North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: ISP network design of non-authoritative caches
- From: Simon Higgs
- Date: Sun Nov 18 21:29:26 2001
At 01:14 PM 11/18/01 -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
Nonsense. BCP32 (RFC 2606) specifically alters a root zone by adding
reserved TLDs. How many combinations of the root does that provide for? And
RFC2826 has been clarified here on the Nanog list as "one root at a time"
and not mixing multiple roots. OK by me, but at some point sanity should
prevail and that running code and rough consensus demands the peering of
non-conflicting TLDs for everyone's benefit. It's a common practise in
other spaces, so why not in the DNS space? I don't understand the "my way
or the highway" mentality.
email@example.com ("John Palmer (NANOG Acct)") writes:
> So that your customers can see all of the internet and not just what ICANN
> wants you to see.
bzeep. nonsequitur. there can only be one root zone.
if you change your
Nonsense. I've not used the legacy root since I proposed the shared-TLD
model (and explained it to Postel) back in 1995/6 (FYI, the last version of
the Internet Draft is at the IAHC website). Everytime Verisign/NSI screws
up the .COM glue I don't notice a thing. Something to be said for that. At
least one ICANN board member recognizes the limitations under
ROOT-SERVERS.NET and chooses another root for service. I don't blame 'em.
dns configuration to subscribe to something else, then you're off "the
in a technical sense.
(that some root-looking zones incorporate all icann data
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is a "value subtraction service". It misses published
portions of the name space - so if you use it, it is of limited value. I
can reach twice as many TLDs elsewhere. Oh yeah. It's "stable". I forgot.
past present and future is merely a testament to the fact that "the internet"
means "what the one true official root zone includes", and should not be
indicative of some kind off odd "value subtraction service" by a root-like
What ticks me off is the zero-sum game being played. Anyone saying "there
can only be one root zone" and supporting a closed and non-inclusive root
is playing a zero sum game. "We win, you lose" is not the spirit of the
internet, running code and rough-consensus.
"You can't vote on facts"
- Brian Carpenter