Discuss mailing list

[Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>]

    The only issue I see in this would be trying to overlap the usage of
    the .glue zone.  If you want to be a peer rather than part of the
    opennic structure then you must separate your connection entirely. 
    The easiest way to do this would be to either keep your records
    under .o (for example, *.glue.o), or create a new TLD for that
    purpose (for example, .modern).  The first example is the best,
    however, because it only requires you and your users to worry about
    a single zone and simplifies setup for anyone running their own DNS.
    
    I would suggest that you also add at least one other authoritative
    DNS server.  Under a peering arrangement, opennic adds pointers for
    your zone(s) to our root, but opennic servers no longer directly
    resolve your zone.  There are different options available here, such
    as adding multiple IP addresses under NS11 to point to multiple
    machine -- but we can talk about that later if you decide to
    proceed.
    
    And finally, there needs to be some way that a script can track any
    service changes you make.  Let's say you decide to add the .modern
    TLD to contain your infrastructure.  Now you've set an initial
    expectation that you are running multiple TLDs.  If in the future
    your group adds another TLD, you don't want to wait around for
    someone from opennic to see the changes and add your new TLD to our
    root, instead you want updates to automatically happen.  If you
    query tlds.opennic.glue you will receive a list of all the TLDs that
    we currently operate.  Adding a similar TXT record in a known place
    to your TLD would allow our root zone scripts to see changes and add
    the appropriate records to the next root zone.  Additionally we
    would need to be able to query a list of your authoritative servers,
    but if you managed that information under NS11 then I could work
    with that.  The point is to have a known place to collect this
    information, and always use that same source to signal your
    updates.  Again, this is all information that we can work if you
    decide to switch to a peering arrangement.

On 02/19/2017 09:17 AM, Jonah Aragon wrote:

There's been a lot of these "gathering opinion" type posts recently (one other from myself), but one more can't hurt.

I've been talking with a few people about ".core" and how peering agreements work in OpenNIC, and I've been thinking that starting something like that is similar to what I have in mind for ".o" (which I operate, if you don't already know that). I was thinking that it might work out better if I transitioned to a mutual peering relationship with OpenNIC, since I provide a lot of structure and organization likely outside the realm of most of the TLDs operated here. It would probably work out similar to how FurNIC currently operates, I still intend to be highly involved with OpenNIC as I currently am, just with the added separation between OpenNIC and ModernTLD (.o operations) developments.

Anyways, I was planning on proposing something like officially designating ModernNIC (new organization) as a mutual peer with OpenNIC, and we would operate parallel but separate from OpenNIC as a whole. My networks would provide access to OpenNIC and I would continue operating ns11 indefinitely which would peer .o on this side of the infrastructure, and possibly future TLDs if we expand. That would entail control over ".o" being given to ModernNIC, and we would also have to get the .modernnic.glue TLD for infrastructure purposes (as I would plan on operating recursive DNS servers as well).

I'm just in the planning phase for all of this, I don't know where it'll lead. Just wanted to hear from some members what they'd think. I wasn't actually here long enough in any active role to know how FurNIC split from OpenNIC, so I'd also like to hear about that from any members who were around that long ago.

Overall, not much would really change for most users, it'd just be a technical difference, and more freedom for us to implement some of our own policies. (A note on that: it still wouldn't be completely out of OpenNIC control, you could of course vote to cease peering at any time if you disagree, but I'd hope it wouldn't come to that, so compromises would definitely be made).

Jonah

P.S. On an semi-related tangent (that would require its own complete organization), it would be neat if there was some sort of alt-root federation of some kind, that could strengthen this entire community as a whole. It could for example, include OpenNIC and any of our peers, and even DNS structures like Namecoin/Emercoin. I've heard of some similar plans but nothing concrete seems to exist at the moment. but anyways, that's something for another time.

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org