[91218] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Mon Jul 10 14:41:54 2006
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:41:24 +0200
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <44B25BC8.8000806@easydns.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
* markjr@easydns.com (Mark Jeftovic) [Mon 10 Jul 2006, 15:55 CEST]:
>I think the openDNS approach is far different from the Verisign
>sitefinder debacle if only for the important reason that using openDNS
>is voluntary and using sitefinder wasn't.
Correct. OpenDNS is not abusing a monopoly position here.
>Also, sitefinder created a wildcard DNS record where none existed
>before, breaking all kinds of applications in the process, openDNS
>doesn't do this.
Wrong. Asking their "big caching nameserver" for gibberish returns "IN
A 208.67.219.40" instead of NXDOMAIN. Same breakage occurs, although
they return NXDOMAIN instead of NOERROR when queried about MX or AAAA
records, so ironically damage for IPv6-enabled applications is limited.
They seem to be using Yahoo! as search engine there.
220 reject.opendns.com - OpenDNS Mail Rejection Service 1.2 (No mail accepted here)
Remind you of anything - what was it called, chuck? It's already broken.
>So at the end of the day, people are FREE to decide what resolvers to
>use and whoever comes along to offer their idea of "value adds" can go
>right ahead without borking the internet.
Several people have eloquently expressed why creating different views of
a global namespace is a bad idea before on this mailing list.
>Personally I think openDNS is an idea whose time has come and that Dave
>Ulevitch and is crew are going to hit one out of the ballpark with this.
Have you switched your company over yet?
Regards,
-- Niels.
