Re: The Reg does 240/4

Christopher, On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:49 AM, Christopher Hawker wrote: > I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of > it being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing > that we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and

Re: The Reg does 240/4

Christopher, On Feb 13, 2024, at 4:14 PM, Christopher Hawker wrote: > This is a second chance to purposefully ration out a finite resource. Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but other than more players and _way_ more money, the dynamics of [limited resource, unlimited demand] don’t appear to have

Re: The Reg does 240/4

Christopher, On Feb 13, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Christopher Hawker wrote: > Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential > positive impact that this could bring. Let’s assume that the class E checks in all IP stacks and application code that do or can connect to the

Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)

Somewhat related (at least one of the principals is the same) and perhaps of interest to some here. While I have strong opinions on the topic, provided without comment: https://www.gofundme.com/f/supporting-and-protecting-internet-governance Regards, -drc > On Sep 13, 2023, at 6:27 PM, Bryan

Re: New addresses for b.root-servers.net

On Jun 15, 2023, at 10:51 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote: >> At some point, somebody's going to want to do something with the old /24. > You are correct that we did not state we will or will not be returning > the address block we have back to ARIN. We do not plan on returning it > for precisely the

Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

Joe, On Nov 21, 2022, at 4:30 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > As I and others have pointed out, it depends on how it is used. Sure, and with enough thrust and an appropriate trajectory, pigs fly quite well, although the landing can get messy. With enough constraints, any problem becomes trivially

Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

Barry, On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: > We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with very > limited success According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years.

Re: any dangers of filtering every /24 on full internet table to preserve FIB space ?

Andrey, On Oct 12, 2022, at 7:54 AM, Andrey Kostin wrote: >> My point is that it's not a feature of BGP, it's a purely human convention, >> arrived at through the intersection of pain and laziness. There's nothing >> inherently "right" or "wrong" about where the line was drawn, so for >>

Re: ICANN

On Jul 8, 2022, at 8:21 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote: > Does anyone have contact information (or address for service of legal > documents) for ICANN? https://www.icann.org/locations? > There web site does not appear to contain contact > information. Sure it does.

Re: [EXTERNAL] FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Hi, > On Jun 7, 2022, at 8:54 AM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG > wrote: >> I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There’s only so >> much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download? > I doubt it - demand continues to grow at a pretty normal year-over-year rate > and

Re: Question re prevention of enumeration with DNSSEC (NSEC3, etc.)

Max, On May 23, 2022, at 9:12 AM, Max Tulyev wrote: > 11.05.22 15:31, Masataka Ohta пише: >> There are various ways, such as crawling the web, to enumerate >> domain names. > > Come on, web is dying! People are moving to mobile applications! > So more and more domains do not need any web site

Re: V6 still widely supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members,

On Mar 11, 2022, at 12:20 PM, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Joe Maimon said: >> higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more >> conservatively as >> >> Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the >> large content provider arena which have a

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

John, On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:48 AM, John Kristoff wrote: > Isn't this essentially the same thing as the DNS name collision problem > ICANN has been studying and discussing? Not really (IMHO). As mentioned to Mr. Levine, what ICANN is concerned about is really the security/stability

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

John, On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:45 AM, John Levine wrote: >> When did squatting become a justification for not allocating addresses? > Um, when can I register my .corp and .home domains? Um, are you suggesting there is sufficiently heavy use of 240/4 to result in a significant security/stability

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:08 AM, John R. Levine wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, John Gilmore wrote: >> Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they >> tried it and it works. > Sounds like an excellent reason not to try to use it for global unicast. When did squatting

V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

Tim, On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe wrote: > Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported > v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs. Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but despite hearing this with some frequency, I haven’t seen much data to

Re: Cogent cutting links to Russia?

On Mar 4, 2022, at 1:14 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: > On 3/4/22 3:52 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> I would argue they don't have much of a choice: >> >> "The economic sanctions put in place as a result of the invasion and the >> increasingly uncertain security situation make it impossible for Cogent

Re: Ukraine request yikes

Again, aside from turning off the ICANN-operated root servers (which would be pointless), the remainder of the requests from the UA Government Advisory Committee member are not something ICANN could/would do unilaterally regardless of the validity of the justification. Regards, -drc > On Mar

Re: Ukraine request yikes

On Mar 1, 2022, at 12:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> More or less. The Government Advisory Committee member from Ukraine has >> asked ICANN to: >> - Revoke .RU, .рф, and .SU (all Russian-managed ccTLDs) >> >> As the GAC member undoubtedly knows, that’s not how ICANN works. Barring a >>

Re: Ukraine request yikes

On Mar 1, 2022, at 12:16 AM, George Herbert wrote: > Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off, revoke > address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia. More or less. The Government Advisory Committee member from Ukraine has asked ICANN to: - Revoke .RU, .рф, and

Re: .bv ccTLD

Jay, On Dec 3, 2021, at 4:46 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > In general I could I understand that, but it is my understanding that the > domain is still marked reserved at the Secretariat, Sorry, which secretariat? As far as I know, the official status of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 2 codes is specified by

Re: .bv ccTLD

On Dec 3, 2021, at 2:45 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > So, what's the actual status of .bv? Assigned, or reserved? Assigned: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:BV > Anyone here got a buddy on the secretariat? :-) Even if they did,

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Bill, On Nov 23, 2021, at 11:12 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> 1. IAB or IESG requests the IANA team to delegate one of >> the 240/4 /8s to the RIRs on demand for experimental >> purposes for a fixed period of time (a year or two?). > > I like research but what would the RIRs study? The

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Nov 23, 2021, at 10:33 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 5:03 AM Eliot Lear wrote: >> So what's the road to actually being able to use [240/4]? > > 1. Move it from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" (IETF action) > 2. Wait 10 years > 3. Now that nearly all equipment that

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> I would be happy to fund or run a project that would announce small > global routes in each of these ranges, and do some network probing, to > actually measure how well they work on the real Internet. To be clear, despite my skepticism, I think this would be an interesting experiment to run.

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

John, On Nov 18, 2021, at 12:54 PM, John Gilmore wrote: > Is it even *doable*? With enough thrust, pigs fly quite well, although the landing can be messy. > What's the *risk*? Some (not me) might argue it could (further) hamper IPv6 deployment by diverting limited resources. > What will it

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

John, On Nov 18, 2021, at 11:37 AM, John Gilmore wrote: > At current rates, 300 to 400 million addresses would last more than a decade! Doesn’t this presume the redeployed addresses would be allocated via a market rather than via the RIRs? If so, who would receive the money? > There will be

Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Nov 18, 2021, at 9:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop squatting on >> 240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4 that could possibly >> be better used elsewhere by others who may choose to do so. > > The IETF is not

Re: Need for historical prefix blacklist (`rogue' prefixes) information

I’m a little confused. I thought the concern was about decrypting intentionally mis-routed traffic, not a suggestion that ROV uses encryption… Regards, -drc > On Oct 30, 2021, at 5:57 PM, J. Hellenthal via NANOG wrote: > > He answered it completely. "You" worried about interception of RPKI

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Bryan, On Oct 23, 2021, at 5:56 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: >> Excepting temporary failures, they are as far as I am aware. Why do you >> think they aren’t? > > I can't reach C, 2001:500:2::c, from many places in v6 land. My home and > secondary data center can't reach it, but my backup VM's at

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Bryan, On Oct 22, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Bryan Fields wrote: > On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote: >> Another aspect that flabbergasts me anno 2021 is how there *still* are >> BGP peering disputes between (more than two) major global internet service >> providers in which IPv6 is

Re: Huawei on Mount Everest

On May 1, 2020, at 11:07 AM, Aaron Gould wrote: > You made me curious... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbing_Mount_Everest > > wow, I guess it would be great to be able to use cell/gps technology to > communicate with and track a lost/endangered climber

Re: AFRINIC: The Saga Continues

Ronald, Speaking only for myself… As I’ve recently seen complaints about RIRs directed to ICANN (in a different context than the issues at AfriNIC), a bit of clarification may be in order: >> What can or should be done when a registry goes rogue? In my view, it is primarily the responsibility

Re: DoD IP Space

On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: > This thread got me to wondering, is there any legitimate reason to see 22/8 > on the public Internet? Or would it be okay to treat 22/8 like a Bogon and > drop it at the network edge? Given the transfer market for IPv4 addresses,

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Jim wrote: > My suggestion would be ultimately that DNS Clients implement DNSSEC > validation themself to avoid tampering by a malicious client on their network > for phishing purposes or a malicious recursive DNS Resolver server Yep. That is (IMHO) the right (only)

Re: This DNS over HTTP thing

Jay, On Oct 1, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > This is thought to be about security? > > Didn't we already *fix* DNS SECurity? No. DNSSEC solves a different problem (being able to verify what you get is what the domain owner published). DoH (and DoT) encrypt (and authenticate)

Ancient history (was Re: 44/8)

Jimmy, I have been staying out of this particular food fight, but speaking purely in a personal capacity as someone who had a small role in early addressing stuff ages ago, I did want to clarify a couple of things: On Jul 23, 2019, at 11:05 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > People sought an >

Re: A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS Hijacking

On Feb 26, 2019, at 2:35 PM, Ca By wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:58 AM Bill Woodcock > wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:03 PM, Hank Nussbacher > > wrote: > > Did you have a CAA record defined and if not, why not? > > It’s something we’d

Re: skype attack

Perhaps (issue created on 6 Dec 2017) relevant: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/skype/forum/skype_accountms-skype_privacyms/skype-suggests-people-from-my-contact-list-to/d8cc03ad-fa15-4de7-8d96-51510615cff4 > On Feb 13, 2019, at 12:11 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > an update to skype will pop

Re: Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 public DNS broken w/ AT CPE

Wait. What? Why do you think 1/8 shouldn’t be used for anything? Regards, -drc -- > On Monday, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Seth Mattinen (mailto:se...@rollernet.us)> wrote: > On 4/2/18 8:35 AM, Simon Lockhart wrote: > > > > This looks like a willy-waving exercise by

Re: Free access to measurement network

Mike, On Dec 16, 2017, 4:23 PM +0100, Mike Hammett , wrote: > It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be > supporting those options with their wallets. They don’t. The report Valdis quoted said "More than 129 million people are limited to a single

Re: Google DNS intermittent ServFail for Disney subdomain

Damian, Pragmatically speaking, I strongly suspect the increase in valid queries to authoritative servers even if all “large recursive resolvers” went away would be lost in noise of the overcapacity necessary to deal with even a lower-end DDoS attack. Perhaps more interestingly, if said

Re: Another day, another illicit SQUAT - WebNX (AS18450) 103.11.67.0/24

On Oct 29, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > There > are 5 RIRs, so 20 different ways for data to flow, and IANA is no longer > authoritative for the address space once its been RIR-allocated. While true, hopefully referrals in RDAP will address the need to identify

Re: Death of the Internet, Film at 11

On October 23, 2016 at 6:52:05 PM, Stephen Satchell (l...@satchell.net) wrote: So, bottom line, nothing is going to happen until the cost to those  negligent provides rises so high as to affect profits. Period.  Yep.  Or government intervention. Larger eyeball operators could help, by shutting

Re: Death of the Internet, Film at 11

Mike, On October 22, 2016 at 8:09:34 AM, Mike Hammett (na...@ics-il.net) wrote: How can I as a network operator seek out and eliminate the sources of these attacks?  Maybe (not sure) one way would be to examine your resolver query logs to look for queries for names that fit domain generation

Re: New ICANN registrant change process

On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > Perhaps this all self-polices? I figure either it does or governments get involved and that most likely ends in tears. > I hate it when you are right :) Don't worry: very rarely happens. Regards, -drc

Re: New ICANN registrant change process

Rubens, On Jul 6, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> Not sure the RPZ hammer has been brought out in force yet. I've seen a few >> recommendations on various mailing lists, but no concerted effort. >> Unfortunately, there is no easy/scalable way to determine who a

Re: New ICANN registrant change process

> Depends on whether or not the Registry wants their TLD to be associated with > spam/malware distribution/botnet C/phishing/pharming and be removed at > resolvers via RPZ or similar. Ultimately, the Registries are responsible for > the pool the Registrars are peeing in -- it's the Registry's

Re: New ICANN registrant change process

On Jul 6, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for >> Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of continuous streams

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Owen > On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> If ARIN didn’t exist, how would you go about guaranteeing unique registered >>> GUA blocks and ASNs? Who would operate whois and in-addr.arpa, ip6.arpa? >> ICANN operates in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa. > ICANN takes the

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Owen, On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 06:03 , Ca By wrote: >> >> Perhaps it is me and my sensibilities, perhaps it is my miser corp culture, >> but i could not even dream of asking to go to Jamaica (arin area) for

Re: ARIN down?

Yep, they're under another DDoS attack: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: ARIN > Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN DDoS Attack > Date: March 25, 2016 at 1:31:34 PM PDT > To: arin-annou...@arin.net > > Starting at 3:55 PM EDT on Friday, 25 March, a DDoS attack began against >

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

On Nov 13, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Mark Milhollan wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2015, John Levine wrote: > >> At this point very few client resolvers check DNSSEC, so something >> that stripped off all the DNSSEC stuff and inserted lies where >> required would "work" for most clients.

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

Mark, > On Nov 13, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> How many of the ISPs would continue to enable DNSSEC if the >> cops show up at their door and turning off DNSSEC is the only way the ISP >> has to implement the law's requirements? > > Why would the ISP's turn off

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://takestockinyourlife.com/usual.php?cok> David Conrad

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Hi, On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote: Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all of Vietnam got one /26. IIRC (I was running APNIC at the time), when the first organization

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Since IPV6 does not have NAT, http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos11.4/topics/concept/ipv6-nat-overview.html, but perhaps you meant something else. it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. Not really. I suspect a stateful firewall for IPv6 will look

Re: ASN to IP Mapping

Users of this report should be aware that there are some subtle deviations from this spec in the published data: - the RIPE NCC uses the non-ISO 3166 2 letter code 'EU' for some allocations. I do not know exactly why; EU is, of course, an ISO-3166 2 letter code, it just happens to be

Re: whois server features

Hi, Scripting languages have modules that can parse many registrar whois formats. However, most are incomplete due to the plurality of output formats as stated above. I, and i suspect many others, wouls *love* to see a more concrete key value format drafted and enforced by ICANN. ICANN can

Re: DNS Lookup - Filter localhost

3. Do you block 512 Bytes DNS requests? How many 512 byte DNS requests are people seeing? Perhaps the requester meant 512 byte DNS responses? Blocking 512 byte responses would be ... unfortunate. 4. Do you block non-UDP DNS requests or rate-limit requests? Yes I presume (hope) the yes

Re: Mozilla performing pdf.js DNS queries?

On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Ken Chase m...@sizone.org wrote: @darq 17:40 ircperson oof. apparently .prod is a TLD now @darq 17:40 ircperson and a friend's environment is basically on fire. @darq HAHAHA https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en Regards, -drc

Re: A translation (was Re: An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...)

Barry, On Oct 27, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Oh no! The Four Horsement of the Infocalypse! Being dismissive of concerns related to illegal activities that make use of the DNS does not, of course, make those concerns go away. A number of folks make use of the

Re: A translation (was Re: An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...)

Barry, On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: I believe this never-ending quest for more reliable domain registration data is being driven by intellectual property lawyers to lower the cost of serving those they see as infringers either by domain or web site

A translation (was Re: An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...)

Hi, While I'm sure most of the folks on NANOG are fully aware of the myriad of acronyms and Byzantine structures in the ICANN universe (:)), I thought some translation for those not inoculated with ICANNese may be helpful: On Oct 23, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net

Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?

On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc. No doubt there would be some collisions but

Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?

On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote: Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. I'm thinking there's a not missing here. For the

Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?

Jared, On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not. Beyond challenges caused by https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en, is there something new TLDs is breaking? (Serious

Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?

On Oct 19, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? RFC 1591. Where do other world powers put their government

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Erik, On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Don’t cringe. Yeah, a /48 is a crazy amount of space, but that isn’t the resource we are likely to

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Faisal, On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: So, this is more of a 'opinion' / 'feel' (with all due respect) comment, and not something which has a (presently) compelling technical reasoning behind it ? The technical reasoning behind /48 has been

Re: Bare TLD resolutions

On Sep 19, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: To be clear, generic TLDs (gTLDs) can’t have bare (dotless) TLDs (or wildcards). Wildcards are being used for the name collision gubbins. Ah, true. Apologies. There is a waiver from

Re: Scotland ccTLD?

Hi, On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:18 AM, David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 09:26:24AM -0700, David Conrad wrote: SU is the Soviet Union, now classified as ?exceptionally reserved? which IANA treats as available for assignment (other exceptionally reserved codes

Re: Scotland ccTLD?

On Sep 17, 2014, at 7:17 AM, Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes: On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Majdi S. Abbas m...@latt.net wrote: su is not available. I think it is now, since the break up of the Soviet Union. No it is not. A friend told me that .su

Re: Bare TLD resolutions

Jay, On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: it seems there are two major potential points of possible collision: 1) User network uses fake TLD which is no longer fake, and local resolver server blows it 2) User network blows it worse, and tries to resolve a

Re: Scotland ccTLD?

On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: The .SU ccTLD is also a bit odd in that it is the only code that does not (officially) have a nation-state (and hence a legal framework) behind it. In practice, I believe it falls under the Russian legal framework. The

Re: Bare TLD resolutions

Jay, On Sep 17, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: We're talking, largely, about error cases *that used to break as you wanted, and now might not*. Yep. Well, it used to break if you happened to be using the right version of resolver library. There have been cases where

Re: Bare TLD resolutions

On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net wrote: On 9/17/14 10:45 AM, David Conrad wrote: To be clear, generic TLDs (gTLDs) can’t have bare (dotless) TLDs (or wildcards). um. .museum. … .MUSEUM gave up their wildcard some time ago. Regards, -drc

Re: Bare TLD resolutions

Fred, On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: IMHO, since ICANN has created the situation, ICANN has created ill-specified domain search path heuristics and truly fascinating implementations of those heuristics? ICANN has caused people to use non-allocated TLDs

Re: Scotland ccTLD?

On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: Available s* include sf, sp, sq, su and sw. SF (Finland, from “Suomi Finland”) is “transitionally reserved” meaning it is allocated but will be removed from the allocated list “soon” (for some value of the variable “soon”). I

Re: Scotland ccTLD?

On Sep 16, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: .PC, for Picts (I believe it's available.) But I doubt that would fly. Clearly the right answer here is either .SW or perhaps just .WH (since a whisky from a place other than Scotland is obviously just wrong ... :)) Regards,

Re: Scotland ccTLD?

On Sep 16, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#Decoding_table Minor nit, referring to secondary sources, even ones so well-maintained as wikipedia, has rather often led to confusion in the ccTLD space. The primary source

Re: Scotland ccTLD?

On Sep 16, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Jamie Bowden ja...@photon.com wrote: Clearly the right answer here is either .SW or perhaps just .WH (since a whisky from a place other than Scotland is obviously just wrong ... :)) I believe the Irish monks who invented the stuff might beg to differ, No, no.

127.0.53.53 in logs?

Hi, I was wondering if any resolver operators were seeing 127.0.53.53 in log files. For anyone who isn’t aware, seeing that address would suggest a “name collision” (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en if you don’t know what that is). As currently over 300

Re: Dealing with abuse complaints to non-existent contacts

On Aug 10, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: It would be nice if allocations would be revoked due to invalid/fake contact info. That’s been debated many times, in most of the RIRs, and has not resulted in any persistent policies that I remember offhand. The tide may

Re: Owning a name

On Jun 27, 2014, at 5:35 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote: But, are ccTLDs licenced by ICANN? No. Some ccTLD managers have signed Affirmations of Commitments with ICANN that basically say both ICANN and the ccTLD admit each other exists, but it isn't required. I thought they were

Re: Credit to Digital Ocean for ipv6 offering

On Jun 17, 2014, at 7:35 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote: There are other VPS's out there that are already givinf IPv6 addresses. Yep, I use rootbsd.net and arpnetworks.com and have been happy with both. I have two with www.peakservers.com where I get one IPv4 and 8 IPv6 addresses. Wait. What?

Re: Credit to Digital Ocean for ipv6 offering

Robert, On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote: On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:25:37 -0400 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:14:04 -0400, rw...@ropeguru.com said: No, 8 individual IPv6 addresses. Wow. Harsh. I burn more than that just in my living room. I don't

Re: Credit to Digital Ocean for ipv6 offering

On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka grzeg...@janoszka.pl wrote: There are still applications that break with subnet smaller than /64, so all VPS providers probably have to use /64 addressing. Wouldn't that argue for /64s? /64 for one customer seems to be too much, In what way?

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

Hi, On May 15, 2014, at 12:12 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote: Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS 7922 to serve a global Internet. Actually, I suspect Jason is operating 'his' AS to serve Comcast customers and/or shareholders... Regards, -drc

Re: US patent 5473599

Todd, On May 7, 2014, at 4:44 PM, TGLASSEY tglas...@earthlink.net wrote: The issue Jared is needing a consensus in a community where that may be impossible to achieve because of differing agendas - so does that mean that the protocol should not exist because the IETF would not grant it

Re: US patent 5473599

Constantine, On May 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body regulating official internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers for CARP and pfsync our request was denied. Apparently we had failed

Re: US patent 5473599

Constantine, On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998. When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112? If you don't use it, you lose it. Are you suggesting no one is running VRRP? Surprising given RFC 5798.

Re: Will a single /27 get fully routed these days?

On Jan 26, 2014, at 11:45 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: I wonder what will change (if anything) when ARIN runs out of IPv4 space. The market in used IPv4 space will come out from the shadows, It mostly has already done so in the APNIC and RIPE regions out of necessity. and we'll see

Re: turning on comcast v6

On Dec 30, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Victor Kuarsingh vic...@jvknet.com wrote: I think a new initiative to revive this concept will need to address the [negative] points from those previous experiences and contrast them to the operational benefits of having it available. I am willing to help out

Re: Email Server and DNS

On Nov 4, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Franck Martin fmar...@linkedin.com wrote: www.maawg.org has published a sender BCP, please read it You mean http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_Senders_BCP_Ver2a-updated.pdf? Regards, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using

Re: RPKI and Trust Anchor question

, Barbara Roseman barbara.rose...@icann.org wrote: I think David meant 2006, not 1996. -Barb Roseman On 8/5/13 12:08 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: Actually, ICANN had an RPKI pilot in operation back in 1996 or so. For political reasons (as far as I can tell), the RIRs refused

Re: RPKI and Trust Anchor question

Actually, ICANN had an RPKI pilot in operation back in 1996 or so. For political reasons (as far as I can tell), the RIRs refused to let ICANN/IANA play. Unless the RIRs are willing to accept ICANN/IANA as the root TA as recommended by the IAB, ICANN can't move forward. Regards, -drc

Re: ARIN WHOIS for leads

On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: You can change anything you want. ARIN ICANN are both member organizations. Propose a change, get the votes, and POOF!, things are changed. Err. ICANN isn't a membership organization. It is possible to change things at

Re: ARIN WHOIS for leads

Patrick, On Jul 26, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: Err. ICANN isn't a membership organization. It is possible to change things at ICANN, but the mechanisms are ... different and much slower (since it involves getting consensus in a multi-stakeholder

Re: One of our own in the Guardian.

On Jul 14, 2013, at 6:50 AM, Mark Seiden m...@seiden.com wrote: and here i am in the icann-selected hotel for the icann conference, and they gave us a total of 500MB of metered usage. Trust me, the 500MB limit (per day, and resettable if you go down to the front desk and request more) is

  1   2   3   4   >