Back in the 90s we registered a bunch of odd/random domains, I wound up letting most of mine lapse, but one of us had comdotcom.com
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Applies for '.apple' Domain Name Suffix
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Back in the 90s we registered a bunch of odd/random domains, I wound up letting most of mine lapse, but one of us had comdotcom.com
I have rotten apples in my fridge, nothing insulting about them. They're fruit and they go bad. I'll throw them out right now in fact.
Chill. No one insulted your family or friends here.
Nice explanation. That's why - perhaps - such privileged domains will cost a lot more than a dotcom. They'll require additional hardware to process requests. Maybe root DNS servers will redirect anything it doesn't know as a standard suffix to a special, load balanced, root server just for handling these requests. This will probably require a hack on the DNS service to point these unknown entries (not found in the database) to an alternative root-server.
Example:
Code:
$ dig iphone.apple @a.root-servers.net
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> iphone.apple @a.root-servers.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 51777
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 14
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;iphone.apple. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
apple. 172800 IN NS a.root-alternate-servers.net.
Last edited:
That would be kind of pointless. It might as well just serve up the proper TLD servers right away. Pointing to an alternate root still requires receiving, processing and responding to a request.
The root-servers are already massively load balanced, both geographically and physically.
10 fold increase in request on the root-servers cannot be bad right ?
Yes, it breaks DNS in a bad way, moving a whole lot of load up to the root instead of where it belongs down in the hierarchy. It also makes the whole hierarchy system obsolete, turning DNS into a "keyword" system. It's a big cash grab.
A 10 fold increase in the number of TLD's will not result in a 10 fold increase in requests to the root servers - the impact will be minimal and if you don't believe me then check with ICANN.
Well, how d'you like them apples?
----------
Agreed.
Patent trolls can be anywhere, and ours is a system in which they can thrive.
----------
Agreed.
Patent trolls can be anywhere, and ours is a system in which they can thrive.
How do you figure ? With TTLs already being 48 hours and these TLDs being top brands/word (apple., sex., porn., etc..) how do you figure that every resolver in the world won't hit up the root servers as much as they do for .com., .org., .ca., etc.. every 48 hours (which also all seem to have the same 48 hours of TTL from the root servers) ?
Again : Big cash grab. ICANN is the not one providing root-server hosting, so they don't really give a damn either way, Verisign, RIPE, APNIC, ARIN and all the other players hosting the actual infrastructure will get to deal with it.
Also, making the Internet keyword based instead of the proper name hierarchy it currently is means nothing to ICANN, all they care about is 185,000$ per "suggestion" they are receiving (185,000$ doesn't even guarantee your word will be up for auction or granted...).
Anyway, believe what you want, I don't see the good in this.
----------
What does any of this have to do with patents ?
If Apple owns the .apple domain suffix, then Apple doesn't just have the final say, Apple has absolute total control over that suffix. Every DNS server looking for xxx.apple would ask a server controlled by Apple.
I actually go to the bother of reading up on things to check my facts first and so I know what I'm talking about. There are ICANN documents which consider the potential for increased traffic and they discount it as a factor.
ICANN also explain the pricing structure for the new TLD's, they are simply covering the costs involved and the prices will be adjusted accordingly in future if their calculations were wrong.
Could you maybe provide some evidence for your claims? Or do we just have to take your word over ICANN?
So you're taking the word of the entity profiting from it that "everything will be ok after we've lined our pockets with cash" over simple logic ?
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wnagele/increased-query-load-on-root-name-servers
A temporary spike in queries lead to a degration in performance in the root server architecture. Now imagine a permanent increase. This will require some infrastructure investment, wonder if ICANN will "pitch in" to help ?
Anyway, I don't have a stake in this either, it's not my infrastructure that's going to get hammered, so frankly, debating this with you is a worthless endeavour. Let the hosting providers duke it out with ICANN.
I get that the company's Apple, Inc. and makes a lot more than just computers but wouldn't the ".mac" suffix be easier to use? www.apple.mac sounds a lot better than www.apple.apple
It's obvious to me what Apple plans to do with this.
You will have www.Apple.com/iphone and www.iphone.apple And one of the will redirect to the other. And also as a defensive measure so others can't steal .apple.
You will have www.Apple.com/iphone and www.iphone.apple And one of the will redirect to the other. And also as a defensive measure so others can't steal .apple.
So you're taking the word of the entity profiting from it that "everything will be ok after we've lined our pockets with cash" over simple logic ?
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wnagele/increased-query-load-on-root-name-servers
A temporary spike in queries lead to a degration in performance in the root server architecture. Now imagine a permanent increase. This will require some infrastructure investment, wonder if ICANN will "pitch in" to help ?
If you'd read the post-analysis of the spike you refer to you'd know it didn't cause any service degradation;
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wnagele/analysis-of-increased-query-load-on-root-name-servers
Seeing as ICANN is a non-profit, whose pockets are you claiming are going to get lined? What do you think happens to the money ICANN generates? Try reading up on such subjects before making wild accusations.
domain names are stupid and a waste of time. This doesn't simplify things, it makes things more complicated.
You think 'apple' or 'google' you just want to type in 'apple' or 'google' in the address bar. Maybe slap a .com on the end just in case. I don't want to have to remember the specific domain name for a website
all this will do is have more people using google.com as their address bar
You think 'apple' or 'google' you just want to type in 'apple' or 'google' in the address bar. Maybe slap a .com on the end just in case. I don't want to have to remember the specific domain name for a website
all this will do is have more people using google.com as their address bar
A few years ago Bill Gates said that domain names wouldn't be around for ever, or at least wouldn't be very important - you'd just search or use keywords to get to what you wanted. Obviously we're not there yet but we're getting closer.
I really don't see the point of the generic TLD's and would imagine a lot of companies (including Apple) are just registering them to protect themselves. They either won't use them or will just redirect content, so something.apple.com is the same as something.apple.
If you look through the applications there are a few companies that have applied for quite a few which I guess they'll be using to launch new branded sites. Amazon and Google are the big players to do this, though there were a few others doing the same.
Another part of the internet? What the hell are you talking about? Oh I get it it must be down one of those "other" tubes that the www tube.
There is no requirement to have a www. The hostname can be null or anything you want it to be. Try this go to http://comcast.net. Its quite shocking how the site works without www
Most people think of the internet as the "world wide web." In reality, the world wide web is just one component of the internet. In my example, you can have an address like "http://ftp.iphone.apple" which would direct you to an ftp internet connection of the apple domain rather than "http://www.iphone.apple" which would direct you to the website of the apple domain. You can also connect to a mail server or buletin board which are also separte from the web. In all cases you are using a name server directing you to the IP address of the computer that you are actually connecting to.
Of course not. Browsers haven't required the "www" for many years. The web address is still "http://www.comcast.net" regardless of whether you have to type "http://www" before the "comcast.net" or not. Modern browsers assume you are navigating to a website....which is logically the case for 99.99% users.
I think so too. I think it's cool if they used ".mac" since it'd be a blast from the past... wasn't .mac the MobileMe predecessor? Or maybe that's exactly the reason Apple didn't go for it.
But even if they picked .mac, it'd still make sense to at least buy the .apple suffix as a defensive move.