this means R0 should run BGP.
2. This caus
Yea, looks like (after a brief reading of the press release on their
site) that they are just selling their registrar business off, but will
still be the people maintaining the com and net registries.
On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 10:29, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> This is interesting:
>
>
> Dear Val
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In this day and age, people don't guess URLs anymore by sticking .com at
> the end of a word so there is no longer any advantage to using a .com
> domain name over a .biz or .info or .us.
FWIW, I still do as it is faster than google. I bet that tha
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of
us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
