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

Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> Tue, 08 July 2008 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EA53A68BB; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 06:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953A73A68BB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 06:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 YxDdaVgq-0uz for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from multicasttech.com (lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708453A6853 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 12038949; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:13:36 -0400
Message-Id: <DB3BB47E-7FEC-4197-8B81-931E831FD6A9@multicasttech.com>
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <49D74735-AB16-4ABE-B626-EF7BC099EAD9@ca.afilias.info>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:13:36 -0400
References: <200807022323.m62NNwVJ034275@drugs.dv.isc.org> <BLU137-W18376D2DBA85C8F712C06F93980@phx.gbl> <8953A1CE-E953-409F-A692-BD12DF4ADE61@acm.org> <48724347.6020500@dcrocker.net> <18BA25DED8BFD9F794A10E84@p3.JCK.COM> <4872BF88.5040706@bbiw.net> <558a39a60807071836s38244439g4054b1175a976454@mail.gmail.com> <49D74735-AB16-4ABE-B626-EF7BC099EAD9@ca.afilias.info>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, James Seng <james@seng.sg>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Jul 7, 2008, at 10:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:

>
> On 7 Jul 2008, at 21:36, James Seng wrote:
>
>>> And all of the questions I asked 10 years ago said that TLDs on  
>>> that latter
>>> scale would be problematic to the root.
>>
>> Was that pre-Anycast or post-Anycast?
>
> There are plenty of examples of people hosting large, infrastructure- 
> type zones using servers and software that are conventional,  
> commodity choices. NSD and BIND9 are both quite capable of hosting  
> zones with single-digit millions of delegations without needing  
> special care and feeding, for example.
>
> Whether the DNS service for a zone is anycast or not has some, but  
> really not that much relevance when you're considering the risk of  
> an engorged root zone. I don't read anything in the layer-9 musings  
> I've seen so far to suggest that the bar to entry for new TLDs will  
> be so low that we'll see widespread TLD tasting and churn, for  
> example, sufficient to make far-flung anycast instances struggle to  
> keep up.

It seems to me that it might be better to turn that around :

The new TLD system should not allow for widespread TLD tasting and  
churn.

I worry about depending on artificial limits imposed by fees. ICANN  
will certainly be lobbied to lower their
fees; what if the fee in 2012 is $ 100 not $ 100,000 ?

Regards
Marshall

>
>
> I'm not suggesting that growth should be allowed to happen without  
> considering the technical consequences. However, I believe in  
> practice with the headroom in systems and network that root server  
> operators generally install anyway, there's considerable room for  
> growth and the general argument that growth in the root zone will  
> undermine stability sounds more like hysteria than science.
>
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf