North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: > > Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root) > > problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no > > way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other > > things along the way? > > Paul Vixie has given very good arguments. paul often does, yes. > > Let me add a design fault: > > > The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263. > > There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got > enough toplevel domains. 'not enough'... how much is 'enough'? by your calculations or mine or pauls or G.W. Bush's? Is your problem that it takes X months/years to get a new TLD put into the normal ICANN Root system? Or is it that you don't like their choice of .com and want .common (or some other .com replacement?). There is a process defined to handle adding new TLD's, I think it's even documented in an RFC? (I'm a little behind in my NRIC reading about this actually, sorry) Circumventing a process simply because it's not 'fast enough' isn't really an answer (in my opinion atleast) especially when it effectivly breaks the complete system. > > DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised. > > DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was. > uhm, how so? certainly the tree and decentralized functions still exist. > It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry. > huh? how so? Because 25M of the 35M 2nd level domains are in .com? isn't that more a function of 'everyone knows www.company.com' than anything else? I can't get people inside my company to realize (well, couldn't when it mattered to me) remeber that my email address was chris@uu.NET ... they always wanted to send to email@example.com.COM. .COM got more registrations simply, it seems to me, via marketting. > No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but > compatible to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never > stopped. The name changed. The players mostly did not. With every new > version of this Public-Root compared to the Monopoly-Root, the number of > players gets more. The number of customers gets more. people love crack, it's still not a good idea to smoke it.