nanog mailing list archives
Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
From: Phil Howard <phil () whistler intur net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:27:08 -0600 (CST)
Daniel Senie wrote:
And most of the domains never have working name servers at all. The internic rules say you're supposed to have name service first. This isn't always practical, but if speculative domains don't have DNS within a few days, I'd think that'd be enough to wipe the allocations.
So many people keep harping on the point of having name servers first. But that's a silly and moot point. The name servers may well be behind a firewall and the use of the domain name is intended for internal use and needs to be registered externally for the same reason one should use allocated address space from ARIN instead of picking random addresses. This is like telling people they have to be routed on the Internet to be able to get an address allocation.
Actually, at this point I'd be happy to supply a credit card or a funded InterNIC account number along with applications. Money up front may well be the only way to clobber speculators.
This is a more reasonable way to begin to block those speculators that are ripping off the system. There are a number of variations I am sure InterNIC could do. Among them would be to expedite new domain requests if the credit card payment, or established account authenticity, has been included with the request. Other ideas include limiting the number of outstanding requests per contact. If you have more than N unpaid domains, you can't regiater any more on that contact until you either pay up on some or delete some. Another idea I have for InterNIC would be that when a domain is released for non-payment, put it on "lockout" (just seeking a new term here) for a random period of time. If during the lockout period, a new request for it comes in, reject the request and extend the lockout for a new random amount of time. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* phil at intur.net * --
Current thread:
- Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC John Fraizer (Jan 15)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Steven J. Sobol (Jan 16)
- Message not available
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 16)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Steven J. Sobol (Jan 16)
- Message not available
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Steven J. Sobol (Jan 16)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 18)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Daniel Senie (Jan 18)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Edward S. Marshall (Jan 18)
- Message not available
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC John M. Brown (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Rich Sena (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Daniel Senie (Jan 18)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC sthaug (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Dean Robb (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC John Fraizer (Jan 19)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 20)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Derek Balling (Jan 20)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Phil Howard (Jan 20)
- Message not available
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 20)
- Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC Brett Frankenberger (Jan 20)
- Message not available
- Should Extranets be congruent with the Internet? (was Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC) Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 20)