text: ICANN Considers Using '127.0.53.53' To Tackle DNS Namespace Collisions
  samzenpus posted about 1 month ago | from the that-doesn't-look-right dept.
  (4, Insightful)
  dmitrygr (736758) | about 1 month ago | (#46355123)
  Re:hacky (5, Funny)
  DrPBacon (3044515) | about 1 month ago | (#46355133)
  Re:hacky (5, Funny)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355169)
  ICANT think of anything better.
  ICANN!
  Re:hacky (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355823)
  If anyone can, ICANN can
  Re:hacky (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46356025)
  Assuming it involves enough industry 'incentives' of course
  Re:hacky (2, Insightful)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46357037)
  Here's a better solution
  Refuse to resolve any of the new gTLDs. Start petitions and stuff get you isps to refuse to resolves them. Get distros to patch their networking code to refuse to resolve them. Make them worthless.
  Re:hacky (3, Interesting)
  hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 1 month ago | (#46355219):hacky (2, Insightful)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355277)
  What makes you think that a browser getting a 127.0.53.53 won't return a meaningful and very descriptive error? It is a special case worth flagging if ever their was one.
  Re:hacky (4, Interesting)
  DarkOx (621550) | about 1 month ago | (#46355991):hacky (2)
  Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 1 month ago | (#46356045) attempt to broaden what is now done with "example.com". It also has the benefit that it's not auto-activated in default Kerberos configurations, a bit of behavior that genuinely alarms me in most default Kerberos setups and which few configuration tools have the ability to remove.
  Re:hacky (1)
  MichaelSmith (789609) | about 1 month ago | (#46355297) (5, Interesting)
  DarkOx (621550) | about 1 month ago | (#46355921) (1)
  WaffleMonster (969671) | about 1 month ago | (#46355317) (4, Insightful)
  hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 1 month ago | (#46355381): hacky (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355671)
  Answering the call for engineers or "web developers"?
  Re:hacky (1)
  jawtheshark (198669) | about 1 month ago | (#46355347)
  Host files? Are you serious? Nobody outside the tech world uses those and even the techs don't use it except for very very specific cases. For the normal users there is DNS-SD (Zeroconf) and anybody more technical is better off simply setting up a DNS server with authoritative zone for the local network (Which is why I hate these new TLDs... My domain of choice might be sold someday and I'll have to give it up using locally... having to use the boring
  .local or .home), with the added benefit of having a real DNS server on site becoming totally independent of the ISP DNS (well, unless you want to make a forwarding one).
  This is a problem of their making. The generic TLDs shouldn't ever have been introduced.
  Re:hacky (1)
  therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about 1 month ago | (#46355743)
  If you have a local authoritative server, why will you have to give up your local domain? (unless you actually want to access the new rightful owner's network)
  Re:hacky (1)
  jawtheshark (198669) | about 1 month ago | (#46355817)
  Perhaps it makes it slightly clearer. Contrary to popular belief, an authoritative server does not need to be authoritative for the public internet. Locally is just fine. Just don't use stuff that clashes with the public DNS system.
  Re:hacky (1)
  jawtheshark (198669) | about 1 month ago | (#46355831)
  Re:hacky (4, Interesting)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355369):hacky (1)
  jafiwam (310805) | about 1 month ago | (#46356051) (3, Insightful)
  Stalks (802193) | about 1 month ago | (#46356475)
  Re:hacky (2)
  janeuner (815461) | about 1 month ago | (#46356991)
  How do you put up a parking page that listens on loopback?
  By sitting in a board room without any clue where your money comes from.
  Re:hacky (4, Insightful)
  fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 1 month ago | (#46355331).
  Re: hacky (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46356605)
  This entire proposal makes no sense and sounds like a bunch of clueless morons sat around a table and discussed it, when their techs asked or answered their questions they dreamt up some clueless answers thinking they may have understood the issue when in reality the entire decision was out of ignorance.
  Return NXDOMAIN for bad data, even -if- it is an emergency (if it's a massive DDOS they aren't going to do new DNS lookups, it's already cached!)
  Don't prevent new tlds just because some idiot used it internally at mega-corp. assign the fucker TODAY and direct they to a web server with the bloody RFCS telling them how stupid they are and to fix their problem, not make it ours.
  resolv.conf (1)
  Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 1 month ago | (#46355147)
  search mydomain.com
  nameserver 127.0.0.1
  There, problem solved.
  No need to say thank you...
  Re:resolv.conf (2, Funny)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355231)
  I'm using MSDOS, you insensitive clod!
  Re:resolv.conf (1)
  0xdeaddead (797696) | about 1 month ago | (#46355337)
  Re:resolv.conf (2)
  rvw (755107) | about 1 month ago | (#46355607)
  wattcp has been around for ages. Like, seriously, where have you been?... [vogons.org]
  He clearly needs to reconfigure his extended memory.
  Re: resolv.conf (1)
  AvitarX (172628) | about 1 month ago | (#46355923)
  Yay, now there's an entire TLD you can't access.
  /24), eventually it was a problem.
  I worked at a small business where the previous admin had read about 1/3 of every sentence about networking I think (the internal networks were 192.1.1.0, 196.1.1.0 and 196.0.0.0 (all
  To be fair, it was in '98, and he was self taught.
  emergency! emergency! I say (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355157)
  forcibly de-delegate google.com immediately. Its existence is offensive.
  emergency response options (4, Insightful)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355173)
  In addition the report recommends emergency response options, which will be employed only in situations "where there is a reasonable belief that the DNS namespace collision presents a clear and present danger to human life".
  In other words, the DNS will be used for political oppression.
  Re:emergency response options (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355191)
  DNS will be used for political oppression.
  It must be American-made!
  Obsolete (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355195)
  The IP/MAC addressing scheme it hacked to death already. How many protocols are used to get a single packet to its destination now? 50-100 or more? It's unfortunate that a better tiered scheme wasn't chosen to begin with, but with only a dozen or so nodes who knew it would grow to such an extent. If it where designed today, it'd be drastically different in architecture.
  Re:Obsolete (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355209)
  You don't know what a protocol is, do you?
  Re: Obsolete (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355259)
  Sure I do... Try ARP, TCP, DNS, IP, ETHERNET, 802.xx, MAC, BGP, HTTP (to get the port number).... Randomly tossed out there, it goes on and on and on... Most convert between PHY hardware layer, but still IP has dozens of adressing and routing protocols? Do you know what a protocol is?
  Re: Obsolete (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355283)
  Oh my god! Ethernet and MAC are protocols!?!? Holy crap I best relearn the way things work!
  Re: Obsolete (3, Funny)
  aichpvee (631243) | about 1 month ago | (#46355351)
  Boy, boy, stop fighting with yourself.
  Re: Obsolete (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355403)
  For some reason I though of my first fight with Tyler.
  Re: Obsolete (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355363)
  Ethernet, 802, and MAC are the same thing. So that's a list of nine protocols with three redundancies. The only way you're going to involve more than a hundred protocols to get a single packet to its destination is by introducing a whole lot more ignorant redundancies. I know! Let's say HTTP and HTTp and HTtp and Http and http are all different things, too!
  Re:Obsolete (2)
  Jesrad (716567) | about 1 month ago | (#46355287) are a few better ways to name and address machines and route data to those addresses, which would make more sense at the current scale and form of the Internet. Might as well question the principle of maintaining a shared namespace in the first place instead of letting nodes make up their own (and sharing these namespaces, or fractions of those namespaces, between each other), too.
  Re:Obsolete (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355383)
  A layered model of networking protocols works just fine, thanks. But if you're interested in redesigning things, the English language is kind of old. It must be obsolete! Combining letters to make words is too much trouble. Surely there must be a better way, such as some kind of series of meaningful grunts. We can call it hipster grunt protocol. Grunt! Grunt! Grunt! Grunt! Grunt!
  Re:Obsolete (3, Informative)
  DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 1 month ago | (#46355409):Obsolete (1)
  Buck Feta (3531099) | about 1 month ago | (#46355551)
  (IPv4 is up to 15 characters in decimal, IPv6 would be up to 63 characters if we used decimal (only 39 in quad-character hex).
  v4 is 32 bits, v6 is 128 bits (not 15 and 63). v6 is 32 chars in hex, if not dropping zeroes. Otherwise, a good post.
  Re:Obsolete (1)
  Buck Feta (3531099) | about 1 month ago | (#46355559)
  Re:Obsolete (1)
  Sique (173459) | about 1 month ago | (#46355867)
  Re:Obsolete (1)
  thogard (43403) | about 1 month ago | (#46355837)/13/2 dstbits 4 srcbits 8"
  Re:Obsolete (2)
  davidhoude (1868300) | about 1 month ago | (#46356139)
  Why bother? (4, Insightful)
  fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 1 month ago | (#46355239)
  :Why bother? (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46356255)
  Heh heh. Reminds me of a former workplace, a department of the federal government. We had a... complex DNS setup (this was years ago) and sometimes things would act up a little. Usually not enough to bother regular users, but writing networked / Web based applications, I'd often notice it first. I'd call downstairs (that group was on the basement level, just like the IT Crowd) and they'd assure that everything was working fine. But in 5 minutes to half an hour, it would suddenly *actually* start working fine. They really were good folks, they were just pathologically unable to admit to anything being wrong.
  Re:Why bother? (1)
  bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 1 month ago | (#46356731)
  stilted non-denials from people who should have known better and vicious mockery from everybody else
  Oh, you've had to speak with Exchange admins who can't figure out what HELO is too?
  STOP (5, Insightful)
  WaffleMonster (969671) | about 1 month ago | (#46355255) (1)
  dosius (230542) | about 1 month ago | (#46355323)
  Like 0.0.0.0?
  Re:STOP (2)
  Z00L00K (682162) | about 1 month ago | (#46355415)
  Or 255.255.255.255 - broadcast to the whole internet - get spammed by replies!
  Re:STOP (1)
  davidhoude (1868300) | about 1 month ago | (#46355427)
  Re:STOP (1)
  MichaelSmith (789609) | about 1 month ago | (#46355453)
  Then TLD . and we will be truly fucked.
  Re:STOP (1)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355785)
  ...hammer time.
  Re:STOP (4, Funny)
  thogard (43403) | about 1 month ago | (#46355895)
  I know a few people who have conspired to tell others that the nontraditional domains are like 1-900 phone numbers and when you use them, you will get a bill from your ISP.
  Re:STOP (1)
  mysidia (191772) | about 1 month ago | (#46355985).
  Those wondering why 53.53 (4, Informative)
  hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 1 month ago | (#46355271)
  Re:Those wondering why 53.53 (3, Funny)
  davidhoude (1868300) | about 1 month ago | (#46355429)
  Re:Those wondering why 53.53 (1, Informative)
  Opportunist (166417) | about 1 month ago | (#46355965)
  Money. Next question?
  Re:Those wondering why 53.53 (-1)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355433)
  Captain Obvious to the rescue!
  Re:Those wondering why 53.53 (1)
  jones_supa (887896) | about 1 month ago | (#46355495)
  Re:Those wondering why 53.53 (4, Informative)
  hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 1 month ago | (#46355693)
  Re:Those wondering why 53.53 (1)
  LoRdTAW (99712) | about 1 month ago | (#46356523)
   external "public" DNS servers to return a specific loopback address which would hopefully show up in logs to alert me to the fact that my routers DNS server should know better than to try to publically resolve lordtaw.home over the internet. Correct?
  When greed breaks stuff (2)
  trifish (826353) | about 1 month ago | (#46355329)
  All the people who warned them that they will cause permanent micro- and macro- disasters all over the world have been ignored. Due to greed. Let them be proud of their achievement.
  Re:When greed breaks stuff (1)
  hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 1 month ago | (#46355731)
  All the people who warned them that they will cause permanent micro- and macro- disasters
  Many political figures have actually a "micro" view of events - i.e. the time difference [ NextElection - now ]. Not enough to accurately consider something as diluted in time as global warming.
  Re:When greed breaks stuff (1)
  Opportunist (166417) | about 1 month ago | (#46355961)
  Think again: When (not if) the shit hits the fan, who do you think will get the blame? The C-level that fucked up and didn't even understand the problem or the admin who was never informed about it?
  IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD prolif (2)
  unixisc (2429386) | about 1 month ago | (#46355385):IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD pro (1)
  MichaelSmith (789609) | about 1 month ago | (#46355449)
  Having new TLDs beside
  .com should be better for the internet. Multiple name spaces should facilitate load sharing between DNS servers.
  Re:IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD pro (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355461)
  There have always been plenty of TLDs, they just haven't been used. How's that going to change with new ones?
  Re:IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD pro (1)
  unixisc (2429386) | about 1 month ago | (#46355463)
  Re:IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD pro (1)
  KiloByte (825081) | about 1 month ago | (#46356053)
  this TLD proliferation shouldn't have been done
  Full stop. Your conditional clause is unnecessary and wrong here. As much as we need IPv6, the TLD diarrhoea should never have been allowed to happen.
  Re:IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD pro (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355543)
  The parent comment has the same level of expertise I've come to expect from ICANN... too bad I cannot mod it -5 idiotic...
  Re:IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD pro (1)
  mysidia (191772) | about 1 month ago | (#46355953)
  Having new TLDs beside
  .com should be better for the internet. Multiple name spaces should facilitate load sharing between DNS servers.
  No it won't. Everyone still needs a
  .COM.
  Alternate TLDs are a novelty market.
  Re:IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD pro (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355541)
  Wut?
  ICANN getting evil with TLDs has nothing to do with IPv6 proliferation...
  Re:IPv6 should have been entrenched before TLD pro (1)
  jon3k (691256) | about 1 month ago | (#46356405)
  Ipv4 served, but ipv6 ? (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355467)
  Trapping TLD for Ipv4 would be fine, but what would be the equivalent for Ipv6 ?
  /8, but there is only one place like ::1
  Loopback is 127.0.0.0
  So what trick would ICANN use for IPv6 ?
  FMPOV, the proposal is only a trojan to have faster distributed censorship at the DNS level.
  If the DNS setting of a corporation is lousy enough to let a request for
  .corp get out, let them eat their own shit and make the joy of the true .corp sites. .home, .corp or .mail should be flogged. It was the bad answer to a problem, time is now to pay for such bad work.
  And who ever comes with the idea of private unofficial domain ending with
  Fuck ICANN (-1)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355531)
  I've been saying that ICANN needs to be disbanded since they started this whole TLD bullshit. Why isn't anyone listening?
  Solution looking for a problem (1)
  dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 1 month ago | (#46355561)
  Re:Solution looking for a problem (1)
  Opportunist (166417) | about 1 month ago | (#46355929).
  127.4.0.4 (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355679)
  Why not 127.4.0.4 instead of 127.0.53.54
  .. if it's not actually found :)
  Re:127.4.0.4 (1)
  hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 1 month ago | (#46355759)
  is 10.0.0.0/8 really needed to be private? (1)
  JavaBear (9872) | about 1 month ago | (#46355683)
  Make it 10.0.0.0/12 for private networks, and reclaim the rest for public networks?
  Re:is 10.0.0.0/8 really needed to be private? (1)
  characterZer0 (138196) | about 1 month ago | (#46355715)? (5, Informative)
  squiggleslash (241428) | about 1 month ago | (#46355925):is 10.0.0.0/8 really needed to be private? (1)
  JavaBear (9872) | about 1 month ago | (#46356903)
  A very good explanation. Thanks.
  Re:is 10.0.0.0/8 really needed to be private? (3, Interesting)
  i.r.id10t (595143) | about 1 month ago | (#46357121):is 10.0.0.0/8 really needed to be private? (1)
  KiloByte (825081) | about 1 month ago | (#46356039)
  Having more bits makes it easier to manage your local ranges. When you have multiple locations and a bunch of VPNs between them, more address space means you don't need to squeeze it tightly -- something that always backfires once there's a need for expansion.
  127.0.53.53.... why not 127.0.42.42? (4, Funny)
  Uzull (16705) | about 1 month ago | (#46355705)
  
  CANN I HAZ (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355783)
  Your loopbakz?
  Better yet, no new TLD (5, Insightful)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355801)
  The best solution here is to simply stop this TLD madness because it provides no value at all. A new TLD can be created each time the UN recognizes a new country's existence, but for no other reason.
  Re:Better yet, no new TLD (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46356245)
  The best solution here is to simply stop this TLD madness because it provides no value at all.
  Why, it provides plenty of value. Oh, did you mean for people?
  Well, it provides good value to ICANN, anyway.
  Yay, applied spearfishing! (2)
  Opportunist (166417) | about 1 month ago | (#46355919):Yay, applied spearfishing! (1)
  DarkOx (621550) | about 1 month ago | (#46356033) was not on the corporate network. Today it gets back an address and hangs while it tries again and again to see if this server at 127.0.53.53 is going to respond.
  HOST FILES (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46355999)
  This story is vaguely DNS related therefore HOST FILES.
  cc: apk
  Re:HOST FILES (0)
  Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#46356093).
  ~not apk
  p.s..
  and the winner is... (1)
  fulldecent (598482) | about 1 month ago | (#46356815)
  The entity that benefits most from bastardization of ICANN is... Google.
  You can always find Google and Google can always find where you want to go. And now typing addresses into the address bar is about to get more painful.
  I'm sorry (2)
  tom229 (1640685) | about 1 month ago | (#46357113)