[62564] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Germann)
Thu Sep 18 21:36:10 2003
Reply-To: <ekgermann@cctec.com>
From: "Eric Germann" <ekgermann@cctec.com>
To: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:19:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKKEIDGKAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:38 PM
> To: ekgermann@cctec.com; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution
> Sensitivity: Confidential
<snip>
>
> I think the whole idea of getting into an escalating
> technical war with
> Verisign is extremely bad. Your suggestion only makes sense if you expect
> Verisign to make changes to evade technical solutions. Each such change by
> Verisign will cause more breakage. Verisign will either provide a way to
> definitively, quickly, and easily tell that a domain is not registered or
> Verisign will badly break COM and NET.
>
> DS
>
Who said they're logical in their decision making process. While they
experiment with .com/.net, countermeasures are called for. And they have
badly broken .com/.net.
This is just an evolution of the blackhole solution, doing it dynamically.
Keeps us from having to find out they changed it/moved it/etc. And, if
*.com goes away, so does the route :).
>
>
