Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, William Palfreman wrote: So what is the great theoretical objection to multiple roots then? We've already seen a conflict between the official roots and the offshoots. What happens then? Anyone who registered a .biz in the fake root is now somewhat screwed. The second problem is visibility. Without multiple roots being global, they offer a very limited utility. The final problem is lack of direction. What if I tommorrow created my own alternative root with a .geek TLD. There would be a conflict created. Even if we HAD multiple roots, a single group would have to be in charge of who got what TLD's and you still have the political drama because of that. Jason -- Jason Slagle - CCNP - CCDP /\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign . X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail . To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net
:On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, at 15:55 [=GMT-0800], Matthew Dillon wrote: : : #set hostname = 'ftp.alternic.net' : #set remfile = 'db.root' : #set locfile = 'db.root' : set hostname = 'ftp.rs.internic.net' : set remfile = domain/root.zone.gz : set locfile = root.zone.gz : :Did you at some time change your root? That's just old commented out stuff. Probably from quite a long time ago, I've been using some variation of this script for almost 10 years. -Matt Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:57:24AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firstly there is no proof that it will actually increase the load on the roots. It may well decrease the load. The analysis has not been done. Secondly it is more robust. You are no longer dependent on having to be able to reach a root server when your nameserver starts. Thirdly the vast majority (90%) of the queries to the roots result in negative answers. These are cached for a much shorter period than the positive answers. Forth you don't need to have every one of your nameservers talking to the root servers. You can use one server to get the zone and use it to distribute the zone to your other servers. Well! When ISC officially endorses this technique, by distributing bind with it set up as the default, I'll be pleased to change my mind. Until then, not. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, at 20:45 [=GMT-0500], Barney Wolff wrote: Well! When ISC officially endorses this technique, by distributing bind with it set up as the default, I'll be pleased to change my mind. Until then, not. Always best to only use default configurations. Never trust yourself! -- [15] We are in need. http://logoff.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Barney Wolff wrote: And of course, using the alternate roots is evil. Why is that then? I'm slaving the OpenNIC ones here without any trouble. DNS just being an information service in the end I can't see why there has to be the only one of its type. In fact, how can it be a standard if there is only one implementation? :-) Did you ever here the term natual monopoly. The DNS root is a example of such. When you try to change it all you do is reproduce it with additional unnecessary baggage like have to find all the roots to register the new TLD in. I can think of some very good reasons *to* have multiple roots, for one allowing new TLD domains to evolve spontaneously, and secondly to prevent TLD and subdomains from coming under control of oppressive governments and quasi-government agencies like ICANN. And why do you think that you should have the right to create arbitary new TLDs? Hell I would like the prestige of my own TLD but I know that it is *not* in the best interests of the world as a whole to have lots to TLDs which is the natural consequence to allowing anyone to set one up. In the end you end up with a massive root zone (similar to the COM zone) that requires very large machines to serve it or requires many smaller machines with a fancy front end. AFAIK .za had to move to the UK a while back precisely to avoid takeover by the South African government, but even so, one fixed root is bound to lead to increasing political control in the end. Well za should have known from the start that the South African government would possible want control at some point in time. It was quite evident from the start that governments would eventually wake up to the fact that the Internet existed and the naming structure included country codes. I know Robert Elz was aware that this was a possibility when au was established. That's also why we use oz not au for the top level of ACSnet. So what is the great theoretical objection to multiple roots then? -- W. Palfreman. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message -- Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net
Just for the record, I wrote ... is evil not the nonsense about OpenNIC. Please don't misattribute idiocy to me - my reputation is all I've got. Barney Wolff On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:58:54PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Barney Wolff wrote: And of course, using the alternate roots is evil. Why is that then? I'm slaving the OpenNIC ones here without any trouble. DNS just being an information service in the end I can't see why there has to be the only one of its type. In fact, how can it be a standard if there is only one implementation? :-) Did you ever here the term natual monopoly. The DNS root is a example of such. When you try to change it all you do is reproduce it with additional unnecessary baggage like have to find all the roots to register the new TLD in. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, at 00:38 [=GMT-0500], Barney Wolff wrote: Just for the record, I wrote ... is evil not the nonsense about OpenNIC. Please don't misattribute idiocy to me - my reputation is all I've got. And that is that you have strong opinions and use strong words to defend them in your recent messages to this list. Arguing something is not your forte. -- [08] We appreciate positive feedback. http://logoff.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
