- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

DNS Questionnaire
by Guy Davies 08 Nov '95

08 Nov '95

Dear Colleague, As part of the efforts of the DNS working group at RIPE to have a better understanding of the usage of the domain name service in Europe and the South and Eastern Mediterranean, I have been asked to prepare and distribute this questionnaire. Please take a few minutes of your time to complete the questionnaire. The responses will be collated and the results will be made public on the WWW. Initially, this is likely to be on my personal web pages (http://www.pipex.net/people/guyd) but I hope to find space on the RIPE web server for this important information. I would be grateful if the SOA for any top level domains with neutral subdomains (e.g. co.at) would either answer for all the neutral subdomains or distribute the questionnaire to the SOA for each of the neutral subdomains. The more accurate and complete the information, the better. Thankyou very much for your time. Regards, Guy Davies tel: 01223 250122 ---------- fax: 01223 250121 Network Support Engineer email: guyd(a)pipex.net Unipalm PIPEX url: http://www.pipex.net 216 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 4WA DNS Questionnaire ================= 1. Who defines your policies? 2. How do you establish your naming policies? 3. What legal status, if any, do your decisions/policies have? 4a. Would you register sub.tld (e.g. co.uk, ac.uk etc)? b. Do you have geographic subdomains in the tld (e.g. state.tld, county.tld)? c. Do you have different categories of 2nd level domains (e.g. "public" ones like "co.at" and "private" ones like alcatel.at) in parallel? d. If you have "public" 2nd level domains, what are the rules for running such a domain (e.g. everybody's registration has to be accepted for free if it fits into this category)? e. If so, how do you split your tld? 5a. Would you register domain.tld (e.g. microsoft.uk)? b. Would you register domain.sub.tld (e.g. microsoft.co.uk)? 6a. Do you allow individuals to register names or just organisations? b. If you differentiate between individuals and organisations, what are your criteria? 7a. Do you require proof of identity? b. If so, how do you prove the identity of a requestor? 8. Do you register domains only for organisations/individuals located in your country or do you allow anyone to register in your tld? 9a. Do you allow a single organisation to register more than one domain? b. If so, do you limit the number of domains registered by a single organisation? 10a.To whom would you allocate well known names like digital.tld/ digital.sub.tld? b.What criteria do you use when deciding whether or not to allow a name? 11a.How do you arbitrate between two or more claims to the same name? b.Who is responsible for the arbitration? 12a.Do you allow the registration of geographical names (cities, countries, rivers, etc)? b.If so, would you register one for an individual organisation? 13a.Do you have any names which may not be registered (e.g. names in bad taste, names of protocols, etc)? 14a.Do you run secondary nameservice for subdomains of the tld? b.If so, is this optional/mandatory and do you charge for the service? 15a.Do you check for a running nameserver at the time of request? b.Do you check for a running nameserver at regular intervals after the name has been delegated? 16. Do you allow the reservation of names (i.e. no running service)? 17a.Do you charge for reservation/registration of names? b.If so, is it a one off fee, an annual subscription or both? c.How much is the fee? 18a.Do you remove unused domain names? b.If so, how do you define an unused domain? 19. Do you think that the current system you operate will be changed over the next 12 months? 20. Do you accept requests for domains from providers only, from anyone or from a different group only? 21. What resources are allocated to the administration of the domain? 22. Do you have any automation of the registration/delegation process? Additions to original questionnaire 4c, 4d Christian Panigl (VUCC - ACOnet)

3 2

RE: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire
by Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie +43 1 4065822-383 08 Nov '95

08 Nov '95

>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 06:31:45 +0000 (GMT) >From: Guy Davies <guyd(a)pipex.net> > >Response to the questionnaire has, so far, been a bit disappointing. I >have received only eight filled in questionnaires. Dear Guy, sorry for beeing late, we just finished our answers after circulating them through all involved people. You got the answers for AT a few minutes ago. Because of the fact that not all TLD registries were positively participating in this effort, we would strongly suggest, that only those parties who DID respond are getting the result. We are seeing the collection of answers to this first "European TLD Questionnaire" as an internal working paper to the *actively* interested and participating part of the DNS-WG and not to be published to a broader audience. If you decide to publish an URL to whatever larger community please exclude our information (for AT) ! As soon as the situation has stabilized we will provide you with a paper which might be included in your public collection. Kind regards, Christian --- Christian Panigl : Vienna University Computer Center - ACOnet --- --- VUCC - ACOnet : -------------------------------------------- --- --- Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Internet: Christian.Panigl(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at --- --- A-1010 Vienna / Austria : Tel: +43 1 4065822-383 (Fax: -170) ---

5 4

DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire
by Guy Davies 08 Nov '95

08 Nov '95

Hello again folks, Response to the questionnaire has, so far, been a bit disappointing. I have received only eight filled in questionnaires. To anyone who is delaying their response I would say, please return your filled in questionnaire as soon as possible so that the information can be quickly collated and prepared for publication. Despite some people's reservations to the usefulness of such a source of information, I consider it would be extremely useful as an initial reference. I take this position based on personal experience of trying to register domains in other countries and also of trying to help organise a useable 'NIC' system for the UK without any information or guidance from other countries' NICs. To those of you from whom I have received replies, thankyou again for spending the time. I hope to have something for publication in the next few weeks (providing I get some more replies quickly) and I will publish the URL to this group once the page is available. I look forward to your responses in the near future. Regards, Guy Davies tel: 01223 250122 ---------- fax: 01223 250121 Network Support Engineer email: guyd(a)pipex.net Unipalm PIPEX url: http://www.pipex.net 216 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 4WA

4 6

RE: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 07 Nov '95

07 Nov '95

>It is not clear to me what the difference is between "ETLDF" and the >DNS-WG is. Actually, I think this is a very interesting question. I think we would never have asked ourself this question if we hadn't received the (for me) surprising formal statement from the Dutch Naming Authority! I'd like to think that most of the parties involved are slightly over-reacting. On the other hand, we have had a couple of issues in the past where I perceived a less than perfect agreement between RIPE-WGs and the points of view of some TLD administrator... > Further the request was for a closed repository. These are I think this is really a minor issue - if the RIPE-NCC is not the proper place to store non-public information, well then there is alternatives available. My *personal* point of view is that DNS coordination, and TLD administration, with all of it's aspects should be an open activity. If some of the TLD administrations do think otherwise, then this should be sorted out first. The other conclusions would then be rather easy, I suppose. >both different from EOF. EOF is a normal RIPE working group governed by >the RIPE Terms of Reference and any of their material stored at the NCC >is publicly available. > >In other words: If the RIPE-DNS WG asks for an open repository there is >no problem and we will do it immediately. If a closed subgroup asks for >a closed repository this needs consultation with the RIPE chair, the WG >chair and possibly the contributors. Reasonable. More so as there is not necessarily a direct realtionship between a TLD administration function and the RIPE-NCC contributions. >Please understand that I take this slightly more formally than usual >because it is a matter of principle that all activities of RIPE and RIPE >working groups are open. I support this view. Although I have the feeling that the reasoning about how and/or where to store this type of information was fairly less formal :-) Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: DNS Top Level Domain Questionnaire
by Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie +43 1 4065822-383 07 Nov '95

07 Nov '95

>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 16:54:26 +0100 >From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg(a)ripe.net> > >I think the WG should re-ask itself what the purpose of the exercise >was. Was it to let TLD admins see what others do? If yes, circulate >the results among the respondents and give it a wider audience (the WG) >later on, if all respondents agree. At least this was my interpretation. Christian --- Christian Panigl : Vienna University Computer Center - ACOnet --- --- VUCC - ACOnet : -------------------------------------------- --- --- Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Internet: Christian.Panigl(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at --- --- A-1010 Vienna / Austria : Tel: +43 1 4065822-383 (Fax: -170) ---

1 0

Re: A proposal from RIPE DNS Working Group
by Artur Romao 03 Nov '95

03 Nov '95

Hello, > I'm glad to contact you, acting on request of the ripe dns working > group which, during the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam, discussed about > DNS failures and made a proposal as stated in the following excerpt > from the minutes: > > {...} > Some people do not watch their name servers: it happens that some name > servers are left unattended and fail without anyone noticing. This > has an impact on the performance and reliability of the overall name > service. > > People should watch their name servers and their zones on their primary > and secondaries. At least the 'host' command can be used with the '-C' > option to do this at regular intervals. > > During the plenary session someone remembered the existance of > RFC1713 A. Romao, "Tools for DNS debugging", which is usually > referred to as the guide for DNS administrators and suggested to ask > the author to include such recommendation. > > [ACTION on ABB] > {...} I was planning to write an updated version of the RFC some time next year (since it's also an FYI I'm supposed to update it regularly). Among other things I'm waiting for BIND-4.9.3 final to be released, and there seems to be a lot of new tools available, so I have to take a look at them. I appreciate your comments, they fit well in the new scheme I'm thinking about. Of course, if anyone has any other suggestions, they're very welcome, too. Thanks for your input. Regards, .artur -- ======== ____ ==== Artur Romao ======= / / / ___ ___ /_ ===== PUUG - EUnet Portugal ====== /---- / / / / /___/ / ====== Qta Torre 2825 Mte Caparica ===== /____ /___/ / / /___ /_ ======= http://www.Portugal.EU.net/ ==== ======== mailto:Artur.Romao@puug.pt

1 0

DNS registration ?
by Alex V. Soldatov 01 Nov '95

01 Nov '95

Good day! Help me, please. How my organization stand in DNS registration? Which sheet must be feel ? kAK ZAREGISTRIROWATX DNS DOMEN? ~TO TREBUETSQ DLQ \TOGO? Best regads, Alexey V. Soldatov /* Sverdlovsk Main Regional Department /* the Central Bank of Russia /* Ekaterinburg

2 1

Re: A proposal from RIPE DNS Working Group
by e07＠nikhef.nl 31 Oct '95

31 Oct '95

> People should watch their name servers and their zones on their primary > and secondaries. At least the 'host' command can be used with the '-C' > option to do this at regular intervals. [] host -C -A -L 1 zonename is what you really want to do. This covers most common problems. If that comes out clean, you are probably safe ... -- Eric Wassenaar P.S. For those of you who want to stay up to date: [] host -V Version 951024

1 0

A proposal from RIPE DNS Working Group
by Antonio_Blasco Bonito 31 Oct '95

31 Oct '95

Dear Artur Romao, I'm glad to contact you, acting on request of the ripe dns working group which, during the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam, discussed about DNS failures and made a proposal as stated in the following excerpt from the minutes: {...} Some people do not watch their name servers: it happens that some name servers are left unattended and fail without anyone noticing. This has an impact on the performance and reliability of the overall name service. People should watch their name servers and their zones on their primary and secondaries. At least the 'host' command can be used with the '-C' option to do this at regular intervals. During the plenary session someone remembered the existance of RFC1713 A. Romao, "Tools for DNS debugging", which is usually referred to as the guide for DNS administrators and suggested to ask the author to include such recommendation. [ACTION on ABB] {...} ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito(a)nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ----------

1 0

Draft minutes of ripe22-dnswg
by Antonio_Blasco Bonito 30 Oct '95

30 Oct '95

Better late than never... Here are the drafts minutes scribed by Benoit Grange and edited by me. Please send corrections/additions to the list before 951110. ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito(a)nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ---------- --------------------cut here------------ DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT RIPE 22 DNS Working Group minutes Amsterdam 12 October 1995 Chairman: Antonio Blasco Bonito (ABB) Scribe: Benoit Grange (BG) Preliminaries ------------- Rob Blokzijl presented the apologies from the working group chairman, Leonid Yegoshin (LY), who had a visa problem and asked ABB to chair the group. The agenda was reorganized and agreed. 1) Reports about DNS Failures -------------------------- [This item should have been covered by LY, but because he was not there some of us reported current problems] BG talked about the known problem with uncesessary glues that appear in zone transfers. This happens on most old implementations (BIND prior to 4.9) as shipped my most of the vendors. DNS Operation suffer from old implementation that have known bugs and proble ms. The usual suggestion is to install a recent version of BIND, which happens to be a beta version. It was noted that, altough that effectively eliminates the problem, many DNS administrators are not willing to use a beta version. The working group agreed on sending a letter to the ISC to ask to put BIND 4.9.3 in final so that doubts about it are solved. [ACTION on ABB] Many expressed concern about how delegation changes are done at the Internic. Today Internic accepts any change to current delegation (normal and reverse) and also to glue records. This leads to situation where some bad data is introduced, either as an error, or as some malicious action. Eg: 'ns.ripe.net' (193.0.0.193) is primary for 'ripe.net' and a lot of important zones. John Doe wants to create a 'johndoe.com' zone and submits a request to Internic mentionning both 'banana.johndoe.com' (198.1.2.3) as primary and 'ns.ripe.net' with a WRONG address 193.0.0.93 because of a typo. Internic creates the 'johndoe.com' zone and CHANGES the glue record for 'ns.ripe.net'. All delegations to 'ns.ripe.net' are affected because Internic accepted unnecessary glue record from John Doe and blindly accepted to change an existing name server IP address. The working group recommends that Internic does not accept unneccessary glue records and double checks any change to existing glue records. [ACTION on Geert Jan de Groot] Some people do not watch their name servers: it happens that some name servers are left unattended and fail without anyone noticing. This has an impact on the performance and reliability of the overall name service. People should watch their name servers and their zones on their primary and secondaries. At least the 'host' command can be used with the '-C' option to do this at regular intervals. During the plenary session someone remembered the existance of RFC1713 A. Romao, "Tools for DNS debugging", which is usually referred to as the guide for DNS administrators and suggested to ask the author to include such recommendation. [ACTION on ABB] 2) 'in-addr.arpa' automatic checking and delegation (D. Kessens) ------------------------------------------------------------- David briefly talked about the tool he wrote which is being used at RIPE- NCC. This tools checks if the reverse zone is correctly configured as per RIPE requirements. Usage: Send an e-mail message to 'auto-inaddr(a)ripe.net' containing the 'inet-num' object with 'rev-svr:' attributes listing the desired name servers (1 name server per line). Send an empty message to get help. The final editing of the zone file is still done manually and the operators also checks the author of the update. After a short discussion the group agreed that some authentication mechanism be added in order to avoid malicious changes to current delegation, specially when the reverse delegation process will be completly automated. [ACTION on RIPE-NCC] This tool could also be used to check for normal delegations, but only after some rewriting because some of the checks are specific to reverse delegation or RIPE requirements. Sources are on ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/inaddrtool-VERSION Another tool to check delegation exist under http://www.nic.fr/ZoneCheck Sources of this tool will be freely available by the end of the year. [ACTION on BG] 3) Future developments of the name servers --------------------------------------- It was reported that: Paul Vixie got RU-BIND and will somehow merge the two programs. IBM has donated code to do dynamic updates, and an other source is available as well. 4) About the recent changes of the root name servers ------------------------------------------------- All root name servers have been renamed as '<letter>.root-servers.net'. If you want to know the "old name" of a name server, query for the TXT record associated with the name. A new primary for the root zone will be created and managed directly from IANA, and the primary for the '.com', etc. zones will remain managed by Internic. 5) Charging for domain names, etc. ------------------------------- A European 'TLD' forum might be useful, and the first move should be to collect how TLD management is done over Europe. Different countries have different policies, etc. Some multinational company which wants to create a bunch of domains in different countries needs more information on how this can be done and who should be contacted. The working group decided to set up a questionnaire and Guy Davies (GD) collected a lot of questions. He will organise the questionnaire and submit it to the list for review and later send it to the European TLD admins. [Action on GD] DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT

5 8