Subject: Re: wcard-clarify's change

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:31:57 +1000

> >> a useful application of wildcard cnames was just pointed out to me.
> >> 
> >> i often get folk asking me 
> >>   o is foo.{gn,lr,ng,...} taken?
> >>   o if not, how do i register it?
> >> 
> >> and i could simply do
> >>    *.gn.    cname	no-domain.psg.com.
> >>    *.lr.    cname	no-domain.psg.com.
> >>    *.ng.    cname	no-domain.psg.com.
> >>    ...
> >> 
> >> and use a name-based virtual server to tell them the name is not in
> >> use and point them to the forms and procedures to register in the
> >> domain(s).
> >> 
> >> otoh, admittedly, i could use up an ip address, and not use a
> >> name-based virtual server.  but this is still a valid use of

	You can still use a name-based virtual server with IP addresses.

> >> randy
> > One would hope as technical contact for those tld's that
> > you would actually dissuade this use.
> 
> perhaps you would care to go beyond hope into technical or social
> reasons why this is damaging to the internet?
> 
> randy

	I actually like to get error messages when I mistype a address.

bsdi:src 09:17 {1899} % date; telnet xxx.yy.uk ; date
Mon Sep 29 09:18:10 EST 2003
xxx.yy.uk: No address associated with hostname
Mon Sep 29 09:18:10 EST 2003
bsdi:src 09:18 {1900} % date; telnet this-name-doesnt-exist.com ; date
Mon Sep 29 09:18:18 EST 2003
Trying 64.94.110.11...
telnet: connect to address 64.94.110.11: Operation timed out
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
Mon Sep 29 09:19:33 EST 2003
bsdi:src 09:18 {1901} % 

	Lots of traffic for no real benefit on other techniques for
	finding out if a name exists or not.  Verisign don't even
	send RST with their sitefinder service.

09:22:03.743383 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 202454889 0> (DF) [tos 0x10] 
09:22:06.739395 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 202455189 0> (DF) [tos 0x10] 
09:22:09.939438 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 202455509 0> (DF) [tos 0x10] 
09:22:13.139500 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460> (DF) [tos 0x10] 
09:22:16.339581 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460> (DF) [tos 0x10] 
09:22:19.539617 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460> (DF) [tos 0x10] 
09:22:25.739726 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460> (DF) [tos 0x10] 
09:22:37.939919 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460> (DF) [tos 0x10] 
09:23:02.140393 211.29.163.60.3839 > 64.94.110.11.23: S 323070240:323070240(0) win 57344 <mss 1460> (DF) [tos 0x10] 

--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:42:56 -0700

> Mon Sep 29 09:19:33 EST 2003

yep.  but not one of the folk who ask me "is domain name foo taken"
would know an error message if windows 95 gave it to them.  and they
think dig is something done with a shovel, unless they're over 50 and
still think they're pretty hep.

end users seem to use dns for web lookup and for email addresses.
but duane wessels's environmental impact statement is relevant to
this as well <http://www.packet-pushers.net/tld-wildcards/>.  so,
while i don't think i will do it, i suspect other will, and i am
not sure i should tell them they absolutely shouldn't.

have you tried <http://no-domane.museum/>?

randy