warfare and the Internet [was: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs]

I forgot to change the subject line, apologies. On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Gadi Evron wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: I just know who should be held for further processing @ the gate. This is getting off-topic, so let's continue the discussion for a couple more emails to see i

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: I just know who should be held for further processing @ the gate. This is getting off-topic, so let's continue the discussion for a couple more emails to see if we can bring it back on-topic to network operations, and then stop if not? Which is

ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

I just know who should be held for further processing @ the gate. Which is good enough, in this case. "What is the object of defense? Preservation. It is easier to hold ground than take it. . . defense is the stronger form of waging war" Carl Von Clausewitz > -Original Message- > F

TTL settings efficiency [was: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Interesting, I was under the impression anything less than 120 is effectively as good as 120. I have not measured... I bet yahoo has though :) and/or Akamai. There's a reason

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote: I'd point out that FastFlux is a

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote: I'd point out that FastFlux is actually sort of how Akamai does it's job (inconsistent dns responses) That's not really fas

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> >> I'd point out that FastFlux is actually sort of how Akamai does >> it's job (inconsistent dns responses) > > That's not really fast flux. FF uses TTLs of just a few sec

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

(picking up where I ejected on the email...argh) On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Christopher Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> These issues are not separate and distinct, but rather related. >> >> A graduated level

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These issues are not separate and distinct, but rather related. > > A graduated level of analysis of membership in any of the sets of: > > 1: Recently registered domain. > hi, I just registered 'newproduct.com' for my p

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

David Conrad wrote: >With that said, personally, I agree that more attention should be >spent on the welfare of the registrants. Unfortunately, given I work >for ICANN, my providing comments in the RAA public consultation along >those lines would be a bit ... awkward. Would you agree with

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: These issues are not separate and distinct, but rather related. A graduated level of analysis of membership in any of the sets of: 1: Recently registered domain. 2: Short TTL 3: Appearance in DShield, Shadowserver, Cyber-TA and other sensor lists.

security relevance [was: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Marquis wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote: 1) Fast flux 2) Botnets 3) Domain tasting 4) valid contact info These are separate and distinct issues... They are separate but also linked by being issues that only be addressed at the registrar level, th

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

These issues are not separate and distinct, but rather related. A graduated level of analysis of membership in any of the sets of: 1: Recently registered domain. 2: Short TTL 3: Appearance in DShield, Shadowserver, Cyber-TA and other sensor lists. 4: Invalid/Non-responsive RP info in Whois Cr

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote: 1) Fast flux 2) Botnets 3) Domain tasting 4) valid contact info These are separate and distinct issues... They are separate but also linked by being issues that only be addressed at the registrar level, through TOS. Since some registrars have a fi

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Phil Regnauld wrote: > apply even cursory tests for domain name validity. Phishers and spammers > will have a field day with the inevitable namespace collisions. It is, > however, unfortunately consistent with ICANN's inabi

RE: Possible explanations for a large hop in latency

Just to close this issue on the list: a (top) engineer from AT&T contacted me offline and helped us out. Turns out that 12.88.71.13 is located in Kansas City and tbr1.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.112.22) is in St. Louis. AT&T has two L1 connections to that site for redundancy, but traffic was flowi

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

While doing the groceries, I got to think about this issue. There have been complaints in the past about difficulty in getting new legitimate TLDs approved by ICANN. (image of ICANN being too USA centric etc etc etc). So I understand a move towards a more documented and "logical" process to get n

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Randy Bush wrote: this is analogous to the gossip that most spam comes from china, asia, nigeria, or whomever we like to be xenophobic or racist about this week. measurement shows the united states to be the largest single source of spam. Because it's Friday, I checked the last few weeks or so

Anyone from Qwest?

Anyone from Qwest senior sales team or VP can please contact me offlist? Thank you Mehmet smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

>> already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv suffix, to >> name just the worst. > Does this actually work? The vast majority of spam I receive has an > origin that doesn't reverse map. Of those messages that have origins > (as extracted from the appropriate Received header) th

Fwd: NYC - possible power/utility outages on the horizon

-- Forwarded message -- From: cybersec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:04 PM Subject: Fwd: NYC - possible power/utility outages on the horizon To: n3td3v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Forwarded message -- From: Hal Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Jun 2

Fwd: NYC - possible power/utility outages on the horizon

-- Forwarded message -- From: n3td3v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:48 PM Subject: Fwd: NYC - possible power/utility outages on the horizon To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message -- From: cybersec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date:

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Bill Nash wrote: On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote: Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be spending its time on? For starters, has Verisign ever been sanctioned by ICANN for it's business practices, You mean like Sitefinder

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Bill Nash wrote: Except for domain registrars, who are only really a registrar when they make a mistake that could cost your entire commercial enterprise. Edit: s/when/until/ Beer:30. - billn

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, David Conrad wrote: On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote: I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of making new ones. Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be spending its time on? For starters, has Verisign ever b

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: Phil Regnauld wrote: As business models go, it's a fine example of how to build demand without really servicing the community. Of all the ways new tlds could have been implemented this has to be the most poorly thought out. Oh, no. There

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Scott Francis wrote: what little assurance we have that e.g. bankofamerica.com is the legitimate (or should I say, _a_ legitimate) site for the financial institution of the same name becomes less certain when we have e.g. bank.of.america, www.bankofamerica.bank, www.b

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:04:19 EDT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Mezei?= said: > Say I am a pastry chef, and I pay $40 per year for "pastry.com", I got > it because I signed up early and now cherish my domain name. I am a > small business. > > But now, some rich guy can come in and bid for .pastr

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes I agree with Scott, I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of making new ones. Did you express that opinion to the Paris meeting? [Not an attack on you specifically, but as this process has been ongoing

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

Bill Nash wrote: > Off the top of my head, I can see some high dollar fist fights breaking > out for .sex, .porn, .games, .hotel, etc. It'll be like the .alt tree on > usenet for people with money. There may also be an actual fist fight over > TLDs like .irc, .leet, .goatse, and .krad. Maybe no

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:49 PM, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Scott Francis wrote: >> >> If we can't even guarantee >> reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we >> start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Scott Francis wrote: If we can't even guarantee reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm concerned that it's going to make user support even more of a headache I might sug

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote: The process ensures that too few new TLDs will be created for it being a threat to VeriSign This remains to be seen, at least from my perspective. I have no idea how many TLDs are going to make it through the gauntlet or even

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote: I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of making new ones. Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be spending its time on? Regards, -drc

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Hi, On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration. You can already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv suffix, to name just the worst. Does this actually work? The vast majority of spam I recei

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Phil Regnauld wrote: As business models go, it's a fine example of how to build demand without really servicing the community. Of all the ways new tlds could have been implemented this has to be the most poorly thought out. Security-aware programmers will now be unable to apply even cursory tes

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

If they assign .local, they will break the default for AD, especially SBS, Apple Rendezvous, anything using mDNS/Zeroconf, and a lot of other "local significance only" uses of DNS, or, which is more likely, the domains in .local will find themselves unresolvable from a very large portion of the Int

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:23:28PM -0700, Scott Francis wrote: > that's exactly my point! it's _not_ reliable, but it's the behavior > that the average user has come to expect. If we can't even guarantee > reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we > start introducing arbi

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:01:23AM -0400, Jean-Fran?ois Mezei wrote: > Does anyone know how if the new gTLD system will still give some "veto" > power to some people over some domain names that are morally objectable > to some people ? > > I am not thinking of only .SEX but perhaps also .GOD .GAY

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:48:08PM -0400, TJ wrote: > Ah, but some are ... for trademark or brand protection usually. But most trademark holders aren't *entitled* to that much protection: unless they do business worldwide, *and* have a "famous" mark. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:49:41PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > For example: the .info TLD is completely overrun with spammers, to > the point where many people, including me, have simply blacklisted the > whole thing. The irony that MailScanner's domain is mailscanner.info is absolutely deafenin

RE: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox of new TLDs)

> that's exactly my point! it's _not_ reliable, but it's the behavior > that the average user has come to expect. If we can't even guarantee > reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we > start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm > concerned that it

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:44:35AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > On 27 Jun 2008, at 11:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >"How about .dot? I'd like to set up a hostname of > >dotdot.dashdashdashdot.dot" > > To my mind, Tony Finch owns you all :-) > > http://dotat.at/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:07:57PM -, Martin Hannigan wrote: [ quoting me ] > >And no, companies *aren't* "forced to pay for another domain name" just > >because a new TLD appears -- they aren't doing it *now*, by and large, > >and thank ghod: > > The last time I looked there were a few thou

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

>> realistically, I figure there aren't many other ways in which >> additional opportunities for competition can be created. > Allowing anyone to register a TLD is one, but I do agree it's not > necessarily a trivial model. we have two tools with which to build scale, distribution and hierarchy. t

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:24:48 PDT, Scott Francis said: > >> serve to increase complexity and add additional confusion to a system >> that the standard user has just now come to grips with >> ("www.company.com will get me Company's offic

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > thinking of all the nice security issues which come along (home, mycomputer > and .exe etc anyone ? :) .exe has the same security properties as .com Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ TYNE DOGGER FISHER: SOUTH OR SOUTHW

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Jon Kibler wrote: > > Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best > practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic > that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name servers. .local is also used by MDNS. (Nice inte

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Joe Abley wrote: > > To my mind, Tony Finch owns you all :-) > > http://dotat.at/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Austrians should not have given up on their hierarchial naming scheme. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ NORTH FITZROY SOLE: WEST OR SO

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

David Conrad (drc) writes: > > Other folks believe that anything that reduces the effective monopoly > VeriSign has (through .COM and .NET) would be a good thing. This view > holds that by increasing the number of top-level domains, you increase the > opportunities for consumer (that is, domain

Attn: Paul Vixie

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please shoot me an offlist email (sorry for the excess traffic list) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBSGU2IoOeOV2sx4+mAQJmEA//evs/h35ND0RkuFc8Yvu

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Bill Nash wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Scott Francis wrote: perhaps somebody with more insight can explain the rationale to me (DRC?) - is there a purpose served here aside from corporate/legal interests? It strikes me as fomenting another gold rush. The notion t

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On 27 Jun 2008, at 02:13, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Ken Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Oooh -- dibs on that one. And .some, so you can register awe.some, trouble.some, and fear.some. And .ous, which would allow humm.ous, seri.ous, fabul.ous, etc.. Somebody on /. mentioned .dot,

Weekly Routing Table Report

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] For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:24:48 PDT, Scott Francis said: > serve to increase complexity and add additional confusion to a system > that the standard user has just now come to grips with > ("www.company.com will get me Company's official, legitimate page"). Funny you should say that. :) On my way ba

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Scott Francis wrote: perhaps somebody with more insight can explain the rationale to me (DRC?) - is there a purpose served here aside from corporate/legal interests? It strikes me as fomenting another gold rush. The notion that disputed TLDs go up for auction sounds like

Re: OS, Hardware, Network - Logging, Monitoring, and Alerting

On 6/27/08, Adam Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My personal opinion is that all of the FOSS NMS solutions are sorely > disappointing, Observer included. It seems to be something that no one has > quite gotten right yet! > > Adam. > Very true. One product (not OSS, somewhat pricey) we've

Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Scott Francis wrote: more to the point ... what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this proposal? ... perhaps somebody with more insight can explain the rationale to me (DRC?) - is there a purpose served here aside from corporate/legal interests? I suspect one's

Re: OS, Hardware, Network - Logging, Monitoring, and Alerting

Mike wrote: you can do most of this with Cacti out of the box. you can also add the thold and monitoring plugins to get the additional things you need. Cacti mainly uses SNMP but you can also use external scripts to gather information. It does have future trending capabilities (that i am aware

what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Jean-François Mezei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip conflict examples] > Finally, will there be any performance impact on DNS servers around the > world (thinking of caching issues) ? more to the point ... what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this proposal?

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

> I reformatted the pertinent parts to make them more easily readable http://isoc-ny.org/wiki/ICANN_-_Paris/gTLD_discussion joly >I think that this is a good read as well, especially the comments by Dave >Wodeley, Susan Crawford, and Wendy Seltzer. > >https://par.icann.org/files/paris/BoardM

Re: OS, Hardware, Network - Logging, Monitoring, and Alerting

you can do most of this with Cacti out of the box. you can also add the thold and monitoring plugins to get the additional things you need. Cacti mainly uses SNMP but you can also use external scripts to gather information. It does have future trending capabilities (that i am aware of) but can e

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Dear Lou; On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Lou Katz wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic that .LOCAL is safe because it

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Friday 27 June 2008 17:13:10 Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > .localhost is already reserved through RFC 2606, so this should not be > a problem. .localdomain shouldn't cause a problem, since most Unix systems that use it put it in the name resolution before the DNS is invoked (i.e. /etc/hosts).

Re: OS, Hardware, Network - Logging, Monitoring, and Alerting

Rev. Jeffrey Paul wrote: Hi. I've a (theoretically) simple problem and I'm wondering how others solve it. I've recently deployed ~40 Linux instances on ~20 different Dell blades and PowerEdges (we're big on virtualization), a few 7204s and 3560s, and assorted switchable PDUs and whatnot. We

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > >>Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best > >>practices of setting up your AD domain as foo.LOCAL, using the logic > >>that .LOCAL is safe because it cannot be resolved by the root name > >>servers. >

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

.tv is heavily used by the burgeoning Internet TV industry (including by yours truly). It may contain cruft, but it is certainly not all cruft. Regards Marshall On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:12 PM, John Levine wrote: Hey, please don't ignore .tv. No cruft from me, at least. The two letter count

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Jon Kibler wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Jon Kibler wrote: Jeff Shultz wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to register the *.sucks

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Hey, please don't ignore .tv. No cruft from me, at least. The two letter country codes are a swamp all of their own, with no help from ICANN. I hear that Tuvalu approximately doubled its GNP the year they sold the rights to .tv. R's, John

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration. You can already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv suffix, to name just the worst. If only there was a way to get the cruft to move over into the

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On 27 Jun 2008, at 11:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "How about .dot? I'd like to set up a hostname of dotdot.dashdashdashdot.dot" To my mind, Tony Finch owns you all :-) http://dotat.at/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:01:23 EDT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Mezei?= said: > Finally, will there be any performance impact on DNS servers around the > world (thinking of caching issues) ? It should be almost identical to the current performance impact on the second level DNS servers that have

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:16:52 PDT, Ken Simpson said: > > On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to > > register the *.sucks TLD, and what they do with it. > > Oooh -- dibs on that one. And .some, so you can register awe.some, > trouble.some, and fear.some. And .ous, which

Re: uceprotect.net

Do you actually have a problem beyond "ZOMG, dnsstuff.com says I am in uceprotect?". Its not a list that I personally would waste time with. BTW, the kind of issue that often affects "cost effective" colo shops - so-called snowshoe spam - typically HAS matching forward and reverse. srs On Fri,

Re: Possible explanations for a large hop in latency

On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Just google "tbr1.sl9mo.ip.att.net" and it's clear that high latency through that point has occurred before. And guess what kind of customer complained to me about the latency? A gamer. you can pay a lot of money

RE: uceprotect.net

Hi, I could be wrong but I think that they are only referring to the forward hostname advertised in the mail servers HELO, it is obvious that most systems have many more forward A records than reverse PTR records. Regards, Steve -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT

uceprotect.net

Hello everyone, this is possibly off-topic here, not entirely sure. I'm kind of confused about some of uceprotect's policies, they seem to require every IP address to have reverse DNS with matching forwards (which works fine for a wireless/broadband/dial-up ISP, but not so much f

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration. You can already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv suffix, to name just the worst. If only there was a way to get the cruft to move over into the new ones... On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:05 PM, John Levine <[EMAIL

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

>> http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html > >The SNR in the gtld WG was very low, which I think may have been an >influencing factor. Yeah, it was dominated by a bunch of small-scale amateur greedy speculators, while the solution was ICANN which is dominated by a bunch of l

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

>> Some people are going to get very rich over this. > >How do you know this? Judging by the past experience of TLDs >there will not be a rush of customers but there will be a rush >of people trying to make a buck. You might enjoy my blog entries about the .TRAVEL domain: http://weblog.johnlevin

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Jun 27 21:16:22 2008 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 26-May-08 -to- 26-Jun-08 (32 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS2.0 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS4766 299254 3.6% 229.0 -- KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom 2 - AS4538 214681 2.6%

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

> > > And no, companies *aren't* "forced to pay for another domain name" > > > just because a new TLD appears -- they aren't doing it *now* > > > > Oh yes we are > > Looking at bbc.org and bbc.tv suggests that you are not. We used not to, bbc.org and others are why we started. We did have bbc.t

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Martin, You know the phrase "Paris is worth a mass"? Well, we get .paris, as well as .cat, and other reasonable things, plus chaff and clutter. Eric Martin Hannigan wrote: Eric; The only reason I would have supported rejecting the proposal is the 'morality' language related to offensive TLD

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Eric; The only reason I would have supported rejecting the proposal is the 'morality' language related to offensive TLD's. . What's your take on that part of the process? Marty - Original Message - From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Martin Hannigan Cc: nanog@nano

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Martin, I wasn't that impressed with Dave's remarks, but I heard them rather than read them, which may have made a difference. I agree with your views on the substance and spirit of Susan's and Wendy's statements. This -- the new GTLD process -- was originally scheduled to get to completion

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Jon Kibler wrote: > > Jeff Shultz wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to register the *.sucks TLD, and what they do with i

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

R. Irving wrote: Thank you people doing all the ICANN politics for destroying the Internet. You know, last time someone ( Robert Metcalfe ) prophesied the death of the Internet, when it didn't come true... we made him eat his words. You up for

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Jon Kibler wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Shultz wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to register the *.sucks TLD, and what they do with it. Well, I guess this shoots in the foot

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Shultz wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: > > On that note, it will be very interesting to see who manages to register > the *.sucks TLD, and what they do with it. > Well, I guess this shoots in the foot Microsoft's name server best practices of set

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

>See pages 17 - 20 of >https://par.icann.org/files/paris/gTLDUpdateParis-23jun08.pdf >See pages 22 - 25 of >https://par.icann.org/files/paris/gTLDUpdateParis-23jun08.pdf I think that this is a good read as well, especially the comments by Dave Wodeley, Susan Crawford, and Wendy Seltzer. htt

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote: Two years ago I posed the question here about the need for TLDs (http://www.mcabee.org/lists/nanog/May-06/msg00110.html). This all should have been solved by allowing those who wanted/applied for TLDs to be granted them back in 1

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Balazs Laszlo wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i'rta: There are probably some variations based on the zone, languages, IDN'ability, etc., but it certainly is a good idea to be bankofamerica.* for reasons that I think are obvious to most of us. To make it hard for your customers to figure out whe

Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] i'rta: There are probably some variations based on the zone, languages, IDN'ability, etc., but it certainly is a good idea to be bankofamerica.* for reasons that I think are obvious to most of us. To make it hard for your customers to figure out whether a URL is legitim

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

> There are probably some variations based on the zone, > languages, IDN'ability, etc., but it certainly is a good idea > to be bankofamerica.* for reasons that I think are obvious to > most of us. To make it hard for your customers to figure out whether a URL is legitimately owned by the bank

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

> > And no, companies *aren't* "forced to pay for another domain name" > > just because a new TLD appears -- they aren't doing it *now* > > Oh yes we are Looking at bbc.org and bbc.tv suggests that you are not. --Michael Dillon

RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

> Some people are going to get very rich over this. How do you know this? Judging by the past experience of TLDs there will not be a rush of customers but there will be a rush of people trying to make a buck. In such a scenario, nobody makes much money unless they somehow link the TLD product to