Verisign hijacked unused .COM and .NET domains

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by Jem Berkes, Sep 16, 2003.

  1. ... And since /etc/resolv.conf maxes out at a fairly small number of
    servers, this means running your own personal variation on BIND.
    (Whether that be BIND, djbdns, or whatever being "personal choice.")

    It's also worth looking at what the NTP folk have done with
    "pool.ntp.net"...
    --
    (format nil "[email protected]~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sgml.html
    Rules of the Evil Overlord #155. "If I know of any heroes in the land,
    I will not under any circumstance kill their mentors, teachers, and/or
    best friends." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
     
    Christopher Browne, Sep 25, 2003
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Christopher Browne wrote in message ...
    [...]

    Ah, that's "pool.ntp.org".

    Groetjes,
    Maarten Wiltink
     
    Maarten Wiltink, Sep 25, 2003
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. I was referring to the organizational structure not content of the DNS.

    Obviously universal addressability is a desired goal.
     
    Richard J. Sexton, Sep 26, 2003
    #43
  4. It already is that way. How well can you see http://watch.gallery?

    Or what about the alt.com project? Pretty soon you can say to your customers
    "sorry, we don't carry that version of .com".
    You and I havn't shared a common namespace in almost a decade, Barry.
    Somehow life, and the net, muddles inexplicably onward.
     
    Richard J. Sexton, Sep 26, 2003
    #44
  5. And that was my point. I don't think that goal can be achieved with
    Usenet-like anarchy. Even if all the entities are trying to produce
    consistent content, how can they be sure if there's no central list of the
    correct delegations?

    Anarchy is OK for Usenet because it's not a critical resource. There are
    inconsistencies, but they don't cause any harm.
     
    Barry Margolin, Sep 29, 2003
    #45
  6. As far as I'm concerned, those domains aren't even "real", precisely
    because they require use of "alternate" roots. I don't expect that people
    would use these domains on business cards, for instance.

    It's like the many-universes theory of quantum mechanics. You can discuss
    them in an academic context, but as a practical matter they're not
    important because they don't affect us in the real world.
     
    Barry Margolin, Sep 29, 2003
    #46
  7. There's a difference between "no central list" and decentralized
    management of the root zone.
    Theere are inconsistancies in the DNS right now; they
    don't cause any harm either.
     
    Richard J. Sexton, Sep 30, 2003
    #47
  8. Ok, so ignore watch.gallery, now, what abou tthe "other" .com
    that guy on NANOg was setting up so his version of .com
    behaved like NSI's used to; you need a different root zone
    to use it.

    (although, oddly I got a "DNS name not found" browser popup in
    a misspelled .com name today; hmmmm...)
     
    Richard J. Sexton, Sep 30, 2003
    #48
  9. MC> Anarchy doesn't work.

    JdeBP> No-one is advocating anarchy. [...]

    RJS> Why not? Usenet is the worlds largest functioning anarchy.

    YA> alt.* is (almost) [...]

    RJS> Thanks [...] But that doesn't change the model unwhich usenet
    RJS> operates: anarchy.

    The model upon which Usenet operates is irrelevant. No-one is advocating
    anarchy here.

    The augmented root server organizations, and many others, are advocating
    _democracy_, in the best traditions of the notion that the source of the power
    to govern is the people. Verisign's authority over "com." and "net.", and
    their subdomains, comes from the root server organizations, and the authority
    of the root server organizations in turn comes from the people who choose to
    delegate authority to them (by configuring their resolving proxy DNS servers
    with the list of the delegate organization's servers) in the first place.

    RJS> the dns could have been administered like this [...]

    No, it couldn't. DNS has built into it a notion of the delegation of
    authority. That rules out an anarchic governance model.
     
    Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, Oct 23, 2003
    #49
  10. RJS> Or what about the alt.com project? Pretty soon you can say to
    RJS> your customers "sorry, we don't carry that version of .com".

    BM> As far as I'm concerned, those domains aren't even "real",
    BM> precisely because they require use of "alternate" roots. [...]

    If that's your basis for not considering them to be real, then your reasoning
    is fundamentally flawed, since using them does _not_ require one to change
    one's choice of "." content DNS servers, whatever that may happen to be.
    Picking a "." content DNS server organisation that delegates to one's choice
    of "com." content DNS server organisation is but _one_ way of choosing to
    delegate one's authority over "com." to that organisation. _Another_ way is
    simply to configure one's software to explicitly delegate one's authority over
    "com." to that organisation, overriding the delegations that are published in
    the DNS database by one's chosen "." content DNS server organisation. With
    the release of the Windows NT 2003 version of Microsoft's DNS server, all of
    the major resolving proxy DNS server softwares now have mechanisms for doing
    this.
     
    Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, Oct 23, 2003
    #50
  11. Jem Berkes

    Volker Birk Guest

    *anarchy now!*

    SCNR,
    VB.
     
    Volker Birk, Oct 23, 2003
    #51
  12. RJS> Usenet is the worlds largest functioning anarchy.

    JdeBP> That's debatable. For example: My ISP, like many ISPs,
    JdeBP> will not carry newsgroups in many hierarchies unless they
    JdeBP> are listed at Google or by the ISC. That sounds like the
    JdeBP> existence of /de facto/ central governing authorities to me.

    RJS> Dammit Jonno, that usenet is an anarchy is supposed to be a
    RJS> given on usenet. [...]

    As I said, it's debatable. (I think that the fact that you've debated it in
    the past, as you mention, lends even further reinforcement to my point. Don't
    you?) The simple truth is that what the government of Usenet is claimed to be
    by some doesn't in fact match what it is in reality. And, somewhat
    ironically, Usenet being held up as an example of anarchy is probably one of
    the reasons that no-one is advocating anarchy. They don't think that it is
    appropriate.

    This brings me back to the main point that I made before: No-one is
    advocating anarchy. The augmented root server organizations, and many others,
    are advocating _democracy_.
     
    Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, Oct 23, 2003
    #52
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.