Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC

Phil Howard phil at
Tue Jan 19 23:18:19 UTC 1999

> > > And most of the domains never have working name servers at all. The
> > > internic rules say you're supposed to have name service first. This
> > > isn't always practical, but if speculative domains don't have DNS within
> > > a few days, I'd think that'd be enough to wipe the allocations.
> > 
> > So many people keep harping on the point of having name servers first.
> > But that's a silly and moot point.  The name servers may well be behind
> > a firewall and the use of the domain name is intended for internal use
> > and needs to be registered externally for the same reason one should use
> > allocated address space from ARIN instead of picking random addresses.
> If you are behind a firewall, you can use RFC 1918 addresses. You don't
> need addresses from ARIN, and you don't need to pick at random.

<insert well known arguments against private addresses here>

> Relaxing the requirements for name servers seems like an excellent way
> of making the DNS even more broken than it already is. A number of TLDs
> (.no being one of them) will *enforce* a minimum of two functioning name
> servers for each domain. If you don't like this, you can of course take
> your business elsewhere.

As do more than a couple of million .com domains.

> > This is like telling people they have to be routed on the Internet to be
> > able to get an address allocation.
> Sure. Why should they be allocated global addresses when RFC 1918 is
> available?

There are many reasons.  It's all been said before, but if you'd like to
have real life examples, reply in private as I don't want to rehash all
that on the list.  It's bad enough that _this_ thread is even going on
at all (should be moved over to some domain list).

 --    *-----------------------------*      Phil Howard KA9WGN       *    --
  --   | Inturnet, Inc.              | Director of Internet Services |   --
   --  | Business Internet Solutions |       eng at        |  --
    -- *-----------------------------*      phil at        * --

More information about the NANOG mailing list