Enable BIND cache server to resolve chinese domain name?

Mon Jul 4 18:15:58 UTC 2005

At 2:33 PM +0100 2005-07-04, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>>     That works, up until the point where India decides to use a
>>  different alternative root solution than China does.
>
>  The only people affected by this are the people who run
>  the alternative root used by China because, presumably,
>  it means that they lose some business to a competitor
>  who has won the Indian market.

	Not at all.  Any third party who might want to see both the 
Indian sites and the Chinese sites would also lose, because they 
couldn't use both sets of alternative root servers at the same time. 
Any ISP that might serve some customers who want to see one set of 
sites, and another set of customers who want to see the other set, 
would also lose.

	In other words, just about everyone else in the world would also lose.

>>   That works, up
>>  until the point where the inexperienced alternative root operators
>>  screw something up and their entire "expanded" Internet goes down,
>>  while the real root servers continue normal operations.
>
>  Yes, and Google works until they screw something up and
>  their wonderful search engine goes down while Excite and
>  Yahoo et al. continue normal operations.

	Yes, but people aren't forced by their ISP to use a given search 
site.  They can use any search site they want.  That same level of 
choice does not exist with one or more alternative roots.

>>     The balkanization of the 'net is something to be avoided at all
>>  possible costs.
>
>  My company makes good money off balkanization of the 'net
>  and we are definitely *NOT* the only one. AOL has always
>  operated a network apart from the rest.

	AOL is a bad choice here.  They've finally decided that the 
walled garden model doesn't work, and they're opening up all their 
content to the whole world, all you have to do is use their portal.

	If you're going to make arguments, you should at least choose 
examples that support your thesis.

>  Remember, the public root systems are not attacking
>  the ICANN root infrastructure at the network layer
>  in any way. They are not impeding the ability of the
>  ICANN roots to function and they are not stopping
>  people from following your "only one root" model.

	Actually, they are.  They are causing confusion.  People don't 
understand why they can't get to a given set of sites.  Intentionally 
creating such a situation is just about the worst possible thing you 
could do.

>  Their entrepreneurial spirit is consistent with the
>  free and open way in which the Internet has developed.

	No, it's not.  If it had been, they would have worked their 
business model through the IETF.

>  Remember the paraphrase from Voltaire:
>     "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
>      to the death your right to say it"

	I have said that before on many occasions.  However, in this 
case, I do not defend your right to say it.  In my opinion, your 
doing so undermines the most fundamental basis of the Internet.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.