Snapnames uses Enom, Tucows, NetSol and most recently, Namescout (which
is Internic.ca's .com registrar)
Although I don't know how much milage they got out of Tucows prior
to the NSI registry suspension of batch deletes. I imagine they tried
but like everyone else, couldn't even get a socket during the crucial
times (unless they were getting some kind of preferential treatment, but I
don't think they were. Of all the expired domains I've tracked over the
last few months, next to none of them came up on OpenSRS)
-mark
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, DomainGuideBook.com wrote:
> > Who do Snapnames use? You imply they use one... DomainGuides whoever
> > says a network of registrars. How do either of you know?
>
> Because I have snapped names myself and seen which (plural) registrars
> actually do the snapping for snapnames. It's not difficult to figure out.
> And it's not the same as their 'major' partners such as NSI ...
>
> Lee Hodgson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: John Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; DomainGuideBook.com
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Scott Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:16 AM
> Subject: Re: SnapBack (was Re: Verisign Temporarily Discontinues Drops)
>
>
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:58:37PM -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
> > > Monday, Monday, August 20, 2001, 11:20:48 PM, John Payne wrote:
> > >
> > > > Where is the proof that they're using it responsibly? All I see is
> > > > Verisign saying "we're not releasing any domains" on one hand, and on
> > > > the other "if you pay us $79 we'll get you this domain".
> > >
> > > > How can Verisign say that they oppose registrars constantly trying to
> > > > get dropped domains when they are endorsing a service that claims that
> > > > they monitor activity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
> > >
> > > They aren't saying that at all. What they are saying is that they are
> > > technically unable to handle the load generated by the registrars who
> > > are engaging in mass connections in order to achieve these activities
> > > (its really just a couple registrars, and not one that Snapnames uses
> > > and there is nothing to indicate that snapnames contributes to it in
> > > any way), and that until they can, the only way to eliminate the
> > > activity is to stop dropping names all together.
> >
> > Who do Snapnames use? You imply they use one... DomainGuides whoever
> > says a network of registrars. How do either of you know?
> >
> >
> > > I don't agree with them that it is the only way to stop it, nor the
> > > best way to stop it, but that's another discussion altogether.
> > >
> > > I does put a dent in Snapnames' business model, something I don't
> > > consider to be a "bad thing" really :)
> >
> > Neither do I... *if* it has. Verisign are *still* sending people
> > to snapnames for domains that have *already* expired, and don't appear
> > in any whois except networksolutions.com.
> >
> > > > Where were the *technical* enforcements of that rule? Building a
> system
> > > > to limit connections based on what I hope is a combination of IP and
> > > > other authentication mechanisms is *not* rocket science. Registrar
> > > > starts opening lots and lots of connections? They should start
> getting
> > > > dropped or refused... and if the abuse continues... "oops, there goes
> > > > your access for the rest of the day". Its called common sense.
> > >
> > > The problem isn't quite so simple. First of all the registrar
> > > agreements don't permit the kind of drastic action you propose at the
> > > end.
> >
> > If the agreements don't include a clause for modifying the technicalities
> > of the agreement, then it hasn't been through Verisign's legal team.
> >
> >
> > > Secondly, even if the connections are not getting a response, they can
> > > still flood the connections with just the repetitive attempts that
> > > will occur rapidly until they DO get accepted. And the traffic alone
> > > will slow down the ability of other registrars to open connections.
> >
> > Nope... its not difficult to push the rejection out to a border router
> > or firewall. I'm *not* talking about rejecting the connections on the
> > registry servers themselves.
> >
> > > It's really not as simple as you want to make it out.
> >
> > Yes, it is.
> >
> > > > There is only one party to hold blame for any registery performance or
> > > > scale issues. I won't bother mentioning their name again, as I get
> > > > tired of typing Verisign. Oooops
> > >
> > > I agree, this was a result of poor planning. Do you have any
> > > practical solutions to suggest?
> >
> > Yes, lets get rid of Verisign who have proved time and time again that
> > they're not up to the task of running the registry.
> >
> > --
> > John Payne http://sackheads.org/jpayne/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954
> > To send me mail, use the address in the From: header
> >
>
--
mark jeftovic
http://www.easydns.com
http://mark.jeftovic.net
