Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
--On den 28 september 2005 10.03.47 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that all gTLD are controlled only in the US (even more than the root is). So, they are international only in name. .museum is operated from Sweden. -- Måns NilssonSystems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 cell KTHNOC +46 8 790 6518 office MN1334-RIPE pgpceAQPyT7kP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:19:07AM +0200, MÃ¥ns Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 34 lines which said: .museum is operated from Sweden. Correct, Europeans will stop using .com and switch to .museum, its main competitor :-)
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Ehehe..Thats really good answer.. On 10/6/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:19:07AM +0200, Måns Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 34 lines which said: .museum is operated from Sweden. Correct, Europeans will stop using .com and switch to .museum, itsmain competitor :-)
Re: [political pontification] Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Vint, I don't think I know any longer, if I ever did, what IDN means. Alternatives to Unicode were proposed during the IETF IDN WG lifetime, both as a single normative reference, and as a normative reference. Likewise an intermediate tables redefinition of Unicode, mentioned in my last pointless comment. Then there is the possibility of research on the problems of character repitoires and interoperable data exchange -- before engineering some solution(s). Proposed to the IRTF Chair and rejected. Are there operational issues to attempt to make this thread remotely on point for NANOG? Probably not. Its just bits, and whether the bits are all 0x000 or quasi-random distributions between 0x000 and 0x177 is water under somebody else's bridge. The constraint-space is solve in applications and not solve in infrastructure. The question of semantic scope is interesting in theory, which was the point of my note to Tony Li, if not tractible in a particular context. Eric
Re: [political pontification] Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Are there operational issues to attempt to make this thread remotely on point for NANOG? Probably not. Its just bits, and whether the bits are all 0x000 or quasi-random distributions between 0x000 and 0x177 is water under somebody else's bridge. The constraint-space is solve in applications and not solve in infrastructure. s/0x177/0x377/. I'm such a dolt. ENOCOFFEE. The 8th bit is the point, for some values of point. VC: yes, that's the current vector at any rate although I gather there is still effort being put into constraint rules at both infrastructure and application level? Back when I still worked for a well-heeled, if only through pyramid-scams on investers in the North American numbering and speculative DNS markets, employer and could afford to go to IETF meetings, I did talk to people in the MTA and other lines of work about foo-in-infrastructure. One can hope that people do the correct things, but sometimes they need to be reminded what correct and do mean. I wonder what goodies and treats await me in this tasty tarball ... after all sendmail X is 8 bit transparent ... ftp://ftp.sendmail.org/pub/sendmail/.beta/antry/smX-0.0.Beta2.0.tar.gz Eric
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
In general I agree with you. The primary exception being that if national political interests want to press for local rules about specific strings (like XXX) then those national interests belong in their designated part of the name space. Polluting the global space with nationally inconsistent rules about use will not help. Are there national exceptions to international law? Seems to me that if no exceptions are permitted, then everyone is treated equally. Tony
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Tony Li wrote: Are there national exceptions to international law? Seems to me that if no exceptions are permitted, then everyone is treated equally. Yes there are. E.g. NAZI sites and propaganda are prohibited in germany. They are welcome in the u.s. That delivers a pseudo excuse for corrupt german politician to censor sites like http://www.julius-hellenthal.de/ This site is about curing illnesses related to bakteria. Medicine in germany does not believe in antibioatics. I could not proof Hellenthal's site was censored. Fact 1 - you could not reach it and gogogle would not find it. Fact 2 - friends of dr. med. Julius Helenthal were teaching at the same university were the german DNS was politically corrected (you may use a 4 letter word starting with s or f to your liking :) I am afraid it might be the other way too, because using italian, french or spanish speaking and located search engines gives results about sites written in english. Sometimes the answer will be in cache only. Sometines you will find a site you can bookmark and retrieve. Never will you find that site using english speaking search engines. Interestingly enough the sites I searched for were about golf war syndrome and illnes related to bakteria. Please try to find Dr. med. Nicholson and mycoplasma bakteria. If all war related syndromes might relate to mycoplasma bakteria and those bakteria were to be found in oil fields it would suggest interesting thoughts. If you would relate this to live found, several thousand meters deep under ground at temparatures above 400 celsius (700 kelvin) you might relate this to the mad cow syndrome but that information is censored too. It might suggest there is oil everywhere - maybe even on the moon. Who is interested in finding oil everywhere? Censored! Who is interested in his citicens running away to the moon? Censored! Not to mention mars. Censored! There are very few counties where the internet is not censored. I believe italy is one of them. They are so corrupt - they have bigger holes to fill. That is why they dont have time to censor the internet. I believe having more than two roots to chose from will make censoring more difficult. That is why I support The Public-Root and I shall help mostly any new root emerging. -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
From: Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes' nanog@merit.edu *plonk* I have hardly ever seen someone post so much ... in so short a time, even though it is a fellow German citizen. In a sad way it was good reading until this post. Save the root zone from him someone, and accuse the world, yeah... Alexander, thinking of the german word 'Depp' here
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:28:03AM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: ... E.g. NAZI sites and propaganda are prohibited in germany. They are welcome in the u.s. That delivers a pseudo excuse for corrupt german politician to ... Without comment on the rest of this, I feel I must note that to most people in the USA [including both corrupt and uncorrupt (if any) politicians ;-)], such sites are definitely NOT welcome. They are tolerated because of the principle of free speech. Please note the immense difference, ye who believe in principles! ... However, if they cross the line into promoting criminal activity, that is NOT tolerated. -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Joseph S D Yao wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:28:03AM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: ... E.g. NAZI sites and propaganda are prohibited in germany. They are welcome in the u.s. That delivers a pseudo excuse for corrupt german politician to ... Without comment on the rest of this, I feel I must note that to most people in the USA [including both corrupt and uncorrupt (if any) politicians ;-)], such sites are definitely NOT welcome. They are tolerated because of the principle of free speech. Please note the immense difference, ye who believe in principles! ... However, if they cross the line into promoting criminal activity, that is NOT tolerated. Please dont take me too very litteral on this. 1.) I have slept bad, because of problems with The Public-Root. 2.) I cannot think of anybody welcoming those sites. But I am afraid those sites do give a pseudo excuse for censoring gouvernments. It is a pseudo excuse. In fact it does the opposite. They are hiding the information that those sites exist. So they are helping those sites to flurrish in foraign contries. Censoring is bad. Worse than those sites in the first place. What can be used will be misused. Censoring was ment good but it was missused to censor Dr. med Julius Hellenthal. There was no reason and no right to censor him. Afterwards nobody has been it and nobody tries to find out who was it or why. Collateral damage. With censoring there is always collateral damage. Telling everybody - look at those guys - and explaining, is much better. With a single root there will be a single point of failure. With more that one root it is a lot more difficult to make censoring work. Look at ICANN. A lot of people say it smells like corruption. Look at The Public-Root it is not much better. http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ There will always be people trying to make bad use of things meant good. We can never hinder them. We can only make their live difficult by preventing a single point of failure. Thank you for watching this. But please watch too: http://www.icannwatch.org/ Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:26:59 PDT, Tony Li said: Are there national exceptions to international law? Seems to me that if no exceptions are permitted, then everyone is treated equally. This is discussed in passing in RFC3675. In particular, the third paragraph paragraph of section 3: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark. Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter their Internet connection and have created government agencies to protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral. If everybody is treated equally, then if one of those countries objects to a site, then you can't visit it *either*, even if your country feels the site is acceptable. So, for instance, you couldn't visit the link http://aclu.org/pizza (a real URL about a real problem), because there's at least one government that wishes that URL would go away. Two, if you count the Chinese, who probably don't want their people knowing what rights people in other countries have... pgp2xezJhnLAm.pgp Description: PGP signature
[political pontification] Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark. Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter their Internet connection and have created government agencies to protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral. and in the united states, we're madly hiring new fbi agents to protect our society from web sites our officials view as immoral. randy
Re: [political pontification] Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Sep 29, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark. Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter their Internet connection and have created government agencies to protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral. and in the united states, we're madly hiring new fbi agents to protect our society from web sites our officials view as immoral. I should have made my comment more specific: what is the problem with single namespace without ccTLDs and without per-country exceptions? Assuming that we can reach consensus on namespace administration (a process that should only take another decade or so ;-), it would seem that operating within that consensus would be in the best interests of all. Per-country exceptions just creates more Balkanization of the Internet, which hardly seems beneficial. Tony
Re: [political pontification] Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
I should have made my comment more specific: what is the problem with single namespace without ccTLDs and without per-country exceptions? Thank you for asking. Harald Alvestrand and I had just this conversation during the IETF IDN WG lifetime, about the point where the Chinese (CN, TW, MO, SG), the Koreans (SK), and to a lesser extent, the Japanese (JP) in the Chinese Domain Name Consoritum (CDNC) and/or the Joint Engineering Taskforce (JET) found IETF consensus process inalterably for an ASCII encoding of a naive transformation of a glyph repetoire (Unicode). The CDNC et al were unable to get an intermediate mapping of the code point repitoire, and proposed an alternative, scoped semantics for code point equivalency classes. That was your question right, what use is there for scoped semantics? Perhaps none, but the CDNC/JET technical people I knew, and the policy people I knew at the time were quite willing to accept all the flagday issues for domain names characters in infrastructure that were outside of the current repitoire. I think everyone here knows what those issues are, and how great a cost their resolution represents. Per-country exceptions just creates more Balkanization of the Internet, which hardly seems beneficial. That was Harald's arguement, and as IETF Chair, it carried much more weight than that of any other person I've ever known, in China or outside of China. The principle of least surprise ment that a zone file operator (in China) could not create an equivalency class a user (in Norway) would be unlikely to predict. I suppose I should mention that in mainland China, a simplified (modern) form of Han characters are used, in the province of Taiwan, traditional Han characters are used, in Korean some archaic Han characters are used, and in Japan, in the Kanji writing system, some (other) archaic Han characters are used, and in Vietnamese, still another set of Han characters are used -- and there are scads of semantic equivalencies between these different glyphs, all of which are in Unicode, without an equivalency class mechanism. And so we (or rather they since this is a North American list) do not have domain names composed of end-user recognizable characters. Oh. While in hospital in Beijing I asked all the medical staff (nurses, doctors, etc.) if they were OK with ASCII. Not one English speaker was. Limited sample set, your milage may vary, season for taste, etc. It is fellicitous, but the ICANN Registrar's Constituency list just a day ago carried a request, nominally from ICANN President Paul Twomey, for a Registrar with some interest and experience in the problem area to join a President's mumble. I wrote he and Vint to see what they had in mind, and I may as well use this note to prod them again. They may simply mean that RACE needs to be re-euphamized and a few more printer glyphs in Unicode need to be made less accessible to phishers. Eric
RE: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
do you still think that Paul Vixie has given very good arguments?, peter? Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs the T-shirt. Spaceballs the lunchbox. Spaceballs the coloring book. Spaceballs... the flamethrower! Kids love it. And my favorite, Spaceballs the Doll -- me! -M
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:39:29PM -0700, Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 20 lines which said: Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The problem is that all gTLD are controlled only in the US (even more than the root is). So, they are international only in name.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:56:50PM -0400, Robert Boyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 26 lines which said: Well said! Other than government entities, I never understood why anyone would want a country specific name. So he can call upon the law of his country, rather than the law of the state of California or Virginia?
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:04:36 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer said: So he can call upon the law of his country, rather than the law of the state of California or Virginia? Quite likely irrelevant. Some entity with a foobar.nu domain-of-convenience is quite likely going to find a hard time getting onto a court calendar in Niue unless they have a bit more than a domain name to establish jurisdiction. Similarly for most other countries - the French court system isn't going to want cases dropped on it just because there's a foobar.fr domain involved, unless there's a French citizen or corporation involved - and at that point, the fact that a French citizen or corporation involved will be the biggest point for establishing jurisdiction. Is there *any* court that will actually accept But alldomains.com sold me a domain name as sufficient grounds *by itself* for establishing jurisdiction? pgpuWSF2apCiX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The problem is that all gTLD are controlled only in the US (even more than the root is). So, they are international only in name. Obviously, I feel that that needs to change. Tony
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Vixie writes: do you still think that Paul Vixie has given very good arguments?, peter? I think so -- but I'm not Peter Thanks -- you said it very well. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Vixie writes: do you still think that Paul Vixie has given very good arguments?, peter? I think so -- but I'm not Peter Thanks -- you said it very well. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb I dare say yes. Paul and me both want a relyable and stable internet. The ways may look different ... Kind regards, Peter and karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:39:29PM -0700, Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 20 lines which said: Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The problem is that all gTLD are controlled only in the US (even more than the root is). So, they are international only in name. which part is controlled? the introduction of new TLD or the running of the TLD services? I may be mistaken, again the slow reading is biting me, but PIR and Melbourne-IT partnered to run .org, yes? (then passed the operations on to Afilas and from there to ultradns?)
Re: Corruption and Monopoly is the real Issue (was Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers)
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:33:43PM -0500, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: ... to operate our businesses. We have a right to operate our TLDs and ... Why? I say so is not a response. Use of the word deserve in a response will get it deleted without a response. I am violently sick every time I hear or read the term right misused and thereby denigrated and devalued in this way. This is the first time I have seen it here, I fear not the last. -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: How about this one: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ Seems to be growing more files every day. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Oh. Joe Baptista. Theres a name that adds an aura of legitimacy to your organization. BTW, could you explain to me what an International Virtual Corporation is? matto PS. Is there some sort of secret net.kook cabal which I was not aware of? [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
do you still think that Paul Vixie has given very good arguments?, peter? I think so -- but I'm not Peter aolme too/aol
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
PS. Is there some sort of secret net.kook cabal which I was not aware of? i thought this (nanog) was it. maybe i'm not in the loop, though. -- Paul Vixie
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
At 03:32 PM 9/28/2005, Paul Vixie wrote: PS. Is there some sort of secret net.kook cabal which I was not aware of? i thought this (nanog) was it. maybe i'm not in the loop, though. -- Paul Vixie Paul, That's the _secret_ part! ;) -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 Well done is better than well said. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:39:24 PDT, Matt Ghali said: PS. Is there some sort of secret net.kook cabal which I was not aware of? Actually, there's 2 cabals, with overlapping memberships, and any given net.kook can be a member of -2 to 3 cabals (negative cabals being those that have publicly disavowed your membership. I'd explain the 3 to you, but you haven't shown that you know either of the secret handshakes :) ObNanog: The above has been shown to do a better job of explaining the actual weirdness of how the Net actually operates in practice than any competing theory. You don't believe me, map out all the kooks on all sides of the perennial root debate. pgp56c1HEeISy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:39:24 PDT, Matt Ghali said: PS. Is there some sort of secret net.kook cabal which I was not aware of? Actually, there's 2 cabals, with overlapping memberships, and any given net.kook can be a member of -2 to 3 cabals (negative cabals being those that have publicly disavowed your membership. I'd explain the 3 to you, but you haven't shown that you know either of the secret handshakes :) ObNanog: The above has been shown to do a better job of explaining the actual weirdness of how the Net actually operates in practice than any competing theory. You don't believe me, map out all the kooks on all sides of the perennial root debate. Ladies and Gentlemen, take your seats and place your hands on the table please. Ladies and Gentlemen east of the Atlantic Ocean - you may begin. Ladies and Gentlemen west of the Atlantic Ocean - please wait until the night rises. The disclosure may begin. The rules may be found on http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ The site of the game: Turkey? The Netherlands? Geneva? The Americas? The World The players: Corrupt gouvernments, Not so corrupt gouvernments, Members of religous cults, Corrupt businessmen, Not so corrupt businessmen, Policemen, Newsmen, Netizens, You and me The outcome: Yet another drama - we'll see -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
RE: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Tony Li wrote: .com is an abomination, as are the other gTLDs to a lesser extent. .gov, .mil, .edu, .info, and .biz need to be shifted under .us immediately, and everyone under .com, .net, and .org needs to be gradually moved under the appropriate part of the real DNS tree. I can live with .int continuing on, but only because no better solution immediately comes to mind. Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and equality across borders, not intensify their differences. In general I agree with you. The primary exception being that if national political interests want to press for local rules about specific strings (like XXX) then those national interests belong in their designated part of the name space. Polluting the global space with nationally inconsistent rules about use will not help. Tony
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: Here is the birth of a new root-server system: What does Turkey have to do with this ? Roy
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Here is the birth of a new root-server system: What does Turkey have to do with this ? only turkeys switch root servers. [ sorry, turkey is american slang for fool ]
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Roy Arends wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: Here is the birth of a new root-server system: What does Turkey have to do with this ? Sensationalistic headlining; one of the IP addresses quoted is located within Turkey. Worlds different from the implication that 'All Internet users in Turkey now use this new root-server system'. One of these days, people will learn that unless everyone plays from the same root zone, you effectively end up with seperate Internets. Boo, hiss and all that. -- Bruce Campbell As long as you point your resolvers at 192.168.123.34, I can be reached by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:45:33PM +0300, Evren Demirkan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 29 lines which said: I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in plain English? There is nothing related with your country in the whole thread. The subject is misleading. (You can do a dig NS . on your machine to be sure.)
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On 27/09/05, Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the birth of a new root-server system: *.united-root.com Please, put the alternate root crack-pipe down and back slwly away from it Setting up an alternate root server in turkey and claiming that turkey has switched root servers is quite specious .. even for drinkers of the alternate root koolaid -- Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Evren Demirkan wrote: Ok So what, I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in plain English? Evren Demirkan Hi Evren Demirkan, there has been for about one year a turkish root-server: l.public-root.com That server did not resolve the ICANN root but The Public-Root. Until some ISPs in Turkey started selling turkish language toplevel domains nobody noticed because in the legacy domains ICANN and Public-Root are compatible. As I am comparing the root-servers to check compatibility I had to find out sooner or later that l.public-root.com was drifting away from the rest of our root-servers. I found out that l.public-root.com was not only missing updates and losing compatibility with ICANN but it started servicing a completely new root: *.united-root.com Except for the root-servers themselves and the names of the root-servers united-root.com did run old Public-Root data. You can check from which root your DNS comes by asking this simple querey using dig on linux or unix: dig -t any . My dig, in the Public-Root, answers: ; DiG 9.1.3 -t any . ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37356 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 14, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 172800 IN SOA a.public-root.net. \ hostmaster.public-root.net.\ 2005092712 43200 3600 1209600 14400 . 172800 IN NS a.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS b.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS c.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS d.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS e.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS f.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS g.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS h.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS i.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS j.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS k.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS l.public-root.net. . 172800 IN NS m.public-root.net. ;; Query time: 207 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.48.228#53(192.168.48.228) ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 27 17:16:12 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 273 If you are in the ICANN root your answer should be: ; DiG 9.1.3 -t any . @a.root-servers.net ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 60636 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 14, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 3 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 518400 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. \ NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. \ 2005092601 1800 900 604800 86400 . 518400 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 518400 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 IN A
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: Evren Demirkan wrote: Ok So what, I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in plain English? Evren Demirkan Hi Evren Demirkan, there has been for about one year a turkish root-server: l.public-root.com That server did not resolve the ICANN root but The Public-Root. Until some ISPs in Turkey started selling turkish language toplevel domains nobody noticed because in the legacy domains ICANN and Public-Root are compatible. So the basic story here is not really Turkey is using a new DNS root, but rather, users of alternate root servers notice alternate root inconsistency, which is exactly what those opposed to alternate roots have been predicting. There's also a real root server in Turkey. According to www.root-servers.org, there's an anycast copy of i.root-servers.net in Ankara. -Steve
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Steve Gibbard wrote: So the basic story here is not really Turkey is using a new DNS root, but rather, users of alternate root servers notice alternate root inconsistency, which is exactly what those opposed to alternate roots have been predicting. There's also a real root server in Turkey. According to www.root-servers.org, there's an anycast copy of i.root-servers.net in Ankara. So, I think I'm off the crazy-pills recently... Why is it again that folks want to balkanize the Internet like this? Why would you intentionally put your customer base into this situation? If you are going to do this, why not just drop random packets to 'bad' destinations instead? I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way?
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher L. Morrow) writes: So... Why is it again that folks want to balkanize the Internet like this? the dreams fulfilled and/or still promised by the internet mostly involve some kind of disintermediation, increases in freedom or autonomy, that kind of thing. in that context, centralized control over things like address assignments and TLD creation is like fingernails on a chalkboard. a lot of folks feel that if it has to be centrally controlled, then $me should be in charge or at best if it has to be centrally controlled, then $me want a voice. this desire is more powerful than any appreciation or understanding of the benefits of naming universality or address uniqueness. human nature, especially when individuals interact with herds, is predictable but not necessarily rational. I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me ... that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? i think it's because of what margaret mead wrote: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. the internet is supernational. control over it is held by the ruling political party, and their backers, in one country. thus there's plenty of money and power ready to back the next hair-brained scheme to break the lock, even if (as i expect) lack of naming universality would be worse than lack of naming autonomy. -- Paul Vixie
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: So, I think I'm off the crazy-pills recently... Why is it again that folks want to balkanize the Internet like this? Why would you intentionally put your customer base into this situation? If you are going to do this, why not just drop random packets to 'bad' destinations instead? There are actually quite a few parties advocating dropping packets to 'bad' destinations. Each of them usually has a different set of criteria to define the 'bad'. Pete
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. Let me add a design fault: As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need for any other domain. Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com. Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want. Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root: # IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4 # SOA(.,2005092401,A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.,NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.,1800,900,604800,86400). # lines: 2334, NS: 1380, A: 878, : 65, SOA: 2, domains: 263 servers: 64 # IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4 # SOA(.,2005092512,a.public-root.net.,hostmaster.public-root.net.,43200,3600,1209600,14400). # lines: 11640, NS: 10479, A: 1085, : 66, SOA: 2, domains: 3043 servers: 65 The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got enough toplevel domains. DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry. No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers gets more. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 22:07 +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible to ICANNs root. Peter, Thanks for notifying that one of your Internet Root Zone root-servers defected to another alternate root without even telling you. It nicely shows that Public Root is already something that that root-server in Turkey doesn't want to be a part of. Guess Why. Btw, look up the word 'hierarchy' in the dictionary and become amazed. You can find a good description at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy Do use the ICANN DNS for resolving it though, you might end up at some other site with different content if you don't. This might have caused you a lot of confusion already in the past. Say hello to Karin btw. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Peter, I must have missed something here. Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? Please explain this in simple words. Thank you. Cutler t 9/27/2005 10:07 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. Let me add a design fault: As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need for any other domain. Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com. Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want. Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root: # IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4 # SOA(.,2005092401,A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.,NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.,1800,900,604800,86400). # lines: 2334, NS: 1380, A: 878, : 65, SOA: 2, domains: 263 servers: 64 # IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4 # SOA(.,2005092512,a.public-root.net.,hostmaster.public-root.net.,43200,3600,1209600,14400). # lines: 11640, NS: 10479, A: 1085, : 66, SOA: 2, domains: 3043 servers: 65 The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got enough toplevel domains. DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry. No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers gets more. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers gets more. Aww, thats cute. While I'm sure you've read RFC 2826 and disagree completely with it, what happens if some other schmoe starts public-root2 and duplicates some of your TLD. Then you have different users resolving the same hosts ending up at different destinations. There has to be 1 globally unique root. ICANN is currently it. Sorry. sam
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. paul often does, yes. Let me add a design fault: The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got enough toplevel domains. 'not enough'... how much is 'enough'? by your calculations or mine or pauls or G.W. Bush's? Is your problem that it takes X months/years to get a new TLD put into the normal ICANN Root system? Or is it that you don't like their choice of .com and want .common (or some other .com replacement?). There is a process defined to handle adding new TLD's, I think it's even documented in an RFC? (I'm a little behind in my NRIC reading about this actually, sorry) Circumventing a process simply because it's not 'fast enough' isn't really an answer (in my opinion atleast) especially when it effectivly breaks the complete system. DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. uhm, how so? certainly the tree and decentralized functions still exist. It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry. huh? how so? Because 25M of the 35M 2nd level domains are in .com? isn't that more a function of 'everyone knows www.company.com' than anything else? I can't get people inside my company to realize (well, couldn't when it mattered to me) remeber that my email address was [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... they always wanted to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .COM got more registrations simply, it seems to me, via marketting. No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers gets more. people love crack, it's still not a good idea to smoke it.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, James R. Cutler wrote: Peter, I must have missed something here. Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? I'm not up on this exactly, but my reading of the NRIC report says that some ISO document has all the 'official' (for ISO I suppose atleast) 2 letter abbreviations for country codes. These end up in the ccTLD list, and then in the root servers delegated to the proper ccTLD auth servers for that 2 letter code. The ISO list isn't a US owned thing at last I recall... Please explain this in simple words.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Hi James, James R. Cutler wrote: Peter, I must have missed something here. Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? Please explain this in simple words. The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why you find organisations, companies and whatever in .com, .net and .org I have a .de domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to france. I cannot get a .eu domain because of bureaucratic reasons. Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains are of no use to me. Sooner or later I will end up in .com, .net or .org. Right now I dont have the money to bye me a .com, .net or .org domain. That is why I join with people like me building our own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons :) Kind regards, Peter and Karin Thank you. Cutler t 9/27/2005 10:07 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. Let me add a design fault: As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need for any other domain. Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com. Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want. Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root: # IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4 # SOA(.,2005092401,A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.,NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.,1800,900,604800,86400). # lines: 2334, NS: 1380, A: 878, : 65, SOA: 2, domains: 263 servers: 64 # IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4 # SOA(.,2005092512,a.public-root.net.,hostmaster.public-root.net.,43200,3600,1209600,14400). # lines: 11640, NS: 10479, A: 1085, : 66, SOA: 2, domains: 3043 servers: 65 The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got enough toplevel domains. DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry. No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers gets more. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:42:22PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, James R. Cutler wrote: Peter, I must have missed something here. Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? I'm not up on this exactly, but my reading of the NRIC report says that some ISO document has all the 'official' (for ISO I suppose atleast) 2 letter abbreviations for country codes. These end up in the ccTLD list, and then in the root servers delegated to the proper ccTLD auth servers for that 2 letter code. The ISO list isn't a US owned thing at last I recall... ISO 3166 is what you want. http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1-semic.txt -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Jared Mauch wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:42:22PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, James R. Cutler wrote: Peter, I must have missed something here. Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? I'm not up on this exactly, but my reading of the NRIC report says that some ISO document has all the 'official' (for ISO I suppose atleast) 2 letter abbreviations for country codes. These end up in the ccTLD list, and then in the root servers delegated to the proper ccTLD auth servers for that 2 letter code. The ISO list isn't a US owned thing at last I recall... ISO 3166 is what you want. http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1-semic.txt hey look, that's in switzerland! :) So, not US controlled. (tinfoil hat off)
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: I have a .de domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to france. I cannot get a .eu domain because of bureaucratic reasons. Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains are of no use to me. Sooner or later I will end up in .com, .net or .org. Right now I dont have the money to bye me a .com, .net or .org domain. That is why I join with people like me building our uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries, but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what about .name or .info or)
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code- lists/list-en1-semic.txt hey look, that's in switzerland! :) So, not US controlled. (tinfoil hat off) It is an ISO list, but isn't the ISO-3166 list still maintained by DIN in Germany? Rgds, -drc
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries, but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what about .name or .info or) I am not The Public-Root. I am only one of the volonteers. :) -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
David Conrad wrote: On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code- lists/list-en1-semic.txt hey look, that's in switzerland! :) So, not US controlled. (tinfoil hat off) It is an ISO list, but isn't the ISO-3166 list still maintained by DIN in Germany? Rgds, -drc The DIN is ISOed. They say DIN/ISO-... sometimes. Often they forget the DIN/ part. Regards, Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On 9/27/05, Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: or .org. Right now I dont have the money to bye me a .com, .net or .org domain. That is why I join with people like me building our own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons :) Let me be the first to offer the free registration of the com net or org of your choice if it will end this alternate root nonsense.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:07:19 +0200, Peter Dambier said: As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need for any other domain. Remember this fact for a moment.. The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. OK. So yours is bigger than mine. Now keep in mind this: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050821mode=classic (Yes, it's totally relevant) pgpg6s9XlLYhR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Peter, OK, now I understand. It is not the DNS hierarchy which is the problem. Or, even the rDNS oot or the various DNS server sets. Yours is a personal difference with the assignment process which causes operational issues for you when you migrate. Thank you for your clarification. Perhaps you should approach ICANN with alternate proposals. Regards. Cutler At 9/27/2005 11:46 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: Hi James, James R. Cutler wrote: Peter, I must have missed something here. Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? Please explain this in simple words. The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why you find organisations, companies and whatever in .com, .net and .org I have a .de domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to france. I cannot get a .eu domain because of bureaucratic reasons. Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains are of no use to me. Sooner or later I will end up in .com, .net or .org. Right now I dont have the money to bye me a .com, .net or .org domain. That is why I join with people like me building our own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons :) Kind regards, Peter and Karin Thank you. Cutler t 9/27/2005 10:07 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. Let me add a design fault: As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need for any other domain. Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com. Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want. Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root: # IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4 # SOA(.,2005092401,A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.,NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.,1800,900,604800,86400). # lines: 2334, NS: 1380, A: 878, : 65, SOA: 2, domains: 263 servers: 64 # IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4 # SOA(.,2005092512,a.public-root.net.,hostmaster.public-root.net.,43200,3600,1209600,14400). # lines: 11640, NS: 10479, A: 1085, : 66, SOA: 2, domains: 3043 servers: 65 The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got enough toplevel domains. DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry. No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers gets more. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Thus spake Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. Let me add a design fault: As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need for any other domain. Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com. Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want. No, what you'd get is 25M top-level domains and virtually no hierarchy. That is _not_ what we want. .com is an abomination, as are the other gTLDs to a lesser extent. .gov, .mil, .edu, .info, and .biz need to be shifted under .us immediately, and everyone under .com, .net, and .org needs to be gradually moved under the appropriate part of the real DNS tree. I can live with .int continuing on, but only because no better solution immediately comes to mind. Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root: ... The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got enough toplevel domains. DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. What you're proposing is eliminating what little tree-like elements are left and making a totally flat system. Can't you see that you're arguing against your own position here? S Stephen SprunkStupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them. --Aaron Sorkin
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
Thus spake Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] James R. Cutler wrote: I must have missed something here. Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US? Please explain this in simple words. The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why you find organisations, companies and whatever in .com, .net and .org No, .com, .net, and .org became popular because (a) the entity that .us was assigned to was both incompetent and hostile, and (b) Americans are, for the most part, blissfully unaware that anyone exists outside their borders. .com is merely a historical substitute for .us. If .us had been used correctly, we wouldn't have needed gTLDs at all. I have a .de domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to france. I cannot get a .eu domain because of bureaucratic reasons. Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains are of no use to me. There are plenty of ccTLDs that will sell you a domain regardless of residency, nearly all of them for less than you pay your own country's registrar for a correct domain. Sooner or later I will end up in .com, .net or .org. Right now I dont have the money to bye me a .com, .net or .org domain. You can afford EUR 116/yr for a .de domain but not USD 15/yr for a .com domain? (pricing from DENICdirect and my Dotster, respectively) That is why I join with people like me building our own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons :) So petition ICANN to create a new TLD for poor people, since you believe that more gTLDs are the answer. Using an alternate root means only other poor people will be able to reach you (since they're the only ones who need that alternate root), which appears acceptable at first but will quickly become untenable. Not to mention it'll be quickly taken over by spammers, as .info and .biz have been. Adding gTLDs is a bad solution to the wrong problem. S Stephen SprunkStupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them. --Aaron Sorkin
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
.com is an abomination, as are the other gTLDs to a lesser extent. .gov, .mil, .edu, .info, and .biz need to be shifted under .us immediately, and everyone under .com, .net, and .org needs to be gradually moved under the appropriate part of the real DNS tree. I can live with .int continuing on, but only because no better solution immediately comes to mind. Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and equality across borders, not intensify their differences. Tony
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
At 05:46 PM 9/27/2005, Peter Dambier wrote: I have a .de domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to france. I cannot get a .eu domain because of bureaucratic reasons. Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains are of no use to me. A significant number of country registrars have NO residency requirements. I would guess almost half of the 2-letter country codes will sell their domains to anyone in the world with a credit card. Explore some registrars via http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm For example, alldomains.com alone is a re-seller of 16 country domains (.us, ca, cc, tv, DE, md, bz, ws, it, at, nu, nl, fr, ch, be, cn) ___ Russ Haynal - Internet Instructor, Speaker and Paradigm Shaker Helping organizations gain the most benefit from the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://navigators.com 703-729-1757
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
At 10:39 PM 9/27/2005, you wrote: Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and equality across borders, not intensify their differences. Well said! Other than government entities, I never understood why anyone would want a country specific name. Tellurian Networks provides the same services to our clients in AU as we do to those in DE and PK and those in the US of course (where we are located.) I don't want 200+ domain names and I don't think Cisco, Sun, Microsoft, or any other companies do either. When I look for a company, I don't care or need to know where they are located most of the time - unless I am ordering a pizza, but that is a different story... Communities of interest - such as my personal favorite 356registry.org are global in scope and by their very nature! My $0.02 and contribution to the non operational noise on nanog today. -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 Well done is better than well said. - Benjamin Franklin
j19n (was: Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers)
wearing my worked-on-p3p-for-years hat, jurisdiction matters. how this translates into operational issues is: whois nonsense sld namespaces deresolution (upon local rule) process pricing and non-cash predicate and post-conditions moronic (or not) primary geolocs encodings and equivalancies (actually an interesting issue, the ietf not withstanding) safe harbor and data protection scope and semantics enjoy, eric
Corruption and Monopoly is the real Issue (was Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers)
Is your problem that it takes X months/years to get a new TLD put into the normal ICANN Root system? Or is it that you don't like their choice of .com and want .common (or some other .com replacement?). There is a process defined to handle adding new TLD's, I think it's even documented in an RFC? (I'm a little behind in my NRIC reading about this actually, sorry) Circumventing a process simply because it's not 'fast enough' isn't really an answer (in my opinion atleast) especially when it effectivly breaks the complete system. No, the process is locked up by monopolistic ICANN. There is one issue no one has mentioned lately. There are people who have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars developing their TLD properties and they are effectivly being shut out of the market by ICANN. We shouldn't need ICANN's permission to operate our TLDs and if ICANN wont support our TLDs, then we need an alternative way to operate our businesses. We have a right to operate our TLDs and the Inclusive Namespace is the way, since it does not force us to pay protection money or force us to impose the horrid UDRP on our customers. A free market system would allow all business models to exist. ICANN and its bureaucracy is not needed, just a contractor to maintain the root zone file. ICANN was supposed to be a bottom-up, democratic, consensus driven organization and board members (a significant portion of them) elected by the internet citizens of the world. Almost before the ink was dry on the MOU, ICANN, under Mr. Roberts began backing down on their responsibility to operate the organization in a democratic way. Now very few (if any) of the board members are directly elected by internet citizens. The result: ICANN is a corrupt monopoly that attempts to shut out competitors. If they want something, the steal it, just like they stole .BIZ from Leah Gallegos. THAT is the problem with ICANN, and you know damn well it is.
Why use ccTLDs? [was: Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers]
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Robert Boyle wrote: At 10:39 PM 9/27/2005, you wrote: Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and equality across borders, not intensify their differences. Well said! Other than government entities, I never understood why anyone would want a country specific name. Tellurian Networks provides the same services to our clients in AU as we do to those in DE and PK and those in the US of course (where we are located.) I don't want 200+ domain names and I don't think Cisco, Sun, Microsoft, or any other companies do either. When I look for a company, I don't care or need to know where they are located most of the time - unless I am ordering a pizza, but that is a different story... Communities of interest - such as my personal favorite 356registry.org are global in scope and by their very nature! My $0.02 and contribution to the non operational noise on nanog today. A few issues: There are a lot of parts of the world that don't have very good external connectivity. ccTLDs often have local servers in the locations they're supposed to serve. .Com's footprint is somewhat limited [1]. If you're on one end of a flaky satellite link, and those you are trying to communicate with are on the same end of that flaky satellite link, but you're trying to use a DNS zone that's served from something on the other end of the satellite link, that's not going to work all that reliably. ccTLDs often allow people to get their domains from a local organization which speaks the local language, accepts the local currency, and charges a locally affordable amount. $15 per year sounds cheap in the US (or in Germany, for that matter), but there are places where that's a lot of money. Location-based domains can also separate out the trademark space. Businesses with the same name in completely different markets generally don't conflict, but do if they're both trying to share the .com namespace. [1]: .Com is served from three locations in DC/Northern Virginia, Miami, Los Angeles, Seattle, the SF Bay Area, Atlanta, Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore, Amsterdam, Stockholm, and London. -Steve
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:56:50 EDT, Robert Boyle said: I don't think Cisco, Sun, Microsoft, or any other companies do either. When I look for a company, I don't care or need to know where they are located most of the time - unless I am ordering a pizza, but that is a different story... You have it totally backwards. The problem is that with a single flat .com space, you have *NO WAY* of knowing where a company is located most of the time, and a lot more things resemble pizzas than they resemble cookie-cutter computer hardware sold to us by cookie-cutter salesdroids... Consider smartway.com and smartways.com and smartwaybus.com. Only one of them has the bus schedule I needed. And I'm pretty sure that neither shelor.com nor glo-dot.com doesn't need to be taking a slot in the *global* address space. In fact, they have a number of things in common - neither is a global concern in any realistic sense, I've done business with both of them, in both cases the business was entirely due to geographic location, and in neither case did their presence in the .com domain make *any* difference in the slightest. And in both cases, their name precludes the usage by *anybody* *else* *anywhere* in *any* field. I've bought a *lot* of music gear at Rocket Music. But rocketmusic.com isn't them. It isn't rocket-music.com either. They're actually at rocketmusic.net. More trademark collision at its finest. Let's face it - 40 million things dumped into one .com without a yellow pages is a stupid way to run a network. But it's what we're stuck with. pgpiH2cuEHTLG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Dambier) writes: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other things along the way? Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. did i? did you read them? did you read the part where i said: | ... thus there's plenty of money and power ready to back the next | hair-brained scheme to break the lock, even if (as i expect) lack of | naming universality would be worse than lack of naming autonomy. if you can't see yourself in that picture, let me draw a clearer one: i am not nec'ily an admirer of the US-DoC/ICANN/VeriSign trinity, but i work to uphold it in spite of its flaws and my misgivings, simply because of the end-game mechanics. if any hair-brained alternate root schemes -- including yours, peter dambier! -- ever gets traction and starts to be a force to be reckoned with, then THAT is when the gold rush will begin. instead of a few whacko pirates like new.net and unidt, we'll be buried in VC-funded namespace plays. every isp will have to decide whether to start one, join one, or stay with the default. most will decide to outsource or consort, but the money plays and consortia will come and go and fail and merge just like telco's and isp's do today. the losers will be my children, and everybody else who just wants to type a URL they saw on a milk carton into their browser and have it work. naming universality is not merely a convenience. (nor an inconvenience!) you don't get to be the last one if you succeed. (nor if you fail!) you, like all alternate namespace operators, are either a pirate or a fool. do you still think that Paul Vixie has given very good arguments?, peter? -- Paul Vixie
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries, but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what about .name or .info or) I am not The Public-Root. I am only one of the volonteers. :) fine, save 12 USD/11EU/year by not drinking 1 coke each week. My point was it's a little nutty that you can afford a .de domain at 10USD/9EU/year and you can't afford (supposedly) .com/net/org. Anyway, I should have learned my lesson a while ago and not started this landslide of food.
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:07:19 +0200, Peter Dambier said: As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need for any other domain. Remember this fact for a moment.. The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. OK. So yours is bigger than mine. Now keep in mind this: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050821mode=classic (Yes, it's totally relevant) How about this one: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ Seems to be growing more files every day. Kind regards, Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
