🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50quj1$1hq@zap.io.org>, Brian Tao <taob@zap.io.org> wrote:
>
>    I'll reserve judgement until more than 3% of the Internet is
>hitting the Alternic roots for DNS queries.  


Geez Brian, 2.5% (current), 3% (your threshold) whats the difference ? ;-)

(I know, .5%)

>                                             What sort of screening
>procedures and performance standards are there to ensure that future
>Alternic root servers are as robust and reliable?  Granted that the
>traditional root servers aren't without their bad days, but they have
>been reliable and are used by 100% of the Internet.  

The current root servers are run by volunteers, and accoridng
to Bill Manning of IANA, this is "no longer working out". Their
recent meltdown should be an indication of that.

The alternic's root servers are a commercial concern, and being #2
they have to try harder ;-) While they have only been in operation
since Aug 1, they have, so far proven to be more reliable than
the previous root servers.

The EDNS hack, searcing the ALternic root servers if the
current root serves don't resolve a name seems sound in theory
and has worked well in operastion. I don't see the harm in it.

I too, would have concerns if Alternic said "use us instead
of root-servers.net", but if a customer of yours types in
http://www.orgies.xxx or http://www.carib.tour and these names
are not resolved by the current root servers, you have two choices:
1) don't search Alternic roots for failed names and return a "DNS Not Found"
error, or search the alternic roots and actually resolve the name.

Since running EDNS does not violate the most important
tenant of the Hypocratic oath ("do no harm") I fail
to see your reluctance.

>                                                     I'm not a huge
>fan of NSI either, but I don't see the Alternic as a solution or even
>a viable alternative at this point.

They're AN alternative, they're the ONLY alternative and I'm telling
you they do work. 


>                                      Perhaps my judgement is tainted
>by the politcking in the newdom list, and by Jim Fleming's absurd
>comments when promoting the Alternic.

I figured he was there to counter Perry Metzger's rabid and
rude detractions.

With Bill Manning of IANA having been caught in rather a large
lie about why he resigned (I assume he resigned), I can 
only think about what they say about the law and sausage:
"people who love both should watch neither being made".

>before I registered cybercafe.biz, simply because of the potential
>confusion between my domain name and cybercafe.com.

Or cybercafe.net or cyberface.org.


Cybercafe.com is on the auction block for $30K (http://www.bestdomains.com)
whereas cyberafe.biz is $30.

You'd pay more for a parking ticket.

-- 
Richard Sexton
root@cabal.org