North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: TLD operations change
>> Effective zone serial number 2000080101, g.root-servers.net (18.104.22.168) >> will no longer be authoritatively answering for com, net, org. In its place >> g.gtld-servers.net (22.214.171.124) will be added as an authoritative server >> for com, net, org. > > So much for O/S and hardware genetic diversity. Apparently my comment was a bit too cryptic. I was referring to the NSI program of NSI buying a set of identical hardware and acting as the sole operator of the machines serving as the GTLD zone servers. Although the NSI Registry web site confusingly indicates the root zone servers are supporting the .com, .net and .org rather than the GTLD servers. "The Registry DNS Programs Office is the business owner of the DNS (Domain Name System) root name servers supporting the .com, .net, and .org domains." I agree its a good idea to seperate the operation of the root name servers and the .com, .net and .org zone zervers. I disagree with the method NSI used to do this. A much safer method, somewhat similar to how pension funds choose fund managers, would have been to hire independent operators with different management styles instead of NSI acting as the sole operator of all the GTLD zone servers. Each independent operator would make their own choice of hardware, software, and procedures to meet the functional requirements. Ideally they would choose a variety of different methods. Just like you don't want all of your pension fund managers investing in the most risky stocks, you don't want all your operators choosing the most bleeding edge systems. On the other hand, you don't want only conservative operators because they will be using machines so far behind the power curve you won't make it until next week. It would avoid a problem, such as a bug in a single version of IBM equipment or a bad procedure call by one of the operators being replicated by all the operators at the same time. If NSI doesn't like "volunteers" (although it should be noted that several of the current root zone "volunteers" are in fact older, more established organizations than NSI and some provide a lot more protection than NSI provides for its own facilities) NSI could have funded (grants, contracts, even a cooperative agreement) several independent operators instead of trying to act as the operator itself. Of course, then NSI might have to worry about one of the folks it signed a cooperative agreement trying to claim it owned the zone files NSI hired it to act as an operator for :-) I'm normally opposed to "outsourcing" but in this case outsourcing makes a lot of sense. NSI being the business owner of *ALL* the machines serving the GTLD zone files doesn't make a lot of sense. My basic objection is using a set of identically configured hardware and software managed by a single operation for a "distributed" system.