Jump to content

Talk:DNS root zone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interest-Group_Slant

[edit]

I hope my concern's reasoning is self-evident, but if not, I'll elaborate a tiny bit.

Ultimate Authority

There is no explanation as to the origin of 'ultimate authority', or even recognition of disputes with this authority.

Utility vs Law

The necessity or inadequacy of current DNS management is a healthy debate, and should at least be linked to.

Legislation and Jurisdiction

Even if it is assumed that current management is ideal and most effective, it is not universal, and stretches well beyond national borders. There should be links to conversation on information exportation and jurisdiction.

This is the most disappointing wikipedia article I've read. Please look into my complaints. I'll return. 64.6.141.115 (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article does read a bit like ICANN wrote or edited the bulk of it. 107.8.126.73 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC) , aka MilquetoastCJW[reply]

The article seems to me like a reasonable technical overview. This seems like an attempt to introduce a debate where none exists. The article is not about who controls the system, it is about the system. Concerns about ICANN managing the root system belong in the ICANN page. Generalcp702user talk 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thirteen root server names

[edit]

"There are thirteen root server names that are authoritative for queries to the global DNS root zone, the maximum number possible." "... the maximum possible using the DNS protocol with the minimum guaranteed IP datagram size." A more detailed explanation would be good. Mr. Jones 08:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, how's this: A UDP DNS packet can only be 512 bytes in size. This means we can fit only 15 answers to the question "Name servers for ." Since DNS packets are of variable size, they made the number 13, to give a bit of a cushion before hitting the 512 byte DNS limit.
In more detail:
The header of a DNS packet takes up 12 bytes. The question length is variable, but I will assume that it takes up five bytes--the shortest a question can be (The question "dig @somewhere . -q=ns" generates) We have 495 bytes to play with at this point. At this point, an answer, because of DNS' clunky design, needs to be two records: An NS record and an A record.
So, the first NS answer for "." will take up one bytes (the length of that question) followed by 10 bytes of stuff followed by "a.root-servers.net." (19 bytes): 30 bytes in total.
This answer also needs an IP. The IP will take up 2 bytes for the name (pointing back to "a.root-servers.net." using DNS' weird compression), 10 bytes for other DNS overhead, and four bytes for the IP. This is 16 bytes, and each IP uses this number of bytes.
The first root server, in total, takes up 46 bytes.
The second root server will take up one (name) + ten (DNS stuff) + four bytes "b.<2 byte backreference to 'root-servers.net.'>" 15 bytes total. The required A reference is another 16 bytes. So each subsequent root server reference takes up 31 bytes.
Now, in this compact format, we could fit up to 15 total answers to an A request for a root server (DNS headers: 17 bytes; first answers 46 bytes, 14 subsequent answers of 31 bytes each = 497 bytes, leaving us with 15 bytes: Not enough space to fit another record).
So, the hard limit is 15. The reason why the number is 13 is to give a bit of a cushion, since other factos can make a DNS packet bigger.
That's more than you ever wanted to know about DNS, I'm sure Samboy 08:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Revised by Samboy 22:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) to fix error that doesn't affect 15 records conclusion)
The above calculations assume that the root name servers always have had a common name (e.g. root-servers.net), which was not the case early on. IIRC, 13 was the maximum that could fit back in the mid 1990s. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Root nameserver

[edit]

SHOULD this page be merged with Root nameserver ?

Well.. to my opinion some information here seems to belong better in Root nameserver.
The root zone deserves there own page if there's enough content, but that should only mention "The root zone is served by the root nameservers". It should not tell "The root zone is served by a-m.root-servers.net." or other details.
UsrBin 06:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNS System?

[edit]

isn't saying DNS system redundent? It's like saying "Domain Name System system" Clyde frogg 07:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the "p" in http protocol just happens to stand for protocol (but is part of the name of a protocol), the "s" in dns just happens to stand for system (but is a part of the name of a system) --frothT C 20:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence (section renamed)

[edit]

It makes not sense. Twas Brillig & the slithy toves did gyre & gimbol in the wabe. The article starts out obtusely: "A DNS root zone is the top-level DNS zone in a hierarchical namespace using the Domain Name System (DNS)." Does the writer realize that the sentence is nonsense? It says, "A DNS root zone is" and then proceeds to use DNS & zone in its definition! (EnochBethany (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not use all-caps (it's considered to be shouting)I don't see how the statement could be clearer. You would do better to read Domain Name System first.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DNS root zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DNS root zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DNS root zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercrime, GDPR, and the Integrity of DNS

[edit]

On May 25th 2018, the EU is attempting to enforce its GDPR, effecting ANYONE holding data on "Europeans", based on the idea of protecting privacy from infringements or cybercrime. The DNS has been referenced as a source, but several wikipedians have tarred its integrity (date entry, and the historical and unique changes made to the DNS are certified and verified; so they say the DNS WHOIS is being abused by using alias or post office box addresses, drawing the attention of the Eurocrats as a source of possible fines) , and to top it all off, ICANN could be targeted. EU-based users (theres millions!) of several platforms have been notified that they cannot access the services as a result of this GDPR; other services, wikipedia included, have amended their policy. It is a possibility that the EU tries the crowbar option if ICANN does not "comply", commandeering the sectors of DNS of concern to the EU, throwing ICANN under the bus. *******The integrity of the DNS is unquestionable********, one has it from good sources. If the DNS is brought into disrepute by wikipedians seeking to OBSCURE good sources, how do we prevent them from driving away others with integrity? The mass media (and to be honestly critical, ICANN) have been overly-oriented towards the representation of "commercial" corporate entities (persons), rather than representing PEOPLE and persons, thus the reporting of the rollout of the GDPR will inevitably reflect the bias. GDPR is geared toward PEOPLE rather than commerce. The UK`s ICO even moreso. HUGE changes to this article are in the works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.188.201 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DNS_root_zone&oldid=1201576954"