Re: [correction] Re: [ga] sitefinder is back?

[Martin Hannigan <hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:37 PM 9/19/2006, Hugh Dierker wrote:
> So when and where did sitefinder go - that they came back?
> They have been there all along. Is this surprising?

Hugh:

Do you understand the difference between critical
infrastructure and the service provider edge? You seem
to infer that I am incorrect in my assertion that the
network and service provider border and core are not
governed by ICANN.

I'd like to see something to the contrary so I can form
a better, or worse for some, opinion.


-M<






> e
>
> Martin Hannigan <hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> Let's correct a key word, shall we? The key phrase
> would be that you can _not_ relate this to SiteFinder,
> IMHO.
>
> -M<
>
>
>
>
> At 04:06 PM 9/19/2006, kidsearch wrote:
> >http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/03/1359221
> >
> >
>
>
> This is not new news. You *cant* relate it to the SiteFinder
> service since this is inside the borders of the ISP and does
> not impact the global infrastructure. The relationship between
> the provider and it's customers is not governed by ICANN.
>
> It's likely they are using Paxfire. See http://www.paxfire.com/
>
> There are some products coming out around DNS revenue
> capture. If you examine what OpenDNS has done, it's taken
> revenue from the providers. The providers are recapturing
> that revenue. Theoretically[1], you can legitimately drop the
> host routes from something like OpenDNS and redirect them to your
> own solution within the confines of your own network and recapture
> that revenue. We have a new layer developing between the provider
> and their customers within the infrastructure they are
> revenue pirates for all intents and purposes.
>
> -M<
>
>
> [1] There seems to be little reason to believe that there is any
> consequence of dropping a route to another location in a provider
> network, either redirecting it to a similiar provider operated
> service, or dropping altogether. The precedent would be Vixies
> modification of BIND in response to SiteFinder, and the creation
> and adaptation of RBL's. I am not aware of any case law to
> suppor that. IANAL.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
> Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
> Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
> hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Get your email and more, right on the 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42973/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview>new Yahoo.com




--
Martin Hannigan                                (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation                            (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff                      Network Operations
                                               hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx