Slashdot Mirror
.org Registry Offline - Not
einer writes "According to the The Register, the registry containing all of the .org tld information has fallen off the planet. The article is light on details, and doesn't list any potential consequences. " It looks like it's the server that maintains the records for who owns what .org domain - and a big "I Told You So" for Verisign. And of course, now it seems to be working just fine. Good work, PIR.
And I thought the blender.org era was a good thing... Things like this support the corporate credibility in the IT ages. *sigh*
But, this was a concern when the whole TLD split-up was initially suggested. I'm no fan of Verisign but, Network Solutions and Verisign ran a tight ship. This type of thing just didn't happen. ICANN made a big mistake with their breakup of the registrars and this is likely to become a frequent problem.
The worst part is, with the way the resgistrars are distributed now, the blame game is going to be rediculous with everyone pointing at the other guy. In the past there was no question as to who was responsible for any issues.
Why do we have to have a system that relies on single points of failure for each of the main TLDs? Each "maintainer" of the TLD is subject to problems - both mechanical (system failures, congestion, etc.) and human (stupidity, politics, luck).
I don't think the founding fathers of the Internet thought it of it being like this.
Anyone who followed the .Org bidding process knew this day was coming. ICANN's summary dismissal of the IMS/ISC bid as being too technical ("Internet is hard", says ICANN) in favor of 2-bit registrars who "white washed" their record by getting a major NGO to sit on the board made it inevitable.
If you were going to use it as your nameserver then yes, you would. But that's not what the parent was saying.
As it happens, you shouldn't be doing this at all. It's unecessary traffic. Your DNS server should always be close. In fact some authoritative name servers don't even do recursive lookups to prevent the sort of (ab)use that you suggested.
But it's moot really. This doesn't affect DNS.
People: If this is an issue at all (I see nothing wrong anywhere [maybe PIR got them back up?] and I don't exactly trust The Register's clue level anyway) then the only issue is WHOIS related. There's no problem with any root servers, thus this isn't a DNS problem.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
I wouldn't go villifying anyone just yet.
-transiit
In other words, this was a horrible article to post.
--------
Free your mind.
My .org domain ran fine all weekend. I do not believe there is any issue of real importance behind all this fooferaw.
.org domain without specifying a valid .org whois server. THE SKY IS FALLING! Guess what, you can't whois a .mil domain without specifying a valid .mil whois server. Nothing to report here, system works as advertised.
.org names seem to resolve fine, and I got a total of ZERO problem reports over the weekend from our 24x7 .org site. Did anyone else have a real DNS problem, or is this all a case of the Register placing too much value on the compiled-in defaults for the whois client?
You can't "whois" a
The important function of a registrar is to feed names into the root nameservers. I don't see any indication of any flaws in that process. All the
Anyone?
No matter how long it was on the front page, this article sullied the reputation of the .org folks, and they deserve an apology and a retraction.
Unless, of course, the Reg doesn't take responsibility for what it publishes. Like a lot of so called "news" sites out there. Heck, even slashdot posts retractions once in a blue moon or two.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
"By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy."
Yeah, that code in MySQL that makes sure users use updated whois clients is really cool. PostgreSQL might get a similar feature soon, but by then MySQL will have an even better feature that prevents The Register from publishing bogus articles about servers being down when they're up. MySQL rocks! Go MySQL!
It's premature to speculate on the cause of the outage
On a more serious note, it's premature to even say there was an outage.
It would appear that, although the original story is still available at the full URL, the Register has taken down all links to it from other areas of the site.
This would be the same site whose journalists often raise an almighty fuss when other publications do exactly the same thing.
I guess they're not double standards when they're your double standards.