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
For what they charge they can run a few more servers and the world's
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
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
to run this stuff. They can afford to handle a little cost shifting from
ISPs to their servers.
See 1-4 above.