Re: .mu update

From: Ish Sookun <ish_at_hacklog.in>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:58:37 +0400

Hello SM,

​Thank you for the update.​


2015-03-17 13:36 GMT+04:00 S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com>:

>
> I attended a meeting of the .mu Select Committee this morning. I did a
> presentation about .mu ( http://www.elandsys.com/~sm/mu-cctld-problems.pdf
> ). It was followed by a discussion about whether there was a problem with
> .mu. All the members present agreed that there was a problem. The only
> alternative is a re-delegation of the .mu ccTLD. There is work to be done
> on the policy, commercial and technical components to ensure that .mu works
> correctly.
>
> There was a suggestion that the technical operations for .mu be run by the
> existing .mu ccTLD. I preferred not to discuss about that as I was
> chairing the meeting. In my opinion there should be an an acceptable level
> of risk for organizations that own, operate, or maintain .mu domain names.
> The representative from a bank pointed out that if .mu could be switched
> off nobody would be able to do anything about it. He also mentioned that
> there was a single point of failure. I don't think that the current level
> of risk is acceptable.
>

​I find this ambiguous. Earlier you mentioned
« *All the members* present agreed that there was a problem. The *only
alternative is a re-delegation* of the .mu ccTLD.
​ ​
»
​ ​Then you mention
«
​ ​
There was a suggestion that the technical operations for *.mu be run by the
existing .mu ccTLD*.

»


Talking of risks for banks, I have noticed the following for mcb.mu:

​While using Google DNS (8.8.8.8) I get :

*; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> _at_8.8.8.8 <http://8.8.8.8> NS mcb.mu
<http://mcb.mu>*
*; (1 server found)*
*;; global options: +cmd*
*;; Got answer:*
*;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 20923*
*;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0*

*;; QUESTION SECTION:*
*;mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. IN NS*

*;; ANSWER SECTION:*
*mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. 267 IN NS ns0.dnsmadeeasy.com
<http://ns0.dnsmadeeasy.com>.*
*mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. 267 IN NS ns1.dnsmadeeasy.com
<http://ns1.dnsmadeeasy.com>.*
*mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. 267 IN NS ns2.dnsmadeeasy.com
<http://ns2.dnsmadeeasy.com>.*
*mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. 267 IN NS ns4.dnsmadeeasy.com
<http://ns4.dnsmadeeasy.com>.*
*mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. 267 IN NS ns3.dnsmadeeasy.com
<http://ns3.dnsmadeeasy.com>.*

*;; Query time: 260 msec*
*;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)*
*;; WHEN: Tue Mar 17 14:47:44 2015*
*;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 129​*

When using Mauritius Telecom's DNS (202.123.2.11), I get:

*<<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> _at_202.123.2.11 <http://202.123.2.11> mcb.mu
<http://mcb.mu>*
*; (1 server found)*
*;; global options: +cmd*
*;; Got answer:*
*;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 35747*
*;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2*
*;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available*

*;; QUESTION SECTION:*
*;mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. IN A*

*;; ANSWER SECTION:*
*mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. 86400 IN A 202.123.24.193*

*;; AUTHORITY SECTION:*
*mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. 86400 IN NS dns2.intnet.mu
<http://dns2.intnet.mu>.*
*mcb.mu <http://mcb.mu>. 86400 IN NS dns1.intnet.mu
<http://dns1.intnet.mu>.*

*;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:*
*dns1.intnet.mu <http://dns1.intnet.mu>. 86401 IN A 202.123.2.6*
*dns2.intnet.mu <http://dns2.intnet.mu>. 86401 IN A 202.123.2.11*

*;; Query time: 473 msec*
*;; SERVER: 202.123.2.11#53(202.123.2.11)*
*;; WHEN: Tue Mar 17 14:48:38 2015*
*;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 117*

I am not sure about it but I could conclude that MCB Ltd is trying to stay
on the safe side if someday .mu is switched off. At least through MT it
could continue serving its customers on the island (using MT's DNS). If the
bank trusted the availability/efficiency of .mu, I don't think they'd adopt
such measures.

I mentioned that there was an attempt in 2009 to reach an agreement with
> the existing .mu ccTLD. It was a failure. Trying the same thing and
> expecting different is a naive approach. I would advise against that.
>

​I don't know what was discussed on the 2009's approach. Is there any
public information?​


>
> There has been very little comments about the messages I sent about .mu.
> I suggest that you start asking questions if you have any interest on .mu.
> If you do not do that I will point it out when you mention .mu problems in
> future.
>

​I have stated in the past, I can only comment as a user & an IT
Professional. As a user I find .mu too expensive. A virtual server could
cost me less than a .mu domain name (assuming I buy a server at $5/month).

As an IT Professional, I can't digest that a registrar takes 3 days to
update my DNS changes & the reason stated is the registry is "manual".

Regards,

Ish Sookun

*- Geek by birth, Linux by choice.*
* +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+*
* |H|A|C|K|L|O|G|.|i|n|*
* +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ *

*https://twitter.com/IshSookun <https://twitter.com/IshSookun> ^^ Do you
tweet?*​
Received on Tue Mar 17 2015 - 10:58:52 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Mar 17 2015 - 11:00:02 PST