How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange points? This will make them avaliable to all ISP/NSP's regardless of peering arrangements with others and would also improve connectivity to them. For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should not be run by a single organisation. --Peter
This is an excellent idea Peter!
How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange points?
This will make them avaliable to all ISP/NSP's regardless of peering arrangements with others and would also improve connectivity to them.
For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should not be run by a single organisation.
--Peter
On Sat, 29 Jul 1995, John A. Russo - Geonet Communications wrote:
This is an excellent idea Peter!
How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange points?
For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should not be run by a single organisation.
What about hijacking the root name servers? Here's the scenario..... A group of people who dislike the Internic's restrictive policies re the namespace get together and set up new root domain servers that offer new toplevel domains like .FAM, .INC, .KLINGON, .BIZ, .GOD, etc... They also delegate the old domains to the existing root nameservers for .COM, .EDU, etc. They offer the list of new root nameservers to anyone who wishes to access the new expanded namespace. All a sysadmin needs to do is replace the cache file used to prime named. They should also offer email forwarding so that people stuck with a reactionary sysadmin can still email a new domain by using addresses of the form person%one.true.god@reactionary.org Could people be plotting this even as we speak? Is it a good idea? Would it solve the namespace problems we currently have? Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
Two interesting side effects of many name spaces would would be that a) people will perhaps run better (less leaky, more secure, ...) name servers, it only so they won't interfere across name spaces, and b) someone may sell services for pointers and directories of all the available name spaces. As such, why stop at two root sets?
On Sat, 29 Jul 1995, John A. Russo - Geonet Communications wrote:
This is an excellent idea Peter!
How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange points?
For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should not be run by a single organisation.
What about hijacking the root name servers? Here's the scenario.....
A group of people who dislike the Internic's restrictive policies re the namespace get together and set up new root domain servers that offer new toplevel domains like .FAM, .INC, .KLINGON, .BIZ, .GOD, etc... They also delegate the old domains to the existing root nameservers for .COM, .EDU, etc. They offer the list of new root nameservers to anyone who wishes to access the new expanded namespace. All a sysadmin needs to do is replace the cache file used to prime named.
They should also offer email forwarding so that people stuck with a reactionary sysadmin can still email a new domain by using addresses of the form person%one.true.god@reactionary.org
Could people be plotting this even as we speak? Is it a good idea? Would it solve the namespace problems we currently have?
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange points?
This will make them avaliable to all ISP/NSP's regardless of peering arrangements with others and would also improve connectivity to them.
For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should not be run by a single organisation.
This is already being done. You have one at the DGix, the Internic machine is being moved, and there is a proposal to move/add additional servers to other exchange points around the globe. What else would you suggest doing? I'm working on a plan to restructure the mbone topology to better reflect the current actual topology. There are some other ideas in the mill. -- --bill
How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange points?
This will make them avaliable to all ISP/NSP's regardless of peering arrangements with others and would also improve connectivity to them.
there has never been a shortage of volunteers to run root servers. i'm not sure that the exchange points are good spots, since the folks who run exchange points (MFS, NASA, Pac Bell, etc) usually know a lot more about the link level than the network level -- and besides, i'm not sure that a root name server ought to have an ASN and run BGP4, which means that it will have to be behind a router that _does_ have an ASN and run BGP4. if this is to be the case, i'd rather see the routers inside NSP offices, where UNIX experts and network experts are more plentiful than at the exchange points. to that end, NS.ISC.ORG is one 10Mb/s hop away from BADnet (barrnet-alternet- digital) in the DECWRL computer room. it's likely that i will shortly add an SMDS T1 connection to the CIX cloud for other reasons, and that will help a tiny bit (only a tiny bit, since Alternet has T3 to that cloud from the router i peer with in that room.) work is underway (by the Postel-Mockapetris-Vixie-Kosters quadumvirite) to implement Bill Manning's suggestion of putting all the root servers under a single domain, which will let DNS' name compression start winning for us. if this works out, we should be able to just about double the number of root name servers. NSP's with multiple T3's to geographically disparite exchange points will be given strong preference. sites outside the United States will be given strong preference. the root servers are not currently suffering from load (my own server does about 100 queries per second, which is about 10% of the capacity of my little 66Mhz/64MB BSD/OS machine). the goal here is to reduce load on the wide area net rather than on the root servers themselves. and also to increase the likelihood that any given host can reach a root server during times of wide- scale connectivity problems (which seem to be more common lately?)
For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should not be run by a single organisation.
they never have been.
participants (6)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
hwb＠upeksa.sdsc.edu -
johnr＠geo1.geo.net -
Michael Dillon -
Paul A Vixie -
Peter Lothberg