nanog mailing list archives
Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
From: sthaug () nethelp no
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:54:00 +0100
And most of the domains never have working name servers at all. The internic rules say you're supposed to have name service first. This isn't always practical, but if speculative domains don't have DNS within a few days, I'd think that'd be enough to wipe the allocations.So many people keep harping on the point of having name servers first. But that's a silly and moot point. The name servers may well be behind a firewall and the use of the domain name is intended for internal use and needs to be registered externally for the same reason one should use allocated address space from ARIN instead of picking random addresses.
If you are behind a firewall, you can use RFC 1918 addresses. You don't need addresses from ARIN, and you don't need to pick at random. Relaxing the requirements for name servers seems like an excellent way of making the DNS even more broken than it already is. A number of TLDs (.no being one of them) will *enforce* a minimum of two functioning name servers for each domain. If you don't like this, you can of course take your business elsewhere.
This is like telling people they have to be routed on the Internet to be able to get an address allocation.
Sure. Why should they be allocated global addresses when RFC 1918 is available? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no
Current thread:
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC, (continued)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Steven J. Sobol (Jan 16)
- Message not available
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 16)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Steven J. Sobol (Jan 16)
- Message not available
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Steven J. Sobol (Jan 16)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 18)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Daniel Senie (Jan 18)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Edward S. Marshall (Jan 18)
- Message not available
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC John M. Brown (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Rich Sena (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Daniel Senie (Jan 18)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC sthaug (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Dean Robb (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC John Fraizer (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 20)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Derek Balling (Jan 20)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 20)
- Message not available
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 20)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Brett Frankenberger (Jan 20)
- Message not available
- Should Extranets be congruent with the Internet? (was Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC) Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 20)