-
Reading the News
More detail on Google+ than here on all of these...
NY Times article on Arista with some wandering comments about how networks need to be more robust and self-healing. But also about how Cisco is now using third-party chips like Arista did from the beginning? The column seems in search of a topic. (G+)
Lauren Weinstein points out that the .xxx ( Read more... ) -
Seriously?
What sort of lame decisionmaking process at Sun arrived at a conclusion that the best way to "protect" against DNS spoofing was to keep successful lookups cached for the duration of the process ( Read more... ) -
How long do domain names need to be?
According to one request, long enough to "allow the Hare कrishna Mahamantra... to be fully put on an internet domain name."
I'm not sure why harekrishnaharekrishnakrishnakrishnahareharehareramahareramaramaramaharehare is more spiritually satisfying than hare.krishna.hare.krishna.krishna.krishna.hare.hare.hare.rama.hare.rama.rama.rama.hare.hare, ( Read more... ) -
Replacing DNS
Lauren Weinstein lays out objectives for an alternate naming system. He calls the project IDONS: Internet Distributed Open Name System. I have some opinions on the matter, having thought about many of the issues for my (unfinished) PhD thesis. ;)
Briefly, though, I think his list of objectives misses two important ones:
- Low-latency lookups. ( Read more... )
-
WTF.biz?
An essay by Dan Greer, Chief Information Security Officer at In-Q-Tel, debases an otherwise thoughtful (if jargon-ridden) essay with this howler:
At the same time, the recent decision of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to wildly proliferate the number of top-level domains and the character sets in which domains can ( Read more... ) -
ICANN is undemocratic as usual
ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee released a statement opposing any new top-level domains that "could raise national, cultural, geographic, religious and/or linguistic sensitivities or objections... so as to mitigate the risks of fragmenting the DNS that could result from the introduction of controversial strings ( Read more... ) -
.xxx TLD, like certain tennis players, experiences undeath
Via the International Business Times, ICANN is set to approve a .xxx top-level domain.In 2000, politicians complained that ICANN didn't add .xxx, because it would allow pornography to be filtered. In 2005, politicians complained that ICANN wanted to add .xxx, because it would allow kids to find pornography. Who knows what will happen in 2010 ( Read more... ) -
Vanity TLDs
ICANN has decided to open the floodgates and approve many new top-level domain names. (Note the gratuitous confusion between IPv4 addresses and domain names towards the end of the article!) I've ranted about this on and off over the years: TLD expansion has always seemed more like fundraising for ICANN, and a windfall for their anointed "sponsor ( Read more... ) -
Revenge of the XXX TLD
The IGP blog reports that ICM Registry, who tried to get a ".xxx" top-level domain from ICANN in 2004, has posted its filings for an independent review panel which will decide whether ICANN acted improperly. ICANN initially approved the domain in a vote taken in 2005, but changed its mind due to political pressure and eventually killed the ( Read more... ) -
Flee for the hills!
The horror! It's the return of AXFR-Clarify!. Back in 2000-2002 an attempt was made to "clarify" the AXFR protocol--- part of the Domain Name System. The original document was not viewed as specific enough for interoperability. This led to an incredible amount of argument, flaming, and general bad behavior. As a result, the draft failed to ( Read more... )