GPRS. domain Root server

[Brook Harty]

Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote in message news:<cdho75$bte$1 at sf1.isc.org>...
> >>>>> "Brook" == Brook Harty <harty at ironwolve.com> writes:
> 
>     Brook> Anyone know if there is a GPRS root domain server? 
> 
> Yes. There's no such thing. There might be servers for this bogus
> .gprs top-level domain that various telcos use. But these cannot by
> definition be root servers. If you want to know the location of
> servers for .gprs, don't ask here. This is the public internet. Ask
> someone who lives in a private telco world where this TLD exists.
> 
>     Brook> I'm manually putting in everyone's .gprs mnc/mcc domain
>     Brook> address, and it's kind of crazy, since its a normal DNS
>     Brook> architecture!
> 
> No it isn't. If it was a "normal DNS architecture" this domain would
> live in the public DNS infrastructure, just like ironwolve.com. Since
> there is no .gprs TLD, it can't possibly be a "normal DNS architecture".

Of course it does, British Telecome had root servers, but they
discontinued. They where not using ARPA's DNS, but it was DNS
Architecture. The whole .gprs (fake) TLD is a scam, and now we are
moving to UMTS already.


> 
>     Brook> What is the possibility about getting GPRS. into the normal
>     Brook> Internet root servers? (Or is this Crazy talk?)
> 
> It's about as close to zero as anything could be. First of all, the
> sponsors of .gprs will need to convince the IETF & IAB that they can
> only use .gprs and can't use a domain name under .arpa, the domain
> that's the IAB has set aside for infrastructure stuff. The supporters
> of .gprs would also have to write up some internet drafts and protocol
> specifications to document the protocols used in .gprs and get them
> through the IETF process. This might be very hard work, especially if
> it involves things related telephony service or E.164 telephone
> numbers. According to RFC3761, E.164 numbers belong under e164.arpa.
> And that's before we get into the legal and political issues of
> national sovereignty, competition & data protection/privacy
> considerations surrounding E.164 phone numbers. Once all that's done,
> the .gprs people will need to convince ICANN and the US Government to
> create the .gprs TLD. This will bring another set of legal and
> political problems. For example, there are currently two proposals in
> front of ICANN for top-level domains (.tel and .mobi) that seem to be
> very similar to what might be going on in .gprs.
> 
> Oh and before all that starts, the folk behind .gprs will need to
> provide the money and infrastructure for a TLD. That also means having
> a legal entity that can enter into contracts with ICANN, registry
> operators, registrars, ISPs, etc, etc.
> 
> No doubt all the above explains why the GSM Association just settled
> on .gprs and didn't bother telling anyone else.
> 
> BTW, the GSM Association's public documents say .gprs is a private
> domain that isn't supposed to be on the public internet. So that kind
> of answers your question too. Even so, the GSM Association should not
> have just plucked this domain name out of the air. They should have
> registered one that lived on the public internet, if only to avoid the
> potential of any future confusion. Imagine the fun if/when ICANN
> decides to create the .gprs TLD for the Global Public Relations
> Society.


Yes, Rather amazed how short sighted the whole GSM Association was,
because there is no future in it.

Another standard pratice we use, an APN must match a legal domain name
in our company, so ironwolve.com.mnc000.mcc000.gprs would be assigned.
 And you are right about the E164's, just finished adding to all the
nodes for roaming.

I come from an ISP background, seeing a standard like DNS being
incorrectly used is just annoying as hell.  And seeing the only 2 root
servers go offline shows how poor planning they had.