[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ej7ujjyj.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 20:02:28 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Root name server changes -> bind
* Jonathan Smith:
> So, why are they running a DNS server on that IP?
I can't speak for them. Why does one run a root server? I don't know.
> | ICANN should have arranged for a longer transition period, as it was
> | done in previous transitions (I think a few older address still respond
> | to queries).
>
> I think the transition period began in late 2007, but this is the first
> I've (and, I think, many others) heard about it.
A period of six months is relatively short, compared to previous
transitions and software release cycles.
> | There's no way to retire an IP address, especially if it is located in a
> | network prefix that is still in production (which was a driving force
> | behind most past root servers migrations).
>
> I was under the impression that ICANN "owned" or at least "was in charge
> of" the allocation of IPs for the root name servers.
No, this is not the case. They didn't even control fully the old L root
prefix, which partly motivated the migration.
> So why couldn't they just bar (via policy, not via technical means)
> whoever owns the rest of the prefix that IP is in from using it?
They don't own the IP addresses. AFAIK, only one root operator has
entered into an agreement with ICANN. DNS root operations are totally
self-regulated, and as we can see, this works (sort of).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
