[discuss] rootservers

Tue Feb 25 07:23:23 UTC 2014

Agreed for some, not for all of the server-less countries. Extra-technical factors are involved as well.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 24/02/2014, at 18:02, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-02-24 16:36, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> I agree with Steve, but the list also shows that out of 250 ccTLDs 149
>> do not have any server in their territories - so they did not even get
>> to the beginning of the discussion :)
> 
> As people have said, that is not the correct conclusion. The root
> servers, and other similar services, should be deployed according to
> network topology. Sometimes the network topology differ from country
> boundaries.
> 
> Let me take an example with some countries in South America.
> 
> In many countries there where multiple ISPs that did not exchange
> traffic with each other within the country itself. All of the ISPs had
> their own back-haul to Miami in the US.
> 
> If a root server would have been located within that country, it would
> have served only one of the ISPs and their customer, and not the others.
> 
> Because of this, we at Netnod deployed i-root at the ccTLDs we run DNS
> for in Miami at the neutral IX there, as the positive effect was better
> than if deployed locally.
> 
> Now, as much have changed in latin america, thanks to for example what
> LACNIC and LACTLD is doing, we do see local IX:es and we see local
> traffic exchanges. And suddenly it makes sense to deploy root servers
> (and other services) also locally.
> 
> And this is why we at Netnod together with LACNIC and others are working
> hard on getting a workable plan for deployment of both IX:es and other
> services, as local deployment now makes sense.
> 
> So, just looking at country boundaries does not give a correct picture
> of the situation.
> 
>   Patrik Fältström
>   Head of Research and Development
>   Netnod
> 
> 
> 