Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Statements against

  • From: Roeland Meyer
  • Date: Tue Mar 13 19:00:26 2001

> From: []
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 1:14 PM

> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:54:42 PST, Roeland Meyer said:
> > By the sheer fact that they included a non-technical value-judgment.
> OK.. I'm going to cite chapter and verse:

You might want to calm down a bit. I'm out of the game now anyway (at least,
this round). BTW, I read the original when it was first published. There is
zero technical content, in the  original. to whit;

> Summary
>    To remain a global network, the Internet requires the 
> existence of a
>    globally unique public name space.  The DNS name space is a
>    hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally 
> unique root.
>    This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.

False. It is not a constraint, it results from a restricted implementation.

>    Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than
>    one root in the public DNS.  

Improper conclusion based on a false premise. SRS has shown that root-root
synchronization can happen. Probably easier than TLD-TLD syncs, because the
rate of change is much lower. That's a
real-world-and-already-widely-implemented example for you. It gets better,
SRS was already widely deployed BEFORE the IAB published their comment. They
just had trouble connecting the dots.

>That one root must be 
> supported by a set
>    of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming
>    authority.

This statement is a pure non-technical value-judgement, supporting the
legacy implementation, and is entirely self-serving. Of course, this
statement, itself, is also a value-judgement. However, note that the defeat
of the false premise, and it's direct improper conclusion, make this
statement a pure political phrase.

>    Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very
>    strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click 
> on the same
>    link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against
>    the will of the web page designers.

This entire paragraph is a NOP. Webpage designers would never link to
external resources under such condition as stated here. Those that do,
deserve to get appendages whacked.

>    This does not preclude private networks from operating their own
>    private name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely
>    defined for the global Internet, they have to fetch that 
> information
>    from the global DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the
>    coordinated root servers of the global DNS naming hierarchy.
> OK?  Read that.  Read it again.  Read it a third time.  *ALL* that
> says is "If you want to agree what the DNS tree looks like, you have
> to share a root.  If you want your own view, use your own root.
> That's the way DNS is.  You're stuck with the fact that DNS works
> that way. You have to make your own choice which root to use".

You really should calm down. I use external programs to build
files, from external sources. All of the ORSC agrees to the core TLDs, which
includes the legacy roots, and there are dispute proceedures for handeling

> RFC2826 SAYS YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF.  Which is more important
> to *YOU*?  100% consistency with the rest of the world, or access to
> your private name space?  *YOU* evaluate, *YOU* choose, and RFC2826 is
> nice enough to point out the problems you'll encounter.

It is not at all an either/or situation. There *is* the path of

> Now, what non-technical value judgment did you say that RFC2826 was
> making for you?  It's not a "value judgment" that using multiple roots
> with DNS results in inconsistencies, it's *the way DNS works*.

see above.

> I suppose the *next* thing we'll see is people complaining that the
> concept of CIDR is an evil value judgement, because you need 
> to decide what
> aggregation to do in order to keep the routing table a 
> manageable size.

I already have my complaints about CIDR. It is NOT the same and let's not go
there right now.

> Now - I'll *readily* agree that "ICANN versus" is political,
> and probably worth discussing.  However, I'm going to have to start
> putting Bozo Flags on people who *still* claim that RFC2826 
> is political
> just because it points out that Things Will Provably Break if you have
> conflicting roots.

It doesn't say what you think. Do a logical analysis of the docuemnt after
removing all pre-judgements. The document is not self-standing. This is the
first clue that it is a political document. Granted, some of the issues are
that of word-smithing, but that is even more clue that it shouldn't be taken
as "gospel".

If you look at is from the perspective of a system designer/architect, you
will see the holes readily. If you perform a permutations analysis, you will
see that they've walled-off many branches for no good reason (possibly,
convenience). A good design includes all the permutations of all parts of
the requirements matrix. Including, implied requirements that aren't stated.
A robust design doesn't include arbitrary limitations.

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.