> > in general, the more popular TLDs you have, the more load you get on the > > root servers from cache misses on the NS records for those TLDs. > > (seldom-used TLDs don't count because hardly anybody every queries them...) > > OTOH, TLDs that are popular get cached and stay that way. no they don't - things don't stay in the cache forever, and there are various reasons why cache entries can go away before the TTL has expired. > In general you are right, but in practical terms, there isn't much > difference between 20, 200 or 2000 TLDs, as long as they don't also > introduce, say, a billion phones to the service network. no. a few hundred million hosts using (on average) two dozen popular TLDs will generate twice the load on the roots as the same number of hosts using (on average) a dozen popular TLDs. > > and *someone* has to decide which TLDs are "handed out". > > Pull-side economics can make this decision. If people think there are > sustainable markets for .auto and .car then there's no reason not to let > them both out of the bag. read the statement again. *someone* has to decide whch TLDs are "handed out". we can argue about the criteria that should be used to influence such decisions, but there are still decisions that have to be made. > > otherwise anyone > > could have a vanity TLD, the DNS would collapse to a flat space, and the > > root servers would have to handle all queries. > > That assumes obtaining a TLD would be simple and cheap, which it shouldn't > be. High fees, escrow, etc., should keep that from happening. and *someone* has to decide how high those fees should be, and what the criteria are, etc. and *someone* has to spend that money. such decisions are inherently controversial as they exert a fair amount of effect on the ability of various parties to make money from, and/or control, the Internet. Keith