The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse

Sun Jul 10 12:45:18 UTC 2005

Servers and zones are part of the physical instancing of DNS 
roots.  The definition of the root precedes the instance.   In short, 
the definition of a naming structure is disjoint from the delivery 
and usage of that structure, be it servers and zones or whatever.

Regarding the separation of servers and zones, this is already common 
practice. BIND provides a good example of this.  With BIND, one can 
serve an arbitrary set of zones from an arbitrary set of servers, 
subject to the ability to do zone transfers.  So there is obvious separation.

     Cutler

At 11:35 PM 7/9/2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 06:08:25PM -0400, James R. Cutler wrote:
 >    Actually,  many naming and addressing management experts consider that
 >    the existence of a root defines a unique namespace.

The existence of a root *zone* yes.

We really should separate root *servers* from *root* zones.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

       If you can read this... thank a system administrator.  Or two.  --me

-
James R. Cutler
james.cutler at consultant.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20050710/c8947f44/attachment.html>