ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Building the alternative to DNS | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 26 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: New layer, but little or no increase in latenc
    by Anonymous on Friday August 02 2002, @09:49AM (#8319)
    So far, I haven't conceived of a peer-to-peer implementation of handle mapping. It seems that I need a central authority to avoid collisions at the top level.


    To define a unique, collision free identifier isn't hard.
    Pick a large random number.

    But that won't protect against maliciousness.
    (Anyone could pick the same number on purpose.)
    To get around that, use an RSA public key.
    Then the creator and only the creator can sign the
    mapping information with the key.

    Since RSA keys tend to be very large, you can provide
    the MD5 hash of an RSA key instead. Call that the
    finger print of the key. The finger prints are about
    20-30 random characters and used as the handle.
    (38 digits if you use decimal),

    Anyone wishing to prove that a particular handle to
    IP mapping is valid can supply the key (which can be
    verified to be the correct key, since it hashes to the
    MD5 fingerprint/handle) and a digitally signed IP number.
    This could be a special service of the server that uses
    them, or it could be part of any database (including DNS).
    Anyone can cache these signed handle->IP messages,
    so they can be spread out in any of the peer to peer methods.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: New layer, but little or no increase in latenc by Anonymous
    Working out details of decentralized handle servic
    by odonnell (michael_odonnell@acm.org) on Friday August 02 2002, @11:37AM (#8328)
    User #3447 Info | http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/

    This idea looks like it should be published somewhere. If it is, please post the citation.

    I'm aware of ideas of this sort, but I haven't followed any of them in detail. After I've studied the post carefully, and read whatever articles I can find, I'll post some evaluation. There are lots of details to be concerned about:

    • What are the detailed tradeoffs between key-size, security, and latency?

    • What do we do about a rare, but occasional, collision of hashed fingerprints?

    • Do we need a central repository to make sure that entries don't get completely lost? Part of the question here is whether the loss of an entry is considered harmful only to the handle owner (who can republish), or whether it could be harmful to the public.


    Mike O'Donnell
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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