Re: [wg-c]http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots

[Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>]

Dear Karl,

I applaud you!

Running code always speaks louder than "running mouths".
It is important to publish such results to prove that practice speaks
louder than theoretical arguments.

Name.Space has maintained 99.7% - 100% uptime operating
over 500 TLDs for over three years.  We also have a growing client
base that supports the PUBLIC's DEMANDS for the service that we
provide.

An expanded, shared, multple root system will indeed improve
performance and eliminate the single point of failure that plagues
the centralized legacy root system.  (we didn't black out when NSI did! ;-)

To address the expanding DNS, Name.Space has developed a "smart" whois
universal domain search engine http://swhois.net that intelligently
searches ALL TLDs, including new TLDs and ccTLD, IP numbers,
NIC Handles, etc. from a single form.  It can even determine which
new domains have been registered by the NSI "shared registry system"--
something which broke down the coherence of whois, until we
*fixed* it at our end.

We have also developed an advanced registry/registrar realtime engine
with instant account creation and instantaneous whois data updates,
which makes domain setup fast, inexpensive, and easy.

It's about time that engineering wins over rhetoric.
Thank you for your experience and your voice of reason.

Keep up the good work!

Paul Garrin
Founder/CEO
Name.Space, Inc.
http://name.space
http://name-space.com




>> .. I found
>> this writing by Karl Auerbach.  I found it quite interesting.
>
>>   http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots
>
>Thanks Mikki!
>
>In that short note I point out that the Internet will run quite happily,
>and indeed can run better, with multiple root systems.
>
>To make sure of this, over the last couple of years, I've run various
>configurations using multiple roots, including being my own root.
>
>And I have never lost connectivity.  I daresay that there are probably
>folks out there would have been happier had that happened.
>
>But the fact of the matter is that it did not happen.  And I've run the
>idea past several people who are quite knowledgable about DNS, indeed some
>of their names may be found on various DNS RFCs.  The ideas got a positive
>reception.
>
>The value of this paper is that it gives this Working Group an answer to
>its current stasis.  The paper indicates a means that this WG can use to
>avoid having answering the hard question of whether to add new TLDs or
>not, and if so, which ones and when?
>
>Besides, there is nothing that can stop multiple roots from happening
>and spreading.
>
>I personally feel that it is better to recognize the reality of multiple
>roots and to learn to use them to advantage than it is to wail and gnash
>ones teeth in futile, unproductive gestures.
>
>The existance of multiple root systems enables a whole new world of
>creative ways of deploying DNS.
>
>The paper suggests, as an example, a filtration service whereby
>communities that don't like porn can use the services of a root system
>that points to TLD servers that cull out sites that are unacceptable by
>the community's standards.
>
>Another benefit of multiple root systems is that they can be tuned to the
>topology of the net, vectoring queries off to instances of the TLD servers
>that are topologically close to the end user.  This can result in a
>substantial reduction of long-distance net traffic.  (DNS queries are
>rather noticable amount of overall net traffic, and localizing them is "a
>good thing".)  It is often the case that businesses survive or fail
>according to how well they manage the efficient use of their resources and
>multiple roots provide a way to do that.
>
>And as I point out in the paper, having multiple root systems eliminates
>one of the main single points of failure in today's Internet -- the single
>root zone file.  (And it has failed in the past.)
>
>		--karl--