North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse

  • From: Michael.Dillon
  • Date: Wed Jul 06 08:50:38 2005

> 1. Security ("man-in-the-middle").

VPNs, SSH tunnels, etc. There are ways to solve
this problem.

> 2. Common interoperability.

We do not currently have common interoperability for a
whole range of protocols. The most obvious examples are
instant messaging and P2P file transfer but there are many
more when you start digging. Often common interoperability
is not desired by the end users and they are the ones who
determine what succeeds at the end of the day.

> 3. *Common sense.*  [Erm, oh yeah, perhaps I shouldn't feed the troll.
>    After all, this is the same guy who thinks that resurrecting the
>    long dead concept of source routed e-mail is scalable.]

Since when did the NANOG mailing list become your personal
venue for flinging personal insults at other list members?
For the record, I have never suggested that source-routing
is a good idea for email nor have I ever suggested that
source-routing is scalable. Some people who read my comments
on email architecture jumped to knee-jerk conclusions (the
wrong conclusions) that I wanted to resurrect UUCP bang-paths.
God knows where they got that idea from.

> You really should read RFC2826 sometime.  It's quite short, as RFCs go.

I have read it and I appreciate the IAB's comments, but it
was written at a time when we didn't have as much experience
with rootless networks as we do now. The work of various people
in Freenet and other P2P technologies shows that it may indeed
be technically feasible to have a DNS that does not have one
single monolithic root. 

Received wisdom is always interesting, but sometimes it is wrong.
Remember the IETF mantra? Working code and rough consensus.
There are two groups that currently have working code and they
are cooperating with each other which means that the work is
being done in an atmosphere of "rough consensus". The end result
is that they *WILL* *WIN* the debate unless you and other naysayers
can point out specific and unresolvable technical issues with 
their work. The gist of the discussion on this list has been that
people don't *LIKE* the alt roots, that they don't *FEEL* good
about the idea, that they *FEAR* the possible outcomes. Those
are not technical issues.

I realize that there are some people on this list that want
to enforce the one true religion of Internet and discourage
non-believers from joining the club, but I don't agree with
that approach. I believe that it is better to let the free flow
of ideas continue because the Internet is robust enough to
survive and thrive in the face of countless experiments including
people announcing huge AS-paths and people running alternate
DNS roots. Bring it on!

--Michael Dillon