NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114

internet at cable-lynx.net internet at cable-lynx.net
Fri Jun 17 21:41:38 CDT 2011


Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.s

-----Original Message-----
From: nanog-request at nanog.org
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:07:27 
To: <nanog at nanog.org>
Reply-To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114

Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
	nanog at nanog.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	nanog-request at nanog.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	nanog-owner at nanog.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: IPv6 BGP communities (Owen DeLong)
   2. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (John Levine)
   3. Re: IPv6 BGP communities (Leo Bicknell)
   4. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (David Conrad)
   5. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (David Conrad)
   6. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (Jay Ashworth)
   7. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (Jay Ashworth)
   8. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (John Levine)
   9. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (Joel Jaeggli)
  10. Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs (Jay Ashworth)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:18:49 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP communities
To: Serge Vautour <serge at nbnet.nb.ca>
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Message-ID: <A6A3C283-2D5D-431D-804C-3DA172FDFB12 at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I think it actually makes complete sense to use the same BGP communities for the
same purposes regardless of address family.

Owen

On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Serge Vautour wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I'm looking at re-writing our IPv4 BGP policies for IPv6. Does anyone see a 
> problem with re-using the same BGP community values? If we use AS:110 for LP 110 
> under IPv4, can I just use AS:110 for LP 110 under IPv6? Technically it works - 
> at least I haven't seen a problem in my initial tests. It sure would make 
> everything easier than assigning new values. Is there a BCP for this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Serge
> 




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: 17 Jun 2011 23:29:51 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: nanog at nanog.org
Message-ID: <20110617232951.14681.qmail at joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

>Notwithstanding that, globally resolvable valid DNS names *with no dots 
>in them* are going to break a fair amount of software which assumes that's
>an invalid case, and that is in fact a *different* situation, not triggered
>by the expansion of the *generic* gTLD space.

Just to be sure I understand, you're saying that since you haven't
been paying attention until now, nobody else in the entire world could
possible have thought about this?

I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible
idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but
this is the first you've heard about it, you really haven't been
paying attention.

R's,
John



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:52:23 -0700
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP communities
To: nanog at nanog.org
Message-ID: <20110617235223.GA31147 at ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In a message written on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 06:08:13AM -0700, Serge Vautour wrote:
> I'm looking at re-writing our IPv4 BGP policies for IPv6. Does anyone see a 
> problem with re-using the same BGP community values? If we use AS:110 for LP 110 
> under IPv4, can I just use AS:110 for LP 110 under IPv6? Technically it works - 
> at least I haven't seen a problem in my initial tests. It sure would make 
> everything easier than assigning new values. Is there a BCP for this?

Some of us run BGP implementations that allow us to process IPv4
and IPv6 routes in the exact same route policy.

On behalf of that group I urge you to use the same communities where
the meaning is in fact the same, because if you don't you'll double
the work for that group when they have to write separate route
policy.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110617/a91469c7/attachment-0001.pgp 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:13:41 -1000
From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <CF383AB7-4D74-4834-B2ED-FECE1BB986B5 at virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> FFS, David.  I didn't say "new gTLDs".  I said, rather specifically, 
> "commercial gTLDs", IE: gTLDs *proprietary to a specific commercial 
> enterprise*.  http:///www.apple

The third message (by Eric Brunner-Williams) in the thread I referenced mentions "trademark" or "brand" TLDs:

"Finally, because pancakes are calling, the very complainants of 
squatting and defensive registration (the 1Q million-in-revenue every 
applicant for an "open", now "standard" registry places in its 
bizplan), the Intellectual Property Stakeholder Group is also an 
advocate for trademark TLDs, arguing that possession of $fee and a 
registry platform contract (there is now a niche industry of boutique 
".brand" operators-in-waiting) and a $bond establishes an absolute 
right to a label in the IANA root.

So, rather than memorizing the digits of Pi, for some later public 
recitation, one could start reciting brand names, for some later 
public recitation, for as long as there is a single unified root."

See http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034692.html for full context.

I didn't bother looking further.

> And no, I had not heard *any noise* that anyone was seriously considering
> this up until this announcement.

Interesting data point.

Regards,
-drc




------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:19:40 -1000
From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <27100748-F707-4B16-95C8-2895485FB6D1 at virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to
>> http://localhost/ or
>> http://pcname/
>> 
>> Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname?
>> Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld?
> 
> No, of *course* ICANN didn't give any engineering thought to it.  Cause the
> engineers?  Are all *here*.

Perhaps relevant: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac045.pdf

> And David Conrad's apparently the only guy who's heard about it.  :-)

When I used to go to ICANN meetings (haven't been to one in years), there were always a number of folks from the RIR community there, which at least in the ARIN region, tends to have non-trivial intersection with the NANOG community.  I would be quite surprised if I was "the only guy who's heard about it".

Regards,
-drc




------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID:
	<22308707.634.1308357188484.JavaMail.root at benjamin.baylink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>

> I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible
> idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but
> this is the first you've heard about it, you really haven't been
> paying attention.

John, yes, I've been paying attention to the TLD space since Chris Ambler 
*first* put in his .web proposal -- what is that; 15 years now?  20?

This is the first I've heard of *the possibility of TLD registrars being
end-user internal/exclusive*.

People have made jokes about company TLDs in the past, sure, but no, I
never heard any specific discussion about it actually happening; I invite
citations.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:37:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID:
	<13002116.636.1308357431779.JavaMail.root at benjamin.baylink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org>

> "Finally, because pancakes are calling, the very complainants of
> squatting and defensive registration (the 1Q million-in-revenue every
> applicant for an "open", now "standard" registry places in its
> bizplan), the Intellectual Property Stakeholder Group is also an
> advocate for trademark TLDs, arguing that possession of $fee and a
> registry platform contract (there is now a niche industry of boutique
> ".brand" operators-in-waiting) and a $bond establishes an absolute
> right to a label in the IANA root.
> 
> So, rather than memorizing the digits of Pi, for some later public
> recitation, one could start reciting brand names, for some later
> public recitation, for as long as there is a single unified root."
> 
> See http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034692.html
> for full context.

That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on
point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language, and buried in a thread
I'd long since stopped paying attention to by that point; my apologies
to you for not having seen it, since you seem to feel that's material.

Cheers,
-- jr 'I wouldn't call it a datapoint, though' a
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: 18 Jun 2011 00:40:58 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: nanog at nanog.org
Message-ID: <20110618004058.17116.qmail at joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

>This is the first I've heard of *the possibility of TLD registrars being
>end-user internal/exclusive*.

People around ICANN have been arguing about the registry/registrar
split for years, and whether to have special rules for TLDs where one
party would own all the names.  Really.  If this is the first you've
heard about it, you haven't been paying attention.

Or, I suppose, you might be claiming that David and I are just lying.

R's,
John



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:43:11 -0700
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <85838CB1-B3F9-4916-8786-19C13D835613 at bogus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii


On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>
> 
>> I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible
>> idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but
>> this is the first you've heard about it, you really haven't been
>> paying attention.
> 
> John, yes, I've been paying attention to the TLD space since Chris Ambler 
> *first* put in his .web proposal -- what is that; 15 years now?  20?
> 
> This is the first I've heard of *the possibility of TLD registrars being
> end-user internal/exclusive*.
> 
> People have made jokes about company TLDs in the past, sure, but no, I
> never heard any specific discussion about it actually happening; I invite
> citations.

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm

> Cheers,
> -- jra
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
> 



------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID:
	<21342046.644.1308359243408.JavaMail.root at benjamin.baylink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joel Jaeggli" <joelja at bogus.com>

> >> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm
> >
> > That page doesn't appear to discuss the specific topic I'm talking about,
> > and for the 9th or 10th time, I *know* they've been talking about expanding
> > the root; I approved that message back in 1997, as posted earlier.
> 
> It does.
> 
> The process as described in 2009 places no lower bound on the
> narrowness of the community which a gtld proposes to serve.
> 
> 1.2.2 Community-Based Designation
> All applicants are required to designate whether their
> application is community-based.
> 
> 1.2.2.1 Definitions2
> 
> For purposes of this Applicant Guidebook, a communitybased gTLD is a
> gTLD that is operated for the benefit of a
> defined community consisting of a restricted population.
> 
> An applicant designating its application as communitybased will be
> asked to substantiate its status as
> representative of the community it names in the
> application, and additional information may be requested
> in the event of a comparative evaluation (refer to Section
> 4.2 of Module 4). An applicant for a community-based
> gTLD is expected to:
> 
> 1. Demonstrate an ongoing relationship with a defined
> community that consists of a restricted population.
> 2. Have applied for a gTLD string strongly and specifically
> related to the community named in the application.
> 3. Have proposed dedicated registration and use policies
> for registrants in its proposed gTLD.
> 4. Have its application endorsed in writing by an
> established institution representing the community it
> has named.
>
> For purposes of differentiation, an application that has not
> been designated as community-based will be referred to
> hereinafter in this document as an open gTLD. An open
> gTLD can be used for any purpose consistent with the
> requirements of the application and evaluation criteria,
> and with the registry agreement. An open gTLD may or
> may not have a formal relationship with an exclusive
> registrant or user population. It may or may not employ
> eligibility or use restrictions

I will concur with your assertion that it is *possible to infer* that
Apple running a .apple registry for its own internal commercial purposes
would fit their definition of "community"... but the phrasing of the 
restrictions they place on it makes it pretty clear, at least to me,
that the people who wrote it weren't thinking about that possible
use case.

All of their restrictions/instructions become tautologies in that limiting
case, do they not?

And indeed: who arbitrates trademark conflicts, in what is now *necessarily*
a global collision space?  Forbidding the registration of gTLDs which 
conflict with trademarks registered with any national authority would seem
to be only minimally sane, to me...  but that's orthogonal to whether
the issue's come up in specific detail, of course.

My apologies for not reading deeper into your citation, though I'm not sure
I would have caught that section as a response to me anyway.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG at nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

End of NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114
**************************************


More information about the NANOG mailing list