On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:31AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 02:16:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>> er, it (the bogus ttraffic) still reaches the root.
> >>> just your copy of the root, not mine.
> >> Yep. This should be seen as a good thing. The information
> >> leakage to the root servers is enormous.
> > This sounds to me like a cure that is quite possibly worse than the
> > disease.
>
> In what way?
Mark made the claim that a local copy of the root would stop the
traffic, which is false. a local copy of the root simply diffuses
the traffic.
the down sides to local copies of the root as seen from the
peanut gallery:
) coherence of the avowed single namespace. There have been
a few threads over the past decade on "bit rot" in the root-hints
data. Local copies of the root zone will have the same bit-rot
characteristics
) the IANA sanctioning alternate roots/namespaces ... "let a
thousand roots bloom..."
) just how is the poor application/end user supposed to know
or discriminate some local, walled garden root varient from
the one true ICANN root varient?
but you, no doubt, see a much clearer picture. please convince
me that my doubts are groundless... that bit-rot won't happen,
that the avowed single namespace will remain intact, and that
there will be trival ways for end users to discover the root of
the namespace they are using... if the recommendation to run
your own copy of the root is approved.
--bill
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
