new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play

Tue Mar 6 18:25:21 UTC 2001

I wonder how many unsophisticated network operators are going to give up the
existing root server infrastructure for this obviously problematic layer:

;
.                       3600000         IN      NS      ns1.newdotnet.net.
ns1.newdotnet.net.      3600000         IN      A       206.132.100.43
;
.                       3600000         IN      NS      ns2.newdotnet.net.
ns2.newdotnet.net.      3600000         IN      A       64.209.213.126
;
.                       3600000         IN      NS      ns3.newdotnet.net.
ns3.newdotnet.net.      3600000         IN      A       209.151.233.13
;

yeah.  I want to rely on three root level name servers.  Really, I do! I do!
Can't we knock off some of the root servers like the one at MIT or
something?  Besides, I'm certain that idealabs! has much better experience
in creating scalable nameserver systems than Vix, etc. <cough>

The stub config is interesting, though. Maybe run it until ICANN figures out
what they are going to do.  Since the users pay the bills for the most
part...

K

:: -----Original Message-----
:: From: Kevin Loch [mailto:kloch at opnsys.com]
:: Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:30 AM
:: To: Brian
:: Cc: nanog at merit.edu
:: Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: Brian,
:: 
:: I'm curious, the use of UDNS1 and UDNS2 in your nameserver
:: host names seems to suggest that UltraDNS is affiliated
:: with this somehow.  Is that true or was it just a bad
:: choice of hostnames?
:: 
:: KL
:: 
:: Brian wrote:
:: > 
:: > Here's the part of new.net that seems not well thought 
:: out.  So if you don't
:: > wanna dink with system settings to be an end user, and are 
:: not on a partner
:: > network, then too bad, is that what I appear to be seeing?
:: > 
:: > 2. Are there differences between how New.net domain names 
:: and .COM/.NET/.ORG
:: > domain names work?
:: > There are some differences, but in many ways the domain 
:: names work the same.
:: > 
:: > One difference is that in order for people to see New.net 
:: domain names they
:: > must be either accessing the Internet through one of our 
:: many ISP partners
:: > or they must have downloaded and installed our Web browser plug-in.
:: > 
:: > If either one of these requirements is met, then New.net 
:: domains will work
:: > just as you are used to .com and .net domains working.
:: > 
:: > 3. Who is helping to shape New.net?
:: > New.net has many partners who are working with us to make 
:: New.net domains
:: > widely recognized around the world. Some of our current 
:: partners include:
:: > Earthlink, NetZero, Excite at Home, .KIDS Domains, Inc., and MP3.com.
:: > 
:: >     Brian
:: > 
:: > ----- Original Message -----
:: > From: "Brian Wallingford" <brian at meganet.net>
:: > To: "Patrick Greenwell" <patrick at cybernothing.org>
:: > Cc: "Paul A Vixie" <vixie at mfnx.net>; <nanog at merit.edu>
:: > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:30 AM
:: > Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
:: > 
:: > >
:: > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
:: > >
:: > > :
:: > > :On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
:: > > :
:: > > :>
:: > > :> [ this came from http://www.new.net/about_us_press.tp 
:: and appears not
:: > to be
:: > > :>   a joke.  its operational impact will not be felt 
:: today, but if it's
:: > even
:: > > :>   moderately popular before it dies, operational 
:: impact WILL be felt.
:: > i'm
:: > > :>   quite surprised by some of the folks they list as their
:: > artners.  --vix ]
:: > > :
:: > > :Too bad ICANN has been such a complete and utter failure that an
:: > > :organization felt it necessary to start such a business, huh?
:: > >
:: > > Sounds like this was driven more by carelessness and 
:: greed than by
:: > > necessity.
:: > >
:: > >
:: 