how many roots must DNS have before it's considered broken (Re: ISP network design of non-authoritative caches)

measl at measl at
Mon Nov 19 13:47:50 UTC 2001

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:


> Once we start down the slippery slope of "I'm a root too", how
> many different ad hoc DNS "universes" (for lack of better
> term) must we have before we decide that things are "broken"?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to ask most of us who use alternative
roots, the reason would be that we are, in our own little way, trying to
"fix" the DNS by doing so.

In my case, I believe that ICANN is totally corrupt, *completely*
oblivious [by choice] of how their corruption impacts the real world, and
finally, that because of this deeply entrenched corruption, the DNS is
de-facto "broken".  
> I'd hazard a guess that 99.9% of Internet users want things to
> "just work" cohesively and consistently.

I agree completely, and it is this belief that seems to be missing at
ICANN.  Unless of course a system can be set up whereby ICANN is the sole
financial recipient of the fruits of this consistency: then ICANN can be
most cooperative in "working for the public good".


> Maintaining a single, authoritative root seems, IMHO, to be a
> Good Thing.

I agree totally.  Pity we can't get ICANN to go along with this without
forking over our life's savings and bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H donations of our
first borns, huh?

>  Given multiple registries, namespace collisions
> would get ugly -- and, even in the absence of collisions, let us
> consider "reachability" issues.

I agree with all of this, but the issue is moot in my book: Since ICANN
felt the need to either own the world or break it, I went elsewhere.  So
did a LOT of others.  Look at the mass exodus from NS/Verisign - same
issues.  IMNSHO, ICANN cares not a rats [email protected]@ about the internet, they are
only interested in the money and the power.  That makes their
"positions" totally meaningless to me, and a lot of others who feel the
same way.
> This isn't a question of "I like ICANN" or not... it's a question
> of the system.  Do people decide that they like or dislike our
> system of government based solely on specific elected officials?

No, but at least our [deeply flawed and bleeding] system keeps the
*pretense* of following the laws of the land.  As for your inference that
the ICANN folken are all "elected" officials...

> Cheap domains from the EverQuick root!  Guaranteed to work at a
> handful of local dialups and dedicated-line customers! :-)

Oh, didn't you hear?  EverQuick *also* includes the records of it's
largest competitor, so you can go to ALL of the places you wanted, not
just the ones that live on EverQuik.

> I think that I'll start handing out ASNs and IP space, too...

It's called subdelegation.  Go for it.  Totally different system, which
for the most part works.  (Yes, there are flaws there too, but...)

> Eddy

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

More information about the NANOG mailing list