[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Fwd: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder]
I don't think people worried about the root but about the Registry/Registrar
operations, that's something completely different.
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel : +33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
Mobile : +33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
Fax : +33 (0)4 92 38 52 15
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 23:16
> To: Ann-Catherine Andersson
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder]
> Many people have made statements similar to the following:
> "I would chose Option 1, as this seems to be an
> *operationally safer* way to
> (emphasis added)
> Many, if not most of the people who make this statement are doing so
> because they don't know the facts first-hand, not because
> they have the
> day to day experience of operating a DNS service or otherwise have
> the experience and operational knowledge needed to make such
> determinations based on knowledge.
> I present this information to this working group in order to help them
> make a more informed choice with regards to adding new TLDs
> to the root:
> THERE IS NO TECHNICAL OR STABILITY ISSUE
> IN ADDING NEW TLDS TO THE ROOT.
> The number of domains, be they TLDs or SLDs added to a given zone
> in any period of time does not in itself effect "operational
> safety" or
> "stability" of the DNS. Any perception of such is a MYTH.
> In a given day, there are somewhere between 3 to 8 MILLION second-
> level domains (SLDs) added to the TLD zone for "COM."
> Structurally, every zone file in the DNS is identical, from
> the ROOT.ZONE
> on down the tree. DNS is HIGHLY SCALABLE, as evidenced by the
> daily growth of "COM."
> Adding ANY NUMBER of TLDs to the root WILL NOT adversely effect
> operations of the DNS any more than the addition of MILLIONS of SLDs
> in "COM.", a daily occurrance, effects operational stability
> of the DNS.
> If there are 1000 new TLDs added to the root at once, and not
> for a year's time, the impact would still be less than ONE
> DAY'S GROWTH
> IN "COM."
> The servers which currently operate the ROOT.ZONE, also carry the
> TLD zones for "COM." "ORG." "NET." "EDU." "ARPA." "MIL." "GOV."
> as well as the "ROOT.ZONE" and the DNS functions reliably,
> although this is not a "technically pure" implementation of the
> DNS hierarchy (see below).
> Each day, the growth of the SLDs in the "COM." zone is in the MILLIONS
> with NO ADVERSE OPERATIONAL EFFECTS ON THE DNS.
> The load on the ROOT-SERVERS, even with ONE MILLION TLDS
> would be LESS than the load when those same servers run the
> "COM." TLD, if the TLD-SERVERS were *properly* delegated and
> separated from the ROOT-SERVERS. It is possible, however,
> that the current systems can likely operate a "MILLION-TLD-ROOT"
> in addition to running the "COM." "ORG." "NET." "EDU." "ARPA." "MIL."
> and "GOV." TLD zones with todays resources.
> BOTTOM LINE: Adding large numbers of TLDs to the ROOT will not
> adversely effect the operations or stability of the DNS.
> [Note: In a telephone conversation last August with Dr. Paul
> the computer scientist who INVENTED DNS, I discussed the
> above scenario.
> Dr. Mockapetris agreed that every zone in the DNS is EQUALLY
> FROM THE ROOT ON DOWN.
> He also stated that the practice of running the TLD zones
> mentioned above
> on the ROOT-SERVERS is not a technically pure implementation of the
> hierarchical DNS structure. The TLD zones should run on
> servers other
> than the ROOT, and the ROOT-SERVERS should run ONLY THE ROOT.ZONE
> file, with the TLD zones delegated to separate machines.
> This not only
> reduces the load on the ROOT-SERVERS, but it also allows plenty of
> resources for the TLD NAMESPACE to GROW.]
> Respectfully submitted,
> Paul Garrin
> Name.Space, Inc.