Re: DNS: defining "official" domains

Re: DNS: defining "official" domains

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1§>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:14:58 +0100
Reagan and all,

Reagan Blundell wrote:

> > 3.  What RSC is run by a single individual?  None to my knowledge?
> Considering by definition, that a Confederation precludes being a single
> individual, then the answer to that would be 'none.'
> Thats not to say that a single person cannot run a Root Server.  In fact, I'm
> sure there are many people out there running "root" servers with their
> own TLDs.  They may not be offering the use of those to people outside
> their organisation and/or network,  or perhaps they are.  The thing is,
> that you cant know what every other person in the world is doing with
> their machines,  and unless you have some sort of "authority" over a given
> space  (presumably handed down via a chain from IANA) you can't tell
> weather or not you are going to be conflicting with other people.

  This is not really accurate.  You can find out precisely what any server that is
connected to any net or subnet if it is on the Internet.  You can use a variety
of Network management tools/software to do that with.  For instance we use
our own custom modified version of SATAN and Sun's Enterprise Network
management monitoring software to do this.  You need to know what the IP
address and/or the host name to do that.  But that info is available from
many sources.

> >
> > >The big problem with this isn't that nearly everyone can't see them - the
> > >problems would really start if a statistically significant number of DNS
> > >resolvers *could* see them - because there can be more than one of them!
> >
> > More than one of what?
> >
> More than one RSC with the same TLD.

  If you do this and it is a internet connected server that is resolving those
DN's you will have allot of collisions.

> > >THere is no limit to the number of people who can create alternative root
> > >structures, and nothing stopping them. Indeed, when run in private, between
> >
> > This is very true.  That's why credability and authentication is required
> > and that's done through cooperative agreements.  Just like the Legacy Servers.
> How does one get that credibility and authentication?
> It would seem by your actions, that one gains this credibility by pushing
> for everyone to use your service, and calling them names if they don't
> jump at the wonderful opportunity you are giving them.

  If you are talking about authority and authentication back to the legacy Root
servers, you will need more than this.  You will need to have the TLD that your
Root server is servicing known the the Legacy Root servers and in the Zone file
on one of more of those servers, or you will need to set ontop of the Legacy
Root structure altogether.  But you DON't need a single user or user
owned DN on your Root server.  That is NOT a requirement.

> (Speaking of
> which..  the word "Twonk" isn't necessarily a FIDO term.  I've heard
> it in many places over the years - mostly from non-computer-enthusiasts
> who would have had zero contact with the Fidonet world)
> >
> > Now the IRSC is recognised also, it simply adds more weight.
> Recognised by whom?

  By at least 5 Name servers that I can think of right off hand.  Alternic, eDNS,
uDNS, Iperdom (?), IO Design's Name server, and I believe Namesecures
Root server.

> > >consenting adults operating internet connected organisations, it is simply
> > >another (private) use of the internet to run applications across it -
> > >doesn't affect the rest of us, positively *or* negatively.
> >
> > Yes, this is totally true.  Until one of your clients wants to access these
> > "private" databases and you don't allow it.
> >
> > Your no longer providing full internet access.  You are in fact censoring
> > the access the user has to suite your own political motivations.
> What if I've never heard of one of these new RSC's, and one of my users
> wishes to make use of a site in their TLD.   Is it still my fault
> for not knowing about them and changing my configuration to accomodate
> them?

  No it is not necessarily your fault.

> If I dont have the time, or resources to continually update
> my DNS setup to enable resolution for every new RSC that someone
> comes up with, is that still censorship?

  No it isn't.  But you will need to make a business decision as to weather you
should.  That decision should most likely be based on your user demand.

> > >However, they would be an issue for the rest of the planet if they started
> > >actually being *used* by significant numbers of users in the world instead
> > >of the 'real' root servers.
> >
> > All Root Servers properly configured are REAL ROOT SERVERS.
> >
> > All servers visible on the public internet are for use by the public.  And
> > Significant numbers are using alternatives, you just don't want to believe it.
> You want us to beleive that so much.  Yet every time I check,  I can't
> resolve these alternate domains using the recommended DNS setup from
> the ISP i'm testing from.  This includes ISPs in both Australia and
> the United States.

  This depends on what DNS server(s) your login software is pointing to.

> Feel free to send me mail backing up your 20 million figure quoted in a
> previous message.
> > >one. The notion that a new root name server confederation is somehow more
> > >worthy than the existing one is a non sequitur, and I suggest we
> >
> > I'll agree with that.  There is no more worthyness from the Legacy Servers
> > as there is to AURSC.  They are both operational and available to users.
> >
> > Do you drive a Model T Ford by any chance?
> What advancements does the AURSC hold over the Legacy servers?  I'm assuming
> thats what you are implying from your question about the Model T?  Oh, hang
> on.. that contradicts the statement that neither has more worthyness than
> the other...  so what does the question about the Model T mean to imply?
> Reagan.


Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1&#167;
Received on Sat Jun 20 1998 - 19:48:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC