orsc root server?

Is there any alternative to the orsc.org root server at
199.166.24.1 ?

Thanks.

Chris

have you considered b.root-servers.net at 192.228.79.201

--bill

Chris Beggy wrote:

Is there any alternative to the orsc.org root server at
199.166.24.1 ?

; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any .
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 33079
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 14, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 13

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;. IN ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
. 172800 IN SOA a.public-root.net. hostmaster.public-root.net. \
                                                 2005060112 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.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
a.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 205.189.71.2
b.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 61.9.136.52
c.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 68.255.182.111
d.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 205.189.71.34
e.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 216.138.219.83
f.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 66.15.237.185
g.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 199.5.157.131
h.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 65.118.74.205
i.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 203.187.202.205
j.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 57.73.7.89
k.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 81.19.74.67
l.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 195.214.191.125
m.public-root.net. 86400 IN A 205.189.71.26

;; Query time: 135 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.208.228#53(192.168.208.228)
;; WHEN: Thu Jun 2 08:39:06 2005
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 481

It is more up to date. It has got

; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any eu. +norecursion
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 8684
;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;eu. IN ANY

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
eu. 172800 IN NS a.eu.dns.be.
eu. 172800 IN NS b.eu.dns.be.
eu. 172800 IN NS l.nic.eu.
eu. 172800 IN NS m.nic.eu.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
a.eu.dns.be. 172800 IN A 193.194.136.29
b.eu.dns.be. 172800 IN A 193.190.135.100
l.nic.eu. 172800 IN A 195.66.241.178
m.nic.eu. 172800 IN A 217.29.76.13

;; Query time: 32 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.208.228#53(192.168.208.228)
;; WHEN: Thu Jun 2 08:42:51 2005
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 161

If care about 100% availability have in your named.config:

# zone "." in {
# type hint;
# file "/etc/root.hint";
# };

zone "." in {
   type slave;
   file "/slave/a.public-root.net.axfr";
   masters { 205.189.71.2; };
};

Here is how often my own DNS-server updates:

axfr_in("Jun-01","13:31:05","205.189.71.2",".").
axfr_in("Jun-01","02:25:33","205.189.71.2",".").
axfr_in("May-31","16:19:16","205.189.71.2",".").
axfr_in("May-31","09:16:24","205.189.71.2",".").
axfr_in("May-31","06:22:35","205.189.71.2",".").

I could live without the root-servers for about two
weeks.

Public-Root gets you ALL the IANA zones plus practically
all publically available zones like:

xn--55qx5d

try and see:

http://合联.公司/

and more than 2000 others.

More information on

http://public-root.com/
http://inaic.com/

Regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root

Apparently, the ICANN crew are finally doing *something* (even if they're
doing so while not having read RFC3675):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/index.html

Hopefully none of their 10 conflict with any of your 2000, and nobody
will have to go re-read RFC2826 just yet.....

I am not afraid of ICANN. They are predictable and fast as an iceberg.

Chinese governements are far less predictable but they try to be ICANN
compatible.

I am really afraid of Microsoft:

Last time they have broken "localhost" now they do it again with "local" and
what new toplevel domains next windows update will bring - not even Bill
Gates knows.

"local" did collide! What ever you answer for "*.local" will break their
directory services. The only reliable solution seems to be:

$TTL 2D
$ORIGIN local.

@ 2D SOA dns.cp.msft.net. msnhst.microsoft.com. 2005053100 300600 2419200 3600

                    MX 10 maila.microsoft.com.
                    MX 10 mailb.microsoft.com.
                    MX 10 mailc.microsoft.com.
                    TXT "v=spf1 mx redirect=_spf.microsoft.com"

                    NS ns1.msft.net.
                    NS ns2.msft.net.
                    NS ns3.msft.net.
                    NS ns4.msft.net.
                    NS ns5.msft.net.

ns1.msft.net. A 207.46.245.230
ns2.msft.net. A 64.4.25.30
ns3.msft.net. A 213.199.144.151
ns4.msft.net. A 207.46.66.75
ns5.msft.net. A 207.46.138.20

I guess that would solve the "localhost" problem too - but it does not give
the right answer :slight_smile:

Reagards,
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root

http://iason.site.voila.fr

How is charging $60/year going to protect children from "online smut"?
if anything it'll still be that less reputable will continue to use
less expensive domains.

Also I'm curious how much of that $60 will go to ICANN packet? If not
much then ICM is getting really good deal, amazingly good deal, a monopoly
heaven in fact that reminds me of another TLD decision mentioned at nanog
that ICANN is about to make official...

juniata# dig @a.public-root.net doesnt.suck

; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> @a.public-root.net doesnt.suck
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 46372
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;doesnt.suck. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
suck. 172800 IN NS tld1.public-root.net.
suck. 172800 IN NS tld2.public-root.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
tld1.public-root.net. 172800 IN A 84.22.100.6
tld2.public-root.net. 172800 IN A 57.67.193.188

;; Query time: 119 msec
;; SERVER: 205.189.71.2#53(a.public-root.net)
;; WHEN: Thu Jun 2 08:40:20 2005
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 114

OK! public-root.net does resolve the important publicly
available zones. Thanks.

IANA doesn't read rfc3675 I guess....

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt

RFC 3675 - .sex Considered Dangerous
8<---------
   Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top
   level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material
   or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered
   idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical
   points of view.
--------->8

or to make it very easy, for the folks who don't want to read it, here
is a nice ascii-art picture from the RFC:

8<-----------------