After reading the rest of this thread, which devolves into name
calling and drifts off the topic, I have decided to answer this one
from early in the thread;-)...
As a result of the early discussion in this thread, it suddenly
becomes very clear that if anyone is building a Private INTRAnet, and
they want to avoid name collisions in the open Internet where they
cannot control naming, they will be most wise to arrange to have full
control of the Open Internet name of their chosen Private TLD or SLD
in order to avoid unwanted conflicts at some later time.
This is just plain ordinary due diligence and prudent management. It
is always wise to only depend of resources that you really can depend
upon;-)...
So, Kent is right in pointing out (perhaps a bit obliquely) that the
private network manager is responsible for finding some dependable way
to be sure that conflicts can and will be avoided in the future. If
anyone builds a private net with a hidden TLD or SLD and later finds
that it has come into conflict with a newly chosen name on the open
Internet, that manager has only himself to blame.
[NOTE] I might usefully here call attention to the fact that some
old line networking products ran into major problems because
they did not think ahead to assure that their customers could
have globally unique names and addresses for their network
elements. SNA and DECNET come easily to mind.
Now, this realization does not yet complete the picture. `
It leaves open the question of what can be done in the Coordinated
Administration of the DNS to facilitate Private Network Managers
ability to make known the names they use in private, and so block them
from being used by others parties in the Open Internet, and thus avoid
he unwanted conflicts in an open and positive way.
I would propose that it be possible for a private network operator
openly to register a PRIVATE TLD or SLD, or 3LD (or lower) to clearly
label it as reserved for private use! At worst, one could put some
kind of host on that name to make it real enough, even if it was a
rented permission on some ISP's host, or on some WEB HOSTING site.
It is just too easy to find a way to lock up a name by making it
active in some minimal way in the open net, and then use is as you
wish in your private way.
First, what is the harm in allowing such things below the ROOT.
If none, then do we care, and if we care, then why do we care?
Second, what is the harm in allowing this kind of treatment of a TLD?
I hope this will steer this thread back to more rational discussion.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Thu, 01 Apr 1999 22:44:41 -0800:
}
}At 08:26 PM 4/1/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
}>On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:37:13PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
}>[...]
}>>
}>> There are a number of complications if the root-servers started to point to
}>> a different TLD root-server than the one set up by the VPN TLD registry.
}>> Were ICANN, or NTIA, to assign the VPN TLD to someone else, there would be
}>> an instantaneous conflict which, given the infrastructure investment, would
}>> result in instantaneous litigation. Given prior use and trademark law, this
}>> litigation could be successful.
}>
}>Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss
}>corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you
}>have a Swiss trademark?
}
}Irrelevant, they're definitely NOT going to do that, the USG won't let
}them, period. Are you going to claim otherwise? Your statement here is
}pointless.
}
}>Also, since it is you who are using a TLD for a private purpose when
}>a lower level domain would do just fine, in contradiction to every
}>grain of common sense about good network management, why do you
}>think ICANN should pay any attention to your private TLD?
}
}Non-starter and as irrelevant as your previous comment. In this case, you
}ask a question that has already been answered. In this case, another
}message I wrote this very morning.
}
}>> Some of this remains to be seen. It is
}>> possible that the VPN TLD registry does not want to be in the root-server
}>> system. In this case, given the technical conflict, the VPN registry must
}>> still be able to deny the root-server system the ability to assign that TLD
}>> to anyone else. The mechanism afforded by trademark law seems to be
}>> helpful, in this regard. This is still under evaluation, although
}>> preliminary research appears promising.
}>
}>Oh sure.
}
}Your point? Are you disagreeing with the requirement? You certainly can't
}be disagreeing with a solution that isn't being presented.
}
}>> In the case of a purely private network, built on an internal TLD (call it
}>> PNET), as you suggest, there is a bleed-though effect. Although the
}>> internal IP block is a private one (not visible outside that block) and the
}>> public IP addresses are only gateways, the node within that private network
}>> still have access to the Internet via the proxy-servers(gateways). Were the
}>> root-server to assign a public TLD, called PNET, then none of the internal
}>> nodes of the private PNET TLD would be able to access any node on the
}>> public PNET TLD. This is a Denial of Service issue.
}>
}>No, it isn't. They are not denying your customers any service that
}>they are currently getting. It's true that the customers won't be
}>able to get to someone who registers a name in the new official TLD
}>-- that's something that registrants in that TLD might consider for
}>about 2 milliseconds, but that is their problem, not ICANNs.
}>
}>If you make a stupid choice and run a private TLD this way, it is you
}>who are limiting your customers' future access, not ICANN.
}
}First off, I presented this case as a hypothetical. The actual case, which
}you are completely ignoring, is the overlayment. This hypothetical is to
}highlight the limits of current technology implementation. Note that I did
}NOT say "capability". Optimal capability is better than this, but it is not
}completely deployed. Also, there is no current problem with this because
}they are not allowing new TLDs. When service is denied, whether intentional
}or not, service is still being denied. Do you disagree that this is a valid
}problem scenario?
}
}Why do you make such a stupid statement? What is your point?
}
}>> For this reason, the
}>> root-servers must acknowledge private TLDs, even if they don't list them in
}>> the roots.
}>
}>Oh sure.
}
}Again you make these blank statements. What is your point?
}
}You make blank statements and present no points.
}
}___________________________________________________
}Roeland M.J. Meyer -
}e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
}Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
}Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
}___________________________________________________
} Lead, follow, get out of the way .... pick one!
