[35624] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mathias Koerber)
Wed Mar 14 01:38:31 2001
From: "Mathias Koerber" <mathias@koerber.org>
To: "Mike Batchelor" <mikebat@tmcs.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:00:26 +0800
Message-ID: <NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFOEAPCFAA.mathias@koerber.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <LLEOLJEDPHOFANPCPKOMGEAPCCAA.mikebat@tmcs.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Well DUH! I totally agree that conflicting roots break things. =20
> But I don't
> think that conflicting roots is an inevitable consequence of=20
> having multiple
> roots, or even multiple root zones.
Please outlines what advantages multiple root 'zones' have over
a single root 'zone' if they are not conflicting?
To me the only reason to have multiple roots can be so that each can
make different decisions of what TLDs are to be included or excluded
in it, or where a certain TLD is delegated to. But that constitutes =
conflicting
which you yourself above stipulated as bad.
Multiple 'coordinated' roots effectively are a single root with added =
overhead
(generating agreement on what to include etc). A single master with =
replication
(as currently exists in the public root will do the same with less =
engineering
overhead and headaches.
Several 'independent' root systems have in the past claimed that they =
would
'coordinate' with each other. Apart from the fact that that would again =
create
a single root again, this leaves the following questions:
- will all 'independent' root systems be accorded equal voice, =
opportunity
in the efforts for 'coordination'
- who guarantees that 'coordination' wil not break down once =
disagreement
ensues between some of the players
- will newcomers (independent roots that start up later) be accorded =
the same 'rights'
in the coordination efforts as incumbents?=20
If yes, how can that be guaranteed w/o excessive regulation and =
overhead.
If no, how different would that situation then be from the existing =
one? Will there
be roots that rebel and become 'independent' from the 'idependent =
roots'?
(and so on ad nauseam)?
Technically, any coordination effort among 'independent roots' simply =
create a single root, and
thus would be no different from the current ICANN/IANA root (one body of =
whatever composition
deciding the contents of the root). The question simply is how that body =
is organized. I don't
see the RFC2826 going into that at all.
If there are no guarantees or even attempts to coordinate the roots, =
they are bound to end
up conflicting (unless they remain static), which would break things.
And BTW: The problem is *not* distributing the glue for the root-servers =
(hints!) to the end-users,
there are different ways to do outside the DNS itself that already =
(including ftp).
The 'problem' is the actual content of that root zone.
Mathias
