On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
Depends on the root you use. If you use an inclusive name space root you
will see a significant reduction in traffic. If you use the iana root thats
when you'll diffuse the traffic.
Also of interest, If you answer the localhost TLD you'll reduce alot of
traffic. And if you can redirect a wild card in the root to AS112 you'll be
ahead on NXDOMAIN.
> > ) the IANA sanctioning alternate roots/namespaces ... "let a
> > thousand roots bloom..."
yes - while you eliminate dependence on the legacy root. i think thats the
best approach. one thing is clear from all these errors to the root is that
the icann root has withered. let a million roots bloom.
Dependence on a central root is illogical. Very soviet era.
> > ) 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?
ICANN is not a functional root anymore. It does not see all of the
Internet. Can't see china. Has no idea of the arab tlds. Can't see
India. Can't see turkey or the Netherlands. Lots of TLDs on the Internet
and ICANN can't see them. Thats why you have so much bogus root traffic.
>
>
> I said COPY. I did not say "THEIR OWN ROOT". A copy needs to
> be kept up to date or it ceases to be a copy. It becomes a
> snapshot.
>
> zone "." {
> type slave;
> masters { <addresses of root servers>; };
> };
Just AXFR.
regards
joe baptista
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
