Jim, In <Pine.BSI.3.91.970113220513.3496D-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, <jdd@vbc.net> wrote:
Neither the LINX nor ISPA is particularly technical.
If the LINX is not technical, how come we are running a sucessful exchange point ?
The last time this was discussed at the LINX, the conclusion was that the LINX itself would not take any action until the LINX had hired and trained a systems engineer, if then. You said this yourself, Keith. As I recall, there was a vague suggestion that some action might be initiated in six months.
There have been some developments on this subject to further discussions with ISI - the situation has changed.
Like, for example, Demon, we have been impatient with the slow pace of things at the LINX. I understand that Demon today announced that they would be bringing up a route server at the LINX. I know that they proposed this many months ago and were met with indifference. So they unilaterally took action. We have been doing the same as regards a root name server.
This is a mis-representation of Demon's position at yesterday's meeting that you did not attend - their action is co-operative rather than unilateral. I am sure Demon will correct whichever of us they feel is mis-representing them.
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.
We are not proposing to put up a minimal root name server; frankly, I can't see any purpose in minimizing the name server's scope. We believe that what is needed is a full-blown name server.
I disagree, but let's debate this in the relevant forums first, and not go off and do our thing. In <Pine.BSI.3.91.970114073615.3496E-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, <jdd@vbc.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Peter Lothberg wrote:
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 ?
To repeat what may not be clear to those added to the lengthening CC: list, some time ago, after securing the endorsement of the UK ISPA, VBCnet approached IANA on behalf of ISPA with an offer to provide and manage a root name server at the LINX.
Neither VBCnet nor ISPA has the authority to offer "to provide and manage a root name server at the LINX", without appropriate approval from a majority of LINX members. They do of course have authority to offer to provide and manage a root nameserver on their own, or another of their members' own network.
We sent an engineer to California to discuss this with Paul Vixie, who operates one of the root name servers and is responsible for the software. We intend to follow Vixie's recommendations on hardware, software, and the way in which the root name server is attached to the LINX, which is in fact as you have described above.
Could someone maybe reconcile this with the offer of ready hardware I've had from Bill Manning ? I'm confused. I think we need a little more discussion between those who have plans and policy ideas here, and a rather less attempts at public point-scoring to the widest possible distribution. Keith Mitchell Chairman London InterNet Exchange keith@linx.org PO Box 51 Stamford, PE9 2WF United Kingdom Phone: +44 7000 783797 (fax 783798) Mobile: +44 385 346152