nanog mailing list archives
Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach
From: "Brett Frankenberger" <rbf () rbfnet com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:56:03 -0600 (CST)
We've seen through that. Today we have a flourishing competitive telephone system filled with all kinds of commercial and technical offerings that were inconceivable during the days of "Ma Bell".
And yet the address -- NPA-NXX-NNNN -- remains centrally administered and globally unique. Would we be better off if the result of dialing NPA-NXX-NNNN depended on which root translations table your phone service provider happened to subscribe to.
We routinely use directory services in a multiplicity of forms -- telephone books published by local telephone companies or entrepreneurs, 411 services in various shapes and forms, web pages, or even on CD-ROMs (indeed a well known Supreme Court case involved a telephone directory published on CD-ROM).
You are confusing three distinct layers. As perceived by the public, we have: (1) Directories, where you go to look up the "address" of what you are searching for. In the PSTN, we have indeed, as you note, had many directories for years. The same applies to the Internet, where there have always (for some values of always) been multiple directory options (Yahoo, Google, etc.). (2) The Address, or a publically known, relatively constant, identifier for a specific contact. People expect addresses to be unique, and if they aren't lots of things start breaking. (This is the phone number in the PSTN, and the Domain Name on the Internet.) (3) Underlying routing information. This is what makes the Address end up where it's supposed to, and the public neither knows nor cares about this. (This is the IP Address in the Internet, and can be all sorts of thigns in the PSTN.) Comparisons between the PSTN and the Internet can be confusing because: (a) The PSTN has traditionally combined #2 and #3: my PSTN address is NPA-NXX-XXXX, and the call is also typically routed based on NPA-NXX-XXXX. (This is changing, though, with Local Number Portability, 800 portability, etc.). This Internet, though, as kept #2 and #3 completely distinct. (b) The Internet "Address" (DNS name) has traditionally been somewhat directory like -- www.companyname.com traditionally got you to company name. (But the PSTN address has generally been purely arbitrary, with a relatively small number of 1-800-some-name-here exceptions.) Many technical people equate "IP Address" with "Telephone Number" and "DNS Name" with "Name in the Yellow Pages (or other directory)". This is presumably because they know IP is the routing layer and they assume that the telephone number is the routing layer (sometimes it is, sometimes it's more). They then go one level up and assume DNS = Phone Directory. But the public would never see it that way. Most people don't even know what an "IP Address" is. To them, the DNS name is like the phone number -- it's what people advertise, it's what people dial/type to reach the company/person they want to reach; and Yahoo and the phone book are comparable -- it's where consumers go when they want to find the address of the entity they wish to reach. Watch TV: you see: 1-800-xxx-xxxx www.xxx.com Not: Under "xyz" in the White Pages or www.xxx.com and not: 1-800-xxx-xxxx 11.22.33.44
These telephone directories are not published by any unified authority, there is no regulatory body sitting over them. And we as consumers are not damaged or harmed by this. And the telephone system continues to work just fine.
These telephone directories are also nothing like DNS.
Yet, on the Internet there are those who wail and gnash their teeth at the thought that the Domain Name System, the Internet's "white pages" might have multiple points of entry.
DNS is nothing like the "white pages". Yahoo and Google are like the white pages. DNS is like the phone number: it's the address used by the general public.
It bears repeating -- all that a root server does is to answer queries about how to find a server handling a TLD named in the query. In other words, a root server only answers queries such as "Where do I find a server that contains the list of names in .com?".
That's basically what the central 800# routing database does: it tells the LEC with IXC to send the call to; the IXC then consults it's own tables and finished routing the calls. Would you also argue that we should have several 800# routing databases, so that dialing an 800# gets you different places depending on which 800# database offered your LEC the best deal? Don't respond by saying that "of course phone numbers should be unique, just like IP addresses are unique". That completely misses the boat.
Current thread:
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach, (continued)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Patrick Corliss (Mar 18)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Patrick Corliss (Mar 19)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Greg A. Woods (Mar 19)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Miles Fidelman (Mar 18)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Greg A. Woods (Mar 18)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Simon Higgs (Mar 18)
- Re: ITU / UN (was: Multiple Roots...) Havard Eidnes (Mar 26)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Greg A. Woods (Mar 18)
- DNS is like radio frequencies bert hubert (Mar 18)
- Message not available
- Re: DNS is like radio frequencies Patrick Corliss (Mar 19)
- Re: DNS is like radio frequencies alex (Mar 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Jim Dixon (Mar 19)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Shawn McMahon (Mar 19)
- Re: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Scott Francis (Mar 19)
- RE: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Mike Batchelor (Mar 19)
- RE: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach John Fraizer (Mar 19)
- RE: Multiple Roots are "a good thing" - Karl Auerbach Greg A. Woods (Mar 20)