On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Any ISP can point their name servers where they want.  They are answerable
> to their own clients.  I can't see why different root operators can't share
> the
> network.

Hi Patrick,

Of course (in response to your first two sentences). Let me illustrate why
the third is incorrect (at this point in time): 

The point of names is that they are supposed to 'point' somewhere; a DNS
name that points nowhere has no intrinsic value. A DNS name that
potentially points to multiple disparate entities depending on which
nameserver you query is (from a business perspective) a liability.

> It is preferable for all root operators to cooperate.  But let me give you a
> hypotheical situation, if I may.  Let's say ICANN decided to charge France a
> large amount of money for the privilege of having .FR loaded into the legacy
> zone file.  Then France refused to pay.
> 
> What would ICANN do?  Remove .FR from the zone file, perhaps.  That would turn
> out the internet for all .FR websites in the world.
> 
> If that happened, I would guess that the French government would set up a root
> server within hours.  And instruct all of the French ISPs to point their name
> servers at that root server.  Everybody in France would comply as otherwise
> their would be no internet.

That's not how DNS works. What would happen then is that nobody in the
rest of the world would be able to see the .fr domain; all Internet users
in France (provided they were querying working nameservers) would continue
to be able to access www.linux.org or mail.foo.com just fine.

What *would* happen is that nobody from the 'rest of the world' would be
able to see www.foo.fr. Regardless of whether or not the French
govt. setup root servers; unless the client is pointed at that server they
aren't going to be able to resolve .fr domains.

Pretty much the same thing that happens with the alternate root servers
and non-ICANN TLDs; if you're not pointed at the alternate root, you don't
see it. Making it worthless for business at best (and a liability for them
in the case of a collision).

> > Explain which of the three clients that purchased "domain.foo" from the
> > three vendors is right ? And why ? And just *how* this is 'better' for the
> > punter than the existing system ?
> 
> That's not different from me signing up with a mobile phone company.

Of course it is. No three phone companies will allocate you exactly the
same telephone number.

> Should a third root operator come into the picture with a disjoint set of
> another dozen extensions then the third operator could run a superset which
> incorporates all the extensions.  Any one else can run a superset.

Which has two effects:

1) Order-n complexity; everybody that wants to add a 'new' superset needs
to add every superset that has been done beforehand. *not* good from a
'network stability' point of view, and 

2) possibility of collisions: both with 'legacy' operators like ICANN, and
other 'alternate root' services.

1) may be able to be dealt with protocol-wise; but 2) is a killer from the
business perspective. 

"Oh, you got our competitor's website: well, that's because you (or your
ISP) is using the wrong nameserver"

- *not* something that happens with the telephone service. 

> I don't get what you are saying here.  As long as NewNet is running additional
> extensions, Icann doesn't care very much.  However, like .BIZ there is a
> potential for subsequent conflict.

Meaning that, while there is the potential that someone could be allocated
the exact same name as you by the 'real root' servers; your name is on
shaky ground.

> The problem arises when two .FOOs collide in the domain name space.
> Should that occur you have two root operators who need to negotiate.

That's precisely the point. What if one operator refuses to negotiate ?
According to the paper you quote above this makes the .foo domain unable
to be used.

> > The funny thing is; there are enough names to go around right now.
> 
> The TLD operators want more choice like .SEX.  If ICANN were to issue them
> none of this could have happened.

But they want more choice only so they can sell more. That's perfectly
understandable from a business perspective; but it's not a justification
for (e.g.) .sex's existence.

Regards,

Saliya

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 321 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.