[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

bmanning  writes:
> 	because, apparently, customers aka service operators are 
> 	inferior to network operators aka plumbers.  a $DEITY forbid
> 	that an TLD operator ego be brused by not being considered in
> 	the same class as plumbers. [...]
>
>	tongue partly in cheek.
>
>	perhaps there is the consideration that TLD ops are "special"
>	in some unique way that preclueds them from fate-sharing with
>	a plumber when the pipes break.  e.g.  they have not taken
>	steps to distribute their service or content so that it is
>	available over different carriers, on alternate power grids,
>	in other countries. ... and perhaps ... using a variety of
>	publishers ... instead of trying to run all that
>	infrastructure in addition to operating the TLD.  OR...  why
>	do tld operators have to have all the servers under
>	infrastructure they run?  when did this change?

Well said, Bill.

> 	example:
> 	DEnic could have CNnic, BRnic, and CAnic run slave servers for
> 	them in their areas.  Why is this a bad thing?

As Kurt Jaeger aka pi said in a previous posting (although in a
different context):
> That's a national security issue for some countries.

So it's all a matter of control.  In a similar vein, see

http://www.imconf.net/imc-2005/papers/imc05efiles/ramasubramanian/ramasubramanian.pdf

    "Perils of Transitive Trust in the Domain Name System",
    V. Ramasubramanian and E. Gün Sirer, IMC 2005

Personally I don't share the opinion that more centralized control
leads to safer systems, but then nobody asks me.
-- 
Simon.
Speaking only for himself, but partly getting paid for helping to
operate some TLD nameservers.