Home » Archive by category Internet News (Page 664)

Gunheart, the gold-standard for VR shooters puts out its biggest update yet

Morgan Linton Morgan Linton: I was lucky enough to be a part of the closed beta for one of the top VR games and without a doubt the gold-standard for VR shooters – Gunheart. The first game by DrifterVR, a studio founded by industry experts, Gunheart puts you into alien worlds as a badass robotic bounty hunter with the […]

The post Gunheart, the gold-standard for VR shooters puts out its biggest update yet appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Namesilo reaches 1 million domain names under management

OnlineDomain.com OnlineDomain.com: NameSilo, a U.S.-based domain registrar, announced that it has surpassed 1 million active domains registered by its customers following 7 consecutive years of growth. This puts NameSilo in the top 1% (top 30 registrars) of the nearly 3,000 ICANN accredited registrars in the world with a domain increase of over 35% in just the last …
The post Namesilo reaches 1 million domain names under management appeared first on OnlineDomain.com.

Related Articles:
Domain Registrar NameSilo Now Accepting Bitcoins
Using NameSilo 2-Factor Authentication With Authy App
Namesilo Launches New Domain Marketplace

The post Namesilo reaches 1 million domain names under management appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Large BGP Leak by Google Disrupts Internet in Japan

CircleID CircleID: At 03:22 UTC on Friday, 25 August 2017, the Internet experienced the effects of another massive BGP routing leak. This time it was Google who leaked over 160,000 prefixes to Verizon, who in turn accepted these routes and passed them on. Despite the fact that the leak took place in Chicago, Illinois, it had devastating consequences for the internet in Japan, half a world away. Two of Japan's major telecoms (KDDI and NTT's OCN) were severely affected, posting outage notices (KDDI / OCN pictured below).

Massive routing leaks continue

In recent years, large-scale (100K+ prefix) BGP routing leaks typically fall into one of two buckets: the leaker either 1) announces the global routing table as if it is the origin (or source) of all the routes (see Indosat in 2014), or 2) takes the global routing table as learned from providers and/or peers and mistakenly announced it to another provider (see Telekom Malaysia in 2015).

This case is different because the vast majority of the routes involved in this massive routing leak were not in the global routing table at the time but instead were more-specifics of routes that were. This is an important distinction over the previous cases. In the vernacular of the BGP protocol, more-specific routes describe smaller ranges of IP addresses than less-specifics and, within the BGP route selection process, the path defined by the more-specifics are selected over those of less-specifics.

These more-specifics were evidently used for traffic shaping within Google's network. When announced to the world, they were selected by outside networks over existing routes to direct their traffic, thus having greater impact on traffic redirection than they might have otherwise.

So why was Japan affected so severely?

Of the 160,000 routes leaked, over 25,000 of them were of routed address space belonging to NTT OCN, the most of any network that was impacted. None were from KDDI however. KDDI was impacted because, as a transit customer of Verizon, it accepted over 95,000 leaked prefixes from Verizon. Compounding the problem for Japan, another major Japanese telecom, IIJ, also accepted over 97,000 leaked prefixes from Verizon. As a result, any traffic going from KDDI or IIJ to OCN was being routed to Google's network in Chicago --

much of it likely getting dropped due to either high latency or bandwidth constraints.

Traceroute misdirections

Each day we perform hundreds of millions of traceroutes across the internet to measure paths and performance. Whenever a major routing event like this takes place, we can see evidence of its impact by observing the change in these traces. Below is a graphic showing the volume of traceroutes we see entering Google's network around the time of the leak. The spike in the center of the graph is the sudden increase of traffic entering Google from Verizon. In all, about 10,000 traceroutes got sucked into Google over a very brief period of time en-route to destinations around the world.

Below is a traceroute performed the day before the leak from our server in Equinix Japan to an IP address in OCN's network in Japan. As expected, it stays within Japan and arrives at its destination in 15ms.

Below is the same traceroute during the leak. IIJ hands to off to Verizon (Alter.net) in San Jose before taking a trip to Chicago to go to Google. Google then takes over routing this traceroute back to Japan over its internal network. Instead of 15ms, the round-trip time is 256ms – a very noticeable difference.

Here's an example of a traceroute from Shanghai, China to Macau (on the coast of China) that makes the same detour through Chicago during the leak.

Starting from the other side of the world, here's a traceroute that began at LINX in London but is taken by Verizon (Alter.net) to Chicago and Google before completing its journey to Vodafone in Nürnberg, Germany.

Conclusion

On Saturday it was reported that Google apologized for causing the disruption in internet connectivity in Japan on Friday. Verizon also had a role to play for this leak. On any given day, Google typically sends Verizon fewer than 50 prefixes. An instantaneous jump to over 160,000 prefixes representing over 400 million unique IPv4 addresses should have tripped a MAXPREF setting on a Verizon router and triggered an automated response, at the very least. Thankfully Verizon did not send the leaked routes on to any other major telecoms in the DFZ like Level 3, Telia, or NTT (AS2914, specifically), or the impact could have been much more severe.

We've written about routing leaks a number of times, including here and here. Not long ago we wrote up a case where a routing leak by another party managed to render Google unavailable for many. In every case, there is more than one party involved. There is a leaker, of course, but there is also always another network that distributes leaked routes out onto the internet. We have to do better to look out for each other when mistakes inevitably arise. The internet is a team effort.

This article was originally published on Dyn's weblog.
Written by Doug Madory, Director of Internet Analysis at DynFollow CircleID on TwitterMore under: Access Providers, Broadband, IP Addressing, Telecom

The post Large BGP Leak by Google Disrupts Internet in Japan appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Beware of Extra Fees in UDRP Proceedings

CircleID CircleID: The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is known as an inexpensive alternative to litigation (and that's true), but some proceedings can end up costing a trademark owner more than it may have expected.

There are generally two additional types of expenses that can arise during the course of a UDRP proceeding: (1) extra filing fees for certain aspects of a case filed at the Forum, and (2) an increased filing fee if the domain name registrant wants a three-member panel to decide the case.

These fees are in addition to the initial filing fee that a trademark owner is required to pay a UDRP service provider when it submits a complaint.

Mandatory Filing Fee

The initial filing fee (required in every UDRP case) is approximately the same at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Forum, which together account for about 97% of all UDRP proceedings: At WIPO, the filing fee starts at $1,500 for a complaint that includes up to five domain names and a single-member panel. At the Forum, the starting fee is $1,300 for up to two domain names and a single-member panel.

(The fees at two of the smaller providers — the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) and the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDNDR) — are comparable, starting at $1,300 and $1,500, respectively. But the fees at the Czech Arbitration Court, which is much less popular, start at $500.)

Since a trademark owner can choose where to file its UDRP complaint, it should know at the beginning what fees to expect.

Additional Fees at the Forum

If a trademark owner files its UDRP complaint at the Forum, it should be aware of three instances in which additional fees may arise.

The first possible increased filing fee at the Forum applies where a complaint contains "arguments alleging Respondent aliases."

Specifically, the Forum's Supplemental Rules state:

If a Complainant alleges that a single Respondent is using multiple aliases and makes such arguments in the Complaint for Panel consideration..., the filing fee shall be increased proportionately to the number of aliases involved. Please contact the FORUM… with the number of domain names and the number of aliases to obtain a fee quote.

This would arise where a complainant believes that a single person or entity is the registrant of multiple domain names and has used "aliases" or different names when registering the domain names. Cybersquatters sometimes do this to frustrate a trademark owner's ability to include all of the domain names in a single complaint, something the UDRP allows where "the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder."

Alleging respondent aliases is an efficient tactic for a complainant but could lead to significant additional work by the UDRP service provider, which, I assume, is why the Forum charges an additional fee in those cases.

The second possible increased filing fee at the Forum applies where a party (either the complainant or respondent) submits "additional written statements and documents" — that is, a submission in addition to the complaint or response.

This situation would typically occur if a complainant wants to respond to a response (sometimes referred to as a "Complainant's Supplemental Filing") or if a respondent wants to respond to a Complainant's Supplemental Filing. The UDRP itself does not expressly allow these additional filings (if submitted without solicitation by the service provider or panel), so the Forum charges an additional fee for them.

This additional fee of $400 is somewhat controversial, not only because none of the other UDRP service providers charge it, but also because some panels won't consider supplemental filings even if the extra fee is paid.

The third possible increased filing fee at the Forum applies where a respondent requests extra time to submit its response.

While the UDRP Rules state that a provider "shall automatically grant [an] extension" upon request for four days, a respondent can also request a further extension of up to 20 days. If a respondent makes that request, the Forum requires payment of a $100 "extension fee."

Additional Fees for Three-Member Panels

A different type of additional fee that a trademark owner should know about when filing a UDRP complaint applies at all of the UDRP service providers — the Forum, WIPO, ADNDRC, CAC and ACDNDR — because it is in the UDRP Rules, not in any of the providers' supplemental rules.

This fee arises in a very limited but important situation: when a complainant has requested only a one-member panel but, the respondent requests a three-member panel. In that case, the complainant would have paid the filing fee for a single-member panel, but the rules state that each party shall pay half of the fee for a three-member panel.

Here's an example of how this plays out:

Complainant pays an initial filing fee to WIPO of $1,500 for a UDRP complaint with one domain name, requesting a single-member panel.
Respondent files a response and requests a three-member panel. The fee for a three-member panel in this situation is $4,000. The respondent must pay half of this fee, that is, $2,000, when filing its response.
The other half of the fee, that is, the other $2,000, must be paid by the complainant. Because the complainant initially paid $1,500, it must now submit an additional fee of $500.
While this situation ends up costing a complainant more ($2,000 total) than it had paid when it chose a one-member panel ($1,500), it is less expensive for the complainant than if it had elected a three-member panel itself when filing the complaint, in which case it would have been responsible for the entire $4,000 filing fee.

Conclusion

In most UDRP cases, none of these additional fees arise. Typically, a trademark owner pays the filing fee for a one-member panel and may not incur any further expenses. But because they are possible, it is important to be prepared (and ready to pay) when filing a complaint.
Written by Doug Isenberg, Attorney & Founder of The GigaLaw FirmFollow CircleID on TwitterMore under: Domain Names, Intellectual Property, Law, UDRP

The post Beware of Extra Fees in UDRP Proceedings appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Chrome To Begin Showing “Not Secure” on all Sites Without SSL Certificate In October

TheDomains TheDomains: Google’s quest to form a more secure web will take a new shape this October with Chrome v62. Chrome will begin showing “Not Secure” on all sites without an SSL Certificate where users can enter text in a contact form. Nearly 50% of internet users choose Chrome as their browser of choice so this can […]
The post Chrome To Begin Showing “Not Secure” on all Sites Without SSL Certificate In October appeared first on TheDomains.com.

The post Chrome To Begin Showing “Not Secure” on all Sites Without SSL Certificate In October appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

FDA Designates MDMA As ‘Breakthrough Therapy’ For Post-Traumatic Stress

The Frager Factor The Frager Factor: If your brand is scared by Amazon, then you will be terrified by Alibaba; Why You Don't Need a Website To Build A Successful Business; How To Measure What Matters; Turmeric latte: a golden twist to coffee; 6 web properties you can use to protect your branded search results; The 5 Biggest PR Failures of the Last Decade; 69% of millennials stress out when away from their phones; Low-Paying Jobs

The post FDA Designates MDMA As ‘Breakthrough Therapy’ For Post-Traumatic Stress appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Afilias gets patent related to community top level domains

Domain Name Wire Domain Name Wire: Patent describes way to verify registrant information to create trust and community. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patent 9,747,378 (pdf) to Afilias this week for “Linked web presence pages associated with a top level domain”. I was a bit confused about what the patent covered and if the technology behind it had been […]
The post Afilias gets patent related to community top level domains appeared first on Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views.

The post Afilias gets patent related to community top level domains appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Company Domain Movers: F8.com, CB.org + More

dotWeekly dotWeekly: This is Domain Movers! We focus on company related domain name transactions and report these findings to you. These are early detection’s and often reflect domain name upgrades, new brands, new advertising and marketing efforts and more.
Here is a very small sample of domain name activity by my companies around the world.
Gelato AS has acquired FlipBooks.com from its past owners. The company offers book printing services. The domain has been registered since 2000.
Thomson Reuters Global Resources Unlimited … Read the rest
Company Domain Movers: F8.com, CB.org + MoreJamie Zoch

The post Company Domain Movers: F8.com, CB.org + More appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading