From: Emin Gun Sirer
[mailto:egs(_at_)systems(_dot_)cs(_dot_)cornell(_dot_)edu]
Stephane,
It is not artificial, it is the way it has to work. You cannot have
multiple registries for one TLD, period. No more than you can have
perpetual motion.
Be careful about making statements about impossibility
without an associated impossibility proof. History is full of
people who look sort of funny in retrospect. Protocols for
serialization and agreement with byzantine participants are
well-established. This is kind of like saying
"heavier-than-air machines cannot fly," in 2006.
There must be a single logical registry even if the physical realization of
that registry is achieved through multiple machines under control of multiple
parties.
ATLAS contains more than one machine today. We talk about the 'J-root' even
though that is in fact multiple independent machines.
If you look at the registrar interface there are multiple machines there. If
GoDaddy and TuCows both attempt to register the same name at the same time they
may well submit their orders through separate machines. Ultimately there is a
mechanism for resolving the potential conflict of course but this is also a
logical function that may be realized by different physical machines depending
on the precise state of the constelation at the time.
You cannot guarantee uniqueness of the names registered without some form of
communication between the registrars. Ergo there must be a single logical
registry even if the functions are distributed.
And regardless of what situation might be considered 'best' any change that is
proposed to the status quo must provide a sufficient benefit to justify the
costs of any transition.
The registry/registrar interface is not the principle cost center in the core
DNS infrastructure. There are substantial development costs but the proposal
made would only increase these. Transfering these costs from the registry to
the registrars as is proposed does not in any way improve the economics of core
DNS.
The costs in core DNS are due to the distribution side of the equation. OC-48s
and OC-192s cost serious amounts of money. There are non-trivial investments in
hardware, software and process. The registrars do not want to invest in these
areas. There is an argument to be made that we do not want registrars to be
competing on the basis of the reliability of their resolution services.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf