Re: DNS: defining "AURSC" domains

Re: DNS: defining "AURSC" domains

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1§>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 19:57:07 +0100
Kim and all,

Kim Davies wrote:

> Quoting Lincoln Dale:
> | >What's with these analogies that make no sense? The purpose of using them
> | >is to relate a characteristic of a known situation to what you're trying
> | >to describe.
> |
> | its simply a case of attempting to avoid the issue.
> Hmmm... "If the Model T Ford is the only TRUE car in the world, what do you
> drive?  A figment of your imagination?"
> | i'm also still attempting to work out who "leigh" is, that adam keeps
> | referring to.  going back through my archive of this list (to early
> | november 1996), I can't find any other references to a person called
> | "leigh".
> |
> | the info i collected in finding out the caching nameservers large isps use,
> | this could be something useful for you to index in the ISP list you keep.
> | waddya think?  it'd be a useful way of finding out the exact (lack-of) uptake
> | of certain bogus root-nameservers.
> It's funny you should mention that. When it was pronounced a few weeks ago
> that AURSC had support from a silent majority, I must admit I was a little
> surprised. I wrote a program that collected the authoritative nameservers
> for the domains of all the IAPs listed in the ISP List. It then queried
> all these nameservers as to their knowledge of "legacy" domains,
> and "AURSC" domains.
> Obviously this isn't perfect but for a large percentage of providers,
> it is very likely the DNS their clients use as a resolver is going to be
> one of their authoritative nameservers. So the results were just to get a
> ballpark idea.
> Anyway, I never got around to running it, but your post reminded me. So
> here are the results..
> Providers that returned records for "", but not "": 591
> Providers that returned records for "":                         4
> Providers that returned records for the domain they are authoritative
>  for, but not for "", "" (presumably don't forward): 13
> Providers whom I got no response from (timed out, etc.):                 17
> FTR, here are the nameservers that knew
> (1) [Closer To Home Systems: Nambour-QLD, Caboolture-QLD]
> (1) [NLC: Terrey_Hills/Sydney-NSW]
> (1) [CyberGate PlaNet: Sydney-NSW]
> (1) [Zed.Net: Silkwood-QLD, Innisfail-QLD]
> Draw whatever conclusions you will, but personally I find it hard to
> believe there is anything but a trivial amount of use of AURSC in relation
> to the number of people using the Internet in Australia.

  Hummmmm?  Intresting data indeed.

> kim
> --
> Check out the Australian ISP List ..

  You have a problem nere however.  This may be resolvable in Australia,
but that is about it.  This URL is not a valid DN as far as the Legacy
Root structure is concerned outside of Australia.  So I find you other
conclusions scepitical at best.


Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1&#167;
Received on Sun Jun 21 1998 - 12:50:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC