> Dear colleagues,
>
> Not to pick on Mark, but I have the sinking feeling that this
> discussion is a good example of why some operators think the IETF
> doesn't understand operational problems.
>
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 10:07:54AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > I said COPY. I did not say "THEIR OWN ROOT". A copy needs to
> > be kept up to date or it ceases to be a copy. It becomes a
> > snapshot.
>
> The point of this exercise, as far as I recall, was to solve the
> problem that "junk" queries go to the roots -- things like .local and
> .txt. Now, if I'm a mom & pop ISP being crunched by large carriers
> (who are using every trick in the book to drive me out of business)
> and expensive customer calls, I'm going to do whatever will make my
> customers happy, right now, and get them off the phone.
Which in all cases results in processing the junk queries locally.
> So I'm going to say, "What's the harm in adding the entries for .local
> into this instance that I'm already running for other TLDs anyway?"
> It will make one failure mode go away for the customer, and it will
> reduce my load on my systems.
You bring .local into existance for sites that are not using
.local.
The existing uses of AS112 don't bring zones into existance.
They just *replicate* existing zones for local processing.
> By telling everyone to run their own authoritative copy for the top
> level, you are effectively telling them that they can add _anything_
> at the top level.
No, I am not telling them that. If I said "run your own root"
I would be telling them that.
> After all, you just told them to respond authoritatively at that level.
With the contents that they have copied from an authoritative
source. "local **** COPY ***** of the root zone"
> And since they have the authority
> server at that level, who's to tell them that they shouldn't add the
> extra entries?
They can add entries today without having their own copy of the
root zone. Having a local copy of the root does not change that.
zone tld {
type stub;
masters { ....; };
file "tld.stub";
};
> It solves their operational problem, makes things easy
> for their customers, and (since the point of this effort is to stop
> leaking queries) doesn't harm anyone else. Right?
Creating a ".local" changes the response. It also restricts
future changes.
> The harm, of course, will come when people change ISPs and things
> don't work quite the same; or when they run into surprises by carrying
> their laptops into another network with a disjunct set of these
> non-IANA-root entries. This scheme more or less guarantees the end of
> the pretense of a unified namespace (which is related, I think,
> to the arguments elsewhere in this thread that such has already
> happened anyway).
That happens today. There are ISP's which feel the need
to use a alternate root. Do you think they actually edit
the local root zone or do they transfer it?
Mark
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +1 503 667 4564 x104
> http://www.commandprompt.com/
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
