Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: .bit / Namecoin peering

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: .bit / Namecoin peering

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Alejandro Bonet <albogoal AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: .bit / Namecoin peering
  • Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:37:58 +0200

Dear Jeff Taylor:

This is the key question, we (you and me) will never agree: Your
personal point of view and my personal point of view are different in
this question.

You say: "It is better to distinguish between T1 and T2, because T1
are redundant and authoritative, and T2 are not".

And i say: "Well, you can 'categorize' the servers as you want, but
they are only servers. If you want redundance to get reliability, you
dont need 10 T1s redundance for each TLD. You only need two or three
servers for each TLD, and you will get almost the same redundance as
with ten servers (because when the two or three servers hang
simultaneously, then probably the problem is global, and it can hang
ten or twenty servers also). And, in respect to authoritative
responses, if you have ten authoritative servers for a TLD, the
probability of inconsistence in responses, is 5 (or 3.3) times greater
than if you only have two or three authoritative servers for that TLD.
Also if you need to replicate each complete TLD zone file in each T1
server, and requiring a T1 (as authoritative and redundant) server for
each TLD, this will run well with ten TLDs, but not with 5000 TLDs."

This discussion will never ends: You have your opinion, and i have mine.

Both have advantages and disadvantages, at different scales.

The main diference is only "in style".

(About the "argument of authority" in the sense that "there are people
just going walk in and create a new TLD without any knowledge of how
BIND works, and sometimes without any understanding of how DNS works",
i dont know if you are saying this for me, but i only want to say you
i wrote a DNS client for arduino some years ago, and it is running
perfectly since that, on many installations, 24h/365d).

From scratch. Building and parsing complete DNS-QUERY/RESPONSE UDP
packets, field by field, bit by bit, on 16 bit tedious microprocessor
assembler language, with redudant compression of domains, of course.

Alejandro Bonet
albogoal AT



Since August 2013

2014-07-14 17:48 GMT+02:00, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT>:
> If we were trying to maintain our own copy of the .com zone, size would
> be an issue. That file is over 9GB, and it would present a significant
> bandwidth problem to many users. The .bit zone that is being discussed
> is only 1MB... its so small it fits on a floppy disk. I still don't
> understand why you think it is a problem to transfer this small of file
> to the T1 and T2 servers?
>> "Hey men, there is no reason to mantain copy of all the tld zones in
>> >each T1 server: We only need to mantain pointers to the authoritative
>> >servers for each tld, and recurse them..."
> Well yes, there IS a reason to maintain a copy of the TLD zone files on
> every T1 server. That is exactly the point of the T1 servers -- to be
> authoritative for all of our TLDs. If you take that away, then a T1 is
> no different from a T2. Many years ago OpenNic was run with the policy
> that only the master for a TLD would answer. There were no backup
> copies maintained on other T1 servers. Guess what happened every time
> one of the master servers went offline? All resolution for every domain
> registered under that server's TLD became unavailable. What you are
> proposing is that we move backwards and give up redundancy and
> reliability. Why would anybody want that?
>> Resolvers are trivial to set up compared to a tier 1 server. People
>> who decide to create a TLD need to be competent at running it by
>> themselves, and this is why we request them to have a tier 1 server to
>> prove as such. This hasn't been a barrier of entry to anyone so far I
>> don't think.
> Actually it HAS been a barrier, and it is supposed to be a barrier. As
> you say, there needs to be a certain amount of competency with running
> DNS and maintaining a server in general before someone should be allowed
> to operate a TLD. We've had our share of problems in the past, and new
> rules are created in response to those problems. I see a lot of emails
> come across the mailing list where people think they're just going to
> walk in and create a new TLD without any knowledge of how BIND works,
> and sometimes without any understanding of how DNS works. OpenNic is a
> project about learning, and many of us are more than happy to help
> people learn how to set up new TLDs on their own personal network, but
> the public DNS space is not the place to be experimenting and trying
> figure it out as you go... when we offer a public TLD for domain
> registration, people expect it to work.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page