nanog mailing list archives

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain


From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:04:56 -0700

I’m reminded of a quote from “2010 The year we make contact”:
        “Just because our governments are behaving like asses doesn’t mean we have to.” (Roy Scheider as Dr. Heywood 
Floyd)

Breaking any communications facility is, IMHO, counterproductive to all sides. Communication is almost always the key 
to ending conflict.
In this case, it might require more than just communications, but breaking the .RU domain almost certainly isn’t going 
to help resolve the situation.

The internet should, ideally, continue to treat governments behaving like asses as damage and route around them.

Owen

On Mar 15, 2022, at 02:07 , Patrick Bryant <patrick () pbryant com> wrote:

I propose dropping support of the .ru domains as an alternative to the other measures discussed here, such as 
dropping Russian ASNs -- which would have the counterproductive effect of isolating the Russian public from western 
news sources. Blocking those ASNs would also be futile as a network defense, if not implemented universally, since 
the bad actors in Russia usually exploit proxies in other countries as pivot points for their attacks. 

Preventing the resolution of the .ru TLD would not impact the Russian public's ability to resolve and access all 
other TLDs. As I noted, there are countermeasures, including Russia standing up its own root servers, but there are 
two challenges to countermeasure: 1) it would require modifying evey hints file on every resolver within Russia and, 
2) "other measures" could be taken against whatever servers Russia implemented as substitutes. Dropping support for 
the .ru TLD action may incentivize the Russian State to bifurcate its national network, making it another North 
Korea, but that action is already underway. 

Other arguments are political, and I do not presume to set international political policy. I only offer a technical 
opinion, not a political one. The legalistic arguments of maintaining treaties is negated by the current state of war.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 2:29 AM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf () gmail com <mailto:fredbaker.ietf () gmail com>> wrote:
My viewpoint, and the reason I recommended against it, is that it gives Putin something he has wanted for a while, 
which is a Russia in which he is in control of information flows. We do for him what he has wanted for perhaps 20 
years, and come out the bad guys - “the terrible west gut us off!”.  I would rather have people in Russia have 
information flows that have a second viewpoint other than the Kremlin’s. I have no expectation that it will get 
through uncensored, but I would rather it was not in any sense “our fault” and therefore usable by Putin’s propaganda 
machine.

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 14, 2022, at 2:14 PM, Brian R <briansupport () hotmail com <mailto:briansupport () hotmail com>> wrote:


I can understand governments wanting this to be an option but I would let them do blocking within their countries to 
their own people if that is their desire.  This is another pandoras box.  Its bad enough that some countries control 
this already to block free flow of information.
If global DNS is no longer trusted then many actors will start maintaining their own broken lists (intentionally or 
unintentionally).
This will not stop Russia, they will just run their own state sponsored DNS servers.  We can imagine what else might 
be implemented on that concept...
Countries or users that still want access will do the same with custom DNS servers.
This will take us down another path of no return as a global standard that is not political or politically 
controlled.
The belief that the internet is open and free (as much as possible) will be broken in one more way.
This will also accelerate the advancement of crypto DNS like NameCoin (Years ago I liked the idea but I don't know 
how it is being run anymore.) or UnstoppableDomains for example.   Similar to what is starting to happen to central 
banking as countries start shutting down bank accounts for political reasons.
I am glad to see soo many people on here and many of the organizations running these services state as much.

Brian


From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+briansupport=hotmail.com () nanog org <mailto:hotmail.com () nanog org>> on behalf of 
Patrick Bryant <patrick () pbryant com <mailto:patrick () pbryant com>>
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2022 2:47 AM
To: nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org> <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
Subject: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain
 
I don't like the idea of disrupting any Internet service. But the current situation is unprecedented.

The Achilles Heel of general public use of Internet services has always been the functionality of DNS. 

Unlike Layer 3 disruptions, dropping or disrupting support for the .ru TLD can be accomplished without disrupting 
the Russian population's ability to access information and services in the West.

The only countermeasure would be the distribution of Russian national DNS zones to a multiplicity of individual DNS 
resolvers within Russia. Russian operators are in fact implementing this countermeasure, but it is a slow and 
arduous process, and it will entail many of the operational difficulties that existed with distributing Host files, 
which DNS was implemented to overcome. 

The .ru TLD could be globally disrupted by dropping the .ru zone from the 13 DNS root servers. This would be the 
most effective action, but would require an authoritative consensus. One level down in DNS delegation are the 5 
authoritative servers. I will leave it to the imagination of others to envision what action that could be taken 
there...

ru      nameserver = a.dns.ripn.net <http://a.dns.ripn.net/>
ru      nameserver = b.dns.ripn.net <http://b.dns.ripn.net/>
ru      nameserver = d.dns.ripn.net <http://d.dns.ripn.net/>
ru      nameserver = e.dns.ripn.net <http://e.dns.ripn.net/>
ru      nameserver = f.dns.ripn.net <http://f.dns.ripn.net/>

The impact of any action would take time (days) to propagate.



Current thread: