CircleID

Karl is smart enough to know the difference between an A RR and an NS RR, so his apparently-deliberate mincing of those terms mystifies me. Any network owner can control their own DNS simply by ensuring that their clients all use a local "root cache" file which points only at local "root name servers". And Karl knows that I am a passionate champion of the right of network owners to exercise this kind of control.

On the other hand, f-root's address (192.5.5.241) is part of ISC's netblock (192.5.4.0/23) and if a network owner decided to pirate that address because they lacked control over their customers' "root cache" files, then ISC would treat this as an unlawful communications intercept and we would take action.

Communications between consenting parties should never be prevented. But the only reason a network owner could have for pirating 192.5.5.241 (f-root) is if they do *not* have the consent of their own customers to operate a modified DNS namespace.

If Karl believes that all root name servers ought to live on pirateable addresses then let him petition IANA to renumber the root name servers onto such addresses. But it's very odd to see Karl imply that because f-root's address is used for root name service, it ought to be legal to pirate it. 

Karl has pinpointed a problem that has done more to cripple progress in stability of the Internet than any other problem. The Techie vs. Pollywog war. I cannot write code but I have written the texts for many websites. I cannot design a website but I can write disclaimers and terms of use. I am not real clear on viruses but I understand existing anitspam policies.

Why is it that in companies all people components can produce great looking effective and legal websites but on large policies the components can't cooperate within their disciplines?

At least it is now at the forefront and is being addressed that is the beginning of the end of the war.