On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, John Payne wrote:
I found it interesting to note that a significant number of cctld servers
ignore the suggestions for root-servers in BCP40/RFC2870...
Other major zone server operators (gTLDs, ccTLDs, major zones) may also find
it useful. and leave recursion enabled on
This is not a political question, only operational process.
Has ICANN and NTIA worked out their operational issues so they can quickly
change the root zone to reflect changes in ccTLD nameservers if people
need to change which name servers are handling the ccTLDs. Last year,
some of the
Hallo Sabine,
lange nichts gehoert ...
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:51:11AM +0200, Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote:
At least each IXP member would have direct connectivity to such
infrastructural services (DNS, NTP, WHOIS, NNTP??) and thereby their
customers would benefit from it.
I agree
number and distribution of registrations maybe - that comes down to number
and sizing of servers and geography/network diversity, the others are at best
operational concerns for the backend, not for the frontend DNS servers.
backend/frontend?
Taking RFC 2870, why wouldn't all of
On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:18:19 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
sure, you could take those sections as a starting point. But why
stop at TLDs? Why not make this applicable to -ALL- dns servers?
Mighty fine pharmaceuticals you got there. ;)
I'd settle for a requirement that dns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, is it *that* hard to avoid lame delegations and typos in
the SOA or NS records?
apparently
--
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 08:36:21AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd settle for a requirement that dns servers have *basic* configuration
correct - I mean, is it *that* hard to avoid lame delegations and typos in
the SOA or NS records?
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone with at least one incorrect NS record pointing at
my nameservers.
MX0 lame.delegation.to.hostname.
* MX0
Yo John!
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Payne wrote:
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone with at least one incorrect NS record pointing at
my nameservers.
There is an
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:48:24AM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo John!
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Payne wrote:
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone with at
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo John!
There is an easy tool I use to fix that. Just put up a zone file for
them on your NS that points their www to www.playboy.com. This gets
action fast!
I think pointing it to www.poopsex.com would be far more entertaining.
Charles
RGDS
Hi People,
Here from Intelideas (AS12359) we are ready for hosting ccTLDs in our
network. We are present in Espanix, Linx, Catnix and diverse upstreams.
Our contact data:
DNS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DNS Master: Enrique Iglesias Rodriguez. (+34 917882517)
regards,
Daniel
Intelideas
On
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 07:25:47PM +0200, Daniel Diaz wrote:
Dear all,
Given the current situation of KPNQwest and the possibility of its
services going offline sometime soon, the RIPE NCC in agreement with
KPNQwest will be temporally hosting this server (ns.eu.net) in its
premises.
I suggest that if the RIPE need another provider that they
take time and issue a proper RFI/P/Q through the European
Journal. It does ask an interesting question over disaster
recovery in situations like this.
Regards,
Neil.
--
Neil J. McRae - COLT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
Hello,
DENIC runs currently several secondarys (not only DE but also for some
other TLDs) in different places worldwide. We are willing to offer
secondary service for other ccTLDs
2002 16:07
To: Jan-Ahrent Czmok; Sabine Dolderer/Denic
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
As a lot
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
Hello,
DENIC runs currently several secondarys (not only DE but also for some
other TLDs) in different places worldwide. We are willing to offer
secondary service for other ccTLDs
Yes, but there is problem about the transit for the network of the IXP
In my experience, some big providers only have the commercial view of
internet.
Really, if all the IXP members give some transit to the IXP for essential
services, internet will be more robust.
Daniel
Intelideas
On
--On Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:16:34 -0400 Jared Mauch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While a good idea, not everyone can announce or reach the
IX fabrics that they connect to or are out there.
One solution to that problem is to have the IX operate a
zeebra/gated/whatnot box (or
This is not a political question, only operational process.
Has ICANN and NTIA worked out their operational issues so they can quickly
change the root zone to reflect changes in ccTLD nameservers if people
need to change which name servers are handling the ccTLDs. Last year,
some of the ccTLD
PROTECTED]]
Sent: 6. júna 2002 16:29
To: Daniska Tomas
Cc: Nipper, Arnold; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:13:08PM +0200, Daniska Tomas wrote:
how would you guarantee connectivity?
as you have a lot of ISPs around you it should
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:31:21PM +0200, Daniel Concepcion wrote:
Yes, but there is problem about the transit for the network of the IXP
In my experience, some big providers only have the commercial view of
internet.
If an IXP decides to offer infrastructural services then you have to
Gert,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 02:59:22PM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
I suggest that if the RIPE need another provider that they
take time and issue a proper RFI/P/Q through the European
Journal. It does ask an interesting question over disaster
recovery in situations like this.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
Hello
--On Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:47:52 -0400 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is not a political question, only operational process.
Has ICANN and NTIA worked out their operational issues so they can quickly
change the root zone to reflect changes in ccTLD nameservers if
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote (on Jun 06):
Indeed, for example k.root-servers.net is hosted at LINX and is reachable
globally by this kind of setup..
A few of LINXs' members also transit the services provided by LINX
for the good of the community - ie, at zero cost. That includes
k.root. I don't
Has ICANN and NTIA worked out their operational issues so they can quickly
change the root zone to reflect changes in ccTLD nameservers if people
need to change which name servers are handling the ccTLDs. Last year,
some of the ccTLD operators were complaining it sometimes took weeks after
Czmok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
Hello
At 16:35 +0200 6/6/02, Gert Doering wrote:
Hmmm? As far as I can see, RIPE has enough providers. The problem is
that the ccTLD secondary server hosted at KQ broke -
ns.eu.net has not broke. At least not yet.
KPNQwest still has very competent people (and I would like to
specifically thank
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:24:40PM +0200, Daniel Concepcion wrote:
Yes Neil,
It should be interesting to know the 'official' requirements/recommendations
for ccTLD's hosting
For example: diversity geographical, network needs, security needs, building
environment., etc
I've only been
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Concepcion writes:
Yes Neil,
It should be interesting to know the 'official' requirements/recommendations
for ccTLD's hosting
For example: diversity geographical, network needs, security needs, building
environment., etc
I don't know of any official
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 02:12:36PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Concepcion writes:
Yes Neil,
It should be interesting to know the 'official' requirements/recommendations
for ccTLD's hosting
For example: diversity geographical, network needs,
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Randy Bush wrote:
that was the fast track. it can take months.
Months? Years more like.
.nz have been trying to update their whois information for a couple of
years (IIRC) now. From what I understand the update have been refused
since their won't sign the ICANN contracts
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Concepcion writes:
Yes Neil,
It should be interesting to know the 'official' requirements/recommendations
for ccTLD's hosting
For example: diversity geographical, network needs, security needs, building
environment., etc
I don't know of
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 07:53:49PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I don't know of any official requirements. But RFCs 2182 and 2870
offer good guidance. (Some of 2870 is root zone-specific, but most of
it would apply to a ccTLD server.)
--Steve Bellovin,
Given the current situation of KPNQwest and the possibility
of its services going offline sometime soon, the RIPE NCC in
agreement with KPNQwest will be temporally hosting this
server (ns.eu.net) in its premises.
nice emergency hack and sorry to whine. but i used them both
to get
36 matches
Mail list logo
