on 7/30/2002 12:49 PM Keith Moore wrote: >>That only holds true if the number of queries also doubles. > > no, all that is necessary is that there be a single query for each > of the "popular" TLDs at each resolver for every time the cached NS > record for that TLD at that resolver goes away. (that's what I mean > by "popular"). so an increase in TLDs can cause the load on the root > servers to increase drastically without the number of end-system > queries increasing at all - all that is needed is for those queries > to exhibit less locality of reference than before. If the overall number of lookups has not increased, there will be fewer overall lookups for *existing* TLDs as well. This means that the number of stale cache hits for existing TLDs goes down at the same time as the number of stale cache hits for new TLDs goes up (although not necessarily the same rate). In order to significantly threaten the root load, you would have to significantly increase the number of queries. A certain amount of incremental increase is to be expected, but frankly, if that percentage increase is a threat of any order then we have bigger problems than ICANN politics. >>There are policy decisions which have to be made which control how the >>process goes, certainly. But there is absolutely no reason that ICANN >>needs to decide on which specific TLDs are created. > > *somebody* has to do it, and that *somebody* is inherently going > to be under a lot of pressure from conflicting and often powerful > interests - and hence that *somebody* is going to be controversial - > whether or not that *somebody* is ICANN. Do you think I am arguing with you on this point? My point is that ICANN only needs to design policies which allow for the creation of TLDs such as .auto and .car, but they do not need to decide that specifically .auto gets in while .car does not. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/