ISP network design of non-authoritative caches

Mon Nov 19 01:56:44 UTC 2001

At 01:14 PM 11/18/01 -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:

>nanog at adns.net ("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.

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.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-virtual-root-00.txt

>  if you change your
>dns configuration to subscribe to something else, then you're off "the 
>internet"
>in a technical sense.

Nonsense. 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 data
>past present and future is merely a testament to the fact that "the internet"
>means "what the one true official root zone includes", and should not be
>indicative of some kind off odd "value subtraction service" by a root-like 
>zone
>publisher.)

F.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.

Best Regards,

Simon

--
"You can't vote on facts"
                    - Brian Carpenter