At 01:14 PM 11/18/01 -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
nanog@adns.net ("John Palmer (NANOG Acct)") writes:
So that your customers can see all of the internet and not just what ICANN wants you to see.
bzeep. nonsequitur. there can only be one root zone.
Nonsense. BCP32 (RFC 2606) specifically alters a root zone by adding reserved TLDs. How many combinations of the root does that provide for? And RFC2826 has been clarified here on the Nanog list as "one root at a time" and not mixing multiple roots. OK by me, but at some point sanity should prevail and that running code and rough consensus demands the peering of non-conflicting TLDs for everyone's benefit. It's a common practise in other spaces, so why not in the DNS space? I don't understand the "my way or the highway" mentality. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-virtual-root-00.txt
if you change your dns configuration to subscribe to something else, then you're off "the internet" in a technical sense.
Nonsense. I've not used the legacy root since I proposed the shared-TLD model (and explained it to Postel) back in 1995/6 (FYI, the last version of the Internet Draft is at the IAHC website). Everytime Verisign/NSI screws up the .COM glue I don't notice a thing. Something to be said for that. At least one ICANN board member recognizes the limitations under ROOT-SERVERS.NET and chooses another root for service. I don't blame 'em.
(that some root-looking zones incorporate all icann data past present and future is merely a testament to the fact that "the internet" means "what the one true official root zone includes", and should not be indicative of some kind off odd "value subtraction service" by a root-like zone publisher.)
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is a "value subtraction service". It misses published portions of the name space - so if you use it, it is of limited value. I can reach twice as many TLDs elsewhere. Oh yeah. It's "stable". I forgot. What ticks me off is the zero-sum game being played. Anyone saying "there can only be one root zone" and supporting a closed and non-inclusive root is playing a zero sum game. "We win, you lose" is not the spirit of the internet, running code and rough-consensus. Best Regards, Simon -- "You can't vote on facts" - Brian Carpenter