I wrote:
There are multiple documents to read and you can find them all here.
https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm
An update has just been published. There's an announcement here:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr13-en.htm
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:13:49PM -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this?
Seems like its time for both on and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high
In time of response order:
There is Leo's reference to the not yet concluded RAA process, in
which a para contains possibly relevant registrar shall terms.
This is forward looking (the proposed RAA is not yet required by the
Corporation) and may apply only to parties contracting with the
Hi Carlos, list,
Today I entered to networksolutions.com and I remembered this
thread. I had to administer a domain name and I sadly found they have
done nothing in IPv6 during the last 12 month.
Regards,
^Ao$
On 3/28/12, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I
Hi,
At least I know the infrastructure is not ready to accept IPv6 for
NS registration.
I tried with NetSol and GoD.
Which remind me... I'm still waiting on my NSx.BCP38.ORG from GoD?
Grr... (hate when someone is right)
-
Alain Hebert
You have a choice of registrars. If you don't like the one you are using right
now, choose a different one. There are lots to choose from.
http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html
Joe
Sent from my Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7
On 2013-04-10, at 2:42, Alejandro Acosta
Not accepting is just about as bad as not accepting A records.
You wouldn't certify a registrar if they couldn't update A records.
It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle
records. The same should also apply for DS records.
In message
Yo Mark!
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:23:34 +1000
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Not accepting is just about as bad as not accepting A records.
You wouldn't certify a registrar if they couldn't update A records.
It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle
records.
On 4/9/13 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle
records. The same should also apply for DS records.
You can suggest this to the compliance team. It seems to me (registrar
hat == on) that in 2.5 years time, when Staff next conducts a
I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract
renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).
Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least
5 years ago.
Owen
On Apr 9, 2013, at 16:48 , Eric Brunner-Williams
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems
like its time for both on and DS.
Jared Mauch
On Apr 9, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
On 4/9/13 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It's about time certification was lost for
On 4/9/13 5:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract
renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).
Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least
5 years ago.
And exactly
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems
like its time for both on and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I
mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
[...]
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I
mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position to
encourage both legal to develop new language for future addition to
the RAA, and the Registrar Liaison to socialize the
In message 5648a8908ccb564ebf46e2bc904a75b15ff1684...@exvpmbx100-1.exc.icann.o
rg, Leo Vegoda writes:
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
[...]
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I
mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position to
encourage
On Apr 9, 2013, at 8:56 pm, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
[…]
There are multiple documents to read and you can find them all here.
https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm
If anyone has specific questions about the draft RAA, they should
contact
On 4/5/12 1:26 PM, George B. wrote:
How long did it take them? We have had a request in for records
for a domain for over a week now, and nothing in whois yet.
between a couple of hours and 5 to 10 business days. The long leads
times came when I no longer had direct contacts and had to
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Matt Ryanczak ryanc...@gmail.com wrote:
I too had with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to
special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on
regarding or IPvWhat?.
I suspect all of the people there that know
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 10:26:11AM -0700, George B. wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Matt Ryanczak ryanc...@gmail.com wrote:
I too had with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to
special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on
regarding
On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records.
It was prototype
code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have
since sold the domains
and they moved to other registries. But
Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch.
/as
On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote:
On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records.
It was prototype
code with the engineering team. I had
+1
If after all this time they haven't been able to have support for
records, they are doing a really lousy job.
regards
Carlos
On 3/29/12 10:25 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch.
/as
On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote:
On 3/28/12
.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Gallagher [mailto:m...@txih.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM
To: Joseph Snyder
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arturo Servin
Subject: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services?
If that is still
...@txih.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM
To: Joseph Snyder
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arturo Servin
Subject: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain
services?
If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, james jones ja...@freedomnet.co.nz wrote:
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
that is not practical?
If your goal is , i assume you care
On 2012-03-29 18:21 , james jones wrote:
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
that is not practical?
They tend to not do IPv6, let alone native IPv6, they also tend to be
behind a
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is
it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your
own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not
practical?
Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue? Or
did I miss the original intention?
Apparently they support quad-A glues if you phone them and ask for them.
Personally, I run my own DNS servers, but sometimes it's not an option.
My friend, who originally had this issue, is in a different business
line, he is not proficient in DNS server operation, and thus he's
comfortable
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network
Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure 's for .com/.net domains.
He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their
sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I
Hi Carlos,
You are right... I just entered with my account and after I clicked
Edit DNS there is a dialog box which says:
Advanced Users:
To specify your IPv6 name server address (IPv6 glue record), e-mail us
the domain name, the host name of the name server(s), and their IPv6
address(es).
Yup... I was reading the same page myself. Pretty sad.
My friend just forwarded me the response from NSI Support. Incredibly
lame. I'm tempted to share it here, but my good twin told me not to.
I'm recommending they switch registrars.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 2:57 PM, Alejandro Acosta
@nanog.org
Asunto: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network
Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure 's for .com/.net domains.
He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their
sites for World IPv6 Launch Day
On 3/28/2012 10:59 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And they need to do anyway, if they want to keep the contract:
http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroomid=8494
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6.
I just briefly looked at the list of registrars
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning
system, an record is just a fragging string, just like any other
DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
regards
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:40 PM, Lynda wrote:
On 3/28/2012 10:59 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And
Once upon a time, Lynda shr...@deaddrop.org said:
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6.
I just briefly looked at the list of registrars that are able to create
glue records for any domain I might have that I wanted to exist in IPv6,
and it's a very limited
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning
system, an record is just a fragging string, just like any other
DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It
On 3/28/2012 11:51 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Lyndashr...@deaddrop.org said:
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6.
I just briefly looked at the list of registrars that are able to create
glue records for any domain I might have that I wanted to
In a message written on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:51:19PM -0500, Chris Adams
wrote:
The same problem exists for DNSSEC; the number of registrars that
support both IPv6 glue and DNSSEC in their standard interfaces is
unfortunately small.
joker.com supports both, and has a very nice web interface
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is
little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a
20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and
I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is
little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a
20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and
I think I'm
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 04:13:53PM -0300, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is
little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a
20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and
I
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it
shouldn't be more than that) in touching code, (hopefully) testing that code,
deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating
documentation, etc. I
I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of thousands
of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would
have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and
they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is
I am not taking about a big imaginary company. I am taking about NSI
and this specific case.
Regards,
as
On 29 Mar 2012, at 00:55, Joseph Snyder wrote:
I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of
thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away
On Mar 28, 2012 2:25 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.servinarturo.ser...@gmail.com
@ arturo.ser...@gmail.comgmail.com arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because
it shouldn't be more than that) in
Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services? If
that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in the
bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol though.
On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Joseph Snyder
On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is
little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a
20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:55:35AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning
system, an record is just a fragging string, just like any other
DNS record. How difficult to
48 matches
Mail list logo
