North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Statements against new.net?
The last thing we need is DNS functioning like IRC, which has much of the same types of problems that a thing like new.net introduces. While I would like to think that their intentions are nothing other than to force progress, and possibly make a buck or two at it, intellectually I have to believe that it is much more sinister than that, and it's simply the equivalent of a land grab. I think I'm going to start my own fake TLD provider, with the same TLDs and new.net. I'm going to be r00thack.org, and team up with all of the ISP's that operate out of their garages. Anybody with a nameserver running on a 486 over a 28.8k dialup want in on this? Daryl G. Jurbala Manager of IT Infrastructure Tel 215.823.5077 Fax 215.823.5062 http://www.Antiphony.com -----Original Message----- From: Scott Francis [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:13 AM To: Patrick Greenwell Cc: Scott Francis; Stephen J. Wilcox; Randy Bush; Hank Nussbacher; email@example.com Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? [...] This whole matter boils down to one question - that being, what way is the Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me (and a few others) that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an ultimate authority - not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying to do: create an alternate ultimate authority. How exactly will a user know which site foo.com takes them to, if new.net's response and the rest of the Internet's response a la *.root-servers.net don't jibe? The concept of unique and separate domains breaks down when you have conflicting responses to the question, "Where does this domain actually point?" [...]