1 / 17

Information Document 9-E

Information Document 9-E. ITU-T Study Group 2 January 2002 QUESTIONS: 1, 2, 3 & 4/2 SOURCE: TSB TITLE: COMPETING DNS ROOTS: CREATIVE DESTRUCTION OR JUST PLAIN DESTRUCTION? (By Milton Mueller) This is a powerpoint version of Information Document number 4.

nola
Download Presentation

Information Document 9-E

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Information Document 9-E ITU-T Study Group 2 January 2002 QUESTIONS: 1, 2, 3 & 4/2 SOURCE: TSB TITLE: COMPETING DNS ROOTS: CREATIVE DESTRUCTION OR JUST PLAIN DESTRUCTION? (By Milton Mueller) This is a powerpoint version of Information Document number 4. TPRC 2001

  2. Competing DNS Roots:Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction? Milton L. Mueller Associate Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies TPRC 2001

  3. DNS hierarchical structure www.syracuse.edu. Root 250+ Top-Level Domains Organization names or generic categories Organizational Subdomains Etc. TPRC 2001

  4. The DNS Root • Root Zone File contains “authoritative” list of top-level domains, with pointers to name servers for the next level of the hierarchy • Zone file is distributed via “authoritative” root server system TPRC 2001

  5. Example of a Root Zone File TLD String TTL Class Name Servers geek. 172800 IN NS ns0.opennic.glue. geek. 172800 IN NS ns1.opennic.glue. geek. 172800 IN NS ns2.opennic.glue. null. 172800 IN NS ns3.opennic.glue. null. 172800 IN NS ns4.opennic.glue. null. 172800 IN NS ns6.opennic.glue. parody. 172800 IN NS ns0.opennic.glue. parody. 172800 IN NS ns1.opennic.glue. TPRC 2001

  6. Competing roots • Anyone can create and operate a DNS name server and call it a “root” • Root competition occurs when: • Organizations define their own root zone file and compete to persuade ISPs, other name server providers, and end users to direct root-level DNS queries to them • There are strong network externalities in use of a common or compatible root • Names assigned from different roots may not resolve TPRC 2001

  7. Competing Roots ? 4 Root Zone File C 4 Root Zone File I Top-Level Domains Second-level domain Names Third-Level Domain Names Etc. TPRC 2001

  8. Compatibility Relationships • Competing roots can take 3 forms: • Type 1 Competition • The zone files of Root-I and Root-C have identical contents due to mutual recognition and coordination • Type 2 Competition • Root-C adds top-level domains to those supported by Root-I, but for those TLDs in common, the contents of the root zone are identical. • Type 3 Competition • One or more conflicting assignments of top-level domains. TLD name servers contain different zone file contents for the conflicting assignments. Could lead to cache pollution. TPRC 2001

  9. Type 2 Compatibility relations TPRC 2001

  10. Type 3 Compatibility relations TPRC 2001

  11. Type 1 Competition: policy issues • When should a dominant DNS root recognize and coordinate with a competing root? • For ICANN, recognition of another DNS root undermines its policy leverage • In any case, some criteria for distinguishing between “serious” and “silly” DNS roots must be established • New.net proposal (cable programming network analogy) TPRC 2001

  12. Type 2 Competition: policy issues • What happens when the Incumbent root wants to add new TLDs? Two options: • Avoidance of conflict • Tacit recognition of the competing root • Constrained choices of TLD strings • Conflicting TLD assignments • Transforms Type 2 competition into Type 3 • Creates compatibility problems for both roots • Dominant root likely to drive out smaller root TPRC 2001

  13. What sustains alt. roots? • Competing root operators must fight an uphill battle against network effects • The added value of new TLDs is minimal relative to the expense and risk of fighting that battle • Would you put your company’s web site out of reach of 90% of the Internet just so you could name it mysite.web instead of mysite.com? TPRC 2001

  14. It’s the market, stupid • Competing roots are a byproduct of restricted supply of TLDs • There is a strong market for new top-level domain names • Hundreds of willing suppliers • Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of willing consumers • ICANN deliberately suppresses that market • Its pretense that there are technical risks not supported by Vixie, Mockapetris, Auerbach, Hoffman, or any systematic engineering studies TPRC 2001

  15. Historical evidence for the restricted supply thesis • Competing roots’ origin in 1995-6 • Efforts to overcome Network Solutions’ monopoly • Paralysis over creating new TLDs led to first competing roots (AlterNIC, Name.space, gTLD-MoU) • Fortunes of alternate roots rise and fall depending on prospects of new TLDs • Alt.root activity diminishes 1998 as hope of new TLDs rises with Green and White Papers • Emerge again after ICANN’s restrictive decision TPRC 2001

  16. Logical evidence • Alternate roots pursue Type 2 competition, not Type 3 • I.e., they retain strive to compatibility with ICANN root • All major operators and proponents of alternate TLDs applied for access to the ICANN root (and were rebuffed) • New.net, .web, .kids, Name.space • Paid $50,000 non-refundable fee TPRC 2001

  17. Conclusions • Banning alternate roots is inadvisable • May not even be possible • Competing roots provide an important check on abuses or bad economic policies of the dominant root operator • Incompatibilities of competing roots serve as a significant check on their acceptance. • Currently, danger of abuse of power by dominant root operator much greater than any major incompatibility risk caused by alt.root efforts TPRC 2001

More Related