January 1997 - dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Marcel Schneider 24 Jan '97

24 Jan '97

On Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997, Christophe Wolfhugel writes: > Marcel Schneider: >> IMHO: Your answer is insufficient if not entirely mistaken. The inhabitants >> of central and southern Europe have a right to the same kind of connectivity >> as the northern region is now trying to get hold of or already has done >> so. Make no sense to improve an already good situation. > What about having the Europeans to work towards moving the center of > Europe from the US East coast to some European point ? > As long as European major connectivity providers are ignoring each other > and having their best interconnection points being MAE-East or the NY Nap > all this seems useless to me... > (that was an end user's point of view -- intra Europe networking is not > usable today for people who work, at least those not in scandinavian areas). > So for us, London, Stockholm, NY, Washington, Geneva, Milano, etc... that > root server will mainly be unrechable :(. > The location of that server is not a technical issue, it's a political one. Agreements, policies. Also my (personal) opinion. But as long as Peter Lothberg <roll(a)Stupi.SE> et al are attempting to tell us 'route your inter-European IP packets over the US' nothing will improve. The owners of 150+ MB links to the US can easily sell this opinion, but it is absurd. > -- > Christophe Wolfhugel -+- SIS, Institut Pasteur, Paris > Boulot : wolf(a)pasteur.fr, $HOME : wolf(a)schnok.fr.net Marcel

2 1

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
by Ian Mason 24 Jan '97

24 Jan '97

At 13:08 20/01/97 +0000, Keith N Mitchell wrote: [snip] > I don't think there are any sacred cows for any of these here - > if we adjust the LINX policy to meet requirements of the root NS > rather than the other way around, I don't think we break either > of 1 or 2. I don't think it breaks 3. either, but this requirement > will go away when we have a route server in any case. If we opt for the root NS to have its own AS then there is no barrier to people offering identical routing policy for the LINX and the NS. If it shares the LINX AS then it will be impossible to have different policy for LINX and the NS. So, if there is a possibility that there will ever be a requirement to have different routing policy for the NS and the LINX it would seem wise to give the NS its own AS. It may be moot in as much as it's probably desireable to achieve 'root server connectivity quality' for the LINX AS, but the seperate AS for the root server would preserve some flexibility.

4 4

proposed agenda - DNS WG session at RIPE26
by Ruediger Volk 23 Jan '97

23 Jan '97

Dear colleagues, please find below a proposed agenda for a DNS WG session at the upcoming RIPE26. 1. Opening & administrativa 2. Agenda bashing 3. Report from San Jose IETF (IRE(?) BOF) 4. Report from IAHC proposal debate (mailing list) 5. Collect & prepare RIPE feedback to IAHC 6. proposed root server from VBCnet 7. technical DNS issues (a) Status new DNS standards work (dnssec, dnsind) (b) new software status (c) any recent technical problems to discuss? 8. reports/news from various top level domains 9. AOB For the reporting items (3, 4, 7*, 8) I would like to ask for volunteers who participated or observed the events or processes to identify to me the kind offer to present a short summary report or position. I have included items 7. and 8. but consider those optional; if neither reports are offered nor priority requests for discussing specific issues are received I think these items should be dropped - as time will be short for the remaining items anyway. Ruediger

2 1

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Marcel Schneider 23 Jan '97

23 Jan '97

On Sunday, 19 Jan 1997, Peter Lothberg writes: >> > Dear colleagues, >> >> > I have received an informal query from IANA about RIPE's opinion about >> > the placement of a second root name server in Europe at the LINX >> > operated by VBCnet. This should be discussed at the next meeting. >> > Personally I think that placement at the LINX makes good sense because >> > of current network topology. >> >> Is that true ? We currently have >> >> ; formerly NIC.NORDU.NET >> ; >> . 3600000 NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. >> I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 192.36.148.17 >> >> in the north of Europe and according to above proposal a second >> root name server in the north of Europe, just one hop from one >> to the other. How about middle and south Europe ? Wouldn't it >> make sense to have at least one additional NS in these densely >> populated regions to provide better access times there ? >> >> This is just a question, nothing more. >> >> >> > Daniel >> >> >> Marcel Schneider@SWITCH > The geographic map does not apply, we have to look at the network > topology map. (And please forget the political map to.) > If you look at network topology, you will find that the center of > Europe is somwhere between NY and Washington DC, followed by Stockholm > and London. Ah, the center of Europe is between NY and Washington DC and that is reason enough to have _yet another server_ there. Great. Can imagine that you would like even more root name servers there in oder to be able to offer the best connectivity on earth to the Elks and forget about the rest of the world :-). IMHO: Your answer is insufficient if not entirely mistaken. The inhabitants of central and southern Europe have a right to the same kind of connectivity as the northern region is now trying to get hold of or already has done so. Make no sense to improve an already good situation. > --Peter Marcel

4 5

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Petri Helenius 22 Jan '97

22 Jan '97

At 12:44 22.1.1997 +0100, Lars-Johan Liman wrote: >wolf(a)pasteur.fr: >> Free suggestion to european network providers (Ebone and Dante particularly >> as those 2 are getting a lot of our money, I mean public money) : save the >> money for a root server and spend it in decent connectivity. > >How do you mean that Ebone gets a lot of "your" (public) money? > Is this politics-wg(a)ripe.net :-) To be frank, it's impossible to follow the routes money takes around the European Union but as long as the speaker counts as a citizen of the union, there is at least some fraction of the money that he/she is paying in taxes. This specially count for the countries that pay more to the EU than receive from there, where I think France is one of them. (not discounting others, like Germany, Finland, Sweden, etc...) Pete

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Gabor Kiss 22 Jan '97

22 Jan '97

Just a note: If anyone tell an address form the network what is the planned location of the new root server, all of us could test the good connectivity. E.g. with traceroute. Regards Gabor

5 4

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Gabor Kiss 22 Jan '97

22 Jan '97

> The location of that server is not a technical issue, it's a political one. > True. And it will stay that way on this continent, where for > ages and ages already national issues have dominated what Sorry, I don't understand something. Why cannot a region set up a root name server for its private use? Users who can reach it fast are advised to put the address of this server into named cache file, others not. Generally peoples might select a appropriate set of root name servers and put them into cache file. This might be the menu: "Veeery official" servers: a.root-servers.net ... i.root-servers.net "Official" continental servers: a.europe.root-servers.net b.europe.root-servers.net k.europe.root-servers.net q.asia.root-servers.net "Semi-official" regional servers: s.north.europe.root-servers.net n.south.europe.root-servers.net "International ISP" servers: provider1.west.europe.root-servers.net provider2.west.europe.root-servers.net etc. There would be suggested root NS sets tailored for each region. Asian resolvers probably are not interested in a European root NS and vice versa. The only thing to discuss whether Internic does allow to download the zonefile for these hosts. Semi-official and International ISP servers may be tertiary root name servers even. OK, this idea may be junk. I just wished to start a brainstorming. Keep flame on minimum. Thanks for your patience. Gabor ------- Another funny idea, related to this one: The DNS itself could store a pointer to a suggested cache file specific to the requestor's address. (And a version number too.) E.g. cache.arpa. TXT "14,ftp://ftp.internic.net/pub/SOME_FILE" 193.cache.arpa. TXT "71,ftp://ftp.ripe.net/root-ns/europe.cache" 6.193.cache.arpa. TXT "4,ftp://ftp.hungarnet.hu/pub/hungarnet.cache" Users are suggested to find the longest name matching your address, and use cache file pointed by it.

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Lars-Johan Liman 22 Jan '97

22 Jan '97

wolf(a)pasteur.fr: > Free suggestion to european network providers (Ebone and Dante particularly > as those 2 are getting a lot of our money, I mean public money) : save the > money for a root server and spend it in decent connectivity. How do you mean that Ebone gets a lot of "your" (public) money? /Liman #------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman ! Internet: liman(a)sunet.se # Ebone/NORDUnet/SUNET Operations Centre ! BITNET : LIMAN@SEARN # Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden ! HTTP : //www.sunet.se/~liman # ! Voice : Int +46 8 - 790 65 60 #-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Lars-Johan Liman 22 Jan '97

22 Jan '97

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Gabor Kiss wrote: >> If anyone tell an address form the network >> what is the planned location of the new root server, >> all of us could test the good connectivity. >> E.g. with traceroute. jdd(a)vbc.net: > Try collector.linx.net = 194.68.130.254 Wasn't the idea to put it on a new prefix on a special port in a possibly new AS? A bit difficult to check beforehand in that case, right? Cheers, /Liman #------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman ! Internet: liman(a)sunet.se # Ebone/NORDUnet/SUNET Operations Centre ! BITNET : LIMAN@SEARN # Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden ! HTTP : //www.sunet.se/~liman # ! Voice : Int +46 8 - 790 65 60 #-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
by Keith N Mitchell 22 Jan '97

22 Jan '97

On Jan 22, 9:45am, Ian Mason wrote: > > I don't think there are any sacred cows for any of these here - > > if we adjust the LINX policy to meet requirements of the root NS > > rather than the other way around, I don't think we break either > > of 1 or 2. I don't think it breaks 3. either, but this requirement > > will go away when we have a route server in any case. > > If we opt for the root NS to have its own AS then there is no barrier to > people offering identical routing policy for the LINX and the NS. If it > shares the LINX AS then it will be impossible to have different policy for > LINX and the NS. So, if there is a possibility that there will ever be a > requirement to have different routing policy for the NS and the LINX it > would seem wise to give the NS its own AS. > > It may be moot in as much as it's probably desireable to achieve 'root > server connectivity quality' for the LINX AS, but the seperate AS for the > root server would preserve some flexibility. I agree, but at the cost of an additional router. Due to the nature of the full routing we need for theses AS(es), a 64Mb router is a requirement eventually anyway, but it is not a LINX budget item at present, and while there have been lots of offers of server hardware for the root NS, there have been none to date of a router. I suggest we make the ASes the same for now, but split them when a clear requirement arises. At that point we will hopefully have a route server box to take over various of the collector functions. Keith

1 0