Hi Jim, all I wear too many hats to even remember which is which so I'll just put on my "I operate some DNS stuff hat". Firstly I don't believe that adding e164.arpa zones to the monitoring will make a withdrawal from offering DNSMON services in the future any harder than it is today. The initial proposal is about extending the space monitored. Jim's underlying premise, correct me if I'm wrong Jim, is that the NCC should not be offering the DNSMON service at all. I don't think anyone is advocating that the NCC is the only operator of such a service. I just don't see anyone offering anything remotely close to what DNSMON offers. As a operator DNSMON is "one of" the tools that I use to monitor my systems, I value it as a neutral addition to the pool of tools I have at my disposal. I've always seen DNSMON more as a service to the community rather than to me as operator of one of the servers monitored. RIPE NCC was set up to help enable the collaboration that was RIPE. It did become the RIR and is funded by the NCC members rather than all of RIPE but one of the underlying principles has always been to support the community and to offer services that add value to that community. The check and balance mechanism has always been the membership (and of course the board). If the members believe that this is a valid service for the NCC to offer, or in this case the extension of the service, then so be it. You are correct, there is some risk that operating services like these can distort the market. It is something that during my time at the NCC we were very aware of and I am quite positive that this awareness has not lessened over the years. However without the RIPE NCC taking such projects on, I believe that we would not have things like the Test Traffic Measurement work RIPE NCC did, RIS or DNSMON and that would ,IMHO, be a bad thing. I personally think that at this moment the benefits of DNSMON still outweigh the risks. John Crain On 9 Oct 2007, at 08:35, Jim Reid wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 15:57, Andy Davidson wrote:
As for Jim's concerns - I will wait for him to submit his proposal.
I thought I already had... :-)
Here it is again, perhaps more explicitly than before.
There a number of other organisations who are monitoring DNS servers, some of whom may be willing to offer this as a commercial service. IMO those advocating the NCC is the only provider of DNS monitoring servers should demonstrate that that is the case, or that alternative offerings are tainted in some way and cannot be as impartial as the NCC's would be. If there really is no alternative, then the justification for extending the scope of the NCC offering is on stronger foundations. My earlier concerns still stand -- unless contradictory evidence emerges. Those concerns would diminish, but not go away, if it does turn out that there is no viable alternative and that fact is clearly documented.