Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] .o peering structure

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] .o peering structure

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Jonah Aragon <jonaharagon AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] .o peering structure
  • Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:10:00 +0000

I chose modern.glue because there doesn't appear to be a ".glue" zone at all in the root, just ".opennic.glue", and the Wiki seems to say that usage is shared among OpenNIC and it's peers (although I could be misinterpreting it). Even if ".glue" does exist, we don't actually use it here outside of ".opennic.glue" so I would imagine moving ".opennic.glue" to the root wouldn't be that great a challenge, I'm not even sure "glue" would have to exist independently at all. That way when establishing peering agreements you could simply add, for example, [peername].glue directly to the root, pointing at the other peer's authoritative nameserver(s). If we were interested here in expanding our peering agreements in the future, that may not be a bad idea. It kind of unifies the alt-root scene, and makes the whole infrastructure thing easier to handle, in my opinion. 

That's just my 2 cents, I can definitely think of some other TLD for that purpose.

Regarding servers, I was somewhat assuming it would act similarly to ns11 operating as a bridge, and it would slave the zones from our other authoritative nameservers, similarly to now ns9 operates with .bit. But we can definitely just add more servers to the root directly for that purpose (since the domains would presumably no longer be slaved by OpenNIC resolvers), which would probably make more sense.

Thanks for your insight :)


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:21 AM Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT> wrote:
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).


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

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

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page