Discuss mailing list

[gp AT gparent.net]

I've always argued against .bit because we have no control over it. It's 
such a ridiculous peering to me that I would not even care if it were 
permanently lost.

Also hosting a T2 on a T1 may not be disallowed but it's always been an 
awful idea considering our infrastructure. Hopefully this can be a 
learning experience.

I sincerely hope the server can recover on an ISP that understands the 
internet a little bit more, because it's disappointing when they care 
more about spammers than users.

-gp


On 2017-05-18 19:37, Jonah Aragon wrote:
> As far as I'm aware you can't drop a peer because they're now all in
> the root zone. You don't have to *slave* them but they'd still
> resolve.
>
> I was just saying we may want to reconsider it in the future,
> especially with the spam issues originating from .bit as of late. We
> need to start promoting our own democratic TLDs instead of other
> parties' namespaces.
>
> RE: Stephan: I'm wondering why you had to remove the .bit zone, I
> suspect just disabling recursion would be sufficient, and recursion
> isn't necessary for Tier 1 servers so you could keep it as a full
> fledged T1.
>
> Jonah
>
> On May 18, 2017 2:21 PM, "Zach Gibbens" <zachgibbens AT zachgibbens.org>
> wrote:
>
> > In the past peering in opennic didn't mean both parties had to
> > resolve each other (however that was the desire) and we knew that
> > going in on namecoin, we did that unilaterally.
> >
> > Also a tier2 server wasn't required to carry a peering tld, merely
> > OpenNIC (ICANN was implied too, considering how we linked them at
> > the root) so if I wanted to drop AltNations (just an example, only
> > other peer I can think of) I could just do it myself no harm no
> > foul.
> >
> > Perhaps this has evolved over time, don't think we've updated the
> > charter regarding it though.
> >
> > This issue is actually a few issues in one if I read right. There
> > was an open resolver issue as a part of this (which I can attest is
> > more likely the reason for the nullroute threat, there's a reason my
> > T2 servers are internal only now. DNS amplification attacks cost too
> > much.)
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> >
> > On May 18, 2017, 15:05, Jonah Aragon < jonaharagon AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On a minor tangent, I wonder if we should reconsider peering the
> > Namecoin and Emercoin zones. They seem to be causing more trouble
> > than they're worth, and we don't even seem to have a true peering
> > agreement with us as far as I can tell, we resolve their names but
> > not vice versa.
> >
> > In my opinion we should drop their zones unless they can agree to
> > include our zones in their official DNS clients. I have my doubts we
> > can do this with Namecoin but perhaps we could convince Emercoin to
> > do this as we have a bit of an official relationship with them.
> >
> > Just my two cents on the whole thing.
> >
> > Jonah
> >
> > On May 18, 2017 1:59 PM, "Jonah Aragon" < jonaharagon AT gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ISP's DNS servers are generally whitelisted internally (to their
> > customer network) so they don't have to deal with stuff like that,
> > with a few exceptions, ours on the other hand are publicly
> > accessible to anyone.
> >
> > The issue doesn't seem to be with Spamhaus necessarily here
> > however, it seems to be with the hosting provider ns4 is using,
> > because they'd rather block a paying customer than have an IP
> > blacklisted by a spam organization (which may be a good trade-off
> > for them, who knows, I have no idea how much is being paid for ns4's
> > servers). For example if Spamhaus came after me I could easily just
> > laugh and not pay them attention because my hosting providers aren't
> > going to care, and I'm not going to care because being blacklisted
> > generally doesn't come with many consequences outside of email
> > deliverability. The provider for ns4 on the other hand was prepared
> > to completely nullroute their network.
> >
> > There's definitely an issue here with misunderstanding between us,
> > Spamhaus, and our hosting providers, but it should be a fairly
> > trivial task to move to a provider who won't be swayed so easily by
> > random third party organizations.
> >
> > That's how I see it at least.
> >
> > Jonah
>
> --------
> 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