13? There's over 500 root server clusters...
You don't like diving into the technical details here because you don't understand them.
you need to get over yourself ... who says I've dived into technical details yet?
usually I don't like diving in technical details as that quickly puts most folks to zzzzz and accomplishes very little ..
No one has said you have. You've only said you "don't like diving in technical details" [sic] to deflect the conversation from the fact that you don't understand what you are discussing beyond political talking points.
An entry in a root zone file tells DNS resolvers who is the authoritative DNS server for a given root zone. The root zone is the TLD. There are not "13 root zones or entities..." like you say in your previous post - there are over 1000 root zones (.com, .net, .org, .xxx, .plumbing, .tv, .ko, etc.). The root zone file is served by a network of server clusters distributed globally. There are 13 hostnames ([a-m].root-servers.net), 12 of which resolve to both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses through A and AAAA entries respectively, and one (managed by US Defense Information Systems Agency) that only resolves to an IPv4 address.
Out of over 500 points-of-presence (POPs), only 125 are located within the United States's jurisdiction. Unlike what you said, the majority of POPs are located outside the United States.
Under NTIA oversight, IANA's requests were mostly rubber stamped for approval. It was an arrangement to shield ICANN from liability in the event that it did choose to take action against a root zone administrator such as the National Rifle Association or Barclay's. The only real changes here are in global politics (should something global and mostly outside the jurisdiction of the United States be under the regulatory control of a United States government agency?) and in ICANN's liability. An exception to the rubber stamp was the opposition to the .xxx TLD.
What I find interesting about all this is that most of the complaints about this de-regulation seems to come from the major party that supposedly supports less government regulation...
ICANN is still an American organization. Do you think they're somehow immune to US law now?
We still have oversight as part of a multi stakeholder model. The accountability provisions of the handoff maintain the advisory role of governments within ICANN, and through bylaw changes, ensure that a government or a group of governments cannot capture or exercise undue influence over the IANA functions.
This post brought to you by the internet backbone that was formerly government controlled and was given away to private organizations.
0.18 [NORMAL] veggiemeat@caol-ila:~
$ dig @a.root-servers.net nra
; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Debian <<>> @a.root-servers.net nra
; (2 servers found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10971
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 9
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;nra. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
nra. 172800 IN NS a2.nic.nra.
nra. 172800 IN NS b0.nic.nra.
nra. 172800 IN NS c0.nic.nra.
nra. 172800 IN NS a0.nic.nra.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
a2.nic.nra. 172800 IN A 65.22.243.25
a2.nic.nra. 172800 IN AAAA 2a01:8840:ed::25
b0.nic.nra. 172800 IN A 65.22.241.25
b0.nic.nra. 172800 IN AAAA 2a01:8840:eb::25
c0.nic.nra. 172800 IN A 65.22.242.25
c0.nic.nra. 172800 IN AAAA 2a01:8840:ec::25
a0.nic.nra. 172800 IN A 65.22.240.25
a0.nic.nra. 172800 IN AAAA 2a01:8840:ea::25
;; Query time: 55 msec
;; SERVER: 198.41.0.4#53(198.41.0.4)
;; WHEN: Wed Oct 05 12:57:09 CDT 2016
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 280
0.27 [NORMAL] veggiemeat@caol-ila:~
$ dig @a.root-servers.net barclays
; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Debian <<>> @a.root-servers.net barclays
; (2 servers found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 61207
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 9
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1472
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;barclays. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
barclays. 172800 IN NS a.nic.barclays.
barclays. 172800 IN NS b.nic.barclays.
barclays. 172800 IN NS c.nic.barclays.
barclays. 172800 IN NS d.nic.barclays.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
a.nic.barclays. 172800 IN A 37.209.192.9
b.nic.barclays. 172800 IN A 37.209.194.9
c.nic.barclays. 172800 IN A 37.209.196.9
d.nic.barclays. 172800 IN A 37.209.198.9
a.nic.barclays. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:dcd:1::9
b.nic.barclays. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:dcd:2::9
c.nic.barclays. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:dcd:3::9
d.nic.barclays. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:dcd:4::9
0.21 [NORMAL] veggiemeat@caol-ila:~
$ dig @a.nic.barclays home.barclays
; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Debian <<>> @a.nic.barclays home.barclays
; (2 servers found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 5817
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;home.barclays. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
home.barclays. 3600 IN NS ns7.barcap.com.
home.barclays. 3600 IN NS ns3.barcap.com.
home.barclays. 3600 IN NS ns2.barcap.com.
;; Query time: 77 msec
;; SERVER: 37.209.192.9#53(37.209.192.9)
;; WHEN: Wed Oct 05 13:03:24 CDT 2016
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 106
0.16 [NORMAL] veggiemeat@caol-ila:~
$ dig @ns7.barcap.com home.barclays
; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Debian <<>> @ns7.barcap.com home.barclays
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 52486
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;home.barclays. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
home.barclays. 3600 IN A 147.63.166.62
home.barclays. 3600 IN A 141.228.141.86
;; Query time: 131 msec
;; SERVER: 141.228.129.129#53(141.228.129.129)
;; WHEN: Wed Oct 05 13:18:55 CDT 2016
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 74
close but not accurate .. our government previously had oversight over the single most important component that cannot be decentralized. which is the ICANN root database that all root servers use. internet infrastructure design was purposely decentralized for a host of reasons, hence why without hierarchical order, it would all quickly fall into chaos.
when ICANN's agreement expired on Sept 30, 2016 .. America had an opening for several options which included keeping oversight control over ICANN. instead we gave away to a private entity with no oversight. ICANN could makes changes to favor say a political agenda without most of the world even knowing what they are up to.
@_CY_ - I did not leave out that IANA is a part of ICANN. Also, root servers are not used to "coordinate traffic". They are simply a DNS service that only serves up DNS entries for the root zone level. Compared to other DNS services, they are rarely queried. Their only function is to say who is/are the authoritative nameserver(s) for a given root zone. Because of DNS caching by DNS services and the hierarchical structure of DNS services, your computer will rarely (if ever) query a root server. It will probably not even query an authoritative nameserver. .
You think ICANN has no oversight of any kind, which is not close or accurate. Only you, _CY_, could see a transition from single-stakeholder to well-defined multi-stakeholder as "no oversight."
And what I posted about accountability changes, was authored by the NTIA. The same NTIA that you were okay with being the single-stakeholder. The same NTIA that is okay with being a stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder model.
Enter your email address to join: