Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

There's only one problem - the DoS attacks that occasionally happen, OpenNIC 
would be less usable if there were fewer targets to take down.

--

-dan q

danq.co
twitter.com/thebleakfire

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:55:33 -0600, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:

> As you may (or may not) be aware, recently one of the T2 operators was 
> forced to shut down most of their servers overnight. Unfortunately at 
> the time, this person was running about 50% of the total list of public 
> servers.  Messages were sent to the mailing list, the servers were 
> removed from the listings, and some of the servers were able to brought 
> back again soon after.
> 
> We've had some debates on IRC already regarding whether there should be 
> limitations placed on how many servers each individual is allowed to add 
> to the public list (which affects things such as the nearest-servers 
> info displayed on opennic's homepage).  There are pro and con points to 
> this argument.  If we allow unlimited server entries, it greatly expands 
> the reach of opennic with local servers in more countries.  However in a 
> situation such as this, where a large number of servers are shut down at 
> once, it hurts opennic's credibility and reliability, especially for 
> those who like to set their DNS server entries and forget about them 
> (this describes a large number of people who set up a home router or 
> access point).
> 
> Keeping this in mind, these are our options:
> 1) allow unlimited entries
> 2) limit the number of entries per person to a fixed number
> 3) limit the number of entries based on a formula, taking into account 
> the current number of public servers, and/or the amount of time a user 
> has successfully provided public servers.
> 
> Number 3 seems to offer the best option, so long-time members can 
> provide larger numbers of servers.  Even within that, there are 
> sub-options to consider:
> 3a) Number is a percentage of total servers -- if there are 70 public 
> servers and we user 10% as our base, then each user would be allowed to 
> list 7 servers.
> 3b) Add the percentage to a base number -- we could allow everyone 5 + 
> 10%, so as above this would currently give everyone a total of 12 
> servers they could provide.
> 3c) Calculate a number from the length of time the user has been hosting 
> public servers -- For a simple example, let's say 1 server per every 
> month of hosting, so someone who has run servers for 10 months would be 
> allowed to list up to 10 servers.
> 
> Most likely we would want to create a combination of the above... 
> something like a base of 2 servers, plus 5% of total servers for every 3 
> months of hosting.  This would ensure a new user doesn't have too many 
> entries to begin with, but that they become more trusted with long-term 
> involvement with the project.
> 
> Please discuss how this should be handled.  We need to decide how we 
> want to handle this and implement a solid solution that is fair to 
> everyone.  If you have ideas for a formula to use, please explain why 
> you like it.  If there are other variables that should be considered, 
> let me know and I'll see if it's something I can implement.
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org