RE: Root Nameserver Changes

@ On Tuesday, May 20, 1997 2:25 PM, Jim Fleming []
@ wrote:
@ > It would be good if the various continents had
@ > their own Root Name Server Confederations.
@ > If that were the case, traffic would not be shuttled
@ > across the various oceans just to give the
@ > illusion that there is operational redundancy.
@ But does the fact that these packets cross continents imply less redundancy
@ ? Given the number of transatlantic cables in place and the new ones on the
@ way, I do not think it is reasonable to assume that (in this instance) that
@ all of Europe will disappear at once ?
@ > To add European root name servers to the
@ > list that North American operators use does
@ > not do them a service.
@ Well, we Europeans have *suffered* because of the lack (all one of)
@ non-North American root name servers. "You" did not seem so worried then
@ (note the quotes around the word "you"). Distributing name servers is an
@ operational issue, and given enough transit services to them, this is not
@ really a redundancy problem, mearly political.
@ Peter Galbavy
@ Demon Internet Ltd

I have been advocating Root Name Server Confederations
for the various continents for some time. At one point, there
were people interested from all around the world. It is
interesting to note that Keith Mitchell of LINX was one of
the people that expressed interest in Root 64.

Instead of LINX and RIPE and others in Europe developing
a well-engineered solution that would serve that area, it
appears that a politically correct solution has been found.
That seems to be the nature of the net. Political correctness
triumphs over engineering and operational realities.

Of course, as some people have pointed out, this is all
"experimental". That apparently is the politically correct
way of justifying any action. What is amazing is the fact
that commercial companies entrust their operations to
these experiments.