From: Bruce Campbell [mailto:bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:41 PM
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
There is some (as yet unpublished) research data that says ~20% of the queries currently going to the root servers are for invalid TLDs (as setup by .private internal operators). Endorsing the use of private domains will make this much worse.
There was some mention (cue bill) at the last IETF about an endorsement of '.int' for internal networks by some insert-dns-clueless-company-here. which of course sends (significant?) unwanted traffic towards the .int nameservers.
Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use of INT internally would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT TLD from the clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions it has been suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for internal use only. Let me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My personal preference is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The next question is; should this be an RFC?
A better step would be to thoroughly endorse .private or similar, and have the distributed root.hints file point it back to the local nameserver, so such dns traffic does not end up on the cruel and heartless internet.
You gotta be careful here, to not point to a recursive server, for a non-recursive reference.
Of course, lack of clue when setting up internal networks will always happen (such as allowing those queries out, or not setting up a correct private tree off your regular domain etc etc).