Re: RFC 2870's applicability (Re: Deaggregating for emergency purposes)

["Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk () cisco com>]

Thus spake "Brad Knowles" <brad.knowles () skynet be>
> At 1:23 AM +0000 2002/08/08, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> >  When I tell USG how I feel, they seem to ignore me.  Your mileage may vary.
>
> True enough.  But their machines could always be removed from the
> list of known root servers, and I don't think that there's much they
> could do about it.

The USG runs, directly or indirectly, 6 of the 13 root servers, including A.
That means you could only remove the USG from half the servers.  One can assume
the USG would re-complete their cluster, and the "rogue" roots would flesh out
their own cluster.  Since most folks haven't updated their root.cache file in a
decade, that means half the DNS servers on the Net would pick the USG cluster,
and half would pick the non-USG cluster.  Once these clusters start offerring
different information, the ensuing mess would be horrific.  For this reason
alone, you'd never convince any of the root operators to go along with such an
idea -- their concern is stability, not politics.  I'm sure Paul will correct me
if I'm wrong on that.

S