> > well, it's not clear that it works well for .com. try measuring > > delay and reliability of queries for a large number of samples > > sometime, and also cache effectiveness. > > I guess the burden of proof is on those who argue that it doesn _not_ > work well. The burden of proof is on those who want to change the status quo. FWIW, I'm doing these experiments myself, and will publish the results when I'm done in such a way that others should be able to repeat the experiments, compare their results with mine, and form their own conclusions. Of course whether DNS currently works "well" is subjective. But there's a tendency to think of it as working well simply because we are accustomed to that level of service. > > let's put it another way. under the current organization if .com breaks > > the other TLDs will still work. if we break the root, everything fails. > > Since .com was running _on_ the root-servers.net until recently > without problems, what are we talking about? > > Naturally there won't be 1 million TLDs all at once. We could start > with a couple of hundreds. That would merely double the size of the > root. It's not just the size of the root that matters - the distribution of usage (and thus locality of reference) also matters. The point is that if removing constraints on the root causes problems (and there are reasons to believe that it will) we can't easily go back to the way things were before. Keith