Re: .COM Clusters are Not RSCs

[Karl Denninger <karl at mcs.net>]

On Sat, Mar 21, 1998 at 09:21:06PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > A query for X.COM has to go to the root server, and THEN to the server which
> > holds the data for X.COM.
> 
> A query for X.COM will go to an X.COM server if we already have the list
> of X.COM servers cached; else to a COM server if we already have the list
> of COM servers cached; else to a root server.  Loop until done or
> bored.
> 
> Most nameservers get the list of COM servers cached pretty quickly, so
> most queries for <anything>.COM go to the COM servers.
> 
> Many of the COM servers also happen to be root servers, so it's not
> completely inaccurate to say that most queries for <anything>.COM go to
> the root servers; but I think it's misleading, because the reason (most)
> such queries arrive is because they were directed to a COM server.
> 
> --apb (Alan Barrett)

No, its not misleading.

If we remove COM from the roots, then the capacity they currently use
to serve COM becomes available for additional TLDs.

The people screaming that the root will collapse if we had 2,000, 5,000 or
15,000 TLDs are lying and they know it.  Further, there is no reason under
the sun that NSI should get a "free ride" on the backs  of the Taxpayer
(several of these servers are tax funded) for their COM servers!

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
			     | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost