Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

John C Klensin <> Mon, 07 July 2008 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274F93A6A73; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6653A6A74 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.380, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q2NxS9ZDYw80 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207F03A69ED for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KFuqB-0000cr-0y; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:49:31 -0400
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:49:30 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: John Levine <>,
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <F8F3EE48494D3E281D901830@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 17:19 +0000 John Levine
<> wrote:

> * The proportion of invalid traffic, i.e., DNS pollution,
> hitting the   roots is still high, over 99% of the queries
> should not even be sent   to the root servers. We found an
> extremely strong correlation both   years: the higher the
> query rate of a client, the lower the fraction   of valid
> queries.
> That suggests that if the legit traffic increased by an order
> of magnitude, it would still be down in the noise compared to
> the junk. 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.
> xml


While I find this interesting, I don't see much logical or
statistical justification for the belief that, if one increased
(by a lot) the number of TLDs, the amount of "invalid" traffic
would remain roughly constant, rather than increasing the

And, of course, two of the ways of having "networks [to] clean
up their DNS traffic" depend on local caching of the root zone
(see previous note) and filtering out root queries for
implausible domains.  Both of those are facilitated by smaller
root zones and impeded by very large ones.


Ietf mailing list