[discuss] rootservers

Tue Feb 25 13:07:12 UTC 2014

Good points, tocayo!

--c.a.

On 02/25/2014 08:47 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 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.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
> Cheers!
>
> ~Carlos
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>