.mil domain

Fri May 30 20:31:47 UTC 2003

Cough, bad idea, cough.  From past experience I don't think that you'll 
find the DREN to be substantially more reliable as far as reachability
and blocking policies go than most of the rest of .mil.  It USED to
be more open, but there were some policy changes, some peering arangements, 
and voila they are under the same guidelines.

> 
> Suggestion:  migrate the current MIL root servers to the DREN
> network.  Thus they would be easily accessible from DoD's
> networks, while residining in front of any MIL filters or
> blackhole routers relative to the rest of the Internet.
> 
> 
> > On Fri, 30 May 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > At 01:15 PM 30/05/2003 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > >
> > > >For the same reason anyone else accepts their routes --
> > because they want to
> > > >be able to reach them.  If they don't want to reach _you_, that's their
> > > >choice.
> > >
> > > As Sean Donelan pointed out, the fact that 2 of the root name
> > servers are
> > > inside their network, there is more to the issue than you
> > suggest.... I for
> > > example want people in Australia to be able to reliably lookup
> > DNS info on
> > > my domains.  The .mil people have decided to hamper this process.
> >
> > I agree.  The root servers should have no filtering in place to block any
> > demographics (unless of course a given node is DoSing them).
> >
> > The last time I tried to contact a .mil to report an open relay that was
> > being abused, I was accused of being a spammer that had "hacked" their
> > server.  Since that time I reject .mil mail.
> >
> > Justin
> >
> 

-- 
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-<>-=-=-=-=-=-<>-=-=-=-=-=-<>-=-=-=-=-=-<>-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
Ryan Mooney          				 ryan at pcslink.com 
<-=-=-=-=-=-=-><-=-=-=-=-=-><-=-=-=-=-=-><-=-=-=-=-=-><-=-=-=-=-=-=-> 