At the same time in another corner of the galexy. [Fwd: gotta love those internic boyz]

["Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net>]

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------3E47AA914DB2CB1DFF3EAD61"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3E47AA914DB2CB1DFF3EAD61
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

People,

[See forwarded message from NANOG below regarding root namserver problems]

While Nero fiddles, Rome burns. Another fine example of the exceptional
service the Internic is providing to the Internet community.

This should also be taken as a warning for future gTLD holders.

The only good lab simulation of the Internet is the Internet. Take it from
me I have crushed 7513s because my "for profit" boss could not see the
"profit" in building a robust (and hence more expensive) network. Of course
his stupidly only slowed our growth. Demand was (is) so high, and the
customers so clue less that even bad Internet can sell. In any event, reality
eventually forced change but only after screaming, ulcers and lost sleep.

And BTW everything that failed was supposedly within manufacturer
specifications. It was just that the nature of Internet traffic just
ain't the same as the generated kind in the lab.

Stability of gTLDs also depends on bandwidth between servers and stability
of the registries routes. If the root servers can't get updates then the
users of that gTLD are in trouble. Any schema used demands that the
registries have good connectivity.

I do not doubt that some vendors of gTLDs will fall flat on their faces.
What mechanism will allow ICANN or whoever to pick up the pieces an give
the cheated customers other choices? If a registry fails in it's charter
the supervising organization must have the explicit power to moving the
service to a more qualified provider.

In other words; the registry should not have exclusive ownership of the
database (as NSI would have it) after the revocation of a gTLD charter.

It takes a lot more than a hack of bind and a marketing department to run
a registry.

Operational stability must be maintained during the addition of new top
level domains. Whether the registry is no profit, for profit, a cooperative,
or run as a religion; what does it matter? If the functional output is
within specified parameters do we care how the black box is constructed?
Specified parameters should be made by the supervising organization and
not the registries. So if the Vatican is running the .faith TLD we don't
care unless the violate the supervising organizations non discrimination
parameter and refuse to register devil-worship.faith, wica.faith or
pro-abortion.fath. At which point the supervision organization would be
compelled the revoke the Vatican's faith charter.

Paul A Vixie wrote:
> 
> the facts are, internic's own servers (f.gtld-server.net etc) were sending
> back NOERROR/NOANSWER whereas my server was sending back a lame delegation.
> that means clients would try other servers to gain the right final answer
> if they got a bad answer from my server, but they would just report a fatal
> application error ("host not found") if they contacted an internic gtld
> server.
> 
> the other fact of note is that the reason my server was lame had to do with
> some kind of provisioning problem inside internic or its isp.  my own mrtg
> graphs are clean for this period, and internic was the only site i couldn't
> reach at high bandwidth.  f.root-servers.net was lame for two days because
> it could not fetch COM from NSI.
> 
> yet NSI, in its statements to reporters and to users, are of the following
> form.  it is REALLY DAMNED HARD to not get pissed off at this kind of BS.
> *MY* server was not sending fatally bad answers, *THEIRS* were.
> 
> i've been in touch with wired news and have been queried about this from
> CNN and i'll be telling the whole story to every reporter who can reach me.
> i've seen holtzman's comments about "unreliable volunteer servers" in the
> WSJ in the past and i'm no longer willing to sit by and be slandered when
> it was NSI's problem all along.  (tcpdump doesn't lie.)
> 
> (a total of five servers were having trouble, of two different kinds, so
> this was a complex failure situation.)
> 
> ------- Forwarded Message
> 
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:18:45 -0800 (PST)
> To: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
> Subject: Re: FYI F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> In-Reply-To: <199811120201.SAA09783@bb.rc.vix.com>
> 
> Oops! Sorry to bug you.
> 
> When I called them their folks told me "That server isn't run by Internic
> so you'll have to contact them about the fact that they run an unreliable
> server..." What a bunch of dweebs.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> > network solutions (the current internic contractor) was having connectivity
> > problems that made it impossible for us to fetch the zone.  all is now well.
> >
> > > Just an FYI, but I don't think your root server is properly configured.
> > > Internic thinks it should be authoritative for .com. Maybe they have their
> > > SOA wrong?
> 
> ------- End of Forwarded Message

--
From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation
mailto:jtk@titania.net               http://www.titania.net
voice: +1 414 372 4565               FAX:   +1 414 264 6038

"Some of the greatest companies couldn't get funded when they first started,
so don't let the bozos get you down: Keep on plugging."

         -- Guy Kawasaki of Garage.com
--------------3E47AA914DB2CB1DFF3EAD61
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="jtk.vcf"
Content-Description: Card for Joseph T. Klein
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="jtk.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

begin:vcard 
n:Klein;Joseph T.
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Titania Corporation
adr:;;;Milwaukee;Wisconsin;53212-3038;US
version:2.1
email;internet:jtk@titania.net
title:Chief of Development
tel;fax:414 264-6038
tel;home:414 372-4454
tel;work:414 372-4565
note:Internet Architect
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Joseph T. Klein
end:vcard

--------------3E47AA914DB2CB1DFF3EAD61--