<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/24/14, 8:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hqs2GB5Rtnq50xD5VK1NBtufOfe78TGp3+5zxAdM-9EQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 24 Feb 2014 20:47, "Carlos M. Martinez" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:carlosm3011@gmail.com">carlosm3011@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hello<br>
><br>
> On 2/24/14, 1:53 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:38 PM, It would help the
discussion<br>
> > to know what questions are being asked. The list
of root server<br>
> > locations may or may not be relevant.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > For me, i am not really about the political aspect,
just as you<br>
> > indicated the more local the root is the better for
us.<br>
><br>
> Only if you exchange traffic locally. If you do not, the
root server<br>
> just becomes a nice toy for the ISP hosting it, in some
cases it also<br>
> becomes a marketing tool.<br>
><br>
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.</p>
</blockquote>
Two comments (unrelated) here:<br>
<br>
- 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<br>
<br>
- 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'.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hqs2GB5Rtnq50xD5VK1NBtufOfe78TGp3+5zxAdM-9EQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">> If your country does not have an IXP, then it is
probably best served by<br>
> root server copies hosted in the 'nearest' (in network
topology sense)<br>
> traffic exchange point. In our case (South America), it is
the NAP of<br>
> the Americas in Miami, just as Patrik pointed out.<br>
><br>
Sure my country for instance does have exchange point but the
real point is what I have stated above.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Generally I think we imply similar things just saying
it in different ways ;)</p>
</blockquote>
Agree! And you raise good points, thanks for that.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hqs2GB5Rtnq50xD5VK1NBtufOfe78TGp3+5zxAdM-9EQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
</blockquote>
Cheers!<br>
<br>
~Carlos<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6hqs2GB5Rtnq50xD5VK1NBtufOfe78TGp3+5zxAdM-9EQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>