RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution

["Eric Germann" <ekgermann () cctec com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids () webmaster com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:38 PM
> To: ekgermann () cctec com; nanog () nanog org
> Subject: RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution
> Sensitivity: Confidential

<snip>

>       I think the whole idea of getting into an escalating
> technical war with
> Verisign is extremely bad. Your suggestion only makes sense if you expect
> Verisign to make changes to evade technical solutions. Each such change by
> Verisign will cause more breakage. Verisign will either provide a way to
> definitively, quickly, and easily tell that a domain is not registered or
> Verisign will badly break COM and NET.
>
>       DS

Who said they're logical in their decision making process.  While they
experiment with .com/.net, countermeasures are called for.  And they have
badly broken .com/.net.

This is just an evolution of the blackhole solution, doing it dynamically.
Keeps us from having to find out they changed it/moved it/etc.  And, if
*.com goes away, so does the route :).

>