Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
Greg A. Woods <woods@weird.com> wrote: On Monday, March 19, 2001 4:25 AM (AEST)
[ On Monday, March 19, 2001 at 03:38:54 (+1100), Patrick Corliss wrote: ]
Subject: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
On Fri Mar 16 08:48:04 2001, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@civicnet.org> wrote:
For the Internet to work, at least with currently accepted DNS standards, everyone has to use the same root servers. Otherwise things can rapidly degenerate into chaos. The whole point of law and due process is that a duly authorized somebody has to have the authority to insist that everyone use the same root servers.
Sorry, Miles, it's not true. It's just ICANN FUD.
Obviously you haven't got a friggin clue about how the DNS works either technically or politically.
Hi Greg Interesting you should say that based on what I think is my second posting to this list. And that posting quite fairly quoted both points of view. The argument I'm favouring is that put by Karl Auerbach who is considered by many to be a leading expert on the internet. I see that your partnership specializes in networking and Unix system administration. As you seem to be rather competent, perhaps you could tell me more clearly why you think Karl Auerbach is mistaken in his arguments. They seem rather well thought out to me. Much of Karl's expertise seems rather similar to your own. It includes secure operating systems and secure networks as well as Advanced Internet Architectures with Cisco Systems. You will find it described at http://www.cavebear.com/CaveBear/karl.html
Read what the man said: "Otherwise things can rapidly degenerate into chaos."
They might. Then again they might not. Depends who's in charge.
Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's chief policy officer, has said that potential problems exist for users with any of the several alternative root or domain systems on the market. He argues:
"The Internet works because of common protocols. The DNS protocol depends for its reliability and trustworthiness on the principle of authoritative uniqueness, which requires the use of a single root."
He added "Anything else creates the potential for conflicts."
Read carefully, Andrew McLaughlin is saying there's a need for uniqueness as otherwise the same name will resolve in different ways. He is arguing, like you, that the *only* way to resolve the problem is with a unique (read "ICANN") root.
Now look who's reading between the lines! He explicitly did not say "ICANN roots". There's no need for ICANN to control the root servers, and indeed they don't really do so now. All that matters is that there can only be one true authoritative set of root servers for the public DNS.
You're the one reading between the lines. I didn't say anything about "control". Andrew McLaughlin said a "unique root". Karl Auerbach said "multiple roots". It is clear to me at least that they are inherently different architectures. Regards Patrick Corliss
-- Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
First off let me now blast you into oblivion for posting your response to my *PRIVATE* message!!!!! That was a *REALLY* stupid thing to do. You've now lost all the points you might have had in this game and gone negative.... [ On Monday, March 19, 2001 at 05:36:57 (+1100), Patrick Corliss wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
Interesting you should say that based on what I think is my second posting to this list. And that posting quite fairly quoted both points of view. The argument I'm favouring is that put by Karl Auerbach who is considered by many to be a leading expert on the internet.
Well anyone justifying their claims by quoting Auerbach is obviously not doing either the politically or technically astute thing..... :-) (quoting his entire proposal was also bad etiquette)
I see that your partnership specializes in networking and Unix system administration. As you seem to be rather competent, perhaps you could tell me more clearly why you think Karl Auerbach is mistaken in his arguments. They seem rather well thought out to me.
Auerbach proposes a system of guaranteed political chaos. Perhaps in the long run this would cause a real directory service to appear -- one which could span the resulting DNS discontinuity -- but in the mean time it will only cause more and more Internet-based ventures to fail as it drives a wedge of complete confusion into every user's mind. Furthermore since Auerbach's proposal breaks the design of the DNS without proposing a replacement for the reliability mechanisms, it's bound to fail technically too. (Though of course a vast number of domains now operating on the internet fail to take into account the design constraints of the DNS too, and though many of them really do fail spectacularly sometimes they're still not properly fixed.)
Much of Karl's expertise seems rather similar to your own. It includes secure operating systems and secure networks as well as Advanced Internet Architectures with Cisco Systems.
I'm very well aware of his past. You should try reading a few threads he participated in from ancient Usenet history (1980-1995) once Google get it back online. You're welcome to read threads I participated in too and make up your own mind, of course.
They might. Then again they might not. Depends who's in charge.
"Depends on who's in charge." Hmmm.... so what exactly then is the difference between Auerbach's scheme and one where there's one root just as the design calls for? At least if you adhere to the technical design you won't run into technical problems as Auerbach's proposal is bound to do.
Andrew McLaughlin said a "unique root". Karl Auerbach said "multiple roots".
It is clear to me at least that they are inherently different architectures.
Well of course. But "a unique root" need not be controlled by someone or some group that you happen to disagree with. The correct way to fight against a DNS root controlled by someone you don't like is not to propose multiple DNS roots, but rather to campaign for a democratic root. Auerbach's proposal is not technically sound and is political suicide. You really really really need to read (and understand) Paul Vixie's Nov. 1995 paper "External Issues in DNS Scalability" proposing a technically workable fix to the DNS politics (i.e. the one he sent a link for to the NANOG list a wee while back). -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
On Monday, March 19, 2001 7:00 AM (AEST) Greg A. Woods <woods@weird.com> wrote: To: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au> Cc: Karl Auerbach <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>; [NANOG] <nanog@merit.edu> Subject: Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
First off let me now blast you into oblivion for posting your response to my *PRIVATE* message!!!!! That was a *REALLY* stupid thing to do. You've now lost all the points you might have had in this game and gone negative....
Hi Greg Please let me apologise to you and other members of the list for posting my reply publicly. This was unintended and accidental on my part. I don't know how I made the error but I somehow thought that your post was onlist. Fotunately there was nothing intensely private apart from your low opinion of my abilities. I'd say that opinion has, if possible, sunk even lower now ;-). You have also said about my posting of Karl Auerbach's work:
(quoting his entire proposal was also bad etiquette)
There are some strong views on these topics as you demonstrated with your vigorous private message. I appreciate you are very competent but in other cases these negative views are superficial and uninformed. Karl Auerbarch's proposal is the only one that I have seen which explains an alternative viewpoint impartially. It may sound boorish given my mistake above but I am less concerned with etiquette than I am with truth and justice. I don't believe that multiple roots are necessarily a "bad thing" either technically or politically and I think this will be proved in time. Meanwhile that you for the references. I will discuss them with you later. Anyway, I'm sorry it happpened. Best regards Patrick Corliss
On Monday, March 19, 2001 5:11 PM (AEST) Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au> wrote:
Meanwhile that you for the references. I will discuss them with you later.
Correction. That should say "thank you for the references". Thank you, Greg. Best wishes Patrick Corliss
[ On Monday, March 19, 2001 at 17:11:32 (+1100), Patrick Corliss wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
Please let me apologise to you and other members of the list for posting my reply publicly. This was unintended and accidental on my part. I don't know how I made the error but I somehow thought that your post was onlist.
Apology accepted. Just remember that I always set my reply-to address as appropriate -- if your software works anywhere near close to properly you'd not have been able to automatically make such a mistake. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
participants (2)
-
Patrick Corliss -
woods＠weird.com