On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, at 14:08 [=GMT-0500], Keith Moore wrote: > > > Well, it also matters that the set be constrained to some degree. > > > A large flat root would not be very managable, and caches wouldn't > > > be very effective with large numbers of TLDs. > > > > That's old fiction. If it works for .com it will work for ".". > > well, it's not clear that it works well for .com. try measuring > delay and reliability of queries for a large number of samples > sometime, and also cache effectiveness.
I guess the burden of proof is on those who argue that it doesn _not_ work well. > let's put it another way. under the current organization if .com breaks > the other TLDs will still work. if we break the root, everything fails. Since .com was running _on_ the root-servers.net until recently without problems, what are we talking about? Naturally there won't be 1 million TLDs all at once. We could start with a couple of hundreds. That would merely double the size of the root.
