|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IPv6 Advertisements
[email protected] (David Conrad) writes: > I once suggested that due to the odd nature of the root name server > addresses in the DNS protocol (namely, that they must be hardwired > into every caching resolver out there and thus, are somewhat > difficult to change), the IETF/IAB should designate a bunch of /32s > as "root server addresses" as DNS protocol parameters. ISPs could > then explicitly permit those /32s. > > However, the folks I mentioned this to (some root server operators) > felt this would be inappropriate. as one of the people who told drc that this was a bad idea, i ought to say that my reason is based on domain name universalism. if root name service addresses were protocol parameters (fixed everywhere) they'd be intercepted ("served locally") even more often by local ISP's and governments for the purpose of overloading the namespace with political or economic goals in mind. this would be great for local ISP's and governments with political or economic goals in mind, but bad for the end users, bad for the community, bad for the internet, and bad for the world. right now, the people who intercept f-root traffic for fun or profit could conceivably be in violation of law or treaty, could have the pleasure of receiving letters from ISC's attorney, and so on. if root name service addresses were unowned protocol parameters used only by convention (like port numbers or AS112 server addresses or RFC1918 addresses), then we'd see a far less universal namespace than we do now, and the coca cola company would probably see far fewer hits at COKE.COM than they see now. whether drc's idea is bad depends on what one thinks the internet is. -- Paul Vixie
|