nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114
From: internet () cable-lynx net
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 02:41:38 +0000
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 () nanog org
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:07:27
To: <nanog () nanog org>
Reply-To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
nanog () 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 () nanog org
You can reach the person managing the list at
nanog-owner () 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 () delong com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP communities
To: Serge Vautour <serge () nbnet nb ca>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <A6A3C283-2D5D-431D-804C-3DA172FDFB12 () 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 () iecc com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: nanog () nanog org Message-ID: <20110617232951.14681.qmail () 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 () ufp org> Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP communities To: nanog () nanog org Message-ID: <20110617235223.GA31147 () 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 () 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 () virtualized org>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Message-ID: <CF383AB7-4D74-4834-B2ED-FECE1BB986B5 () 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 () virtualized org> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <27100748-F707-4B16-95C8-2895485FB6D1 () 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 () baylink com>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Message-ID:
<22308707.634.1308357188484.JavaMail.root () benjamin baylink com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Levine" <johnl () 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 () 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 () baylink com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: NANOG <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <13002116.636.1308357431779.JavaMail.root () benjamin baylink com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 ----- Original Message -----
From: "David Conrad" <drc () 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 () 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 () iecc com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: nanog () nanog org Message-ID: <20110618004058.17116.qmail () 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 () bogus com> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs To: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <85838CB1-B3F9-4916-8786-19C13D835613 () 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 () 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 () 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 () baylink com>
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
To: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Message-ID:
<21342046.644.1308359243408.JavaMail.root () benjamin baylink com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Jaeggli" <joelja () bogus com>
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htmThat 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 () 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 () nanog org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114 **************************************
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114 internet (Jun 17)