[63369] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Removal of wildcard A records from .com and .net zones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Petri Helenius)
Fri Oct 3 18:08:18 2003
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:06:59 +0300
From: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>
To: Matt Larson <mlarson@verisign.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20031003215002.GP3538@chinook.rgy.netsol.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Matt Larson wrote:
>VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
>0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
>to give more notice to the community but were denied. We will be
>removing the wildcard A records from the .com and .net zones beginning
>at 2300 UTC on Saturday, October 4. The former behavior for these
>zones (returning Name Error/RCODE=3 in response to queries for
>nonexistent domain names) will be in place by 0100 UTC on Sunday,
>October.
>
>
It should be noted that this notice has significantly more leadtime to
the change (return to normal)
behaviour than Verisign thought neccessary to "notify the community",
they seemingly started
to care about lately, when they introduced the wildcards in the first
place.
To refresh the memories:
#Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:24:29 -0400
#The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from
#10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is
#being added now.
So my question is, why there should have been an "extension" ?
Why did Verisign ask for an extension in the first place? Would the
estimated $250k
daily advertising revenue have anything to do with this? Would Verisign
contribute
that towards ICANN in case an extension have been granted?
Pete
