[35467] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Namespace conflicts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Lettington)
Fri Mar 9 12:49:43 2001
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010309094202.030ea7a0@tfl.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:43:01 -0800
To: owen@dixon.delong.sj.ca.us (Owen DeLong), smb@research.att.com,
bandregg@redhat.com
From: Tom Lettington <tom@tfl.net>
Cc: smcmahon@eiv.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200103091721.JAA05719@irkutsk.delong.sj.ca.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
ISI delegated the registration of .US domains a long time ago.
See http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/us-domain-delegated.txt
At 09:21 AM 3/9/2001 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin mailed:
> > > In my area of NJ, virtually every town's "obvious" .com domain names
> were
> > > grabbed by one of two competing would-be service providers. They had
> > > absolutely no town-specific content -- but if the town wanted a Web
> > > site, they had no choice but to deal with these folks. I have no major
> > > problem with first-come, first-served *productive* use of a domain name,
> > > but frankly, that's not where the problem has been. The problem has
> > > been speculators and cybersquatters.
> >
> > Uh, why couldn't the town just use <name>.nj.us or whatever the city
> specific
> > code was long ago and far way.
>
>No. However, they could use ci.<name>.nj.us, and that's where I usually go
>if I'm looking for a particular city's web site.
>
>The reason for this distinction is to support things like:
>
> ci.alameda.ca.us City of Alameda
> co.alameda.ca.us County of Alameda
> joesshoes.alameda.ca.us Joe's Shoe Shop in Alameda, CA
>
>etc. There's an RFC that spells all this out (1680 comes to mind, but not
>sure that's the right number).
>
>
>Owen
