Dear John,
thank you to make the point.
At 17:35 05/03/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
There are no "independent root-servers" in China, or at least
none that anyone official is willing to claim.
This IS the point. There is no independent root-servers. The other
point is: there is no change for two years. And yet there are tens of
thousands of registrants and millions of users. This means there is a
new - non IETF documented - way to manage the namespace. And
therefore a new form of Governance.
No there isn't. It there was they would be visible to all
machines that believe they have Internet access without
having to manually wire them in.
Next?
If China can do it for several years, without anyone even noticing or
feeling or wanting being concerned, it means there is no problem
organising externets. Good. This means that others can (and will)
copy them. Your "next?" is their IETF blessing. The ICP-3 test bed is
completed. The ICP-3 criteria are met. What Chinese did is no
problem. The "problem" is with the next one: or is that what you mean?.
jfc
Lots of people graft all sorts of names onto the DNS for
their internal namespaces often at the top level. This is
of itself no problem so long as the top level namespace is
stable. The moment the top level namespace becomes unstable
you run the risk of name space clashes. You force people
to rename their internal machines.
And before you say they should get there own domain paid
for domain name. Do you really expect every home user with
a home network that doesn't need to be addressable by name
from the internet to pony up the fees just to prevent a
name clash.
Try picking a semi-meaningful unused name under COM for
your internal namespace and see how long it is before you
are forced to rename:-)
Dot should be kept small. It should be small enough to be
transfered to embedded boxes along with IP6.ARPA, IN-ADDR.ARPA
and ARPA with all of these zones signed.
If this was being done by all iterative resolvers when Sri
Lanka went off the air internal communications within Sri
Lanka would have had a much better chance of just continuing
to work for the time it took to fix the cables. It wouldn't
have been perfect but it would have helped.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf