[CS-FSLUG] Decentralized DNS

[Ed Hurst]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Peter J. Vasquez Sr. wrote:

> Using a decentralized system has it's dangers, and I think the goal
> the developers of this distributed DNS system is more of an awakening.
> It will be interested to see what comes from this, and what changes
> may take place as a result. I hope I've addressed your question, I've
> done my best to keep the answer short so as not to be too confusing.
> If there's something else you wanted to discuss, particularly on the
> distributed DNS project, I'd be happy to answer any questions. (I'm
> not involved in the project, but have started looking at the code).

Outstanding answer. You summarized things I already understood and
extended it to areas which had puzzled me.

Over the years I've kept track of a recurring theme of geeks seeking to
protect the Net from what they consider abusive controls. It does not
arise from something so simplistic as "corporate-government = evil
versus hackers = good".  Some corporate players seem consistently
benign, and a few truly evil, and most are simply opportunists. Some
governments cozy up with lobbyists, and some simply do what governments
have always done in seeking control. All that to say the issue at hand
is not so much the politics, but the results for you and me. It won't
matter who is doing what if there exists something in the nature of the
Internet which resists certain kinds of controls.

It's more the fundamental question of the centralizers over the
de-centralizers. What you describe is a centralized system of passing
traffic, but that it doesn't have to be that way. Authoritative root
server systems for DNS are centralized and trusted, but provide the
choke point centralizers seek. As one who has suffered somewhat at the
hands of centralizers in various ways, I'm always interested in keeping
my eye on the counter efforts. I don't think I suffer too much from
cinema-based fantasies, since I hate TV and movies in general, but I do
admit to some ignorance of how the Net works. My calling and emphasis
has been on the nature and content of information for which I use the
Net, and I simply don't have the resources left to pursue the fine art
of systems administration and networking (see Ephesians 4).

I recognize there is good and bad in having an Internet mono-culture. If
everyone used the same OS and applications, it would be like the Roman
roads, built to hasten military movements, but also easily adapted to
gospel spreading. I doubt anyone here doesn't realize Paul's Roman
citizenship was useful, even while Roman government was hardly benign.
It was Rome who eventually executed Paul, essentially for his preaching.
Other apostles went in other directions, using less centralized systems,
but we don't have Scripture accounts of them by which to compare, but
surely it had its advantages in leaving the Roman Empire to evangelize.
The question was not which was better, but to what one is called. So I
use Open Source right now, not because it's morally superior in my eyes,
but fits my calling best. My support is conditional, but I do support
it.

I'm trying to extrapolate from the whining entertainment pirates to
those who have a godly reason to bypass the centralized system, even
while taking advantage of its presence. If all we get from this is a
better, continued distribution of Hollywood filth, they can keep it. If
it holds promise for those of us who may need to copy the technology to
avoid the consequences, intended or not, of increased centralized
control, then I want to know how I might make use of it, and what I need
to know to prepare for that.

Ed Hurst
--------
Open for Business - http://ofb.biz/
Kiln of the Soul - http://soulkiln.org/
blog - http://soulkiln.blogspot.com/