[governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality

[Karl Auerbach]

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> I'm kinda wondering why one might think that competing roots would not 
>> use 100% exactly the same technology base as used to disseminate the 
>> existing NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone?  In other words, there is no 
>> reason why competing roots would not be exactly as scalable as the 
>> current legacy system.
> 
> Except for the way they are deployed and the way resolvers query them etc
> etc etc. That's the other side of the equation.

I've had some relatively deep discussions on how one could go about 
setting up a serious competitive root - the people who were involved 
with me in that discussion (who do not want to be named) are well known 
people who have established major worldwide network infrastructures with 
massive capacity.

This was done a couple of years ago so our design is a bit out of date.

We designed a two-rack fork-lift installable, air-shippable server 
cluster containing several (I think at that time it was 8 to 12) 
distinct server machines, with dual networking, load balancers, 
firewalls, secured remote diagnostic monitoring and remote management 
facilities, and power filtering/UPS (in case the facility power is 
inadequate).  Each individual computer and element could be replaced 
without taking down the package as a whole.  In addition we used several 
different operating systems and software configurations to reduce 
chances of systemic attack.

We came up with budgets for installation, operation, maintenance, 
depreciation, emergency coverage (including transportation for people 
and spares), management, insurance, bandwidth, etc etc.

It wasn't a number that was really all that huge - the total was a 
couple of million $ US in one-time startup costs and very roughly the 
same in recurring yearly costs.  We knew we didn't have to start huge - 
we knew that on day zero we wouldn't need more than 13 distinct sites 
around the world because our day zero traffic wouldn't be the same as 
absorbed by the current suite of root servers.  But it would easily 
scale and the sites would be anycast capable (and thus replicable.)

Since that date the equipment costs have gone down but the people/travel 
costs have gone up.

The assertion that a competing root is somehow inherently incompatible 
or inconsistent is an assertion that has no foundation in reality.

Yes there have been DNS loons who have created a very bad smell about 
competing roots.  But loons don't mean that something is impossible or 
even all that hard.  There were loons in the early 20th century who 
tried to build some rather silly flying machines - and yet today we have 
Boeing and Airbus and air travel is today quite routine and safe.

And as I have mentioned, there are potentially attractive reasons why 
one might want to invest in a competing root.  And also as I mentioned, 
there are ways to create inducements for people to switch to and use a 
competing root.

Yes, I believe that the end-to-end principle - the idea that users at 
the edges of the internet can chose how they will use the net and don't 
have to ask permission to do so - is a valuable principle and that it is 
not at all dead and gone.

If, as you suggest, it is dead then this entire discussion, indeed this 
entire process, of internet governance is futile and we may as well 
surrender the internet to AT&T, Verisign, and their ilk and concede that 
the telcos have won and that we should all go home and tend our gardens.

		--karl--


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance