ISP network design of non-authoritative caches

Valdis.Kletnieks at Valdis.Kletnieks at
Mon Nov 19 16:13:43 UTC 2001

On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:56:44 PST, Simon Higgs said:

> 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 

Hmm..  "non-conflicting".  Let's think about this for a moment.

Let's assume we have 3 TLD managment groups called A, B, and C.  In order
for there to be non-conflicting roots, A, B, and C have to enter into some
sort of agreement that if A registers a TLD .frobozz, that B and C will
promise to not register a conflicting definition of said TLD.

So what we really have here is (A+B+C) functioning as a single root, but
A, B, and C individually publishing only a subset of the root to their
customers (although why the customers want a value-subtracted view of the
DNS is beyond me).

So, to name names - if the ORSC crew and the ICANN crew were to collaborate
on a non-conflicting definition of "the root", then the composite of the
two of them would be a root, with each feeding only a subset to their

Of course, such collaboration is *NOT* happening in the real world, so we
*will* eventually see a conflict.  It will probably happen the first time
ICANN allocates a new TLD that ORSC carries, but nominates a different
registrar or a different server on the NS record for the TLD.
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 211 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list