Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.". - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.". - TCP-IP ; HM> What's it do? d> It's an alternate root This, taken in conjunction with what I mentioned earlier about the gross misconfiguration of the content DNS server listening on 64.146.111.234, indicates that what it actually is (if it isn't simply ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.".

  1. Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.".

    HM> What's it do?

    d> It's an alternate root

    This, taken in conjunction with what I mentioned earlier about the gross
    misconfiguration of the content DNS server listening on 64.146.111.234,
    indicates that what it actually is (if it isn't simply an outright scam
    operating under the guise of being a legitimate alternate root) is a wholly
    inept attempt to re-publish PacificRoot's augmented root, resulting in a
    complete mess.

    Anyone who wishes to use PacificRoot's augmented root is _far_ better off
    using _PacificRoot's own_ servers and following PacificRoot's published
    instructions for doing so, which are at
    .

    At the very least, that will be because the administrator of the
    64.146.111.234 DNS server clearly _didn't_ follow those instructions.

  2. Re: Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.".

    WS> Alt roots [...] will never work for for the masses.
    WS> People are just not going to change their root-hints
    WS> file to point to non official root servers and that
    WS> should not be a recommendation.

    Wrong in every respect. Alternative "." content DNS service organizations
    _do_ work for the masses, right now, and have done for the past 6 or so
    years. People not only are capable of changing their Root Hints files, but
    indeed _do_ change them. The idea of one company's "." content DNS servers
    being "official" whilst another company's "." content DNS servers are
    "non-official" is fallacious. (Remember: Everyone's answer to "Who owns the
    root of the DNS namespace?" is "I do.", despite what any corporation may claim
    to the contrary.) And there's no reason that a person "should not" recommend
    using an organization's services to someone else, any more than there is a
    reason that they should not recommend buying a brand of canned baked beans to
    someone else.

  3. Re: Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.".


    "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" wrote in message
    news:3F50AC08.A7D7E5AC@tesco.net...
    > HM> It seems that even my interest in such mature and stable
    > HM> alternatives is even in the minority.
    >
    > Possibly, but that minority is certainly a sizable one. ADNS reports one

    of
    > its "." content DNS servers receiving almost 7 million queries during


    We were talking about interest HERE in this newsgroup.

    If you AND I are interested that makes 2 we know of.

    --



  4. Re: Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.".

    AF> Personally I feel I won't be using this service and as
    AF> Jonathan explained, rather use pacroot.net, if at all
    AF> I ever need to bother with the alternate roots.

    It wasn't quite that strong. I was merely saying that if one wants the
    PacificRoot view of the DNS namespace, that the administrator of the
    64.146.111.234 DNS server appears (as far as any sense at all can be made from
    the mess) to be trying to re-publish, one is better off using PacificRoot's
    own servers directly, rather than using an exceedingly badly botched copy.
    There are actually several choices that one has for obtaining augmented root
    service. (I use ORSC, as it happens.)

  5. Re: Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.".

    HM> Jonathon's example of the .SE (does the average admin
    HM> even know offhand WHERE .SE is?) DNS server was
    HM> vulnerable to hijacking is quite sufficient to make this
    HM> point.

    You award too much credit to me. It was Dan Bernstein's example. The
    detailed version is at in the "Trusted
    Servers" section.

    It's also worth noting that the "w3.org." delegation information now uses
    in-bailiwick intermediate domain names. (Ironically: The delegation
    information for "org." doesn't, however. VeriSign could thus hijack "org."
    and any of its subdomains, if it wanted to.)

  6. Re: Legitimate and working alternative roots, versus "dnslife.com.".

    HM> It seems that even my interest in such mature and stable
    HM> alternatives is even in the minority.

    JdeBP> Possibly, but that minority is certainly a sizable one.
    JdeBP> ADNS reports one of its "." content DNS servers receiving
    JdeBP> almost 7 million queries during 2003-05. [...]

    HM> We were talking about interest HERE in this newsgroup.

    .... which you are gauging by looking at who writes on the subject here. But
    such interest is properly gauged by who _reads_ on the subject here, which -
    these being Usenet newsgroups - is impossible to know. (Looking at who writes
    is tantamount to observing a show of hands. But me-tooism is discouraged,
    and, moreover, shows of hands usually don't work on Usenet because lurkers, by
    their very nature, don't raise their hands.)

    This is why I gauged the interest (or at least the subset of the people
    interested comprising those who have been motivated to actual _use_) by
    looking at the traffic statistics of one of the content DNS servers run by one
    of the augmented root organizations. The interest group is not a vanishingly
    small minority in general, so it is reasonable to infer that it is similarly
    not a vanishingly small minority in particular when it comes to (say) just the
    users of Microsoft's DNS server.

+ Reply to Thread