Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 enable

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 >

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> 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.. * MX0 lame

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

[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/

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 serve

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> 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

Re: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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. >

Re: Updates to the root zone Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> 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 o

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> . They have an AS of their own, which is free to > peer with, in which a number of crucial services are located, for ...as long as you provide transit for free. Which I don't see why you wouldn't. Even Tier-1 providers (and ex- such..:) ) do this. Best regards, - ku

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 03:17:51AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... > > So how does the operation of gTLD servers differ from ccTLD servers, other > > than perhaps more focus on geographical diversity? > > > > number and distributions of registrations, legacy considerations >

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> > 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.) > > > > > > --

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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,

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> > > 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 > >

Re: Updates to the root zone Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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, n

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 off

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 than

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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, > > DENIC runs currently several s

Re: Updates to the root zone Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> 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 aft

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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

Re: Updates to the root zone Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

--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

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > &

RE: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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.

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 hav

RE: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

m: Arnold Nipper [mailto:[EMAIL 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 guarante

Updates to the root zone Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

--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 bo

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 Thu

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 be really easy to get some connectivity. Very easy: tell some friendly ISP to announce your prefix/AS to outside. > should each isp present sh

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 Regards, Daniel Intelideas On Thursday 06 June 2002 15:59, Neil J. McRae wrote: > I sugge

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

lt;[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 n

RE: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

Sent: 6. júna 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

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

[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, DENIC runs currently several secondarys (not only DE but

RE: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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]

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

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 Thursda

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

At 11:04 -0700 5/6/02, Randy Bush wrote: > > 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

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

Very welcome, Thanks for this Dani it gives everyone much more breathing space. I think this a fantastic effort on behalf of the NCC, the folks at eu.net and anyone else involved, they should all be applauded for it. A few logistical questions that may be relevant to those affected. Is ther

Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> 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 diver