Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
2008-07-07 12:44:59
Conversely, if root server traffic is an issue, getting networks to
clean up their DNS traffic would be much more effective than limiting
the number of TLDs.
sounds good. and why wouldn't "cleaning up DNS traffic" include
refusing to refer any single-label query (for any record type other than
NS, say) to an upstream server?
I have to congratulate you on one of the most subtle proposals to destroy
the Internet that I have seen in a long time. More on that in a moment.
As I recall from prior root server surveys, the invalid traffic is
unambiguously bogus, e.g., queries from RFC1918 space (4% of all traffic
at one server), repeated queries for the same nonexistent name, dynamic
rDNS updates from misconfigured Windows boxes, stuff like that where thre
is no question it's wrong.
But, wow, what a can of worms would be opened by making a subtle semantic
change to root DNS resolution. As I presume everyone knows, the DNS is
managed via a Mexican standoff among the root server operators, ICANN, and
national governments. The root servers don't have to do what ICANN says,
so ICANN has (to date at least) been very careful never to ask them to do
anything they might not want to do. Governments assert control over their
ccTLDs, so ICANN has carefully run IANA as a purely clerical operation,
with policy decisions limited to verifying that updates are indeed from
the relevant governments, and the root operators have always accepted the
ccTLD delegations forwarded by IANA. Nobody knows exactly what authority
various governments have over various root servers, which are located in
many countries all over the world.
So now ICANN and/or the root servers say, we changed our mind, we're not
going to resolve names without dots. So who's going to explain to the
Vatican that, sorry, pope(_at_)va doesn't work any more? Or will the US take
issue when addresses @as, which is part of the US, don't work? Or France
about @gp and @mq, which are as much part of France as Hawaii is part of
the US?
What will Hong Kong or China do when the F and I roots in Hong Kong no
longer resolve http://hk/? The Philipines when the I root in Manila
doesn't resolve http://ph/?
I'm impressed, it never occurred to me that one could cause this much
damage with such an arcane change to name resolution. That was really
diabolical.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, (continued)
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, Dave Crocker
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, John Levine
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, Keith Moore
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?,
John Levine <=
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, John Levine
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, Douglas Otis
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, Dave Crocker
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, Karl Auerbach
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, John C Klensin
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, Dave Crocker
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, James Seng
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?, Dave Crocker
|
|
|