The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse (was Re: Enable BIND cache server to resolve chinese domain name?)

Tue Jul 5 17:51:50 UTC 2005

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Todd Underwood wrote:

> > problem.  Right now, if you're an end user doing your DNS lookups via the
> > ICANN root, you can get to just about everything.  If you're something
> > that end users want to connect to, using an ICANN-recognized domain will
> > mean almost everybody can get to you, while an "alternative" TLD would
> > mean only a tiny fraction of the Internet would be able to get to you.
> > So, if you're a content provider, why would you use anything other than a
> > real ICANN-recognized domain?  And, if the content providers aren't using
> > real domain names, why would an end user care about whether they can get
> > to the TLDs that nobody is using?
>
> s/ICANN root/real Internet/
> s/"alternative" TLD/IPv6/

That isn't as perfect a simile as you're attempting to make it, because the
pairs do not have the same relationships to each other:

  With ICANN vs. non-ICANN roots, you have one in isolated parallel to the
  other, with one happening to imitate the contents of the other.  (In
  addition, you have multiple non-ICANN roots which do not imitate each
  other.)

  With IPv4 vs. IPv6, you have one as an integrable parallel to the other,
  where both can operate simultaneously from any host, and interoperability
  of single-type connectivity can be accomplished at the low protocol level
  (NAT-PT and similar).

Non-ICANN vs. ICANN is much more like OSI vs. IP, rather than IPv6 vs. IPv4.

Good try, though.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv at duh.org> <tv at pobox.com> <todd at vierling.name>