[ga] FW: [DNS] TLD Clusters

["JIM FLEMING" <JimFleming@prodigy.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: JIM FLEMING [mailto:JimFleming@prodigy.net]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:51 PM
To: dns@auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] TLD Clusters



1. In my opinion, a TLD is a TLD. The software does not
know the difference between a gTLD and a ccTLD. At the
end of the day, they are ASCII strings. .OZ may be more
popular than .AU. The marketplace will make that decision.

2. No, I am not "advocating having multiple 'root' level nameservers".
I clearly say, "Multiple "roots" are no longer needed.". You may
be confusing Root Servers and TLD Servers. Root Servers point to
TLD Servers. For an ISP that starts scratch, they use a Root Server
to locate where the TLD Servers are located. Once they locate the
TLD Servers (which rarely change), they could continue to track
the TLD Server Cluster without ever talking to a Root Server again.
One of the reasons for this is that all of the servers in a TLD
Server Cluster know who their partners are. If a server is added or
deleted from a TLD Server Cluster, the other members of the TLD
Server Cluster are usually the first to know. The Root Servers
usually learn later. The Root Servers are often out of date.
Serious ISPs track the "best-of-breed" TLD Clusters directly,
without ever asking an out-dated Root Server its opinion.

3. Registrars tend to be "retailers", the term Registry is usually
used to denote the company operating the TLD Server Cluster.
What is being discussed and tested is the notion of having
TWO (duplicate) TLD Server Clusters for a TLD. Think of a Cluster
as 6 servers (for example). This would result in 12 total servers,
two groups of 6. A typical company, has a 2-server SLD.TLD Cluster.
With duplicate TLD Clusters, the company would likely want
each of the TWO TLD Clusters to have the same references to
their 2-server SLD.TLD Cluster. One would assume that BOTH
registries would be paid to operate the TLD Clusters, which would
both have the same information. Once a user's resolver (on their
PC possibly) locates the SLD.TLD Cluster, it does not care how
it found it, and it would be unique. The path to it may not
be unique. Redundancy could provide more stability and allow
for one Registry to more easily disappear, while the other carries
the load.

4. As for "natural selection", in my opinion that is happening
in the marketplace. I think it will become more and more clear
that many of the so-called ccTLDs do not survive, or end up in
the "out-back" of the Internet.


Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp



-----Original Message-----
From: Saliya Wimalaratne [mailto:saliya@hinet.net.au]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:39 PM
To: dns@auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] TLD Clusters


On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, JIM FLEMING wrote:

> As many people are aware, the "toy" IPv4 Internet is useful for
> doing "proof-of-concept" development of a TLD and all the needed
> infrastructure, prior to becoming a commercial fixture, set in
> bedrock on stable IPv6, IPv8 and/or IPv16 networks. As shown below,

What precisely do (g)TLDs have to do with the underlying network
infrastructure ? Nothing ? Thought so.

> Multiple "roots" are no longer needed. At best they are out-dated
> publishers of information about TLD Nameserver Clusters. Some people
> apparently still find it useful to depend on a "root", as opposed to
> finding the "dominant" TLD Clusters via simple software.

Am I to understand that you are advocating having multiple 'root' level
nameservers? Or that a process of 'natural selection' should be used to
determine which root level NS to use ?

> Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy.
> Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar
> or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster
> for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach. The
> SLD.TLD cluster is of course usually unique. How an end user's resolver
> locates the SLD.TLD Cluster does not impact the end-users's resolver
> interaction with the SLD.TLD Cluster.

So users should register with every registrar that offers a TLD ? Good for
the registrar, but hardly fair for the users... oh wait a second, you're
representing a registrar, not the users. I guess the logic is
self-explanatory...

Regards,

Saliya

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 371 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.

--
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