Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ICANN, National Registrars Still Feuding

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the icann-refuses-to-do-its-sole-job dept.

Damalloch writes: "The BBC website has this story about the EU's concern over ICANN's refusal to make guarantees about root server stability. Domain name registrars such as Nominet are threatening to withhold payment of ICAAN's fees unless something is done to reassure them. So far ICAAN has remained stubborn because of the huge lawsuit potential if a root server were to go down but with the possibility of having their income reduced, they might just be convinced to do something."

3 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Well yes, but... by johnburton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But if one server went down wouldn't the requests just go to the other root servers instead? Isn't that how DNS works?

    So presumably they've got decent machines and power supplies and connections for each server. And so the chance of one going down is quite low. The chance of enough of them going down at the same time to cause disaster has to be vanishingly small. If it's too big, add a few more servers.

    Unless they include the possibility of them being hacked I suppose. But then they could just use several different operating systems and name server software to hugely reduce the chances.

    I'm not sure I'm convinced that this is really the reason they won't give any guarantees, it seems like a reasonably safe thing to do to me.

    --
    Sig is taking a break!
    1. Re:Well yes, but... by RollingThunder · · Score: 5, Informative

      It would (go to another root) - but if these systems are already running close to capacity, then that may be enough to cause the next server to choke, crash, and the next server will fall even faster.

      It's a scenario much like the AT&T switch fiasco, where a seldom exercised chunk of code took out one server. Once one server was down, the others took more load, which, coupled with the fact part of the problem was a live switch receiving a "I'm back!" message while under heavy load, caused more switches to go. Cascade failure all the way.

      After reading the article, I'm actually rather surprised myself. These systems must chew a ton of bandwidth, but it seems ICANN doesn't pay for it? Not to mention that all but three are in the US - isn't that going to oversaturate the cross-oceanic links?

      I think I'm definately with the registrar organizations - ICANN should be having contracts in place to require certain things, rather than a wink and a nod and a handshake.

  2. That's not quite what happened with AT&T by MemeRot · · Score: 5, Informative

    A faulty version of software was released. And yes the fault was buried waaay down in a giant case or if/elseif statement. Normally no big deal, right? Just roll back. But they had things set up so that any machine connected to another would poll it for the version of software it had. If what it connected to had a newer version, it would download that and then hand it off to all its fellows. So by the time the bad code triggered and they realized they had a problem it had already spread virus-like across the whole network. Going back to the older version one one machine was futile because as soon as it booted up it would connect to other machines and download the flawed software.

    They had to eventually take their old version, give it a new, higher number, and then compile and release that. So that that 'feature' once again became a feature and not a bug. Many lessons to be learned.