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

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Marcel Schneider 22 Jan '97

22 Jan '97

On Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997, Petri Helenius writes: > At 14:21 21.1.1997 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >>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. >> > HAVE THE RIGHT? Excuse me? Just go to your telco and order the pipes and > stop whining. If they don't, tell everybody that they aren't up to their > job. Tell your legistrators that they de-regulate so somebody that _IS_ up > to the job can come in and do it properly. Very good suggestion. Thank you _very_ much. > Pete Marcel

1 0

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

22 Jan '97

> Try collector.linx.net = 194.68.130.254 > > However, quite a few networks have offered to supply transit to > the new root name server, so if anything connectivity should be > better than what it is now. >From 192.84.225.1 (AS3338 - AS1955) % trace 194.68.130.254 traceroute to 194.68.130.254 (194.68.130.254), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 vhb.iif.hu (192.84.225.61) 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 vha.iif.hu (192.84.229.61) 5 ms 3 ms 4 ms 3 vh-if.mta.iif.hu (193.6.206.89) 11 ms 11 ms 5 ms 4 mta-if.mtc.iif.hu (193.6.206.101) 40 ms 19 ms 16 ms 5 Amsterdam1-s2-1.dante.net (194.41.0.105) 159 ms 168 ms 172 ms 6 * New-York2.dante.net (194.41.0.42) 195 ms 284 ms 7 * f3-1.t32-0.New-York.t3.ans.net (204.149.4.9) 270 ms 249 ms 8 * * h9-1.t56-1.Washington-DC.t3.ans.net (140.223.57.29) 266 ms 9 enss149.t3.ans.net (140.223.57.22) 298 ms 277 ms 293 ms 10 192.41.177.112 (192.41.177.112) 315 ms 380 ms 307 ms 11 s1.lon1gw1.uk.insnet.net (194.177.171.22) 861 ms 620 ms 473 ms 12 * * atm0-2.lon2gw2.uk.insnet.net (194.177.170.196) 356 ms 13 collector.linx.net (194.68.130.254) 800 ms 424 ms * Ooops!! DANTE has no better connectivity (via BT) to 194.68.130.0!? (At least now.) Gabor

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Petri Helenius 21 Jan '97

21 Jan '97

At 14:21 21.1.1997 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >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. > HAVE THE RIGHT? Excuse me? Just go to your telco and order the pipes and stop whining. If they don't, tell everybody that they aren't up to their job. Tell your legistrators that they de-regulate so somebody that _IS_ up to the job can come in and do it properly. Pete

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
by Keith N Mitchell 21 Jan '97

21 Jan '97

Taking a step back from the detailed discussion, it seems we don't have any major objections from the UK community to the proposals for deploying this I circulated last week, so I feel happy to take them to the RIPE DNS WG to take them a step further. We have offers of resources from VBCnet and NOMINET in the form of server hardware and operational support, and various LINX members as regards transit. We have support in principle from LINX, ISPA & NOMINET. Here's what I think the outstanding issues are: - fitting it all in to the European and Global picture: - for further discussion - routing policy for the NS ? various points here: - do we put the server in the LINX AS, or create a new one ? For this point it is worth remembering the reason we have the LINX AS in the first place, namely: 1. To make the LINX LAN prefix visible to the rest of the world 2. To give the LINX secretariat Internet connectivity 3. To have something everyone can peer with to gather useful stats in the collector. 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. i.e. I am very appreciative of the existing LINX members who give transit to the LINX, but, it would not break my heart to have the same connectivity/policy for the LINX as a UK-based root NS, and would understand if the existing providers did not want to fully transit a root servers' traffic - we have had enough offers to transit the root NS I do not see this as a problem. - how many members should provide transit to the root NS AS ? we have appear to have 2 schools of thought here, namely that either everyone should transit the thing to spread the load as evenly as possible, or that we should only have a small number to keep the routing deterministic (there's also a 3rd more wacky suggestion to do some special local hack, but I tend to agree with Paul Vixie's comments on that). My view is that we have to be careful about too many members providing transit, as we can easily finish up with lots of views of the way to the LINX AS with equal path lengths, but non-obvious tie-breaks, leading to hard to predict connectivity. Also increasing the number of path/prefix products in the global routing tables is in any case ecologically unsound. Perhaps the solution is for a small number of well-connected LINX members to provide universal transit, but for an additional group to provide additional transit to specific places (like the Nacamar offer). (Further discussion of server routing policy is probably best confined to technical forums, i.e. maybe nom-dir and ispa-com want to be dropped off the distribution.) - server for just "." or TLDs ? This kind of ties in with routing policy, in that those providing transit have potential concerns about traffic levels generated by a TLD server . One solution here might be PeterL's suggestion of seperate servers for TLD and ".", with different members providing different transit to each. The TLD server does not need to have its own independent address space in the same way the "." one does. I think we can still get away with having them in the same AS, though there is some risk of asymmetry here. All we need is an additional offer of server hardware..... - router hardware We do need to think about upgrading the collector to a 64Mb- capable box, most likely a 7200. If we think that a 100Mb connection for the server is needed, then the is a spare slot in the collector for an FDDI or 100baseT card. I'm sure there was another point to make, but being in the RIPE terminal room is distracting me a bit. More discussion of this here tomorrow. Keith

2 1

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Peter Lothberg 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

> > 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. --Peter

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
by Peter Lothberg 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

> Let us make this also perfectly clear: I have added not one name to > the CC list. > > I did correct "chief(a)ispa.org.uk" to "ispa-com(a)ispa.org.uk". > > It is others who have grown and grown the CC list and are, if you are > correct, interested in "public point-scoring to the widest possible > distibution". > Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net > tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 I added most of the CC lines, as I'm very concerned about how we handle limited and shared resources in the global Internet. The purpose of a second european rootnameserver is to improve the global Internet for everyone, not only local people covered by the London metro. --Peter

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
by Peter Lothberg 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

> > What has been > > discussed in the past at the LINX, and I believe was discussed again > > today, was a root server for "." We think that what would be of most > > benefit to Europe would be a full root name server, including the > > largest domains (.com and .net), and this is what we discussed with > > Paul Vixie and proposed to Jon Postel last year. The .COM and .NET domains are very large, they have many querries, but the . nameservers serves the universe. Suggestion; Separate the . (root) from the next level (.country, .net, .com) servers.. So, instead of putting ONE host on the network behind the router, put TWO, and the second one could handle the second level domains you wish. Maybe there should be a THIRD host to serve the country toplevel domain (.uk in this case) and maybe toplevel for other countries the region. (.nl, .es, etc..) Hosts are cheap, running them with a quality service is more expensive, but the number of users affected by the performance and availiabilty and performace are VERY high... > > > Shared resources has to bee keept as neutral as possible, and having > > > for example a root-name-server behind it's own router attached to a well > > > recogized public exchange point seems to be the best avaliable > > > implementation today. > > > > This is in fact exactly the physical arrangement that we have proposed: > > a root name server on its own class C one hop off the LINX. > > Not from a routing policy point of view - will you put the root > server in a seperate AS, or will connectivity be constrained by > your peering/routing policy ? The nameservers has to be in their own AS, behind their own router(s) and account for traffic to be in the 400kbps in / 700kbps out range and estimate growth to 10% month. So full-duplex FDDI or full-duplex fast Ethernet is a requrement. The peering policy of this as should be something like; Peer with anyone who request to peer. Maybe it even should accept circiuts from those who just want to have good connectivity to the nameservers, but don't care about the particular exchanage point. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would suggest that once everyone agreed on a workable model that we also implement that for other root namseservers. --Peter

1 0

subscribe
by Jim Dixon 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

subscribe <jdd(a)vbc.net>

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe
by Marcel Schneider 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

On Monday, 13 Jan 1997, Daniel Karrenberg 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 > ----- Begin Included Message ----- >>From jdd(a)avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net Thu Jan 9 11:03:28 1997 > Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:04:48 +0000 (GMT) > From: Jim Dixon <jdd(a)vbc.net> > To: iana(a)iana.org, postel(a)isi.edu > Cc: paul(a)vix.com > Subject: Re: UK root nameserver > Two months ago I wrote to you regarding the possibility of our setting > up a root name server in the UK. To date I have received no reply at > all, other than something from a robot promising a reply from a human > being within ten days; this of course never came. > I have been just now been asked to report back to the board of the UK > Internet Service Providers Association regarding this request. Would > it be possible for someone at IANA to give us some indication of what > your response is likely to be? > On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Jim Dixon wrote: >> Several days ago one of our engineers talked to Paul Vixie in California >> regarding our setting up a root name server in the United Kingdom. As >> I am sure you are aware, there is only one root server in Europe and >> for many UK networks that server is netwise further from the UK than >> most of the US servers. >> >> We will have a server built to Paul Vixie's recommendations some time >> this week. As he suggests, it will be placed in its own class C on a >> private LAN segment. This will be on a 100 Mbps port on a router with >> a 100 Mbps connection to the LINX, the London Internet Exchange, which >> is the major UK peering point (http://www.linx.net). The LINX is >> actually attracting a significant number of networks from the continent: >> we now have one Dutch and two German members, with EBONE talking about >> joining in December. >> >> This proposal has the endorsement of the UK Internet Service Providers >> Association (http://www.ispa.org.uk), of which I am one of the >> directors. ISPA is more or less equivalent to the CIX in the US. The >> machine will be operated by VBCnet, which is an owner/ member of the >> LINX, and will be, as I said, one hop from the LINX on a 100 Mbps port. >> The LINX and our London PoP are located in Telehouse Europe, which is >> the UK's premier telecommunications centre. Engineering staff are on duty >> 24x7. Telehouse has exceptionally high security, multiply redundant high >> speed telecommunications links, and multiply redundant power supplies. >> >> Should you need any further information or additional material in >> support of this proposal, we will of course be happy to supply it. >> I can be contacted at either of the numbers below, by email, or >> at 011 44 973 737 881 anytime. > - -- > Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net > tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > ----- End Included Message -----

1 0

Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
by gih＠telstra.net 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

This was discussed at the IEPG meeting in July and again in December. The issue at the time was to provide advice to IANA as to the potential siting of additional root name servers - the advice so provided was along the lines of siting one server in the UK with a potential system host of LINX and siting a second in Japan, with a potential host of WIDE. The discussion was initiated by Bill Manning and the notes of the Montreal meeting are at http://www.iepg.org Thanks Geoff

1 0