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: Fusl Dash <opennic AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] .o peering structure
  • Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:54:08 +0100

> I can definitely think of some other TLD for that purpose.
Please do so. .glue is currently a mess and needs to be cleaned up anyway, we
shouldn't be handing out NS delegations for a .glue domain at this time but
this will change with the new infrastructure as there will be a better
structure for this.

On 2017-02-20 15:10, Jonah Aragon wrote:
> 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 :)
> Jonah
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:21 AM Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT
> <mailto: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).
>> 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
>> <mailto:discuss-unsubscribe AT>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> discuss-unsubscribe AT
> <mailto:discuss-unsubscribe AT>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT

Best regards

Fusl - root AT -

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page