Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alway]

The DNS (Domain Name System) is what translates http://www.bay12forums.com/ into the IP Address the computer uses to reach it on the Internet. Basically its just there to make it easier to remeber sites, since IP Addresses are not the most memorable things.

If they locked a site out through the domain name servers, would one still be able to access that site via its numerical IP address?

Yes. DNS is only a translation system. but then you'd need to tracert in cmd or the like to find the address, unless its posted on a forum.

In fact, type in 97.107.128.126 into your web browser where you normally would a url.

Essentially how DNS works is through a series of tables. There are DNS servers ranging from very local ones to the full databases when you go all the way up. When you type in an address, it contacts the DNS server, telling it what address it needs the IP for. This starts out with the local level DNS servers, which have a decent sized cache and will fulfill a large majority of your DNS needs. If it can't be found in these servers, it goes up a level, asks again, and so forth, until it gets to one of IIRC 7 top level DNS servers which essentially are lookup tables for the entire internet; if it isn't found there, it probably doesn't exist.

[Tilla]

So..... since I can't read nor understand legal-speak, is there a neutral summary of this bill somewhere? What exactly is it supposed to do that's so repulsive?

You know the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit? This doesn't follow that. With this bill, they can take away your website the minute they accuse you of anything. No matter if there's no basis in reality.

[sonerohi]

I'm expecting them to botch implementation anyways. It'll let requests run all the way through instead of terminating, and you'll see the upper levels getting unexpected levels of traffic.

[breadbocks]

In the event this thing does get passed, and one of my favorite sites is torn limb from limb, how could I go about getting the IP?

[Aklyon]

In the ev
ent this thing does get passed, and one of my favorite sites is torn limb from limb, how could I go about getting the IP?

Well, heres what I got from 'tracert www.bay12forums.com' in command prompt (Admin account on my own laptop)

Code: [Select]

Tracing route to www.bay12forums.com [97.107.128.126]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     1 ms     1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
<non-essential output ommited>
 13    23 ms    22 ms    24 ms  bay12forums.com [97.107.128.126]That IP drops me at the main B12 site, though.

[alway]

No, it wouldn't even make a dent. Remember, these are the servers which take 1/7 of the world's incorrectly spell web addresses we are talking about. Making users of Joe's Backwater Internet Movie Repository go there wouldn't make a hint of difference.

The main problem with this bill is simply how ineffective it will be. This is the 21st century; as demonstrated in the middle east, we can get the word out whenever we please about pretty much anything. They are trying to stop pirates by merely taking away a site's alias, while leaving plenty with knowledge of the actual site IP. If 4Chan were to have it's DNS revoked, it would be up and running again in a few hours as the IP is spread across the net like wildfire.

Meanwhile, it allows companies to stifle genuine competition very easily. For a pirate going to his favorite site, typing in a few digits is nothing. For a small business trying to gain customers suddenly disappearing off the face of the internet aside from an IP address no one would ever bother to look for, it would be nothing short of disastrous. And therein lies the largest problem with this bill: it is ineffectual at it's stated goal, while having a pretty bad impact when sites try to play dirty. And this can and will happen; it already has to some extent. A similar thing can be done on Google by reporting a site as an ad-farm. This has been used multiple times by multiple companies to completely remove their competition from the search results. Extend that beyond simple search results to hiding the entire website from DNS lookups and you have a massive flustercluck waiting to happen.

[G-Flex]

In the event this thing does get passed, and one of my favorite sites is torn limb from limb, how could I go about getting the IP?

If all that goes is the domain name registration, then the site is hardly "torn limb from limb". That's like the feds "shutting down" a crackhouse by prying off the street number label on its mailbox and removing its entry on Google Maps.

Yes, I know some people in Washington seem to think that domain names are what make a website, but that's ridiculous.

[Bauglir]

It will, however, be financially disastrous for legitimate business sites, since most Internet users do think that the domain name makes the site, if they have any thoughts on it at all. Which is what I worry about, mostly. And it would be mildly annoying until the IP becomes commonly circulated.

[Bohandas]

The main problem with this bill is simply how ineffective it will be.

I don't see how that is a problem (unless by "how ineffective it will be" you mean "less than completely").

[Aklyon]

The main problem with this bill is simply how ineffective it will be.

I don't see how that is a problem (unless by "how ineffective it will be" you mean "less than completely").

Its like DRM. All of the effort made trying to stop your foe is pointless if they're a step ahead already, and the rest of us are stuck with crap.
Or in this case, websites 'dissapearing' while still being completely there.

[Starver]

I can only imagine some of the DynamicDNS-type site redirectors being re-employed by ostensibly non-dynamic IPs that have lost their usual DNS entry, and then someone who made this move necessary will pick up that this is happening and strike against the redirector site in some manner, at which point a whole lot of other people will get inconvenienced, etc, etc.

[RedWarrior0]

Who proposed this, and what are the odds someone tries to remove and/or removes their website from the DNS?

[G-Flex]

I would like to clarify one thing: Using a site's IP address to access the site does not always work. A lot of websites use virtual hosting such that your request is directed based on the domain name you're requesting, with multiple sites being hosted at the same actual IP address; the webserver software itself makes the distinction.

[Starver]

I would like to clarify one thing: Using a site's IP address to access the site does not always work. A lot of websites use virtual hosting such that your request is directed based on the domain name you're requesting, with multiple sites being hosted at the same actual IP address; the webserver software itself makes the distinction.

I had thought of mentioning that, but there are ways of 'tricking' it.  It depends on the webhost platform, but I once had to employ this method (telneting to the original IP but using a the intended domain naming GET in the request) when my domain registration had inadvertently expired, but the web-space was still paid for and receptive and I needed to test something.  Of course that meant eschwing anything as poncy as a web-browser, but for the purposes I needed it was sufficient.

Not saying it's easy (for your average man-on-the-'net), but if there's demand there'd be portals set up to provide that kind of proxy service.  (Assuming there aren't ones already with that capability.)

[irmo]

I would like to clarify one thing: Using a site's IP address to access the site does not always work. A lot of websites use virtual hosting such that your request is directed based on the domain name you're requesting, with multiple sites being hosted at the same actual IP address; the webserver software itself makes the distinction.

The way around that is to add the domain name and IP address to your hosts file, and then access the site by name. Effectively a local, permanent DNS cache.