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,
there are several companies participating in this grand experiment.
I think everyone agrees that the Internet will not ?crash?.
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.
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.
In this grand ?proof-of-concept? experiment, it appears that the
TLDs, .SHOP, .TRAVEL, .FREE and possibly .INFO may be the landmark
TLDs which test the notion of multiple TLD Clusters. There do not
appear to be hundreds in this class, as many people claimed there would
be. For some users, it might be more desirable to use the multiple
TLD Cluster approach to ensure more stability. In the future, the .COM
TLD will also likely become structured this way, in order to ensure
that the underlying registry can be changed, by turning off the old
one and allowing traffic to be handled by the new .COM TLD Cluster.
If that does not occur, the claim will always be made that the
incumbent registry can not be changed. People want registries to
be changed, without impacting service.
It will be interesting to see how this grand ?proof-of-concept?
experiment evolves on the legacy IPv4 Internet. If multiple TLD
Clusters prove to be useful, more desirable, more stable, etc. I would
think all engineers would recommend them for future Internet architectures.
The IETF seems to be silent about Multiple TLD Clusters.
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
------------- Dominant Proof-of-Concept Participants
http://www.name-space.com
http://www.icann.org/tlds/ads1/NameSpace-gtld-appBP.html
(* first 20 TLDs)
.SHOP <<<<<
.SPACE
.SEX
.ART
.ZONE
.MUSIC
.ONLINE
.CONSULTING
.DESIGN
.TRAVEL <<<<<
.MEDIA
.NEWS
.DIRECT
.MAIL
.WORLD
.MAG
.AUCTION
.FREE <<<<<
.CAM
.SERVICE
-----------------------
http://www.New.Net
.SHOP <<<<<
.MP3
.INC
.KIDS
.SPORT
.FAMILY
.CHAT
.VIDEO
.CLUB
.HOLA
.SOC
.MED
.LAW
.TRAVEL <<<<<
.GAME
.FREE <<<<
.LTD
.GMBH
.TECH
.XXX
----------------------
ISOC/ICANN
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02817.html
http://www.icann.org/tlds/
.FIRM
.STORE
.WEB
.ARTS
.REC
.INFO <<<<
.NOM
.AERO
.BIZ
.COOP
.INFO <<<<
.MUSEUM
.NAME
.PRO
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
---------------------------------------------
