Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall
that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
Let's not go
At 02:22 AM 5/12/2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will
recall that we actually HAD a hostname file
On May 11, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask,
why does it matter if
you have a domain name if a directory can hold everything you need
to know about them
via key words and ip-addrs, NAT's and all?
It's all about
On May 11, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask,
why does it matter if you have a domain name if a directory can
hold everything you need to know about them via key words and ip-
addrs, NAT's and all?
I think there is a
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall
that we actually HAD a hostname file
On 5/11/06, Derek J. Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to
sell you providing access to Manhattan island.
Derek, I could use your little bridge for our garden, but I am afraid
I cannot pay for it :)
Todd Vierling wrote:
I'll
Why have a TLD when for most of the world:
www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM
www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM
www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM
Not all organizations simply FORWARD sites.
At different times I have used www.google.com,
BGP Update Report
Interval: 28-Apr-06 -to- 11-May-06 (14 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS4637
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS855 47228 4.1% 85.6 -- CANET-ASN-4 - Aliant Telecom
2 - AS701529981
This report has been generated at Fri May 12 21:49:12 2006 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
On 12-May-2006, at 01:17, Martin Hannigan wrote:
At 2:43 PM -0400 05:11:2006, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial,
Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction
How are you
earlier i wrote:
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that,
and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and,
purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative
On 5/11/06, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dewayne Hendricks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Note: Posted on the behalf of EFF. DLH]
I responded to all that FUD and astroturfing ..
http://www.politechbot.com/2006/05/11/debate-over-aol/
--srs
Just a reminder that the discounted early registration fee of $350
for NANOG 37 ends this Sunday, May 14. After that date, the fee
rises to $400. If you haven't already, please register at:
https://www.merit.edu/nanog/registration.form.html
Also, some new items have been added to the
Aside from all of the technical aspects that would make having a .xxx tld
difficult at best,
you have to take into account the moral aspects. If all of the adult
sites were to switch to the .xxx format,
it would make it extremely easy (as if it isn't right now) for minors to
locate and
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to
clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X
number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names
without a TLD.
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 13 May, 2006
Steve Gibbard wrote:
Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc.
The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on
organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD
allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local
Steve Gibbard wrote:
...
Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc.
The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on
organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD
allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in
On 5/12/06, Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Elimination of TLDs would in no way mandate that people register domains
from one global entity. Today we have multiple entities registering
domains back to multiple authorities, why not just have one authority
and allow for multiple regional
Fred Baker wrote:
Now, as to ccTLDs vs gTLDs, if anyone wants to eliminate one or the
other they get my vote.
The political reality is that ccTLDs will never go away. The business
reality is that gTLDs (at least the majority of the ones we have now) will
never go away. So, can we move on to
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Steve Gibbard wrote:
price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD. For
gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars,
Maybe.
at prices that are set for
Americans,
Maybe.
and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive
and flaky
From: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by
On 5/12/06, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical
What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:
%dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com
; DiG 9.3.2 ns xxx @g.public-root.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2,
On May 12, 2006, at 3:26 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:
No it doesn't, see below:
dig ns xxx @g.LookMaICanAlsoSplinterTheNameSpace.com
; DiG 9.2.1 ns xxx @10.24.0.7
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode:
On May 12, 2006 at 16:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
From: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added
On May 12, 2006 at 18:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
On 5/12/06, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by
Without going into baseless arguments and innuendo, I would
suggest that folks ponder the editorial over on OUT-LAW.com
which has very thougtful overview of why ICANN did the Right
Thing (tm) in this case:
http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=6914
I tend to agree with them.
Cheers,
-
...
use. Hunt down BU joins the internet, a typo in our initial update
tickled a bug in the bsd hosttable program which brought down about
2/3 of the internet (yes, down.) I can't say I'm proud of that, but
it's kind of hard to forget.
i overflowed the core routers, summer '88. That was good
Splintering the namespace is a convenient excuse that ICANN uses to
engage in restraint of trade and excessive regulation. ICANN was
never given the right to regulate entry into the industry, only to be
a technical coordinator.
Calling people kooks is a good way to get sued, but it doesn't add
Greetings,
We are two graduate students at the University of California at
Irvine. My partner and I are conducting a research project on Secure
BGP for our Advanced Networks course. In particular, we want to know
how willing organizations are to implement Secure BGP.
We have created a
hey ferg,
its not that interesting an analysis. struan doesn't really close on any
policy issue, and concludes with the usual:
I think ICANN was right to reject the current proposal.
Because it does little more than add yet another domain
to the internet that nobody
33 matches
Mail list logo
