Stability of the Internet?
rmeyer at mhsc.com
Mon May 21 22:06:16 UTC 2001
> From: Bruce Campbell [mailto:bc at vicious.dropbear.id.au]
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:41 PM
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> > There is some (as yet unpublished) research data that says
> ~20% of the
> > queries currently going to the root servers are for invalid
> TLDs (as setup
> > by .private internal operators). Endorsing the use of
> private domains will
> > make this much worse.
> There was some mention (cue bill) at the last IETF about an
> endorsement of
> '.int' for internal networks by some insert-dns-clueless-company-here.
> which of course sends (significant?) unwanted traffic towards the .int
Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use of INT internally
would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT TLD from the
clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions it has been
suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for internal use only. Let
me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My personal preference
is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The next question is;
should this be an RFC?
> A better step would be to thoroughly endorse .private or
> similar, and have
> the distributed root.hints file point it back to the local
> nameserver, so
> such dns traffic does not end up on the cruel and heartless internet.
You gotta be careful here, to not point to a recursive server, for a
> Of course, lack of clue when setting up internal networks will always
> happen (such as allowing those queries out, or not setting up
> a correct
> private tree off your regular domain etc etc).
More information about the NANOG