North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: root name servers
> How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange > points? > > This will make them avaliable to all ISP/NSP's regardless of peering > arrangements with others and would also improve connectivity to them. there has never been a shortage of volunteers to run root servers. i'm not sure that the exchange points are good spots, since the folks who run exchange points (MFS, NASA, Pac Bell, etc) usually know a lot more about the link level than the network level -- and besides, i'm not sure that a root name server ought to have an ASN and run BGP4, which means that it will have to be behind a router that _does_ have an ASN and run BGP4. if this is to be the case, i'd rather see the routers inside NSP offices, where UNIX experts and network experts are more plentiful than at the exchange points. to that end, NS.ISC.ORG is one 10Mb/s hop away from BADnet (barrnet-alternet- digital) in the DECWRL computer room. it's likely that i will shortly add an SMDS T1 connection to the CIX cloud for other reasons, and that will help a tiny bit (only a tiny bit, since Alternet has T3 to that cloud from the router i peer with in that room.) work is underway (by the Postel-Mockapetris-Vixie-Kosters quadumvirite) to implement Bill Manning's suggestion of putting all the root servers under a single domain, which will let DNS' name compression start winning for us. if this works out, we should be able to just about double the number of root name servers. NSP's with multiple T3's to geographically disparite exchange points will be given strong preference. sites outside the United States will be given strong preference. the root servers are not currently suffering from load (my own server does about 100 queries per second, which is about 10% of the capacity of my little 66Mhz/64MB BSD/OS machine). the goal here is to reduce load on the wide area net rather than on the root servers themselves. and also to increase the likelihood that any given host can reach a root server during times of wide- scale connectivity problems (which seem to be more common lately?) > For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should > not be run by a single organisation. they never have been.