|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: root name servers
> 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. > Actually, I think that it might be interesting to look at the possibility of putting Root DNS on the Route-Servers. > 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. > Interesting... That should definitely help. > 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?) > True. However, the nice thing about a RNS on an XP is that the RNS is one hop from EVERY provider at the XP, and is independent of OTHER providers. I agree that the XP management shouldn't manage the RNS. However, I would be QUITE comfortable with MERIT running it on the RS or adjacent machine. > > For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should > > not be run by a single organisation. > > they never have been. > Although I agree that ALL RNS's shouldn't be run by a single organization, I would not have a problem with the RNS's at the XP's being run by the RADB group. Owen
|