Mailing List Archive

.COM on the move...
Just in case people have not noticed...

----------
From: Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard@sexton.org]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 1997 6:30 PM
To: edns-discuss@MCS.Net; gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org; newdom@ar.com; edns-discuss@MCS.Net; DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Subject: Part of the open process?

I'm curious about this:

;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
COM. 518400 NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
COM. 518400 NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
COM. 518400 NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
COM. 518400 NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
COM. 518400 NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
COM. 518400 NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
COM. 518400 NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
COM. 518400 NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
COM. 518400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.INTERNIC.NET.
<------------------------
COM. 518400 NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.


--
richard@sexton.org Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
+1 (613) 473 1719

===========
Re: .COM on the move... [ In reply to ]
Now that is antitrust activity... betcha that is the one in Spain...

On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:

>
> Just in case people have not noticed...
>
> ----------
> From: Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard@sexton.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 1997 6:30 PM
> To: edns-discuss@MCS.Net; gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org; newdom@ar.com; edns-discuss@MCS.Net; DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
> Subject: Part of the open process?
>
> I'm curious about this:
>
> ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
> COM. 518400 NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM. 518400 NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM. 518400 NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM. 518400 NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM. 518400 NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM. 518400 NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM. 518400 NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM. 518400 NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> COM. 518400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.INTERNIC.NET.
> <------------------------
> COM. 518400 NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>
>
> --
> richard@sexton.org Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
> +1 (613) 473 1719
>
> ===========
>
>
>
Re: .COM on the move... [ In reply to ]
[. On Tue, August 5, 1997 at 09:17:35 (-0400), Marc Hurst wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: .COM on the move...
>
> Now that is antitrust activity... betcha that is the one in Spain...

nope, not in spain.

09:43 [52] $ host -aA -l GTLD-SERVERS.INTERNIC.NET
gtld-servers.internic.net. SOA ops.internic.net. markk.internic.net. (
1997080101 ;serial (version)
3600 ;refresh period (1 hour)
3600 ;retry interval (1 hour)
432000 ;expire time (5 days)
86400 ;default ttl (1 day)
)
gtld-servers.internic.net. NS rs0.internic.net.
gtld-servers.internic.net. NS ds0.internic.net.
gtld-servers.internic.net. NS ds1.internic.net.
gtld-servers.internic.net. NS ds2.internic.net.
gtld-servers.internic.net. NS ns.netsol.com.
j.gtld-servers.internic.net. MX 100 rs.internic.net.
j.gtld-servers.internic.net. A 198.41.0.21
k.gtld-servers.internic.net. A 198.41.0.30
k.gtld-servers.internic.net. MX 100 rs.internic.net.
gtld-servers.internic.net. SOA ops.internic.net. markk.internic.net. (
1997080101 ;serial (version)
3600 ;refresh period (1 hour)
3600 ;retry interval (1 hour)
432000 ;expire time (5 days)
86400 ;default ttl (1 day)
)

> > ----------
> > From: Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard@sexton.org]
> > Sent: Monday, August 04, 1997 6:30 PM
> > To: edns-discuss@MCS.Net; gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org; newdom@ar.com; edns-discuss@MCS.Net; DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
> > Subject: Part of the open process?
> >
> > I'm curious about this:
> >
> > ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
> > COM. 518400 NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> > COM. 518400 NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> > COM. 518400 NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> > COM. 518400 NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> > COM. 518400 NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> > COM. 518400 NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> > COM. 518400 NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> > COM. 518400 NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> > COM. 518400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.INTERNIC.NET.
> > <------------------------
> > COM. 518400 NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.

Oddly enough that one only appears in the NS records advertised in the
live version of the .COM zone, and not in the root servers:

09:48 [56] $ host -u -C com.
com NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080400 10800 900 604800 86400)
com NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080400 10800 900 604800 86400)
com NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080400 10800 900 604800 86400)
com NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080400 10800 900 604800 86400)
com NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080400 10800 900 604800 86400)
com NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080400 10800 900 604800 86400)
com NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080400 10800 900 604800 86400)
com NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080400 10800 900 604800 86400)
com NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET hostmaster.INTERNIC.NET (1997080100 10800 900 604800 86400)
!!! G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET and D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET have different serial for com


--
Greg A. Woods

+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
Re: .COM on the move... [ In reply to ]
NSI, _as stated in their published five-year plan_, appears to be on its
way towards RFC 2050 complaince by continuing the separation of gTLDs and
the root zone. Since J is the first letter for root-only servers, J is
apparently also being used as the first letter for gTLD-only servers (bad
choice IMHO).

Where is the confusion? Wait, nevermind... This is NOT an operational
problem Jim, get your DNS politics OFF nanog.

Stephen


At 08:14 08-05-97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Just in case people have not noticed...
>
>----------
>From: Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard@sexton.org]
>Sent: Monday, August 04, 1997 6:30 PM
>To: edns-discuss@MCS.Net; gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org; newdom@ar.com;
edns-discuss@MCS.Net; DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>Subject: Part of the open process?
>
>I'm curious about this:
>
>;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
>COM. 518400 NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.INTERNIC.NET.
><------------------------
>COM. 518400 NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>

--
Unsolicited commercial/propaganda email subject to legal action. Under US
Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C), and Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a
State may impose a fine of not less than $500 per message. Read the full
text of Title 47 Sec 227 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
Re: .COM on the move... [ In reply to ]
I'm confused. RFC 2050 is the IP allocation guidelines. Perhaps you were thinking
of RFC 2010 which is Root Server requirements. That RFC mentions that the Root
Servers are likely to become disjoint with the InterNIC gTLD servers, but does not
require it.

The set of servers for the root (".") zone is likely to become disjoint from the
ser of servers for any TLD or group of TLD's, including those maintained by the
InterNIC.

You say the InterNIC has a published 5 year plan ... is this on their website
somewhere? I haven't seen it.

------------------------
From: Stephen Sprunk <sprunk@csi.net>
Subject: Re: .COM on the move...
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 09:02:00 -0500
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu


Received: from bbnplanet.com (mail.bbnplanet.com [198.114.157.21])
by sword.bbnplanet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA29144
for <djdubay@csc.bbnplanet.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from merit.edu by mail.bbnplanet.com id aa25139; 5 Aug 97 10:06 EDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by merit.edu (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA26890;
Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:03:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:03:06 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by merit.edu (8.8.6/8.8.5) id KAA26853
for nanog-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from yorktown.paranet.com (yorktown.paranet.com [199.164.131.34])
by merit.edu (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA26849
for <nanog@merit.edu>; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:02:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by yorktown.paranet.com; id JAA25568; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:02:28 -0500
(CDT)
Received: from intrepid.srv.paranet.com(172.16.3.36) by yorktown.paranet.com via
smap (V3.1.1)
id xma025540; Tue, 5 Aug 97 09:02:08 -0500
Received: from spsprunk.corp.paranet.com (spsprunk.corp.paranet.com [172.16.4.88])
by Intrepid.srv.paranet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id JAA11703; Tue, 5 Aug 1997
09:02:04 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970805090200.00717b40@pop.srv.paranet.com>
X-Sender: spsprunk@pop.srv.paranet.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 09:02:00 -0500
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>
From: Stephen Sprunk <sprunk@csi.net>
Subject: Re: .COM on the move...
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <01BCA177.972CB140@webster.unety.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 1626

NSI, _as stated in their published five-year plan_, appears to be on its
way towards RFC 2050 complaince by continuing the separation of gTLDs and
the root zone. Since J is the first letter for root-only servers, J is
apparently also being used as the first letter for gTLD-only servers (bad
choice IMHO).

Where is the confusion? Wait, nevermind... This is NOT an operational
problem Jim, get your DNS politics OFF nanog.

Stephen


At 08:14 08-05-97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Just in case people have not noticed...
>
>----------
>From: Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard@sexton.org]
>Sent: Monday, August 04, 1997 6:30 PM
>To: edns-discuss@MCS.Net; gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org; newdom@ar.com;
edns-discuss@MCS.Net; DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>Subject: Part of the open process?
>
>I'm curious about this:
>
>;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
>COM. 518400 NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>COM. 518400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.INTERNIC.NET.
><------------------------
>COM. 518400 NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
>

--
Unsolicited commercial/propaganda email subject to legal action. Under US
Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C), and Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a
State may impose a fine of not less than $500 per message. Read the full
text of Title 47 Sec 227 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html

---------------End of Original Message-----------------

--------------------------------------------------------
D.J. Dubay,
Customer Support Center,
Network Operations
BBN Corporation