On May 16, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 08:11:45PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: >> On 16 May 2012, at 18:07, Joseph S D Yao wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:31:29AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: >>> ... >>>> easily serve a zone containing a few million names. [And FWIW I very >>>> much doubt the vanity TLD madness will continue long enough for the >>>> root zone grow to anywhere like that size: maybe a few thousand new >>>> TLDs at most.] There are of course non-trivial problems making every >>> >>> Jim, if vanity has started to have bounds, I've not been aware of it. >> >> True. However the $186k entrance fee and other unavoidable costs will >> set some limits. > > The thing to watch for is pressure to lower that. > > The current commitment on ICANN's part, in deference to the findings > from the discussions of root scaling in SSAC, RSSAC, and elsewhere, > limits growth in the root zone to no more than 1000 new delegations in > a year. DNS experts told ICANN quite clearly that slow change could be > quite large before it should cause concern, and a growth factor of 10 > against the current zone is not large. They also warned that abrupt > change could be more of a concern, depending on the magnitude. > > Of the 2100 or so applications currently received > (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-04may12-en), > evaluation will take some time and not all requested names will be > delegated, with no clear way to predict how many actual delegations > will result or when (the evaluation phase determines that, according > to the guidelines in the New gTLD Applicants' Guidebook as published). > > In the short-to-medium term, I'm not worried about this; a factor of > 10 growth in the number of delegations, with no corresponding change > in update rates, seems unlikely to cause operational stress on any > timescale that wouldn't also allow appropriate steps to be taken to > mitigate it-- and a number of parties, including ICANN itself and an > assortment of governments via the GAC, are keeping a close eye on the > specifics of how this plays out in practice. > > In the long term, I expect pressure to lower both the entry fee and > the technical requirements, just because that's the way of the > world.
Me too. And I (personally) don't foresee the actual *number* of delegations causing scaling issues (RAM is cheap, records are small, etc), but rather the increase in traffic / query rate to the root caused by recursives not having TLDs cached (currently a busy, well resourced recursive has basically all (interesting) TLD delegations cached basically all the time). Yes, it is an effect of more delegations, but a: second order and b: only if the shiny new delegations actually get *used*. I *really really really* don't foresee this becoming a scaling concern, but even if it somehow did, it still wouldn't call for big-iron boxes, but rather an increase in anycast capacity[0]. Much more concerning (and annoying) is simply the amount of bogus / garbage queries that root gets -- if folk want a windmill to tilt at... > Much depends on how well new gTLDs do in the next few years. > > > Suzanne W [0]: and would be handled by the current capacity planning. > > (NB: I serve as the RSSAC liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors, but > I don't speak for ICANN and have no non-public knowledge on the > current program status.) And if we're doing full disclosure: I serve on the ICANN SSAC and we had *many* *long* discussions on this topic… I seriously considered taking up cutting myself again…. > _______________________________________________ > dns-operations mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations > dns-jobs mailing list > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs > _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
