As many people are aware, the "toy" IPv4 Internet is useful for doing �proof-of-concept� development of a TLD and all the needed infrastructure, prior to becoming a commercial fixture, set in bedrock on stable IPv6, IPv8 and/or IPv16 networks. As shown below, there are several companies participating in this grand experiment. I think everyone agrees that the Internet will not �crash�. Multiple �roots� are no longer needed. At best they are out-dated publishers of information about TLD Nameserver Clusters. Some people apparently still find it useful to depend on a �root�, as opposed to finding the �dominant� TLD Clusters via simple software. Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy. Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach. The SLD.TLD cluster is of course usually unique. How an end user�s resolver locates the SLD.TLD Cluster does not impact the end-users�s resolver interaction with the SLD.TLD Cluster. In this grand �proof-of-concept� experiment, it appears that the TLDs, .SHOP, .TRAVEL, .FREE and possibly .INFO may be the landmark TLDs which test the notion of multiple TLD Clusters. There do not appear to be hundreds in this class, as many people claimed there would be. For some users, it might be more desirable to use the multiple TLD Cluster approach to ensure more stability. In the future, the .COM TLD will also likely become structured this way, in order to ensure that the underlying registry can be changed, by turning off the old one and allowing traffic to be handled by the new .COM TLD Cluster. If that does not occur, the claim will always be made that the incumbent registry can not be changed. People want registries to be changed, without impacting service. It will be interesting to see how this grand �proof-of-concept� experiment evolves on the legacy IPv4 Internet. If multiple TLD Clusters prove to be useful, more desirable, more stable, etc. I would think all engineers would recommend them for future Internet architectures. The IETF seems to be silent about Multiple TLD Clusters. Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp ------------- Dominant Proof-of-Concept Participants http://www.name-space.com http://www.icann.org/tlds/ads1/NameSpace-gtld-appBP.html (* first 20 TLDs) .SHOP <<<<< .SPACE .SEX .ART .ZONE .MUSIC .ONLINE .CONSULTING .DESIGN .TRAVEL <<<<< .MEDIA .NEWS .DIRECT .MAIL .WORLD .MAG .AUCTION .FREE <<<<< .CAM .SERVICE ----------------------- http://www.New.Net .SHOP <<<<< .MP3 .INC .KIDS .SPORT .FAMILY .CHAT .VIDEO .CLUB .HOLA .SOC .MED .LAW .TRAVEL <<<<< .GAME .FREE <<<< .LTD .GMBH .TECH .XXX ---------------------- ISOC/ICANN http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02817.html http://www.icann.org/tlds/ .FIRM .STORE .WEB .ARTS .REC .INFO <<<< .NOM .AERO .BIZ .COOP .INFO <<<< .MUSEUM .NAME .PRO _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ---------------------------------------------
