[discuss] So-called alternate roots

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
On 4 Jan 2014 22:28, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 04/01/2014 19:44, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > I am quite a newbie in DNS. In summary, I had understood the alternate
root
> > to be a copy of the main root and there is a master root which has the
> > capability to update all the other 8 main roots, while individual roots
> > provide copies to their several alternates (since there was v4
limitation
> > that then created the anycast option that enabled user to be able to
> > communicate as if it was a single root). Are we then saying those
> > alternates are indeed also authoritative roots i.e they send updates to
the
> > root servers?
>
> I was talking about the abstract idea of the namespace, not about
> they way the actual root servers have evolved.
>
Okay, actually my assumption of it's operation is also flawed (thanks to
Andrew for some educating me and clarification on the main issue with
alternate DNS)
>     Brian (2/4 for today)
>
I have noticed you consciously count your mails; has there been any day you
wanted to write and noticed you have already exhausted your 4?

Cheers!
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > sent from Google nexus 4
> > On 4 Jan 2014 02:00, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Michel,
> >>
> >> On 04/01/2014 11:45, Michel Gauthier wrote:
> >>> At 00:01 03/01/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 11:19:30PM +0100, Michel Gauthier wrote:
> >>>>> ICANN ICP-3 multi-root competition?
> >>>> If I may ask, what does it even possibly mean to talk of
"multi-root"?
> >>> I am not a specialist Iike you. I just trust the people in charge and
> >>> use their words and expertise.
> >>>
> >>> The people in charge (ICANN) state the "policy currently followed in
> >>> administering the authoritative root of the Domain Name System"
> >>> "provides a facility for future extensions that accommodates the
> >>> possibility of safely deploying multiple roots on the public Internet"
> >>> as "ultimately there may be better architectures for getting the job
> >>> done where the need for a single, authoritative root will not be an
> >> issue".
> >>> http://www.icann.org/en/about/unique-authoritative-root
> >> This isn't the first time people have wished to rescind the laws
> >> of mathematics. If a name space is to be unambiguous it must
> >> have a single logical root and that is not going to change, even
> >> ultimately. There could be other implementation techniques that
> >> would hide the single root from view, although I can't see why
> >> that would be an advantage.
> >>
> >> (That kind of solution, which I investigated at a very abstract
> >> level a few years ago, requires independent allocation engines
> >> to communicate with each other to either deny an allocation
> >> request or to guarantee that it's unique. Although that doesn't
> >> require a single engine to act as the root, it does require the
> >> entire set of allocators to communicate with each other. That's
> >> a lot of complexity for no obvious advantage.)
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>      Brian (2/4 for 2014-01-04 NZDST)
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing list
> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140105/0286dca5/attachment-0001.html>