Networking

NAVIGATION
CATEGORIES
REFERRENCE
LINKS
  • dns - golog

    3 answers - 1378 bytes - related search similar search Add To My Delicious Add To My Stumble Upon Add To My Google Mark Add To My Facebook Add To My Digg Add To My Reddit

    * From: Luke Besson
    * Date: Thu 19 08:54:47 2006
    >I work for a big French ISP and I manage the DNS architecture (based
    >on Linux+Bind); Golog proposed to our society the DNS redirect
    >service (redirect all the not existant domains according to
    >marketing criteria).
    >Even if our marketing team would like to join this solution, our
    >technical team opposes hardly to such a not-standard implementation
    >of the DNS.
    >Can you suggest me any objective reason in order to invalidate this proposal?

    This is a network autonomy issue. What occurs inside the provider
    edge related to routing and applications is the responsibility of
    the provider and they have the right to modify answers or routes
    in their networks, even if they are not "theirs".
    There is some "holy grail" you should consider, like making sure that
    etrade.com is etrade.com, the legitimate IP/trademark holder.
    The questions to ask yourself as an organization are something
    like this:
    a) is there enough revenue here to consider?
    b) is someone else going to capture revenue between my customer
    and myself if I don't?
    c) will this break my network or the networks of others?
    If you can answer the first two yes, the third is worth
    trying to make "no".
    -M<
  • No.1 | | 3043 bytes | |

    What would a query result for a non-functioning domain look like?
    would this only apply to unregistered domains? Would a common user be
    able to distinguish between a domain that was registered, but for which
    DNS was not functioning, and one that was unregistered? If I were a
    user, and forgot to renew a domain, would it immediately go into this
    pool when it expired - thus presenting all of the potential viewers not
    with an DNS error message, but someone else's advertising?

    If I ran utilities and services which expected to obtain a different
    response, depending on whether a DNS query was successfully resolved,
    what would happen to them?

    How would, say, SMTP servers which rejected hosts for which no valid DNS
    could be determined, behave as a result of this set up - would mail no
    longer be rejected if it came from
    evilspammer (AT) adfasdfjjlasdfafdkasdf (DOT) com? How about programs designed to
    time out when DNS lookups failed etc. etc. There are a whole host of
    issues that emerge when you deliberately and consciously "break" DNS
    this way

    if golog has answers to these questions, it might be interesting to hear
    them

    finally, why go through all this hassle for what has to be an
    utterly trivial amount of money resulting from people being presented
    with something totally unexpected and clicking on a link therein how
    valuable are these people as customers? I can't imagine much

    Thomas

    Martin Hannigan wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >* From: Luke Besson
    >* Date: Thu 19 08:54:47 2006
    >I work for a big French ISP and I manage the DNS architecture (based
    >on Linux+Bind); Golog proposed to our society the DNS redirect
    >service (redirect all the not existant domains according to marketing
    >criteria).
    >Even if our marketing team would like to join this solution, our
    >technical team opposes hardly to such a not-standard implementation
    >of the DNS.
    >Can you suggest me any objective reason in order to invalidate this
    >proposal?
    >
    >

    This is a network autonomy issue. What occurs inside the provider
    edge related to routing and applications is the responsibility of
    the provider and they have the right to modify answers or routes
    in their networks, even if they are not "theirs".

    There is some "holy grail" you should consider, like making sure that
    etrade.com is etrade.com, the legitimate IP/trademark holder.

    The questions to ask yourself as an organization are something
    like this:

    a) is there enough revenue here to consider?

    b) is someone else going to capture revenue between my customer
    and myself if I don't?

    c) will this break my network or the networks of others?

    If you can answer the first two yes, the third is worth
    trying to make "no".
    --
    -M<
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • No.2 | | 951 bytes | |

    At 06:53 PM 10/19/2006, Thomas Leavitt wrote:

    Hi Thomas!

    [ snip ]

    finally, why go through all this hassle for what has to be an
    >utterly trivial amount of money resulting from people being presented
    >with something totally unexpected and clicking on a link therein how
    >valuable are these people as customers? I can't imagine much


    a) is there enough revenue here to consider?

    This isn't something that's so easy to determine, but
    golog and others must have a financial model in order
    to be pursuing it.

    Here's a visionary article related to this topic, but
    at the root server level, even more of a delicate issue,
    but with the same principles as the one we're discussing:

    And this article shows the convenience of falling back
    on standards when they serve your purpose:

    YMMV:

    Best Regards,

    Martin
  • No.3 | | 1872 bytes | |

    Friday 20 2006 00:35, you wrote:

    Here's a visionary article related to this topic, but
    at the root server level, even more of a delicate issue,
    but with the same principles as the one we're discussing:

    No this is the difference between impersonation, and service.

    I think one problem is that IANA doesn't have a "brand name", so when you buy
    an Internet connection you aren't told you are getting an IANA DNS, that is
    assumed. The interesting question is whether that is sustainable if a lot of
    ISPs provide a non-IANA DNS service. There may be an argument for saying that
    "non IANA DNS" services can't be described as "Internet services", but that
    is an issue for ICANNs lawyers.

    Karl was so wrong on the F root-server issue. Paul asserted no new right, most
    companies and organisation would act legally against impersonators of their
    products and services, Paul is merely asserting he believes IANA (or the ISC
    since it is their address space) would do the same.

    Let us assume, for the moment at least, that the ISC will do what Paul thinks
    is the correct thing to do!

    There is a HUGE difference between providing a modified DNS service to ones
    consenting clients, and subverting the Internet experience in such a way that
    clients find that systems clients are talking to, are fakes.

    And this article shows the convenience of falling back
    on standards when they serve your purpose:

    The only standards fallen back on, are an assertion that there are standards
    root server operators must adhere to, or lose their role. That is a statement
    of fact -- although one might argue as to whether one could effectively
    enforce these standards -- bringing facts, and expertise, to the debate is
    why you want people like Paul involved.

Re: dns - golog


max 4000 letters.
Your nickname that display:
In order to stop the spam: 8 + 7 =
QUESTION ON "Networking"

EMSDN.COM