Carlos M. Martinez
carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 25 12:29:01 UTC 2014
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:
> > Hello
> > 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss