[discuss] rootservers

[manning bill]

Answers below:


/bill
Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.

On 24February2014Monday, at 20:17, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 25 Feb 2014 03:02, "manning bill" <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
> >
> > (very local) root server.    Why would that be better for you/us?
> >
> > if the presumption is low latency name resolution,   this might be reasonable,  if there was poor/no connectivity
> > to the rest of the Internet  _and_ no caching locally.
> >
> Yeah poor is more like it as if there were no connectivity at all then there won't be a need to use internet resource better.

If bandwidth is a concern, then you don;t want a root server, you want a hefty robust cache.

> >
> 
> > The downside of a local root server is that the root server is a global resource and will be expected to field queries
> > from anywhere on the Internet…   Which is why (many years ago)  we installed and then removed a root server
> > from Australia, since they didn’t want to pay for the cost of fielding global DNS queries.   Costs have changed since
> > then, but the basic presumption is still there - a root server is expected to answer DNS priming queries from _ANYWHERE_
> > on the Internet, not jus those queries local to you.
> >
> You are very right about this and this perhaps is one of the reasons why some ISPs don't won't to support hosting such servers especially in my region where bandwidth cost is still on the high side. (Which is one of the processes I refer)


Again, you really don’t want a root server….  


> 
> > So please explain why a local copy of the root is better for you?   You have cheap bandwidth you wish to donate to the global
> > Internet?
> >
> And the answer to that question by many ISP in this region will be a NO so the cost remains at end user table ;). This is one of reason why hosting like this are easier done within IX who normally don't always look at the business but considers local benefits as priority.


You want a caching server that collects and holds the answers locally, not an authoritative server which has to answer questions from the rest of the world too.



> >
> > /bill
> > Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.
> >
> > On 24February2014Monday, at 7:53, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> > > Marilyn, et al,
> > >
> > > Thanks.  Two comments about root servers…
> > >
> > > 1. A list of which countries have root servers and which do not is the beginning but not the end of the discussion.  The technical question is whether a locale is being served well enough.  "Well enough" is usually measured in terms of delay to get an answer to a look up, e.g. 89 milliseconds, and reliability, e.g. answers are received 99.923% of the time.  (Both of the numbers in the previous sentence are illustrative and not related to any actual measurement.  I made them up as I typed.)  On the other hand, many people seem concerned with political questions, e.g. which countries are important enough to have root servers.  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.
> > >
> >