-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-05-17, at 00.22, Dean Anderson wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2004, Thomas Bocek wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Iâm confused with the fact than the number of root servers is limited >> to 13. >> From RFC 3226: >> >> "The current number of root servers is limited to 13 as that is the >> maximum >> number of name servers and their address records that fit in one >> 512-octet >> answer for a SOA record. If root servers start advertising A6 or KEY >> records >> then the answer for the root NS records will not fit in a single >> 512-octet DNS >> message, resulting in a large number of TCP query connections to the >> root >> servers." >> >> A query send to one of the root servers with a long name (length 255) >> shows that the answer is 511 bytes, returning one A and 13 NS records. >> My question is: Why are all 13 NS returned? [snip] > This dubious anycast configuration was discussed and "approved" by the > NAMEDROPPERS Working Group in late November, 2002. To the best of my knowledge there where root-servers anycasted way before this date. And I have no idea why the namedroppers mailinglist (or the IETF for that matter) would have to approve how the root-servers are operated? > Unfortunately for the > anycast discussion, the list then became distracted by discussions > concerning procedural irregularities involving the AXFR-clarify Draft, > which would have altered the DNS AXFR and IXFR protocol to conform to > the > non-standard ISC/BIND implementation, despite a number of other > implementations being able to follow the AXFR and IXFR specifications. > This quickly developed into a discussion regarding abuse by the list > administrator (Randy Bush) with respect to Dan Bernstein, and so the > anycast discussion was abandoned. > > As the IETF list members are perhaps unaware, the charges of abuse by > ISC > and ISC-promoters is hardly new. It is very hard to get real work > done in > the DNS working groups as a result. ISC/BIND promoters have the > working > group tied up with gratuitous alterations to widely implemented > protocols > (eg AXFR-clarify) and irrational and misleading changes (eg IN-ADDR > required) that have been demonstrated to either be security risks or > dangerously misleading security placebo's, and have tried to suppress > dissent on these issues by refusing to accept email, and in the past, > silently discarding email, and otherwise harrassing people who offer > reasoned and detailed objections. > > I and others would probably be more involved in issues like DNSSEC, > and no > doubt more progress would be made, if it weren't for the distractions > of > the mismanagement of the IETF and its working groups. I've got no idea what this has to do with the number of root-servers. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQKitaKarNKXTPFCVEQJ2egCgs69tH2LXGKZI12ZEzhNJ2LVKaVkAoP0s zo+h2jIT17WGxiR4Rkd6k/8p =Vd76 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf