From marius at isgate.is Mon Oct 3 00:29:36 1994 From: marius at isgate.is (Marius Olafsson) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 23:29:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Provider-based DNS naming? Message-ID: <199410022329.XAA02387@isgate.is> This may not be the right forum for this request, but if not, I apologise but you might be able to point me in the right direction. What is the prevailing view on "provider based" DNS naming on Internet. I.e. is there something that can be done to disuade a provider - say provider.top from registering his customer companies as company1.provider.top company2.provider.top etc.. and thus attempting to lock these companies into their services (refusing to rewrite their mailing addresses as name at company.top and honoring MX'es for company.top pointing to provider.top). Do you know of a RIPE/ISOC documentation on this issue - or is this behaviour generally considered so obviously stupid that no one has thought of mentioning it? Thanks in advance Marius Olafsson SURIS/ISnet From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Mon Oct 3 10:37:41 1994 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 1994 10:37:41 +0100 Subject: Provider-based DNS naming? In-Reply-To: "Your message of Sun, 2 Oct 1994 23:29:36 +0000 (GMT) " <199410022329.XAA02387@isgate.is> Message-ID: <9410030937.AA29245=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> I.e. is there something that can be done to disuade a provider - say provider.top from registering his customer companies as company1.provider.top company2.provider.top etc.. The rules for registering a domain under .NL explicitly forbid this (short-form translation: "subdomains under a domain registered by an organisation may only pertain to said organisation; registering third parties under the domain is not allowed"). Piet From Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Mon Oct 3 10:43:11 1994 From: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net (Marten Terpstra) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 1994 10:43:11 +0100 Subject: Provider-based DNS naming? In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 03 Oct 1994 10:37:41 MET. <9410030937.AA29245=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> Message-ID: <9410030943.AA09273@rijp.ripe.net> Piet Beertema writes * I.e. is there something that can be done to disuade a provider - say * provider.top from registering his customer companies as * company1.provider.top * company2.provider.top etc.. * The rules for registering a domain under .NL explicitly * forbid this (short-form translation: "subdomains under a * domain registered by an organisation may only pertain to * said organisation; registering third parties under the * domain is not allowed"). Hmm, does this only apply to real domains or also to hostnames which is very usual practice for dialin/SLIP type of providers? It basically comes down to the same thing. company.provider.top A a.b.c.d or company.provider.top NS some.where.else in my view is kind of the same, at least in binding the companies domain name and email address to the provider. Even in NL the first one is common practice. -Marten From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Mon Oct 3 10:54:33 1994 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 1994 10:54:33 +0100 Subject: Provider-based DNS naming? In-Reply-To: "Your message of Mon, 03 Oct 1994 10:43:11 +0100 " <9410030943.AA09273@rijp.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9410030954.AA29287=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> Hmm, does this only apply to real domains or also to hostnames which Only to real domains. is very usual practice for dialin/SLIP type of providers? It basically comes down to the same thing. company.provider.top A a.b.c.d or company.provider.top NS some.where.else in my view is kind of the same, at least in binding the companies domain name and email address to the provider. Even in NL the first one is common practice. As far as I know this only goes for private persons, not for companies. Of course companies can obtain a mailbox on a service provider's host, making their e-mail address user at company.provider.top, but that is something I don't consider a real domain. And if a company has a SLIP link to a provider, the company can have its own domain and have the SLIP link act as just the carrier for the domain, just like in the "past" UUCP acted as domain carrier. Piet From hostmaster at xlink.net Fri Oct 7 01:45:15 1994 From: hostmaster at xlink.net (Xlink hostmaster) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 01:45:15 +0100 (MET) Subject: ROOT servers Message-ID: <"xlink100.x.060:07.09.94.00.45.25"@xlink.net> Was there a change in the set of ROOT servers? c.nyser.net is still in named.root @ InterNIC, whereas the DNS returns NXDOMAIN. A new ROOT server (ns.isc.org) is listed there. Never heard of it before. Does anyone know the correct set of ROOT servers? Arnold -- Arnold Nipper / email: nipper at xlink.net NTG Netzwerk und Telematic GmbH \/ phone: +49 721 9652 0 Geschaeftsbereich XLINK /\ LINK fax: +49 721 9652 210 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /_______ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany From markk at internic.net Fri Oct 7 05:38:59 1994 From: markk at internic.net (Mark Kosters) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 00:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ROOT servers In-Reply-To: <"xlink100.x.060:07.09.94.00.45.25"@xlink.net> from "Xlink hostmaster" at Oct 7, 94 01:45:15 am Message-ID: <199410070439.AAA07304@slam.internic.net> c.nyser.net changed its name on wednesday. As of Oct 5, it is now c.psi.net. ns.isc.org has been in the root zones for over a month. Thanks, Mark > > Was there a change in the set of ROOT servers? c.nyser.net is still in > named.root @ InterNIC, whereas the DNS returns NXDOMAIN. A new ROOT server > (ns.isc.org) is listed there. Never heard of it before. Does anyone know the > correct set of ROOT servers? > > Arnold > -- > Arnold Nipper / email: nipper at xlink.net > NTG Netzwerk und Telematic GmbH \/ phone: +49 721 9652 0 > Geschaeftsbereich XLINK /\ LINK fax: +49 721 9652 210 > Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /_______ > D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany > -- Mark Kosters markk at internic.net +1 703 742 4795 Software Engineer InterNIC Registration Services