-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-05-17, at 00.22, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Thomas Bocek wrote:
Hi
I’m confused with the fact than the number of root servers is limited
to 13.
From RFC 3226:
"The current number of root servers is limited to 13 as that is the
maximum
number of name servers and their address records that fit in one
512-octet
answer for a SOA record. If root servers start advertising A6 or KEY
records
then the answer for the root NS records will not fit in a single
512-octet DNS
message, resulting in a large number of TCP query connections to the
root
servers."
A query send to one of the root servers with a long name (length 255)
shows that the answer is 511 bytes, returning one A and 13 NS records.
My question is: Why are all 13 NS returned?
[snip]
This dubious anycast configuration was discussed and "approved" by the
NAMEDROPPERS Working Group in late November, 2002.
To the best of my knowledge there where root-servers anycasted way
before this date. And I have no idea why the namedroppers mailinglist
(or the IETF for that matter) would have to approve how the
root-servers are operated?
Unfortunately for the
anycast discussion, the list then became distracted by discussions
concerning procedural irregularities involving the AXFR-clarify Draft,
which would have altered the DNS AXFR and IXFR protocol to conform to
the
non-standard ISC/BIND implementation, despite a number of other
implementations being able to follow the AXFR and IXFR specifications.
This quickly developed into a discussion regarding abuse by the list
administrator (Randy Bush) with respect to Dan Bernstein, and so the
anycast discussion was abandoned.
As the IETF list members are perhaps unaware, the charges of abuse by
ISC
and ISC-promoters is hardly new. It is very hard to get real work
done in
the DNS working groups as a result. ISC/BIND promoters have the
working
group tied up with gratuitous alterations to widely implemented
protocols
(eg AXFR-clarify) and irrational and misleading changes (eg IN-ADDR
required) that have been demonstrated to either be security risks or
dangerously misleading security placebo's, and have tried to suppress
dissent on these issues by refusing to accept email, and in the past,
silently discarding email, and otherwise harrassing people who offer
reasoned and detailed objections.
I and others would probably be more involved in issues like DNSSEC,
and no
doubt more progress would be made, if it weren't for the distractions
of
the mismanagement of the IETF and its working groups.
I've got no idea what this has to do with the number of root-servers.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBQKitaKarNKXTPFCVEQJ2egCgs69tH2LXGKZI12ZEzhNJ2LVKaVkAoP0s
zo+h2jIT17WGxiR4Rkd6k/8p
=Vd76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf