[81966] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse (was Re: Enable BIND cache server to resolve chinese domain name?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay R. Ashworth)
Fri Jul 8 15:24:14 2005
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:43:49 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <p0620072fbeefeedfd732@[10.0.1.3]>; from Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org> on Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:08:35AM +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:08:35AM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 10:32 PM -0400 2005-07-04, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > But the whole "there's a non-ICANN root: the sky is falling" thing is
> > an argument cooked up to scare the unwashed; us old wallas don't buy
> > it.
>
> That's because you understand the underlying technology, and you
> understand how to deal with the problem (including understanding that
> you may just have to live with it).
Yep.
> Most people don't understand the underlying technology or the
> true nature of the problem, nor are they capable of doing so. All
> they know is that their e-mail doesn't work, or they can't get to the
> web pages they want. And for them, this is a very real problem.
Yep.
> Since there's a lot more of them than there are of us, and we're
> the ones who are likely to be operating the systems and networks
> where these people are our customers, when they have a problem, that
> creates a problem for us. Moreover, most of them are unlikely to be
> willing to just live with the problem, if no other suitable technical
> solution can be found. Instead, they'll believe the sales pitch of
> someone else who says that they can fix the problem, even if that's
> not technically possible.
Well they might. Well, actually, poorly they might.
But that argument seems to play right *to* the alt-root operators,
since the "fix" is to switch your customer resolvers to point to one of
them. (Assuming, of course, they stay supersets of ICANN, and don't
get at cross-purposes with one another.) In fact, merging them at your
resolvers might be the best solution.
> Okay, the sky may not be falling. Maybe it's just the Cyclorama,
> or the fly grid. But when the actors are on stage and one of these
> things falls, there's not much practical difference. And us techies
> are the ones that have to pick up the pieces and try to put them back
> together again.
Isn't it the truth.
But Steve's approach doesn't seem to *me* to play in that direction.
Am I wrong?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
