---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 1996 12:48:34 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: DNS based proposal for shared tlds At 9:14 PM -0400 8/25/96, John R Levine wrote: >>>This is why I'm proposing to divide the work between two known working kinds >>>of software: a database for the CDB, since there's lots of databases that >>>have a track record handling multiple updates from multiple sources [and >>>BIND to serve DNS]. > >>I like the idea. > >Thanks! > >>I don't see why a zone transfer request couldn't get it's info from the >>database instead of pre-compiled file. > >That's a clever idea, but you could get almost the identical effect with >much less work by doing the database dump/BIND slurp cycle on the primary >server every hour or two. > Ah, but you'd don't get a continuous real-time snapshot of the zone! Given that most people think sharing tlds are impossible to begin with, we might as well give 'em what they say can't be done, along with some improvements. ;) Seriously, the zone file generated is just a big ascii file, and it's really no different to creating real-time log statistics for a web site. _____S_i_m_o_n___H_i_g_g_s_________________H_i_g_g_s___A_m_e_r_i_c_a_____ ... "I'm fine - it's the others" ......... President/CEO ................ _____e-mail: simon@higgs.com _____________ http://www.higgs.com/ ________ ... http://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-tld-cat-02.txt ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 1996 18:53:59 -0700 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: DNS based proposal for shared tlds >>>I don't see why a zone transfer request couldn't get it's info from the >>>database instead of pre-compiled file. >> >>That's a clever idea, but you could get almost the identical effect with >>much less work by doing the database dump/BIND slurp cycle on the primary >>server every hour or two. >> > >Ah, but you'd don't get a continuous real-time snapshot of the zone! Quite true, but given the refresh times that people use in DNS, it seems to me that an hour's granularity is practically the same as continuous. Once there's a working database, if someone wants to build a zone transfer server interfaced to the database, that'd certainly be a cute hack, but I don't see it as all that important in practice. Is it really going to be a problem if it takes an hour or two for a new domain to propagate all over the net? If so, we need to build a system that feeds updates continuously to all of the servers for the zone, and we have to scrap the current way that secondary servers update, since they refresh in an occasional batch slurp. I'm not denying it'd be nice, but I do think it'd be a great deal of work to little useful advantage. >Given that most people think sharing tlds are impossible to begin with, we >might as well give 'em what they say can't be done, along with some >improvements. I'd rather give them something that works, quickly, and add the bells and whistles later. - -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 1996 19:34:10 -0700 From: "Richard J. Sexton" Subject: Re: DNS based proposal for shared tlds At 09:37 AM 8/24/96 -0700, you wrote: >On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, John R Levine wrote: > >> >The current proposals swirl around the idea of an ad hoc central >> >database that is used for coordination between registries. What >> >follows is an alternate approach that does not use any central >> >database except for DNS itself. [reasonable proposal omitted] >> >> This makes the DNS the CDB. > >This is a positively GROSS idea. Adding kludges to kludges.... If you give it some serious thought, you'll see a certain brilliace to this idea. Maybe you won't... do try though. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 1996 21:09:14 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: DNS based proposal for shared tlds John R Levine allegedly said: > > >>>I don't see why a zone transfer request couldn't get it's info from the > >>>database instead of pre-compiled file. > >> > >>That's a clever idea, but you could get almost the identical effect with > >>much less work by doing the database dump/BIND slurp cycle on the primary > >>server every hour or two. > >> > > > >Ah, but you'd don't get a continuous real-time snapshot of the zone! > > Quite true, but given the refresh times that people use in DNS, it seems to > me that an hour's granularity is practically the same as continuous. Once > there's a working database, if someone wants to build a zone transfer server > interfaced to the database, that'd certainly be a cute hack, but I don't see > it as all that important in practice. > > Is it really going to be a problem if it takes an hour or two for a new > domain to propagate all over the net? IMHO, a day is a more than adequate time for a new domain to propagate all over the net. - -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE 6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E
