on 7/30/2002 12:49 PM Keith Moore wrote:
That only holds true if the number of queries also doubles.
no, all that is necessary is that there be a single query for each
of the "popular" TLDs at each resolver for every time the cached NS
record for that TLD at that resolver goes away. (that's what I mean
by "popular"). so an increase in TLDs can cause the load on the root
servers to increase drastically without the number of end-system
queries increasing at all - all that is needed is for those queries
to exhibit less locality of reference than before.
If the overall number of lookups has not increased, there will be fewer
overall lookups for *existing* TLDs as well. This means that the number of
stale cache hits for existing TLDs goes down at the same time as the
number of stale cache hits for new TLDs goes up (although not necessarily
the same rate). In order to significantly threaten the root load, you
would have to significantly increase the number of queries.
A certain amount of incremental increase is to be expected, but frankly,
if that percentage increase is a threat of any order then we have bigger
problems than ICANN politics.
There are policy decisions which have to be made which control how the
process goes, certainly. But there is absolutely no reason that ICANN
needs to decide on which specific TLDs are created.
*somebody* has to do it, and that *somebody* is inherently going
to be under a lot of pressure from conflicting and often powerful
interests - and hence that *somebody* is going to be controversial -
whether or not that *somebody* is ICANN.
Do you think I am arguing with you on this point?
My point is that ICANN only needs to design policies which allow for the
creation of TLDs such as .auto and .car, but they do not need to decide
that specifically .auto gets in while .car does not.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/