North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach

  • From: Patrick Corliss
  • Date: Sun Mar 18 13:38:50 2001

Greg A. Woods <[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2001 4:25 AM (AEST)

> [ On Monday, March 19, 2001 at 03:38:54 (+1100), Patrick Corliss wrote: ]
> > Subject: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
> >
> > On Fri Mar 16 08:48:04 2001,
> > Miles Fidelman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > For the Internet to work, at least with currently accepted DNS standards,
> > > everyone has to use the same root servers.  Otherwise things can rapidly
> > > degenerate into chaos.  The whole point of law and due process is that
> > > a duly authorized somebody has to have the authority to insist that
> > > everyone use the same root servers.
> >
> > Sorry, Miles, it's not true.  It's just ICANN FUD.
>
> Obviously you haven't got a friggin clue about how the DNS works either
> technically or politically.

Hi Greg

Interesting you should say that based on what I think is my second posting to
this list.  And that posting quite fairly quoted both points of view.  The
argument I'm favouring is that put by Karl Auerbach who is considered by many to
be a leading expert on the internet.

I see that your partnership specializes in networking and Unix system
administration.  As you seem to be rather competent, perhaps you could tell me
more clearly why you think Karl Auerbach is mistaken in his arguments.  They
seem rather well thought out to me.

Much of Karl's expertise seems rather similar to your own.  It includes secure
operating systems and secure networks as well as Advanced Internet Architectures
with Cisco Systems.

You will find it described at  http://www.cavebear.com/CaveBear/karl.html

> Read what the man said:  "Otherwise things can rapidly degenerate into
> chaos."

They might.  Then again they might not.  Depends who's in charge.

> > Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's chief policy officer, has said that potential
> > problems exist for users with any of the several alternative root or domain
> > systems on the market.  He argues:
> >
> > "The Internet works because of common protocols.  The DNS protocol depends
for
> > its reliability and trustworthiness on the principle of authoritative
> > uniqueness, which requires the use of a single root."
> >
> > He added "Anything else creates the potential for conflicts."
> >
> > Read carefully, Andrew McLaughlin is saying there's a need for uniqueness as
> > otherwise the same name will resolve in different ways.  He is arguing, like
> > you, that the *only* way to resolve the problem is with a unique (read
"ICANN")
> > root.
>
> Now look who's reading between the lines!  He explicitly did not say
> "ICANN roots".  There's no need for ICANN to control the root servers,
> and indeed they don't really do so now.  All that matters is that there
> can only be one true authoritative set of root servers for the public
> DNS.

You're the one reading between the lines.  I didn't say anything about
"control".

Andrew McLaughlin said a "unique root".  Karl Auerbach said "multiple roots".

It is clear to me at least that they are inherently different architectures.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

> --
> Greg A. Woods
>
> +1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <[email protected]>      <robohack!woods>
> Planix, Inc. <[email protected]>; Secrets of the Weird <[email protected]>
>