[IP] VERY WORTHWHILE ADDITION more on more on Fort N.O.C.'s

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+@ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:27:53 +0100
From: Frode Greisen <frode@greisen.net>
Subject: for IP: FW: [IP] more on Fort N.O.C.'s
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>

Dave, in case it was not implicit this was meant for IP if you wish.

frode
------ Forwarded Message
From: Frode Greisen <frode@greisen.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:13:22 +0100
To: <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on  Fort N.O.C.'s

Dave,

The discussion on root servers has offered some interesting facts but I'd
suggest a better overview of the root server situation is the link below:

http://www.root-servers.org/presentations/rootops-gac-rio.pdf

Here one will learn that the A root server has no special importance as
compared to B, C, ... M, or to their anycast clones. So while Verisign's
security design is proably worth praise it is not really decisive for the
resilience of the Internet.

Also, perhaps from a US perspective the Net would appear more secure if all
root server operations were contracted directly or indirectly (via ICANN) by
a US department or agency. However, I'd like to offer the view that from an
international perspective the present situation is preferable since it does
not have any technical, organizational or even political single point of
failure.

Surprising as it may sound, operating with so called volunteers has proven
very resilient and it not at all obvious that changes would improve the
system. Of course, the volunteers are not random people and organizations,
the point is they are accountable to _different_ private or public
authorities, see http://www.root-servers.org/

best regards/Frode Greisen

------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/