RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

I removed the plug-in already, but pinging www.pie.shop went like this:

ping www.pie.shop

std query for www.pie.shop against my name server fails
std query for www.pie.shop.computerjobs.com against my name server failes
wins query for www.pie.shop fails
netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x1
netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x2
netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x3
std query for www.pie.shop against my name server fails
std query for www.pie.shop.computerjobs.com against my name server failes
wins query for www.pie.shop fails
netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x1
netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x2
netbios broadcast for www.pie.shop fails x3
std query for www.pie.shop.newdotnet.net against my name server

newdotnet's NS replied with the IP for www.pie.shop.newdotnet.net & the
echos came back.

I did mean to say in my last posting, everything *non-resolvable* outside
the ICANN TLD's is resolved to 64.208.49.135

Existing new.net TLD domains resolve to whatever their IPs are.

The plug-in, however, sends ANY query outside the ICANN TLDs to
64.208.49.135.
This usurps any and every other imaginable future TLD, ie www.bull.shit
They're not advertising a 'shit' domain (um, literally), and yet requests
for 'shit' go to their NS.

Their scheme, if successful, takes over service for EVERY TLD domain not
already in operation by ICANN.

Who's the monopoly?

2

After _trying_ to ignore this subject all week, and failing miserably, I
now feel that it's time for my $0.02 (USD.)

Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spit in awe as Chris Davis exclaimed:

I did mean to say in my last posting, everything *non-resolvable* outside
the ICANN TLD's is resolved to 64.208.49.135

This can actually be a "Good Thing," for unless 64.208.49.135 is a Cray,
it's going to be swamped if this thing gets very widely deployed.

Existing new.net TLD domains resolve to whatever their IPs are.

The plug-in, however, sends ANY query outside the ICANN TLDs to
64.208.49.135.
This usurps any and every other imaginable future TLD, ie www.bull.shit
They're not advertising a 'shit' domain (um, literally), and yet requests
for 'shit' go to their NS.

This can almost be considered to be criminal and malicious. I just hope
and pray that it doesn't go very far.

Their scheme, if successful, takes over service for EVERY TLD domain not
already in operation by ICANN.

Scary, eh? Yet, people are advocating this farce.

Who's the monopoly?

Gee..I dunno?

Seriously folks, anybody who is supporting this system must be on some
_very_strong recreational pharmaceuticals. As are those who are claiming
that it's a political issue and not a technical one. As has been pointed
out _several_ times on this list, the RFC's state ONE ROOT. This is The
Way God Intended DNS To Be. This isn't a matter of whether ICANN is right
or not in their decisions concering new TLDs. Personally, I do not care
who runs the root, as long as it works. It could be our fine friends at
goatse.cx for all I care. What I *do* care about, however, is that
www.whatever.com resolves to the same IP address (or group of IP
addresses) whether I am dialed into Earthlink, C&W, AOL, or whatever. Is
it too much to ask that we have a consistent view of the DNS namespace? I
don't think it is, and I don't think that New.Net's system is going to
provide it.

I hope that whoever dreamt up the whole New.Net concept gets condemned to
the same level of Hell as the spammers and kiddie pr0n peddlers. I am glad
that the advocates of this system have revealed themselves on this list,
for I wish to laugh loudly and obnoxiously at you when New.Net fails, and
it *will* fail.

Thankfully, the 2 small systems that I help to admin in my spare time are
refusing to support this thing, and so far, I have gotten no official word
suspect the answer to be "no". I most certainly hope so, for the sake of
humanity and the Internet.

Jeff

3

Jeff:
  That was my original gut reaction as well. However, I'll be perfectly
willing to bastardize our DNS and resolve their pseudo domains for an
initial fee of $50,000 plus a 5 year contract of $20,000 per year to keep
it that way. I think those are fair numbers since we're farily small. If I
owned and managed a real network, I'd probably ask for real money.
  This is all about capitalism, right?

Chuck

4

Seriously folks, anybody who is supporting this system must be on some
_very_strong recreational pharmaceuticals. As are those who are claiming
that it's a political issue and not a technical one. As has been pointed
out _several_ times on this list, the RFC's state ONE ROOT. This is The
Way God Intended DNS To Be. This isn't a matter of whether ICANN is right
or not in their decisions concering new TLDs. Personally, I do not care
who runs the root, as long as it works. It could be our fine friends at
goatse.cx for all I care. What I *do* care about, however, is that
www.whatever.com resolves to the same IP address (or group of IP
addresses) whether I am dialed into Earthlink, C&W, AOL, or whatever. Is
it too much to ask that we have a consistent view of the DNS namespace? I
don't think it is, and I don't think that New.Net's system is going to
provide it.

  You know, all I wanted was to be able to run the same software whether I
sat down at a computer at the office or at home or at a friends' house. The
damned Linux and FreeBSD people screwed that up. I don't care what OS people
run, but what I *do* care about is that I can sit down at any computer and
run the same software.

  Did you know that you can choose which nameservers you use? And you can
continue to use the same nameservers no matter what provider you use.

  DS

5

Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spit in awe as David Schwartz exclaimed:

Did you know that you can choose which nameservers you use? And you can
continue to use the same nameservers no matter what provider you use.

Well, duh! But, I'm sure that you would agree that your average computer user has:

1. No idea that they can do this.
2. No idea _how_ to do this.
3. No idea why they would want to go to the trouble of doing this.

You're joking, right? I am really hoping that this whole New.Net shenanigan is just an early, elaborate April Fool's Day prank, or a bad dream.

All internet users should see the exact same namespace in the DNS system, regardless of what nameservers they use, or which provider they connect through. With minor differences due to TTLs that have yet to expire, etc., of course.

Jeff

6

Why do nanog threads always repeat themselves fifty times before they die?

Not wishing to repeat myself either but..

Why is choice so important to you?

OK, I just created Wilcox's law of customer support..

this states that for every choice you give users the number of potential
problems increases proportianally.

You give them different operating systems, different browsers, different
providers now you give them different DNS roots..

You just doubled the number of ways in which a (dumb) home user can break
their systems and get all confused over why when they just installed the
new Opal Internet software all the web pages they are used to using are
different...

simple to me, you and everyone on this list, but to a (dumb) home user
thats 15 minutes to explain the problem, 15 minutes to discuss the details
of the DNS system and 15 minutes to once again explain how this affects
them because they dont understand a word you are saying and cant
understand why typing in www.yahoo.com now resolves to a porn site!

Following me so far? Sure, you are free to choose, very good have the
"land of the free" feeling of excitement. But I'm suggesting its a really
bad thing to make this decision for people who are not going to understand
this and cause all of us nice people problems.

Anyway, its all fake.. its just adding a new dns search domain and hyping
it up in order to take advantage of people's stupidity who think they are
paying you for a domain name when in fact theyre paying for a subdomain
worth zip tiddley nothin!

Steve

7

Unless the ISP is security conscious and has allow-query and allow-recurse
ACLs for his netblocks only, to help combat DNS cache poisoning.

8

I think it was clear that I was talking about consensual relationships
between name service providers and the people who use them.

  DS

9

> Did you know that you can choose which nameservers you use?
> And you can
> continue to use the same nameservers no matter what provider you use.

Why do nanog threads always repeat themselves fifty times before they die?

  Because people don't read what other people write.

Not wishing to repeat myself either but..

Why is choice so important to you?

  Who said it was? I'm just saying that it's unreasonable for you to complain
about me having a choice.

OK, I just created Wilcox's law of customer support..

this states that for every choice you give users the number of potential
problems increases proportianally.

  Then don't give your users the choice. See, no problem.

You give them different operating systems, different browsers, different
providers now you give them different DNS roots..

You just doubled the number of ways in which a (dumb) home user can break
their systems and get all confused over why when they just installed the
new Opal Internet software all the web pages they are used to using are
different...

  Then don't give your customers that choice. Nobody is forcing you to.

simple to me, you and everyone on this list, but to a (dumb) home user
thats 15 minutes to explain the problem, 15 minutes to discuss the details
of the DNS system and 15 minutes to once again explain how this affects
them because they dont understand a word you are saying and cant
understand why typing in www.yahoo.com now resolves to a porn site!

Following me so far? Sure, you are free to choose, very good have the
"land of the free" feeling of excitement. But I'm suggesting its a really
bad thing to make this decision for people who are not going to understand
this and cause all of us nice people problems.

  If giving your customers a choice causes you a headache, then don't give
them a choice. If you are selling them unfiltered Internet access, then give
them that. If you give them flat-rate support, then give them that. If you
don't support some services, then don't.

  DS

10

On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 03:11:16PM -0500, Jeff Workman had this to say:

All internet users should see the exact same namespace in the DNS system,
regardless of what nameservers they use, or which provider they connect
through. With minor differences due to TTLs that have yet to expire, etc.,
of course.

EXACTLY. I don't know why this is such a difficult point to get across.

11

Why? If somebody else wants to see something different than you see,
who are you to tell them they can't?

Does this mean people also aren't allowed to use services such as MAPS,
ORBS, or local /etc/hosts files that cause them to resolve a different
address for a given DNS name, so as to prevent reception of spam?

If you are going to magnanimously allow people to do this, what is it
about new.net's services that is an exception to their free choice?

12

On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:40:28PM +0000, Stephen J. Wilcox had this to say:

OK, I just created Wilcox's law of customer support..

this states that for every choice you give users the number of potential
problems increases proportianally.

s/proportionally/exponentially/

After all, customers interact with other customers, and worse, with sales folk.

13

It's because you are aware of the consequences. Creative marketing types are often not aware of anything beyond the brand idea itself and what's for lunch. It's just a matter of education.

But, of course, the proof is seen in the doing. Network managers having to deal with extra help desk loads caused by someone else's problem isn't an ironed out situation.

Sometimes these visible conflicts make a better end result if the conflicts are ironed out to everyone's satisfaction early.

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

14

Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spit in awe as Charles Scott exclaimed:

Jeff:
  That was my original gut reaction as well. However, I'll be perfectly
willing to bastardize our DNS and resolve their pseudo domains for an
initial fee of $50,000 plus a 5 year contract of $20,000 per year to keep
it that way. I think those are fair numbers since we're farily small. If I
owned and managed a real network, I'd probably ask for real money.
  This is all about capitalism, right?

Yup, it's all about capitalism, and nothing about technical correctness. *sigh*

Jeff

15

[last comment in these threads by me.]

>
> All internet users should see the exact same namespace in the DNS system,
> regardless of what nameservers they use, or which provider they connect
> through.

Why? If somebody else wants to see something different than you see,
who are you to tell them they can't?

[snip]

I have no problem with people breaking/mangling their networks any way
they like; I have no problem with AOL special content, etc. People who
blackhole abusers, etc. I have major problems with people mangling their
net and then turning around to claim their net is unmangled. I don't
care how many others have their little fragmented roots, but -as I said
at the start of this crud- if they don't wish to play in the consunsual
reality/delusion that is the big-I Internet, then they need to be
striaght up abaout it.

Honestly, I don't even care if they claim they are providing
"Internet++", "Expanded Internet", etc happy-spin marketing buzz. But
any claims made that such things which are NOT the global-consensus
Internet ARE "the Internet" will be met with refutation, uproarious
laughter, and shunning.

Cheers,

Joe