[DNSOP] in bailiwick delegations

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Mon, 08 March 2010 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8E93A676A for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:58:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.117
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.482, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id abiW5M7qUShZ for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:58:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hutch.rfc1035.com (router.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C6C3A67B5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:58:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jim) by hutch.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93358154208B; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:58:10 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <9C08667B-15A4-465C-A610-4E60E178FC51@rfc1035.com>
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
To: cet1@cam.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <Prayer.1.3.2.1003080009280.18632@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:58:10 +0000
References: <2AA0F45200E147D1ADC86A4B373C3D46@localhost> <A76BB63E-F13B-4D90-BABB-89EB06C8E5F0@rfc1035.com> <4B93A046.4020209@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <B98D66FF-E4EB-47BE-8302-D4C6D3E70238@icsi.berkeley.edu> <F7C1873BC5BD40988CEC30A6BC67CDDF@localhost> <Prayer.1.3.2.1003080009280.18632@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: George Barwood <george.barwood@blueyonder.co.uk>, dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] in bailiwick delegations
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:58:10 -0000

On 8 Mar 2010, at 00:09, Chris Thompson wrote:

> It's notable that draft-jabley-reverse-servers intends to put
> nameservers for the "arpa" sub-domains in matching sub-domains of  
> "arpa" (but still seems to mandate more zone cuts than seem  
> advisable to me).

Most important TLDs are moving towards in-bailiwick targets for their  
NS records and accompanying address records. Or have already done so.  
One of the main reasons is to reduce latency and sysqueries. The  
referral response returns all the info and the resolver doesn't need  
to resolve the address of ns.whatever.othertld in order to get to the  
name server(s) it next wants to query.

The root servers indirectly achieve the same result because they all  
serve root-servers.net. IIRC the reasons for not putting the names of  
the root servers into the root zone were down to complications in the  
database/systems which were used to generate the root zone ~15 years  
ago. This would have been around the time when the names of the  
servers got rationalised. Making that change today would generate a  
bazillion layer-9 problems. These are best avoided because a tidy-up  
of root server names would get caught up in the maelstrom of new  
gTLDs, IDN ccTLDs, root signing and IPv6 which is keeping everyone  
more than busy.