Re: dnsmon / .org
[sorry about the useless re-post to dns-wg, finger trouble ....] On 10.09 04:58, Joerg Schumacher wrote:
... Mind adding the nameservers for .ORG to the monitoring? I'd be interested in the effects of the recent change in the root zone. Having only two nameservers for a tld and both of them in a single AS makes me kind of nervous. ...
Weiteres Nachdenken ergab: While we so far have only monitored TLDs with whome we have some contact, we can certainly also monitor any TLD if there is an expressed interest from the RIPE community. Thechnically this is no problem at all. Configuring it takes all of 5 minutes and even the alpha version of the analysis web site on the development server box can easily take the load. However there is a more principle problem and that is why I copied ncc-services: Currently there is a heated debate about (new) NCC services and their cost. One question asked over and over again there is: Why should NCC members pay for this service? For dnsmon my answer is that they are interested in seeing the data, just like Joerg; they are also interested that the data is collected professionally and neutrally, so that they can point all sorts of people to it. Most importantly they can use it to take action if TLD service, a service vital to their business, should not be adawquate. So very generally this data helps to keep the DNS stable in a number of ways; that benefits the whole community in general and the RIPE NCC membership in particular. However, quite obviously, the TLD administrators concerned also benefit from this data. They can use it direcly to monitor their operations. They can also use it in the same way as the NCC membership: they can point third parties to it and say that independent and professional measurements show that they are doing a good job. So why should they not pay a fair share of the cost? So far the TLDs we monitor have agreed informally to do that, once the service becomes fully operational. I have had a number of questions like Joerg's already for all gTLDs besides .MIL. I see little chance that we can get them all to agree to pay a share of the cost. I also see that the overhead of making agreements with some of the organisations involoved can be prohibitive. If there is interest from the RIPE community it is easy to monitor these domains. However it is very difficult to do it for some for free and ask the others to pay. So doing that may lead to a situation where the RIPE NCC membership ends up paying the whole bill. I would actually like that because it makes the measurements even more independent and I would not have to invest time into making agreements with the TLD admins, billing, etc. pp. But is this acceptable to the RIPE NCC memebrship in the long run? Comments please! Daniel
At 11:17 AM +0200 2003/09/10, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
So doing that may lead to a situation where the RIPE NCC membership ends up paying the whole bill. I would actually like that because it makes the measurements even more independent and I would not have to invest time into making agreements with the TLD admins, billing, etc. pp.
But is this acceptable to the RIPE NCC memebrship in the long run?
Comments please!
I'm not a paying member of RIPE NCC, so my views don't count. However, I would like to see this sort of monitoring extended by RIPE NCC to all available TLDs, paid for by RIPE NCC. Indeed, I am moving closer to having my own co-lo, and once I do I plan on setting up my own monitoring tools for all TLDs, for my own purposes. I'll probably extend that to sharing lame delegation data with Rob Thomas, etc.... If you are concerned about the cost, you could place a copyright on the collected data so that re-use for RIPE NCC members does not incur an additional charge, and perhaps allow academic re-use by non-RIPE NCC members to likewise be without fee, but for-profit non-RIPE NCC members would be required to contact you first and arrange to pay a fee if they wanted to reuse the data or the results. At that point, it basically comes down to how much enforcement of the copyright you would want to participate in, and how you could make the fee payment scheme at least cover its own administrative costs. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
On 10.09 11:35, Brad Knowles wrote:
... If you are concerned about the cost, you could place a copyright on the collected data so that re-use for RIPE NCC members does not incur an additional charge, and perhaps allow academic re-use by non-RIPE NCC members to likewise be without fee, but for-profit non-RIPE NCC members would be required to contact you first and arrange to pay a fee if they wanted to reuse the data or the results.
The whole point is that a detaled analysis of the data published for all to see. I cannot see how to apply copyright in this environment. Daniel
Daniel Karrenberg said:
If you are concerned about the cost, you could place a copyright on the collected data so that re-use for RIPE NCC members does not incur an additional charge, and perhaps allow academic re-use by non-RIPE NCC members to likewise be without fee, but for-profit non-RIPE NCC members would be required to contact you first and arrange to pay a fee if they wanted to reuse the data or the results.
The whole point is that a detaled analysis of the data published for all to see. I cannot see how to apply copyright in this environment.
Quite easily. Something like this: This data is the copyright of RIPE NCC. A non-exclusive licence is granted to RIPE NCC members for their internal use. A non-exclusive licence is granted for use by any person for non-commercial purposes. In both cases there is no charge for use of the data but it must not be re-published without separate agreement. This does not prevent publication of any other work done making use of this data but not including it. All other rights are reserved. [IANAL, but I understand the principles involved. A Dutch lawyer can no doubt make it formally correct.] -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | *** NOTE CHANGE *** Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
At 11:46 AM +0200 2003/09/10, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
If you are concerned about the cost, you could place a copyright on the collected data so that re-use for RIPE NCC members does not incur an additional charge, and perhaps allow academic re-use by non-RIPE NCC members to likewise be without fee, but for-profit non-RIPE NCC members would be required to contact you first and arrange to pay a fee if they wanted to reuse the data or the results.
The whole point is that a detaled analysis of the data published for all to see. I cannot see how to apply copyright in this environment.
You can apply copyright both to the collection of the data, and to the compilation of the data. Telephone companies publish directories with a certain number of known false entries. If another telephone company comes along and wholesale copies the data, they get the false entries along with the good ones. The copyright owner can then look for the known false entries, and if they see them, then they can prove that the other company illegally copied the data. You wouldn't want to publish any known false entries, but you can still claim copyright on the compilation of the data, and the analysis you apply. That is, if you want to. You don't have to. But this would be one potential way to allow people who should have free access to the data to do so, while also requiring that those who can afford it to pay their fare share. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
At 11:17 AM 10-09-03 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: My view: RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR is willing to endorse. -Hank
[sorry about the useless re-post to dns-wg, finger trouble ....]
On 10.09 04:58, Joerg Schumacher wrote:
... Mind adding the nameservers for .ORG to the monitoring? I'd be interested in the effects of the recent change in the root zone. Having only two nameservers for a tld and both of them in a single AS makes me kind of nervous. ...
Weiteres Nachdenken ergab:
While we so far have only monitored TLDs with whome we have some contact, we can certainly also monitor any TLD if there is an expressed interest from the RIPE community. Thechnically this is no problem at all. Configuring it takes all of 5 minutes and even the alpha version of the analysis web site on the development server box can easily take the load.
However there is a more principle problem and that is why I copied ncc-services:
Currently there is a heated debate about (new) NCC services and their cost. One question asked over and over again there is: Why should NCC members pay for this service? For dnsmon my answer is that they are interested in seeing the data, just like Joerg; they are also interested that the data is collected professionally and neutrally, so that they can point all sorts of people to it. Most importantly they can use it to take action if TLD service, a service vital to their business, should not be adawquate. So very generally this data helps to keep the DNS stable in a number of ways; that benefits the whole community in general and the RIPE NCC membership in particular.
However, quite obviously, the TLD administrators concerned also benefit from this data. They can use it direcly to monitor their operations. They can also use it in the same way as the NCC membership: they can point third parties to it and say that independent and professional measurements show that they are doing a good job. So why should they not pay a fair share of the cost? So far the TLDs we monitor have agreed informally to do that, once the service becomes fully operational.
I have had a number of questions like Joerg's already for all gTLDs besides .MIL. I see little chance that we can get them all to agree to pay a share of the cost. I also see that the overhead of making agreements with some of the organisations involoved can be prohibitive. If there is interest from the RIPE community it is easy to monitor these domains. However it is very difficult to do it for some for free and ask the others to pay. So doing that may lead to a situation where the RIPE NCC membership ends up paying the whole bill. I would actually like that because it makes the measurements even more independent and I would not have to invest time into making agreements with the TLD admins, billing, etc. pp.
But is this acceptable to the RIPE NCC memebrship in the long run?
Comments please!
Daniel
On 10.09 12:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR is willing to endorse. -Hank
I like the principle. However .... How would this endoresement be determined? Doing it simple-mindedly potentially leads to a *very* long list of domains to monitor, and not only (cc)TLDs. Daniel
Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 10.09 12:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR is willing to endorse. -Hank
I like the principle. However ....
How would this endoresement be determined?
Doing it simple-mindedly potentially leads to a *very* long list of domains to monitor, and not only (cc)TLDs.
my 0.02 EUR: So what about monitoring the (cc)TLDs as a Service paid by the Membership, since these are the most relevant for the stability of the net, and sell it for 2+ Level domains? lG uk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ulrich Kiermayr Zentraler Informatikdienst der Universitaet Wien Network Security Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Wien, Austria ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eMail: ulrich.kiermayr@univie.ac.at Tel: (+43 1) 4277 / 14104 Hotline: security.zid@univie.ac.at Fax: (+43 1) 4277 / 9140 Web: http://www.univie.ac.at/zid/security.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GPG Key fingerprint = BF0D 5749 4DC1 ED74 AB67 7180 105F 491D A8D7 64D8
[I have pruned this to ncc-services] On 10.09 11:48, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote:
... So what about monitoring the (cc)TLDs as a Service paid by the Membership, since these are the most relevant for the stability of the net, and sell it for 2+ Level domains?
Wow! The RIPE NCC doing a commercial service. That opens all sorts of snake pits like: - do we remain not-for-profit - independence - stability I think this is best done outside the NCC. Daniel
At 11:36 AM 10-09-03 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 10.09 12:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR is willing to endorse. -Hank
I like the principle. However ....
How would this endoresement be determined?
Each LIR would be entitled to one ccTLD to be monitored. Most won't need it. Assuming there are about 50 countries in the RIPE area, and about 3500 LIRs, I am sure that one can find a LIR to support a ccTLD to be monitored. That means that the other countries in ARIN/APNIC/LACLIC would have to fund their own service. -Hank LIR: il.iucc
Doing it simple-mindedly potentially leads to a *very* long list of domains to monitor, and not only (cc)TLDs.
Daniel
On 10.09 16:48, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 11:36 AM 10-09-03 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
... How would this endoresement be determined?
Each LIR would be entitled to one ccTLD to be monitored. Most won't need it. Assuming there are about 50 countries in the RIPE area, and about 3500 LIRs, I am sure that one can find a LIR to support a ccTLD to be monitored. That means that the other countries in ARIN/APNIC/LACLIC would have to fund their own service.
Now this *is* simple-minded: The end-game is that we monitor all TLDs because there are less TLDs than RIPE NCC members and there will be some of them intereste in TLDs outside the RIPE region and many of them will be interested in some gTLDs. Next we will get questions about 2nd level domains. Try again. Hint: One might establish a ranking and set a monitoring capacity. Daniel
On 10.09 12:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR is willing to endorse. -Hank
I like the principle. However ....
How would this endoresement be determined?
You offer the service only to members, so if a names server operator wants this service they sign up as a member. You probably should add a new billig category for this. But that should be simple following the last AGM.
Doing it simple-mindedly potentially leads to a *very* long list of domains to monitor, and not only (cc)TLDs.
Doing it this way the list will never be longer than your membership list. -hph
RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR is willing to endorse.
as a lot of folk, whose primary mission it is, monitor, it is not clear to me why the ncc monitors at all. the philosphy that the ncc should provide all the services that we use devolves into ncc making shoes and shirts for us all too. the net works on de- centralization and distributed cooperation and trust. time and again, centralization has been sub-optimal or failed. randy
[pruned to ncc-services] On 10.09 05:00, Randy Bush wrote:
RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR is willing to endorse.
as a lot of folk, whose primary mission it is, monitor, it is not clear to me why the ncc monitors at all.
Frankly: Because root zone data is needed for our operations, none of the people whose primary mission it is do an adaequate job, there is considerable interest in good measurements in the community including about other TLDs and it was relatively easy to do.
the philosphy that the ncc should provide all the services that we use devolves into ncc making shoes and shirts for us all too...
I am not aware of that school. can you point me to it? Daniel
participants (7)
-
Brad Knowles -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Hank Nussbacher -
Hans Petter Holen -
Randy Bush -
Ulrich Kiermayr