From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam@flounder.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 2:35 PM
>
> > Roeland, do you make this shit up as you go along, or what?
>
> Nope, these are agreed upon concepts, just not from the IETF.
Agreed-upon by whom? The voices in your head?
You obviously don't understand the difference between "concept" and
"definition".
www.open-rsc.org
www.dnso.net
www.icann.org
www.dnso.org
BTW, that makes two, personal insults are to be directed at
null@root-service.net from now on.
Very interesting..
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/gtld/gtld.html:
: Root servers.
: The list of 13 current root servers
: ftp://ftp.rs.internic.net/domain/named.root
: The map of 13 current root servers
: http://www.wia.org/pub/rootserv.html
: IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root
: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2826.txt
http://www.icann.org/committees/dns-root/y2k-statement.htm
: The root of the Internet namespace consists of a single file, the root
: zone file, which describes the delegations of the top level domains and
: the associated records necessitated by the DNS protocol to implement those
: delegations. Currently, this file is maintained by Network Solutions
: Incorporated of Herndon, Virginia, USA and is made available to the 12
: secondary servers from the primary a.root-server.net. Change control of this
: file is held by the IANA with changes, typically modifications of the name
: servers for top level domains, being made approximately once or twice a week.
I can't find anything that supports your comments at open-rsc.org, and I'm
going to assume that you threw in dnso.net as a joke, since a) you own the
domain, b) it looks like it was written by a 14 year old and c) nobody would
take a site seriously that said it was "moving to a more dynamic architecture,
using MS FrontPage2000".
--Adam
[snip]
www.dnso.org
I checked the DNSO FAQ and it's unequivocal that there are 13 root
servers. Hopefully clears up the interminable terminological dispute.
This is hardly a list to attempt to redefine the term "root server" on.
I'll leave the rest of the bickering to the dictionary police.
joshua
Considering the small number of servers and their value I'm surprised
nobody has gone for a sustained DDOS against them all at once. This could
get pretty messy if they managed it.
Obviously it's pretty hard to add additional servers but has the option of
splitting the current group into multiple distributed machines with the
same ip (like how these other DNS organisations are doing) been looked at?
Considering the small number of servers and their value I'm surprised
nobody has gone for a sustained DDOS against them all at once. This could
get pretty messy if they managed it.
Luckily, most of the script kiddies and l33t (elite) hackers are
anarchists, poorly organized, and busy messing with each other.
The problem is, as organized as the 'net community (including NANOG)
is, they would not have to get very organized to pull it off.
--Mike--