seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Feb 24 22:36:19 UTC 2014
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Feb 2014 20:47, "Carlos M. Martinez" <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.
> 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
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss