Re: [ga] Re: Root server traffic

[Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ram Mohan wrote:

>
>> I am far from being a technical guru, therefore I might stand
>> corrected, but
>> AFAIK the Chinese use a translation of an url of the type
>> <domain_name>.<IDN_TLD> into <domain_name>.<IDN_TLD>.cn.
>
>
> Roberto, from what I have heard - this is what's being done:
> <domainname>.公司 is translated into <domainname>.公司.com.cn (with 公
> 司's punycode equivalent) and then sent through the regular DNS
> system. The tweaks to the DNS are to append the ".com.cn" to the end
> of the label.

Thats right ram. But translations or not they are still TLDs. I expect
the dns record for them may very well be punnycode-tld DNAME i.e.
<domain_name>.<IDN_TLD> into <domain_name>.<IDN_TLD>.cn. Thats not the
point. The point here is that these are still fully functional tlds.

Technical example here. If we query the china root for the TLD
XN--55QX5D. - which represents one of the chinese TLDs we get this:

$ dig @a.dns.cn. XN--55QX5D. NS

; <<>> DiG 9.2.3 <<>> @a.dns.cn. XN--55QX5D. NS
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 41
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 4

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;XN--55QX5D. IN NS

;; ANSWER SECTION:
XN--55QX5D. 7200 IN NS cdns3.cnnic.net.cn.
XN--55QX5D. 7200 IN NS cdns4.cnnic.net.cn.
XN--55QX5D. 7200 IN NS cdns5.cnnic.net.cn.
XN--55QX5D. 7200 IN NS hawk2.cnnic.net.cn.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
cdns3.cnnic.net.cn. 600 IN A 210.52.214.86
cdns4.cnnic.net.cn. 600 IN A 61.145.114.120
cdns5.cnnic.net.cn. 600 IN A 61.139.76.55
hawk2.cnnic.net.cn. 600 IN A 159.226.6.185

;; Query time: 290 msec
;; SERVER: 203.119.25.1#53(a.dns.cn.)
;; WHEN: Fri Nov 23 10:42:49 2007
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 184

The response is NOERROR. Thats means to any expert that the TLD does in
fact exist. No amount of ICANN buffunery is ever going to change that.
Because if we ask the ICANN servers the same question we get:

$ dig @a.root-servers.net. XN--55QX5D. NS

; <<>> DiG 9.2.3 <<>> @a.root-servers.net. XN--55QX5D. NS
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 41
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;XN--55QX5D. IN NS

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
. 86400 IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2007112300
1800 900 604800 86400

;; Query time: 60 msec
;; SERVER: 198.41.0.4#53(a.root-servers.net.)
;; WHEN: Fri Nov 23 10:46:53 2007
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 103

And NXDOMAIN means in ICANN speak a bogus domain. It does not exist at
ICANN.

The technical damage being done by ICANN to the internet infrastructure
by refusing to acknowledge the china TLDs is reflected in the 98% error
rate. Back years ago 20% of that error was for bogus tld space. Thats
alot of error traffic on the net caused by ICANNs refusal to recognise
the chinese. I expect the china root traffic rate at ICANN is high.
People communicate with each other, they share URLs, they click - and
the icann root gets asked a question they don't know the answer too.

ICANN promised the Department of Commerce that it would not cause harm
to the internet. Yet it causes harm every day as ICANN ignores the rapid
expansion of IDN TLD internet traffic. Bulgaria is now on board. Whats
the error rate at icann roots these days from that. No one knows and no
one is offering any answers.

And as a facilitator of open name space I find you guys at ICANN
shameful for failing to resolve one of the biggest expanding internet
universes in town - the china national TLDs. No wonder the chinese are
so pissed off with you guys these days.

In an earlier message Roberto said that these TLDs are "still bogus,
because they are quesries sent to the wrong service" just makes me laugh
when it comes to the china national tlds. Come on Roberto - 50,000,000
people daily can't be using bogus tlds everyday. And this wrong service
idea represents what the tech call internet fractures. Thats a violation
of IETF RFC. The ICANN root is a disaster - it does not see the world.

Well thats my two cents for the record.

regards
joe baptista

> -ram
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Joe Baptista'" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "'Ross Rader'" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 7:53 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Root server traffic
>
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
>>
>> Well how do you explain .elvis? or .corp? Neither are mistypes.
>
>
> Correct. However, they are still bogus, because they are quesries sent to
> the wrong service.
> This is sort of what I call the "Cacao Meravigliao" effect (one of
> this days
> I will send an off-topic message to describe the phenomenon to folks who,
> due to age or geographical location, were not exposed to it): the
> request is
> formally compliant with what you have heard about, but addressed the
> wrong
> person.
>
>
>>
>> What is happening here is people sharing URLs outside their
>> local root are causing a good deal of the heavy traffic at
>> IANA roots. China is one excellent example of this. The
>> chinese TLDss 中国 (which means “China"),
>> 公司 (which means “company"), and 网络 (which means “net") are
>> used by over 50 million people daily. When those people
>> communicate with others who do not use the china root and
>> send them china root URLs then anytime those IANA users click
>> on these URLs the net result is the root servers get queried.
>> That means the logs at the IANA roots show traffic for these
>> TLDs, or more specifically their IDN equivalents.
>
>
> I am far from being a technical guru, therefore I might stand
> corrected, but
> AFAIK the Chinese use a translation of an url of the type
> <domain_name>.<IDN_TLD> into <domain_name>.<IDN_TLD>.cn. This
> translation is
> done by the ISP, without the user knowing. So, when users outside
> China try
> to refer to an url of that type, they get what is fairly logical to
> get: an
> error. This affects users resident outside China, as well as Chinese
> travelling abroad. The equivalent example in terms of telephone, is
> somebody
> calling a chinese number without dialling the +86, and expecting it to
> work:
> it does while you are in China, while it does not from outside China.
>
>
>>
>> Think about it folks - that 50 million users accessing TLDs
>> outside the IANA deprecated root. Anytime those users
>> communicate with other using those URLs - bingo the roots get
>> a request for something they don't know. And I suspect 50
>> millions users associated with those TLDs are causing alot of
>> error traffic at the IANA roots.
>
>
> True, that it generates a lot of bogus traffic.
> False, that they are trying to access sites not reachable via the
> standard
> root.
> The so-called "Chinese root" is only a [set of] branch[es] under the .cn
> TLD. These IDN TLDs are, in fact, IDN SLDs under .cn. Something that
> exists
> under many TLDs in the standard root, and something that can be easily
> accessed if you use the "real" url, not relying on a translation by an
> intermediate element of the chain.
> As a matter of fact, the argumentation used based on the observation
> of the
> high error rate is the most powerful argument I have seen so far for a
> unique interoperable system: if you do not use the standard, you get
> lots of
> errors.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
>


-- 
Joe Baptista                                www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
  Office: +1 (202) 517-1593
     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

begin:vcard
fn:Joe Baptista
n:Baptista;Joe
org:PublicRoot Consortium
adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada
email;internet:baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:PublicRoot Representative
tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084 
tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.publicroot.org
version:2.1
end:vcard