[discuss] rootservers

Tue Feb 25 06:56:03 UTC 2014

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Feb 2014 07:29, "manning bill" <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> If I place one close to you, your latency to that server is small,
however the latency to the rest of the global Internet suffers when that
server is responding to a query far away.
>
Yes I agree with you, however I see it as the more root servers I have in
my region the more local it is to me. US has as many root servers which is
local to them while they worry about the few remaining outbounds.

> And someone, likely you, will have to pay the cost of bandwidth for that
server to properly function as a root server, answering queries from around
the globe.
>
Yeah! we are both at the same destination through different routes ;)

> Can you afford that cost (global bandwidth) simply to reduce the latency
of the priming query to the root that for you would occur perhaps a few
times a day?
>
> Wouldn't a cache be a _much- better choice?
>
Definitely cache servers has it's use but we are discussing root servers on
continental basis. Can't we achieve a relatively fair share on the latency
globally ;)

Thanks a lot for having a good discussion as I believe it's been educating
and informative. I think we have bugged the list enough and can take it
further "offlist" (if necessary)

Cheers!
>
>
>
>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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....
> > >
> > Maybe you should tell me the cost you are referring to which made you
drop your root server in Australia as I think this still comes down to
bandwidth required to serve the rest of the world.
> >
> > Cheers!
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > /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.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140225/94b15fa9/attachment.html>