<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: DNS/ICANN understanding
Roberto,
I thank you for your comment. I obviously was unclear if you did not
got my point. Mea culpa!
I feel there are three semantic problems first:
- our European cultures tend to associate private to private sector
and public to state or former monopoly sector, so public for us
is obviously larger than private. This is not the meaning used
in here. Public is what is available to everyone. Private is what is
reserved to some. Private may be larger than public: think
about transportation: public transports cannot transport you to
all the places your private car can do. While the reverse is true.
- the nature of the Internet is hidden behind our perception of it.
We tend to consider the Internet as a network, such as
Transpac. It is not: it is a network of networks. Your PC
connection to a host in Rome is as much complex as an
X.75 interconnect agreement between Italcable and the KDD.
Let assume you alternatively call Transpac then Tymnet
using a TTY: your global vision of the world will be first the
one supported by France Telecom, then the one by BT.
Initially the TTY packet switch international services where
all the same as supported by Tymnet. Then new technologies,
international gateways, interconnect agreements came in.
Initially the Internet got all its interconnects ruled by the
same root. Now the different "network operators"
(you, me, the VPN, intranet, externet.. managers) start
understanding they may have their own global vision of
their network environment extending their control on
the foreign liaisons of their intranet/home system, making
it different or event broader than the public (the one
available to everyone) vision they had to be happy with
until now.
- extended services: this is a rather tricky word meaning what
is not yet accepted as a standard value added service (or will
never be) but is yet offered or demanded. I included the intranet
into extended services because the intranet by essence is not
part of the currently prevailing standard public offering and is
built on a private basis. But more than else, because extended
services are virtually extending the intranet globally (this is
why I call this external part the "externet").
It is true that the full equation is:
global = public + intranet + externet + other extended
This only means - and I understand it may surprise you - that
global is always private and includes all the resources you may
access including:
- your own systems: intranet
- what is available to everyone: public
- what you want to add on top of the pulic system: externet
- what you want to add on top of Internet: other extended
I know that for you global is the whole internet but there is
not such an operational thing (ie. DNS wise). It could only be
if there was a single network, but there are millions. From
your intranet you cannot access a host on another protected
intranet. So your global vision of Internet is different from the
user of that intranet. You could only have a global network in
your meaning in adding all the intranet and the extended
services. You would have then a huge amount of conflicts:
a private global vision is made of priorities assigned to handle
the conflicts. While public as a well behave core offer makes
sure it has no conflict.
Global is the same as public only when you have no intranet
and cannot afford or feel free to use/buy extended features in
addition or in replacement for public features.
Dont tell me this is Einstein with a global relative Internet: it is !
So you see that ICANN/DNSO offer a public service. You may
or may no utilize it at your convenience. Due to the size,
quality and public acceptance of this public service it will
obviously prevail and serve as reference for quality for a long.
My concern is that the credibility of this public service, today
100% or 90% of everyone's global vision, is endangered by
an ICANN unconsidered behavior will push extended
solutions entrepreneurs to develop their offer without enough
coordination. With some potential temporary chaos.
I fully share Jon Postel vision in RFC 1591: the public TLD
set should not be expanded. Its expansion belongs to
private operators. The market will not be accept it, fostering
competition between public and private where you had a nice
complementarity.
At 19:10 24/08/00, you wrote:
>About the first point, you correctly pointed out that RFC 2826 does not
>preclude <private> networks to run with their <private> root.
>Therefore, if the <private> networks are able to make their offer
>attractive to the public, nothing prevents them to have customers
>joining. The freedom of choice of an individual to join whatever
>alternative the market offers is one thing, the obligation of a common
>(or global) structure to include in the common services that offer is a
>different thing.
>As pointed out in the same RFC, the market will be puzzled in a
>situation in which typing an URL you reach different sites, depending on
> how your PC is configured (or the choice of your ISP). This will kill e
>-commerce. As I always say, it is like if you dial a phone number, and
>you reach different people, depending on how your telephone is
>configured.
Yes. This is a bug if it is not what you want. It is a very nice
feature (the "follow-me" service) if this is what you want.
> >Moreover, the example you make in support of your argumentation:
> >I may want to subscribe to a [family] DNS root which removed all the
> >adult and gambling sites, or to a [business] DNS root which also
> >removed all the family related sites, replacing by little flowers, or
> >NASDAQ reports. These DNS roots are value added DNS roots.
>
>First of all, I will be happy to know how a root server operator can
>remove sites of adult content.
Gives access to nameservers not resolving them. Remember
that the DNS is a hierarchy. ".[family]com" is a copy of the ".com"
system not resolving these hosts. Big thing, but there is more
complex services on the net (think about alexia).
>But besides this, what prevents you from doing this?
Nothing. As nothing prevents me to rebuild all the DNS on my
machine. After all the DNS is only a tool dynamically building and
maintaining my host.txt file.
However, I may prefer someone to do it for me.
> >Value added DNS services is a coming industry, with broad ambitions.
> >The alternative root pionneering time will probably be over very soon as
> >alternative evoluates towards super (cf. infra) root.
>Correct.
>But value added services will build their offer, and they will be
>succesfull up to the extent that they will be able to convince
>subscribers.
Extended services you mean. Sure.
>But this will remain what it is: a private service.
Yeap. But everything is private except the a-root and al. But
not like in SSSR everything was public, and some are private now.
No. Public means open to all. Like anyone can buy stocks
of a public company but cannot buy stock from a privately
owned company.
>What you ask is that they will have the same status as
>the public/common service. Which is a different thing, and
>has nothing to do with freedom of choice.
I just ask that public services do not want to be exclusive
of common resources. This is like asking that highways
not to be exclusively reserved to public busses and to be
open to private cars. Even if some buss passengers may
chose to use their car.
BTW I do not ask anything. I just explain what I am doing
as I my tell you I take the highways.
>To the second point, extended services.
>Extended services are "private" for their very nature.
Agreed. We are fully in tune.
>The scheme you suggest, i.e. to use the "private" (="added value")
>network, and to use the "public" (="common") is perfectly legitimate,
>and is already in use by the ISPs that work with the alternate root
>server operators.
Yeap. However I do not use the word "value added" because it usually
qualifies standard services (split into basic and value added). This
is one of the reason why I use extended.
>The problem is that the way they resolve the names is "private". Another
>"private investor" may provide another value added system that will
>resolve the same names in a different way.
Exactly. This is why I used extended instead of value added. Value added
is part of a standard offering. If the user believes he uses the standard
(here, in you case, the public service) he will not be happy!!!
Bet if the user has selected that extended service just to do it, he
would not be happy if it was otherwise....
>In other words, this is the exact opposite of "global", it is "very
>local indeed"!
If you consider that the Extended services are operated by your
local ISP (I think this is what you mean). This might happen in
part, but usually the amount of competence, knowledge and the
very worldwide nature of the service will require large ventures.
Anyway extended services are by essence to extend the net,
some may extend it locally, but they still are extending it.
Example: when you click on an akamaïzed link (I presume you
know Akamai) you do not go to the object if the URL but to the
dynamically maintained object identified by its ARL on the 4000
machine buffering network of Akamai. You do not know it
but you probably do it 10 times a day or more. You used an
extension of the Internet giving power, speed and duplication
to the web site you accessed (CNN, Lycos, etc.. etc..)
>Back to the telephone analogy, in my company we have a PABX. If we want
>to connect to the global (pardon, the public) STN, we dial a code then
>the global (well, public) E164 number. OTOH, if I want to speak to my
>boss, I dial 1234.
>This is "very local indeed", because in my previous company, while to
>get an external number the provcedure was the same, dialling 1234 would
>have brought me to a different person.
It is not. You consider Internet as a dumb telephone network :-) ! Ouaouh!
You forget the PABX of Internet is the DNS system. In calling
your own super root, you just tell your PABX (DNS) which global
vision of the world you want. From there you can dial indifferently 1234.1
to E164.2 or to 415.12.31.0 provided your super root resolves the
TLDs 0, 1, 2 (examples). (I am not familiar with the telephone
system you quoted,so for this example I assumed that your different
bosses were at 1234, E164 local and 415.12.31 public. I hope it
makes sense to you).
>Having PABXes for managing private STN is fine, but we can never make
>the assumption that the number of our boss, no matter how important the
>boss, will have the same global visibility as an E164 number.
Do not understand E164, but I suppose you understand that TLDs permit
to respond yes.
>My bottom line? The DN under a TLD that is in the a.root is "global"
>like an E164 phone number. DNs under a TLD that is in an alternate root
>is not "illegal" at all, but will have the same visibility that an
>extension number will have: local, to the customers of the PABX.
True if the alternative root is dumb and do not support the public "TLD set".
Untrue otherwise since the global root by essence is global and
therefore handles all the extended TLDs and default to the public
root. When you "dial" your E164 number you use the public DNS
hierarchy, unless you asked for another hierarchy in entering an
alternative E164 TLD.
This is the way every added system work:
case 1: added tool 1
case 2: added tool 2
case 3: added tool 3
default: usual solution
We do not care about avoiding conflicts. We handle them
through case prioritization. Full DNS stuff. No change.
I will finish with an Italian comparison. Please forgive me
if it is outdated or not fully exact:
your TV set gives you a global vision of the world. Through
a single infrared pad and a single screen with a single TV
news paper.
- for decades this vision was brought to you by the public RAI.
network.
- then Berlusconi and others came in.
- then you got your recorder and DVD
- then you got cable, and satellite extensions. Competing
with often same reports. You picked some, other not.
So you may watch the Lazio/Inter on several channels with
different comments or presentation. Yet you still have your
single infrared pad, etc.. Yet you still may default to RAI Uno.
Please excuse me if you felt I was unclear or patronizing.
It is not obvious to explain to a smart knowledgeable person
something you now feel obvious (I certainly gave all these
applied network questions a lot of thinking). Simple things
are often difficult to grasp and explain to low IQ as mine.
Best regards.
Jefsey
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|