Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I happen to agree with the opinions expressed by Keith Moore, as they
>> match with my experience.
> So I happen to disagree, from my experience.
> And?
In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
their experience. No one knows for sure what will happen when the
safe TLD limit is exceeded. Anyway, even if TLDs are added a thousand
at a time, I've not seen any evidence that they will suffice to
qualify all the trademarks or service marks that are necessary to
avoid DN lawsuits.
>> But even you would have to admit that by adding lots of TLDs, extra
>> orders of magnitude are induced in the DNS process, because queries
>> are going further up the tree than they would otherwise be.
> So What? More horsepower. BIND can take it. And if it's really a
> problem add on a SQL engine. Which one should perhaps do anyway.
> More Horsepwower...
Once upon a time, there were some people who thought that if you added
more bandwidth to the Arpanet, the congestion problems that were
occuring at the time would go away. However, it took some studies by
a control theorist to show that changes needed to be made to the TCP
protocol to relieve congestion.
You can't just throw more hardware or software at a problem and expect
it to go away (unless you *know* that this will solve your problem).
System-wide analysis is required.
Also, it seems to me there's been a fair amount of objection to stiff
requirements for operating a TLD registry. Adding more TLDs would
certainly raise the bar, in terms of processing and bandwidth
requirements. In such an environment, the well-heeled companies will
be much more able to operate TLD registries than the struggling
entrepreneurs. We might very well wind up with only a few large
companies as registries, because the others just won't be able to
survive financially.
--gregbo
