| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Anonymous ICANNwatch Messages Considered Harmful?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 65 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
It's pretty much standard language out of ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC and ICANN that IP addresses (and the blocks that hold them) are not owned. Of course that's merely an assertion.
But I have rarely heard anyone claim that an IP address is required to be unique and that folks are legally prevented from creating local instances of an address. It is an axiom of faith that the acceptance of routing information is purely voluntary, the fact that packets reach your block is merely an aspect of that voluntary acceptance of routing information by most, if not all, ISPs and not a necessary result of the allocation of a netblock to you.
What I hear you claiming is that anyone who sets up a DNS server at the f-root address is somehow engaged in a legally actionable misrepresentation. If so, who is being harmed, the user or the f-root "owner"? And what is that nature of that harm?
You claim it is an "unlawful communications intercept" to have a local instance of the f-root server address? That is a rather bold assertion that makes many assumptions. The first is that somehow the packet was intended for the f-root server as opposed to simply one of a class of fungible servers that offer authoritative answers to root zone queries. The second is that it is an "intercept", much less that it is "unlawful" (which of course raises the question of "under the laws of what jurisdiction?")
The root servers are a wonderful service - and I thank you for your contribution. But your claim of ownership is quite a reach. And as a member of the internet community, the apparent lack of information regarding the financial condition underlying the continued operation of the f-root group is troublesome (it would be useful for you to post the IRS 990s, which are, public documents.)
Your claim that there shall be no DNS service on 192.5.5.241 except yours strikes me as a landgrab not much different than Versign's Sitefinder - it is an assertion of private power over a privileged spot in the internet infrastructure.
What you are claiming is that internet users are not to be allowed to route around your service. You are the beneficiary of a conjunction of voluntary routing decisions. You seem to now be demanding that such decisions are no longer voluntary but must be coerced in your favor. That is something that I do not accept as a good thing for the internet nor do I see any legal throries that would support such a claim.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
Re:By Paul Vixie | Posted on May 20, 2004
by KarlAuerbach
|
Starting Score: |
2 |
points |
Karma-Bonus Modifier |
|
+1 |
|
Total Score: |
|
3 |
|
|
|
 |
It gets better.
It is now standard operating procedure to run
what some call two-faced DNS. The legacy root
server addresses are pulled *inside* of a site's
fire-wall, and no traffic flows to Paul Trixie's
duplicated (any-casted) servers, which he of
course makes boat loads of money from, supporting
them around the world.
Any claims that Paul makes about traffic to
and from his servers is bogus, because tens of
thousands of instances of those server addresses,
operating on local sub-nets, locally-route the traffic
for better, more reliable, operations. ICANN
always claims to be interested in more secure
and stable operations, what better way than to
know that one's root traffic never leaves their
physical site.
Going one step further, the sub-nets that the
legacy root servers use are largely wasted
with only one lone IP address in use from large
blocks. That makes those sub-nets useful for
local DHCP allocations. Scripts are commonly
available which discover the legacy root servers
and then dynamically write the DHCP config
file to allow other machines to grab an open
IP address from what amount to site-local blocks.
By changing the number of root servers and the
sub-nets they use, an external provider can
provide the information to auto-configure a
complete site. For PC novices here, you may see
this in your Network Control Panel as "Obtain
IP Address Automatically".
It is truely ironic that Paul Trixie has made
mega-millions from the BIND and DHCP software
and it is that software which can be easily
configured to render his beloved f-troop servers
useless.
Beyond the above, Paul is of course not looking
at the usage of an IP address surrounded by
other prefix and/or suffix address bits, as one
sees with IPv6. It will be interesting to see
if Paul claims that he owns all addresses with
the f-troop 32-bit pattern anywhere in the larger
bit field. He could be chasing billions of bit
patterns in use around the world.
Speaking of chasing, Paul has announced on the
IETF list that he will open an office in any
locale just for the purpose of filing a lawsuit
against anyone who uses the f-troop 32-bit
address. He must have pretty deep pockets from
the years of dominating the DNS market with
his "non-profit" vest-pocket companies. Even
ICANN only plans to open a total of 8 offices
to cover the litigation landscape around the
world.
It might be useful to have Paul provide the
contact of his main legal counsel in all 50
States as a starting point. ISPs could then
spend a few hours or days with each attorney
to fully digest what Paul asserts. After the
State-level discussions start, the ISPs could
move to the City-level and obtain the contact
for the 20,000+ major U.S. cities. That should
be pocket-change for Paul to handle that many
simultaneous legal activities. That may help
to head off any need to actually test the
legal theories in the various Circuit Courts.
Just think of the savings in legal fees, long-term.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
 |
The Official Party Line from the IANA via ICANN is
that the root-server IP blocks are owned by IANA and ICANN has a contract with the U.S. Government to manage the IANA function.
also, the contents of the root-servers also belongs to the IANA.
In the ICANN circles, some of the root-server operators are viewed as immature jerks and the first chance they get, they will be replaced.
As ICANN expands and cozies up to groups like the ITU, root-server operations will be relocated to serious facilities operated by serious professionals.
The ISOC and ICANN are rapidly distancing themselves from socially mis-fit geeks, especially now that the tens of millions of dollars in .ORG taxes are flowing to the players. They can now fund A-list party-goers from LA, New York, D.C. and Paris. Shopping on Rodeo Drive is now a field trip for the ICANN "staff" and visitors. CompUSA and Fryes are not the place to "make the scene".
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|