[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Simon Leinen simon at limmat.switch.ch
Wed Nov 23 14:25:46 CET 2005
bmanning writes: > because, apparently, customers aka service operators are > inferior to network operators aka plumbers. a $DEITY forbid > that an TLD operator ego be brused by not being considered in > the same class as plumbers. [...] > > tongue partly in cheek. > > perhaps there is the consideration that TLD ops are "special" > in some unique way that preclueds them from fate-sharing with > a plumber when the pipes break. e.g. they have not taken > steps to distribute their service or content so that it is > available over different carriers, on alternate power grids, > in other countries. ... and perhaps ... using a variety of > publishers ... instead of trying to run all that > infrastructure in addition to operating the TLD. OR... why > do tld operators have to have all the servers under > infrastructure they run? when did this change? Well said, Bill. > example: > DEnic could have CNnic, BRnic, and CAnic run slave servers for > them in their areas. Why is this a bad thing? As Kurt Jaeger aka pi said in a previous posting (although in a different context): > That's a national security issue for some countries. So it's all a matter of control. In a similar vein, see http://www.imconf.net/imc-2005/papers/imc05efiles/ramasubramanian/ramasubramanian.pdf "Perils of Transitive Trust in the Domain Name System", V. Ramasubramanian and E. Gün Sirer, IMC 2005 Personally I don't share the opinion that more centralized control leads to safer systems, but then nobody asks me. -- Simon. Speaking only for himself, but partly getting paid for helping to operate some TLD nameservers.
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]