--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 09:24 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Lyman Chapin wrote:
>> If it were possible to put that aside,
>> would you have any other objection to single label hostnames?
>> I know that at least some of the interest in new gTLDs has
>> been expressed by companies that like the idea of using a
>> globally-recognized trademark as a TLD - for example,
>> "customerservice@ibm" (not to imply that IBM is one of the
>> companies that has expressed this sort of interest).
>
> What will be the impact of having, perhaps,
>
> 1) millions of entries in the root servers, and
>
> 2) constant traffic banging on those servers?
>
> Historically, the view has been that bloating the root servers
> in that way would be very dangerous.
>
> Counter-claims observe that .com seems to have survived with a
> similar storage and traffic pattern, so why should there be a
> problem moving the pattern up one level?
To answer your question with a question...
At least one rather popular DNS server implementation on a
popular platform now comes with initial configuration files that
strongly suggest local caching of the entire root zone file.
Although it may not be a universally good recommendation (and
the config file is careful to note that), it is entirely
reasonable and practical for many or most situations. What do
you think would happen to that recommendation, and the benefits
it affords, if the size of the root zone increased by an order
of magnitude or so? Think ICANN (or anyone else) has done
traffic projections on what would happen if the root zone were
cached at many locations on the network but had, not only the
same size but roughly the same volatility (e.g., updates due to
changes in servers or services) as COM does today and, if so,
what those analyses suggest?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf