Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Tue Feb 25 13:07:12 UTC 2014
Good points, tocayo!
On 02/25/2014 08:47 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> On 2/24/14, 8:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 24 Feb 2014 20:47, "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:carlosm3011 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> On 2/24/14, 1:53 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:38 PM, It would help the discussion
>>>> to know what questions are being asked. The list of root server
>>>> locations may or may not be relevant.
>>>> For me, i am not really about the political aspect, just as you
>>>> indicated the more local the root is the better for us.
>>> Only if you exchange traffic locally. If you do not, the root server
>>> just becomes a nice toy for the ISP hosting it, in some cases it also
>>> becomes a marketing tool.
>> Hmmm... just curious about the extent of exchanging local traffic we
>> are talking about, especially as it relates to name resolving. I have
>> an ISP/mobile service in my country that has over 30million
>> subscribers who all need to hit certain DNS servers specified by the
>> provider (which is still local to the users as most provider run local
>> name servers). Now imagine the DNS servers having a more reliable
>> connection to the appropriate root servers.... so my point is that the
>> local traffic for DNS already exists. It is when we talk about local
>> traffic in relation to content that we can now take a pause to trace
>> and really determine if indeed it's local or not.
> Two comments (unrelated) here:
> - does a 30-million ISP really have concerns about they connectivity to
> the world's DNS servers ? I would think that such a large shop would
> have highly redundant paths everywhere
> - if such an ISP has these concerns, being so large, they can afford to
> buy the equipment needed for a root servers themselves, which even in
> South America (with large import tariffs in most countries) runs at less
> thank USD 5k for some root server instances. My question here would be
> 'why are they not doing it'.
> Summing up my position: I don't really worry about large ISPs in Africa
> or elsewhere. They are smart enough and have pockets deep enough to take
> care of themselves. I DO worry about smaller shops, Universities and
> such. At this point in time I think having an IXP helps more a region's
> Internet reliability than throwing in more root server copies scattered
> over every single ISP out there.
>>> If your country does not have an IXP, then it is probably best served by
>>> root server copies hosted in the 'nearest' (in network topology sense)
>>> traffic exchange point. In our case (South America), it is the NAP of
>>> the Americas in Miami, just as Patrik pointed out.
>> Sure my country for instance does have exchange point but the real
>> point is what I have stated above.
>> Generally I think we imply similar things just saying it in different
>> ways ;)
> Agree! And you raise good points, thanks for that.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss