🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: aus.net.policy
Article #581

Re: DNS Registry

#581
From: Geoff Huston
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 00:00
53 lines
2850 bytes
> : > Section 4 - Conclusions
> : > -----------------------
> 
> : I would suggest thatyou need to think through the rationale and needs
> : very carefully first before leaping off into corporate structures,
> : charging, equipment and other paraphenalia.
> 
> Shrug. The idea was to present a complete proposal and let people
> rip it up. Having a conjectural "idea" won't see anything done in
> a realistic timeframe.

I guess my approach to this problem is now readically different than
thatof some 18 months ago.

There are two basic responses to issues of administration of public
resources: centralism with a single public administration or dispersion
of the role.

Banking exhibts both aspects - a single "central" reserve bank and
a disperse retail banking structure. The dispersed structure exhibts
a degree of robustness in its diversity and the central structure is
heavily regulated in what it can do so that its effects on the retail
banking sector are heavily damped.

Now this model of banking took some 400 years of financial
crises to evolve to what we have today. Is it a good system? Probably,
at least in so far as the system has both the confidence of the clients
of the system (if you weren't confident in it you wouldn't use it),
and it appears to work most of the time (financial crashes are not
a regular daily occurrence!).

While I'm not suggesting that we ponder the DNS admin issues for the
next 400 years I am suggesting that centralism and single point
administration may not be the most appropriate answer, nor is
a complete dispersed anarchy veryt functional either!

I believe we do have the technology and the intelligence to devise
a distributed system where there are a number of paths into the
DNS - the dispersion of processing and associated administration
paths with the constraint of a relatively consistent and stable
underlying common policy environment are, in my view, the optimal
objectives in this area.

  Geoff
----
NO permission is granted for the reproduction of any parts of
this posting that have been authored by myself in any way other
than to be quoted in electronically posted followups of this article.

This posting does not represent itself as being the views of my
employer.
----
Technical Details
Message-ID: <31AA5E67.41C67EA6@telstra.net>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <4o6v1t$f5o@folk.iinet.net.au> <31A8F2EF.41C67EA6@telstra.net> <4odc38$nqk@folk.iinet.net.au>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f4bcb,1dc3422d080819f9
X-Google-Attributes: gidf4bcb,public
From: Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>
Subject: Re: DNS Registry
Date: 1996/05/28
Message-ID: <31AA5E67.41C67EA6@telstra.net>
X-Deja-AN: 157083822
references: <4o6v1t$f5o@folk.iinet.net.au> <31A8F2EF.41C67EA6@telstra.net> <4odc38$nqk@folk.iinet.net.au>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Telstra Internet
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: aus.net.policy
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0b3 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m)