North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: ISP network design of non-authoritative caches
At 01:14 PM 11/18/01 -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
Nonsense. BCP32 (RFC 2606) specifically alters a root zone by adding reserved TLDs. How many combinations of the root does that provide for? And RFC2826 has been clarified here on the Nanog list as "one root at a time" and not mixing multiple roots. OK by me, but at some point sanity should prevail and that running code and rough consensus demands the peering of non-conflicting TLDs for everyone's benefit. It's a common practise in other spaces, so why not in the DNS space? I don't understand the "my way or the highway" mentality.[email protected] ("John Palmer (NANOG Acct)") writes: > So that your customers can see all of the internet and not just what ICANN > wants you to see. bzeep. nonsequitur. there can only be one root zone.
if you change yourNonsense. I've not used the legacy root since I proposed the shared-TLD model (and explained it to Postel) back in 1995/6 (FYI, the last version of the Internet Draft is at the IAHC website). Everytime Verisign/NSI screws up the .COM glue I don't notice a thing. Something to be said for that. At least one ICANN board member recognizes the limitations under ROOT-SERVERS.NET and chooses another root for service. I don't blame 'em.
(that some root-looking zones incorporate all icann dataF.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is a "value subtraction service". It misses published portions of the name space - so if you use it, it is of limited value. I can reach twice as many TLDs elsewhere. Oh yeah. It's "stable". I forgot.
What ticks me off is the zero-sum game being played. Anyone saying "there can only be one root zone" and supporting a closed and non-inclusive root is playing a zero sum game. "We win, you lose" is not the spirit of the internet, running code and rough-consensus.
"You can't vote on facts"
- Brian Carpenter