Bare TLD resolutions

David Conrad drc at
Wed Sep 17 22:31:50 UTC 2014


On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred at> wrote:
> IMHO, since ICANN has created the situation, 

ICANN has created ill-specified domain search path heuristics and truly fascinating implementations of those heuristics?  ICANN has caused people to use non-allocated TLDs in environments where queries for those non-allocated TLDs hit the public Internet?  ICANN had made applications dependent upon receiving NXDOMAINs in a way that implies the root of the DNS should never be expanded (even for country codes or internationalized domain names)?

> the ball is in ICANN’s court to say how this works without disrupting name services.

Actually, name services aren’t disrupted. They are behaving exactly as specified in the DNS and as intended.  What is disrupted is (typically unknown) assumptions people have made regarding the composition of the top-level of the domain namespace. ICANN has been working to try to help mitigate the issue for some time now (initial discussions occurred in 2010).

> Their ill-informed hipshot is not our emergency.

Hipshots are generally not a good idea, regardless of whether they are ill-informed. 

Whose emergency it is probably depends on how the delegation of new top-level domains impacts the operation of your network. To date, in cases where there was impact, the affected parties have worked to address the issues and (AFAIK) no emergencies have been experienced.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list