Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why do people use internal TLDs? (Score 1) 101

by marka63 (#47699371) Attached to: ICANN Offers Fix For Domain Name Collisions

Firstly ICANN had a black list of TLD labels that is wasn't going to allow anyone to apply for because they know they were likely to be in use.

If they looked at every "bad" TLD name that hit the root servers they could never add any new TLDs.

Having awarded contracts for TLD's they are try to minimise the impact on those labels that didn't make the black list or that they were unaware of.

Actually they do own and run one of the root servers. The company I work for owns and runs another of them. I submitted arguments, as a private individual, to not expand the root zone when this was being mooted. That all being said they are the legitimate party to decide what gets added to the root zone.

Comment: Re:1993 All over again (RFC-1935) (Score 1) 101

by marka63 (#47692885) Attached to: ICANN Offers Fix For Domain Name Collisions

This isn't RFC 1535 all over again unless you are using partially qualified names where the end of the partially qualified name just happens to match one of the new TLDs. Partially qualified names have always been dangerous.

I just wish I had been able to convince Paul to break all existing use of partially qualified names back then by not appending search elements to any name with multiple labels. As much as foo.lab is convenient to type, was safe as was foo + as a search list element.

Comment: Re:Why do people use internal TLDs? (Score 1) 101

by marka63 (#47692805) Attached to: ICANN Offers Fix For Domain Name Collisions

They don't own you. However they are the authority for which names are added to the root zone. New TLD labels have always been possible and have been added from time to time.

The RBDMS vendors that squatted on a TLD were not rational actors. They knew or should have known that new TLDs could be added to the DNS at anytime. That new TLDS would be added to the DNS was published as part of the switch from a flat namespace to a hierarchical namespace. They failed to do due diligence. If they wanted a reserved name they could have requested one or heaven forbid registered one.

This is like vendors that squatted on address space.

Comment: Re:Why do people use internal TLDs? (Score 1) 101

by marka63 (#47692701) Attached to: ICANN Offers Fix For Domain Name Collisions

Firstly ICANN didn't just assert ownership of the root. They inherited it along with the rest of the IANA.

And the administrators gambled that no one else would ever register that tld. Sorry they just lost that bet.

The DNS is designed to allow everyone to have their own namespace. To do this you need to register the name so that it can be uniquely yours. If you can't register it, don't use it. Period.

As for those protocols they could have requested a reserved name. They just failed to do so. There have always been processes to get reserved names.

Comment: Re:Ipv6 to ipv4 interoperability is only way (Score 1) 248

by marka63 (#47662661) Attached to: The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Until there is sufficient IPv6 penetration that continuing to run IPv4 becomes pointless. If you turn on IPv6 on home networks over half the incoming traffic will be IPv6 traffic. Globally IPv6 is 4-6% IP traffic depending upon where you measure it. IP has replaced many networking protocols in the past. IPv6 will replace IPv4. The writing is already on the wall.

Many networks today are IPv6 only internally with protocol translation to talk to the legacy IPv4 Internet.

Other are dual stack translated to IPv6 only then translated back to dual stack on the Internet.

With IPv4 you are only going to get less and less functionality now that many ISP's are getting to the stage of having to deploy CGNAT. As a home user having a publicly reachable address will become a thing of the past.

Comment: Re:1 or 1 million (Score 1) 274

by marka63 (#47547635) Attached to: Verizon Now Throttling Top 'Unlimited' Subscribers On 4G LTE

So Verizon made a bet that customers wouldn't use the unlimited data that they sold them and they lost. Tough!

It looks like Verizon should start offering plans that reflect the actual cost to supply. Those that use the most pay the most.

Have data caps. Throttle users once they reach those caps. This puts back pressure on the users in terms of cost.

Provide incentive to time shift data transfers to the quieter periods. e.g. Only count 1/2 the data between 02:00 and 06:00 for
example and let the customers know.

Comment: Re:not likely (Score 1) 200

by marka63 (#47537657) Attached to: Cable Companies: We're Afraid Netflix Will Demand Payment From ISPs

It costs NetFix $X to supply the cache per month over the lifetime of the cache box. It also costs them $Y to populate the cache as this still has to go over paid transit + the cost of the tail $Z. Against this is the cost of just sending it all via paid transit $T. Remember the "cache" isn't a pure cache. It has movies pushed to it without there being a request for them in multiple forms.

For small nets $X + $Y + $Z > $T. As the size of the net increases the balance switches to $X + $Y + $Z $T.

Do you really think it is fair to demand that Netflix take a cost hit just to provide you with a cache?

Comment: Re:Even better, reflect true cost of cell phones (Score 2) 77

by marka63 (#47535809) Attached to: Compromise Struck On Cellphone Unlocking Bill

Only because of rip off plans.

In sane countries you have "bring your own phone" plans which are cheaper that ones with phones and contracts where the cost of the phone is itemised and disappears once it is paid off. You can also unlock the phone at anytime for a small fee while in contract and $0 out of contract. The contracts are advertised with minimum spend over X months. This is what the carrier expects to get from you regardless of whether you use the phone or not. It is also what you are expected to pay.

System checkpoint complete.