41 captures

19 Feb 1999 - 17 Oct 2025

Jan	FEB	Mar
	19
1998	1999	2000

success

fail

About this capture

TIMESTAMPS

CWI News Listing for Issue 199, Monday, 16 February 1998


Washington DC

Testing times for Net guardians

Kenneth Cukier reports on the technical trial that sounded White House alarm bells

Taking the decision to "redirect" eight Internet root servers may sound like an arcane technical procedure to the uninitiated. But among those who understand the Net, the move, undertaken at the end of last month, was interpreted as a spirited act of defiance - perhaps even the first salvo of a longer battle over who controls the global network.

The subsequent blizzard of media concern over alleged shortcomings in the Net's governance has highlighted the mutual suspicions of the two camps fighting over the future of the Internet.

On one side is the United States' government and corporate America, which view the Internet as central to commerce. On the other side stands the Internet community, deeply suspicious of moves that seemingly wrest control of the Internet away from its founding fathers. And at stake are two very different models of how the Net should be governed - an informal community-based model of trust, versus a view of control and formal obligations.

Significantly, the surprise technical move, called a "test," was initiated by Jon Postel, the respected founding father of the Internet. It came on the eve of a sweeping White House plan to formalize the anarchic but vital infrastructural operations of the Net. In a sign that Net infrastructure has penetrated public policy spheres, the event made headlines internationally.

The test lasted for about 10 days and didn't affect users or the underlying data. But that it took place without prior warning, apparently on the initiative of a single individual, has highlighted what many regard as a potentially weak link in the Internet's stability.

On 24 January, Postel, the director of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which centrally coordinates many of the Net's functions, ordered the administrators of eight root servers around the world to obtain the top level domain (TLD) name data from IANA instead of the server at the U.S. government-backed Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) in Herndon, Virginia.

The re-direction meant those secondary root servers updated their files from an alternative primary server, and quashed the notion that a single master file existed at the top of the domain name system's (DNS) hierarchy. The 13 root servers in North America, Europe and Asia contain the authoritative information for the DNS. NSI operates two, including the primary or "A" server, under a 1993 cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Science Foundation.

The informally organized root server hierarchy is the central nervous system of the global Internet. Every time a user-friendly address ending with .com or another TLD is used, a rapid database look-up matches it with a unique Internet Protocol number so the data can be sent. Although all the root servers were told by Postel to point back to NSI on 4 February, unbeknownst to U.S. officials, two root servers remained "pointing" at the unsanctioned IANA server until last week.

"If they're not [pointed to NSI], they should be," stated Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's chief Internet adviser, when informed last Monday of the situation. By Wednesday the two servers pointed to NSI, a company official said.

Today, the redirection underscores the resistance of the Internet community to government's claim to have influence over Net infrastructural policies. Indeed, the White House proposal seeks to formalize tasks that have long been done - and done effectively - by the Internet community based on cooperation and trust.

That vision is challenged by business and political interests, which contend the Net needs more structure if it is to truly serve as the world's communications infrastructure of the next century. They point to the root server incident as proof the system needs to change.

"IANA has the authority and Jon is the person behind IANA," said Lars-Johan Liman, a root server administrator at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and one of the servers that delayed turning back to NSI until last week.

Postel's IANA is the central coordinating body for allocating IP numbers, as well as the master DNS file, and organizes the 13 root servers around the world that regularly download the DNS file so that routing information is distributed geographically (CWI, 11 August, 1997). They have traditionally received that data by pointing to NSI's A server.

Technically, the re-direction meant very little. The root servers pulled authoritative data from IANA rather than NSI, and since IANA still mirrored NSI's data, there was no discrepancy.

But the system is headed for major changes. NSI's contract to operate the DNS is set to expire at the end of March, and the U.S. government's Internet plan has a sense of urgency since it is uncertain what system will replace it. Internet leaders are relieved the test took place, since they know the root system can change easily when the proper time comes.

But the true significance of the "test" was its symbolism. "He [Postel] wanted to take the root zone out of the turmoil in the U.S.," said Liman, ascribing a motive to Postel's actions. "He didn't want the root zone held hostage."

"This is an issue of control," Bill Schrader, the president of PSInet Inc. in Herndon, a root server operator, emphatically stated. "The U.S. government would like to control [the Internet] ... We don't work under contract for Ira Magaziner or the White House. We will at any time redirect at will, and we will."

Magaziner had just arrived in Davos, Switzerland, at 8pm on 29 January when he learned of the root server reconfiguration. He immediately contacted officials at the Department of Commerce, National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense's Advance Research Projects Agency, and others, "to find out what was going on - to understand what the technical ramifications were," he said. By 3.30am he had organized a conference call "with all the relevant players," he added, including Postel, who volunteered to end the test.

The crisis ended with a whimper, not a bang. Around 8am on 4 February Postel sent off a battery of e-mails to the IETF chairman, NSI, U.S. government officials and other parties stating the test was over. "Apparently the timing of this test and lack of coordination on my part with the government parties was a major concern for a few hours until we could talk it over," said Postel in an e-mail interview last week. "So one of the lessons learned was that better communication and coordination is a good thing."

The incident served as a case of failed diplomacy for Magaziner, who days before Postel redirected the root servers exchanged e-mails with John Gilmore, the outspoken critic of U.S. government influence in Internet matters and a member of the Internet Society's board of trustees (CWI, 2 June 1997).

According to numerous people familiar with the situation, Gilmore was displeased with Magaziner's approach, and so lobbied Postel to take control of the root zone. Gilmore also urged the Policy Oversight Committee implementing an ISOC-backed plan for new, competitive TLDs to indemnify Postel's potential legal costs if law suits emerged after Postel claimed control of the root zone - and perhaps go as far as to insert the new TLDs into the domain name system.

Gilmore declined to be interviewed for this article, stating: "While the situation is delicate I am reluctant to expose it to publicity."

Yet the ultimate legacy of the incident may be that it revealed a split in the ranks of the aging Internet leaders that built the network together 30 years ago. Reaction to Postel's action was mixed. John Curran, the chief technical officer of GTE Internetworking, noted: "It is a testament to Jon Postel's experience that the DNS testing occurred without incident, but clearly Internet users have a reasonable expectation that such changes will be well-coordinated in the Internet community."

"The feeling is more sad than mad," said one high-profile Internet engineer who requested anonymity, indicating that "Jon" committed a political blunder that gives firepower to critics who claim today's Net institutions can't be trusted.

Most, however, rallied to Postel's defense, noting that he is one of the sole reasons why the Internet has been a success - a figure certain to be carved into a statue or printed on a postage stamp. "Jon, wearing his IANA hat, has been responsible for maintaining the root zone for quite a while now, and the current good service it delivers is in large part a result of his integrity," said Fred Baker, the chairman of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Net's standard-setting body.

Magaziner concurs. "A mistake like this should just be noted and then forgotten," he said. "We believe that it is important for Jon and his organization to move over to the new corporation."

Clash of Internet cultures over significance of root server test

Corporate users believe the unannounced root-server test is a sign that the Net's underlying infrastructure needs more formal control.

Yet many Internet leaders rallied behind Jon Postel to rebut critics of Net self-governance. They emphasized that the controversial maneuver was imperative to prove that the Internet's vital infrastructure - and the organization that coordinates it - is robust enough to maintain the confidence of corporate users.

"It is about time [the ability to change the root server] was tested," stated Robert Moskowitz, the senior technical director at the International Computer Security Association in Oak Park, Michigan. "How can you run something like this without testing your disaster recovery plan?"

Others were decidedly more downbeat about the implications of the incident.

"I'm aware of what went on," said Nick Mansfield, the head of network security at Shell Information Services BV in The Netherlands. "It's really the reason that large corporations such as ours still have intranets - we have our own global network. The activity demonstrates the lack of maturity of the Net," he said.

Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's Internet adviser, said: "We have received inquiries from companies about what happened."

"A number of companies have consistently expressed the view that U.S. government oversight should continue on the Internet. We don't believe it is necessary, but do believe that the transition of authority should occur carefully," added Magaziner.

Internationally, however, there has been fierce initial criticism of the U.S. proposals, which some believe may escalate to inter-governmental, diplomatic levels.

The U.S. plan involves the creation of a private, international, and bottom-up structure for Net institutions (CWI, 19 January).

This is a role that falls on the United States due to its legacy of funding the bright, eclectic networking engineers who from the late 1960s built the Net - and the informal governing system that currently coordinates it.

Although the new body will be composed to represent global interests and ensure that users in all nations can benefit from Internet technology, some international Internet leaders are wary of some aspects of the U.S. government's approach - most notably the incorporation of the governing body in the United States, where it would be subject to U.S. law.

"The U.S. grandfathering role is long and seems like a larger role [in Net governance] than we've seen before," said Frode Greisen, the managing director of the pan-European backbone network Ebone in Copenhagen, on the government's proposal to oversee the Net institutions for two years to assure stability.

"As a European, I am concerned with the stronger U.S. government role in this," he added.

Daniel Kaplan, the head of the domain name working group of the French chapter of the Internet Society, stated that the group flatly rejects U.S. authority to set policy by which Net users outside the United States must abide. He indicated that the group will petition the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take up the issue.

Magaziner recognized the challenge of marshaling international support for the policy, and indicated he has met with many governments on the matter.

"We need to evolve a consensus over the next few months," he said. "We need to remove our stewardship in a responsible way."

-Kenneth Cukier

Domain names in brief

Domain-name registration just got simpler. NSI, the current monopoly registrar for TLDs like .com, has launched a fast-track service called WorldNic. On offer is a simple, five-step registration process and no requirement for the customer to know technical information before being assigned an IP number. But after reserving a name in .com, customers are encouraged to register the term in .net and .org too.

The DNS system's performance is a research focus for Christian Huitema of Bellcore. He notes that up to 13% of the delay between a user's click and the arrival of the page can be attributed to the DNS look-up procedure. Jerry Scharf of the Internet Software Consortium, and an operator of the "F" root server, claimed the delay was yet another Internet growth pain.

Domain-name costs vary wildly nation by nation, according to a recently released report by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. A name under .au for Australia costs $46 and roughly matches the U.S.-based NSI's .com price of $50. But watch your wallet in Germany: a .de will cost you $483 in the first year, and $193 every subsequent year.

BACK LINKS: to back issues: || Issue 157; 15 Jan 96 || Issue 158; 5 Feb 96 || Issue 159; 19 Feb 96 || Issue 160; 4 Mar 96 || Issue 161; 18 Mar 96 || Issue 162; 1 April 96 || Issue 163; 15 April 96 || Issue 164; 29 April 96 || Issue 165; 12 May 96 || Issue 166; 3 June 96 || Issue 167; 24 June 96 || Issue 168; 15 July 96 || Issue 169; 12 August 96 || Issue 170; 9 September 96 || Issue 171; 23 September 96 || Issue 172; 7 October 96 || Issue 173; 21 October 96 || Issue 174; 4 November 96 || Issue 175; 25 November 96 || Issue 176; 16 December 96 || Issue 177; 20 January 97 || Issue 178; 3 February 97 || Issue 178; 17 February 97 || Issue 180; 10 March 97 || Issue 181; 24 March 97 || Issue 182; 7 April 97 || Issue 183; 21 April 97 || Issue 184; 5 May 97 || Issue 185; 19 May 97 || Issue 186; 2 June 97 || Issue 187; 30 June 97 || Issue 188; 14 July 97 || Issue 189; 11 August 97 || Issue 190; 8 September 97 || Issue 191; 22 September 97 || Issue 192; 6 October 97 || Issue 193; 20 October 97 || Issue 194; 3 November 97 || Issue 195; 24 November 97 || Issue 196; 15 December 97 || Issue 197; 19 January 98 || Issue 198; 2 February 98 || Note: Use your browser's back button if you encounter outdated links in the back issues.

For editorial comment, contact the Editor. Please e-mail Andrew Gliniecki at andrewg@cwi.emap.com.

To advertise in CWI, contact Gary Lucas, Worldwide Sales Manager, Garyl@cwi.emap.com.

To sponsor CWI On-line, please contact Steve Pattenden, Associate Publisher of the TotalTelecom Web site, stevep@total.emap.

Our London telephone number is: +44 171 208 5170

All copyright 1998 Emap Business Publications. All reproduction, in part or in whole via any medium, including electronic, printed and broadcast, is strictly forbidden without express written consent from Samantha Bailey, Sales Support Executive, samanthab@computing.emap.co.uk.