North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verisign insanity - Distributed non-attack
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, John Palmer wrote: > Sorry to sound like a broken record, but we in the Inclusive Namespace > have been saying this all along. Yeah, cmon step down from your soapbox.. > How about a world with 1000's of TLDs all operated by different people > with NO restrictions imposed by a monopoly-supporting politburo (ICANN). No, you miss the point. There are 100s of TLDs already, the point here is that this is .com and .net, I dont care about .blah! Steve > > How about a root network operated under rules designed ONLY to > support the technical stability of the network and not under rules that > masquerade as such but are really designed to prop up a monopoly of > four organizations so that they can corner the market and shut out > all others. > > Imagine such a world. Some people are doing just that. Some people > with a LOT of money to spend on such a project. Stay tuned. > > In a free market namespace (which the ICANN/USG IS *NOT*), > with no un-neccessary barriers to entry, competition would weed > out the players that did anti-social, predatory things like VRSGN > is doing. > > Either a business changes its practices to be in tune with its customer > base or it vanishes. > > FYI: ADNS had wildcard records in the DNS for the .USA, .EARTH, .Z, > .LION and .AMERICA TLDs. They simply pointed to a page that said "This > domain has not been registered yet". Those records were removed > today because of the controversy surrounding wildcard records at the > TLD level. I see a valid use for such records but there is also potential > for abuse and perception is sometimes as important as reality. In the > Inclusive Namespace, competition is a reality because there are no > artificial barriers to entry in the marketplace and players had better listen > to the consumer's opinions or else they will not survive. Thats as it should > be. So, why isn't the #1 (in terms of traffic) root server network operated > that way? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Cox" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:18 > Subject: Re: Verisign insanity - Distributed non-attack > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:02:59 +0200 "RoDent" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > | Effectively this would amount to "denial of service" attack, but since > > | there is nothing illegal about making an http request to an invalid > > | hostname, Verisign will be bringing the denial of service attack upon > > | themselves, and unfortunately dragging ISP's with them. Why ISP's > > | haven't publically taken a stance against this yet is fascinating. > > > > While I completely share your concern about Verisign's behaviour, I have > > a higher level concern about anything seeking to disrupt services on the > > 'net. For some weeks now, several of the abuse-prevention organisations > > have been subjected to Distributed Denial-of-Service attacks; the attack > > on SORBS is still continuing, and very few of the networks carrying this > > DDoS traffic have lifted a finger to either limit or trace the attacking > > traffic. Which, I have to say, is *most* disappointing. > > > > -- > > Richard Cox > > > > > > >
|