enable DNS

[Marc Lucke]

get a room, guys.

Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:

> At 21:20 6/12/2004, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
>> The actual root servers have a lot of extra capacity. The servers more
>> likely to need to be beefed up are the gtld servers that handle .com.
>> However, neither ICANN nor Network Solutions get a lot of sympathy 
>> from me.
>> For what they charge they can run a few more servers and the world's 
>> ISPs
>> can run a few less.
>
>
>         1. In this kind of relatively simple conversation, a "root 
> server" and a "global top-level domain server" are functionally 
> equivalent.
>
>         2. Your point is based on the presumption of overcharging by 
> ICANN and NSI.
>
>         3. You have no way of knowing whether #2 is correct, hence 
> your assumption and subsequent behavior are irresponsible.
>
>         4. Regardless of whether #2 is a correct or mistaken 
> assumption, inappropriate or incorrect behavior by someone else does 
> not provide a convenient excuse for us to also engage in inappropriate 
> or incorrect behavior. If they are thieves, you are willing to become 
> one too...? If they are rude, you have insufficient elegance in your 
> soul to abstain from rudeness yourself?
>
>> The amount of extra traffic is very small compared to other things I do.
>> A mistaken download can waste more network bandwidth than I use for DNS
>> lookups in a year.
>
>
> Irrelevant. The amount of extra traffic *you* incur is of no 
> consequence to this particular discussion. The question relates to how 
> much extra traffic would the *root/gtld* servers suffer if everyone 
> (or lots of people) set up caching nameservers to do direct root/gtld 
> queries without checking a forwarder first.
>
>>  The real difference is whose servers handle the requests.
>> ICANN and Network Solutions get paid a lot more money than they 
>> should be
>> to run this stuff. They can afford to handle a little cost shifting from
>> ISPs to their servers.
>
>
> See 1-4 above.
>
>