Discuss mailing list

[Zach Gibbens <infocop411 AT gmail.com>]

On 08/15/2013 07:03 PM, Ian Carroll wrote:
> Maybe one of the TLDs could (or already have) put their code up under OSS. 
> Everyone could improve it and use it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 6:34 PM, "J.B. BERLIN" <endlesspixel AT hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think a central registration site is not the point but a standard web 
> > frontend and a standard backend.
> >   
> > That what I now seen was that every opennic .tld have they own soultion for register a domain.
> >   
> > From: Ian Carroll
> > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:35 AM
> > To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> > Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Hi list!
> >   
> > What if we had one central registration site?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Christopher <weblionx AT gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Domains aren't an issue, all T1s mirror each other. The problem is the
> > > registration sites aren't distributed like that.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ian Carroll
> > > <ian.carroll AT snapstudiodesign.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm going to go ahead and defeat the whole purpose of decentralized systems
> > > > and say we need a central fallback server that has all records for all TLD's
> > > > and when the main T1/2 server is dead it goes to that server.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:04 PM, J.B. BERLIN <endlesspixel AT hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that it would be better run the all services with more uptime if
> > > > > they where more standards
> > > > > for the Opennic service like for registration, webfrontends ect.
> > > > >
> > > > > J.B.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Peter Green
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:35 PM
> > > > > To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Hi list!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > >
> > > > > > sites look down.
> > > > >
> > > > > You know, this really isn't good and in the light of I.C.A.N.N. firing
> > > > > up more T.L.D.s that collide with ours, no one in their right mind
> > > > > will take us seriously when our services are so often unreliable :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems T1's and their services more so than T2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this the way it always is/has been or is it a symptom of the
> > > > > feelings caused by the onset of such domain collisions... i.e. is this
> > > > > just going to get worse as more and more OpenNIC sys-admins feel they
> > > > > are wasting their time and don't keep their services up and running
> > > > > 99.**% of the time?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is OpenNIC going to end up simply an alternative DNS provider (which
> > > > > would be no bad thing in and of itself perhaps)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> > > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> > > > >
> > > > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSDUmPAAoJEPBKqeCz72c5OicH/R5Lsi6+mrRT9yb8tQArAQxz
> > > > > 0YhJ2VI23KXCaRkdVEgamqMK+6qj9zulQW3pgE6zXuUKtE6KlKJI9HgRuKlZbvK6
> > > > > Y0KABBkZFQx3LCVbYjOMi4DL9vPpLz1xw/xOwyvcIzHwr8F1UlTj3YzTP+G5dL2z
> > > > > 5OS35oO2pK8t6yOM41hICxrL3vY5v1j53W71VVTaFiRqFNXbYOews05JlrobA2vj
> > > > > 5YCNm0HormEptbBIEcXbqWyvtJ1eLh4Z8pEBnFXdRthibUOLzIAebRhvSiDE8TLA
> > > > > TRvQFfj7uR7Xg1mGJI75DjP23Ib+SxnKYG6VkJwROG0EgAWeCu0iGWHQwDliWFQ=
> > > > > =xTRI
> > > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------
> > > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > > > > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------
> > > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by
> > > > > emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > If you can see this, this email was sent from Ian Carroll's personal
> > > > account.
> > > > This email is not signed. The email must be signed by Comodo to the name of
> > > > Ian Carroll.
> > > > You are responsible for any damages if you transact under this unsigned
> > > > email and I cannot sign it for you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------
> > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> > >
> > > --------
> > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > > You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >
> >   
> > --
> > If you can see this, this email was sent from Ian Carroll's personal account.
> > This email is not signed. The email must be signed by Comodo to the name of 
> > Ian Carroll.
> > You are responsible for any damages if you transact under this unsigned email 
> > and I cannot sign it for you.
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
Just throwing this out there, for some of us (myself included) it has 
nothing to do with opennic or icann, it's abuse and stricter enforcement 
of ToS (alot of ToS has sections about open resolvers) I had to stop my 
t2 due to a combo of both, a dns amplification attack which took out my 
server's connection, and when the isp looked into it, reminded me of the 
terms (it was polite, they didn't kick me off, but I did have to suspend 
services)

one of the t1 servers recently suffered from a DoS that was likely 
directed at them (if I recall the conversation correctly, kept asking 
for large transfers at a rate excessively beyond normal use)

I have my theories on why this is happening lately, but I'll keep that 
to myself for now, but I will say this, I saw more abuse happen in the 
past month or two, than I've seen in the last five years (I'm talking in 
terms of scale AND length of attack, I saw one or the other, but it 
seems like it's more intense nowadays)

also, I just went through a move for work, which meant I wasn't online 
as much as usual this month, we do volunteer here, we do work elsewhere 
too, we all have our hardships come up from time to time (well, most of 
us, I can't speak for everyone, and really I'm trying to speak for 
myself only)

I like alot of the ideas in this thread for their own merit, but the 
issues brought up, issues with uptime, I don't have full control of my 
ISP, or the cage my server sits in, and if I had any control on those 
that actively attack my server....well lets just say violence is never 
the answer, but sometimes it just feels right.

the idea of a central fallback server seems like a contradiction to me, 
however I agree more redundancy is ideal, each client should have two 
servers at least, ideally not from the same volunteer, host or 
datacenter, each of these t2 servers should have all the t1 servers for 
syncing tlds, all t1 servers are to sync amongst each other to serve as 
a temporary backup.

To the question "Is OpenNIC going to end up simply an alternative DNS 
provider (which would be no bad thing in and of itself perhaps)?" I 
think that already happened in some respects, less than a percent was 
traffic for opennic tlds on my server, and I was fine with that, but I 
still want our alternate root to survive too.

I'm not sending this to start a fight, or to put down any of these 
ideas, merely highlighting that whatever we do, we should understand 
what's happening, what our changes will do, and I'm hoping this does 
some of that.