• Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think it’s more of a historical accident that nobody really finds ideal, but there is also no good alternative solution that has a critical mass assembled behind it.

    It all started with Jon Postel just taking on the job of keeping track. This is an interesting topical document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2468

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      So it’s basically because of laziness or lack of effort that no one wants anything better, or even just different. And that means ICANN/IANA can just casually break countless internet domains and cause a decade of internet bitrot at the drop of a hat and no one will challenge them over it.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        no one wants anything better

        More like there is nothing better people can agree on. You might like SCION with it’s RAINS architecture, where the trust anchors are local to the isolation domains. This way you could build up name resolution where you only depend on the local ISPs that form the core of your isolation domain. In my team we are supporting SCION, in fact we are in the core of one ISD, but the uptake on the customer side is relatively low so far. There are two or three niches that are using SCION more, but not RAINS yet, as far as I know.

        even just different

        Just different is not really attractive, unless people feel like IANA is really messing things up, or the US is exerting undue influence over it. So far they seem to have avoided making that impression widely.