[81973] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse (was Re: Enable BIND
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Vierling)
Fri Jul 8 15:27:30 2005
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:51:50 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
To: Todd Underwood <todd@renesys.com>
Cc: Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org>,
"Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20050705172014.GQ4374@renesys.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > problem. Right now, if you're an end user doing your DNS lookups via the
> > ICANN root, you can get to just about everything. If you're something
> > that end users want to connect to, using an ICANN-recognized domain will
> > mean almost everybody can get to you, while an "alternative" TLD would
> > mean only a tiny fraction of the Internet would be able to get to you.
> > So, if you're a content provider, why would you use anything other than a
> > real ICANN-recognized domain? And, if the content providers aren't using
> > real domain names, why would an end user care about whether they can get
> > to the TLDs that nobody is using?
>
> s/ICANN root/real Internet/
> s/"alternative" TLD/IPv6/
That isn't as perfect a simile as you're attempting to make it, because the
pairs do not have the same relationships to each other:
With ICANN vs. non-ICANN roots, you have one in isolated parallel to the
other, with one happening to imitate the contents of the other. (In
addition, you have multiple non-ICANN roots which do not imitate each
other.)
With IPv4 vs. IPv6, you have one as an integrable parallel to the other,
where both can operate simultaneously from any host, and interoperability
of single-type connectivity can be accomplished at the low protocol level
(NAT-PT and similar).
Non-ICANN vs. ICANN is much more like OSI vs. IP, rather than IPv6 vs. IPv4.
Good try, though.
--
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
