Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs

[John Crain <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

It is exactly reflective of traffic as seen at l.root-servers.net and  
measured by DSC.  there is no trickery, plots or evil schemes involved.

Shame that your paranoia gets the better of you;)

Those are percentages not queries indeed. Total queries varies between  
8Kq/s and 10Kq/s on a normal day.
So you can do the math if you really want to see it by q/s.  Also it  
only shows the TOP scores, not all TLDs.

For clarity: The data is from both current and old IPv4 addresses  
(Across all instances of L)

I have already spoken to CAIDA about supplying them with L-root data  
for future projects and we will be taking part in their "day in the  
life of" project
so you should see L-root included in their future analysis.

John L. Crain
Chief Technical Officer
I.C.A.N.N.



On 27 Nov 2007, at 08:07, Joe Baptista wrote:

> Phil Regnauld wrote:
>
>> Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes:
>>
>>> I cannot find another report about the TLDs most often queried at a
>>> root name server. Other reports I've seen aggregated data, while  
>>> this
>>> small glimpse, however partial, at least *names* the TLDs.
>>>
> I'm posting the comments made to you on the GA/GNSO.  Since I have  
> pointed out to you there that this data from L.root is not very  
> reflective of network traffic.
>
>> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot find another report about the TLDs most often queried at a
>>> root name server. Other reports I've seen aggregated data, while  
>>> this
>>> small glimpse, however partial, at least *names* the TLDs.
>>>
>>> It has been said sometimes that dummy (sorry, Karl, "boutique" TLDs)
>>> were present in requests to the root name servers. This is clearly
>>> false, all the non-existing TLDs queried are local domains (such as
>>> Apple's ".local"), leaking through a configuration error.
>>>
>>> http://blog.icann.org/?p=240
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for that Stephane.  It would look to me like things are  
>> getting better.  This root where the data originates seems to get  
>> less errors then that reported in 2003 which data mainly came from  
>> f.root.
>>
>> Thats a significant improvement however after careful inspection we  
>> begin to see the flaws in this data.  If this were f.root data then  
>> I would be very impressed.  Because the data would show a  
>> significant decrease in error traffic.  That would be amazing.  In  
>> fact the data looks alot like that I have seen for public roots I  
>> have setup.  Like the one now used in Turkey.
>>
>> However this is data from the L.root run by ICANN and i'm not so  
>> amazed anymore.  I speculate this is just a little bit of ICANN  
>> nonsense designed to once again mislead the public.  Shame.
>>
>> Now the problem as I see it here is that this data is very limited  
>> in scope.  I don't dispute the first chart on popular TLDs.  What  
>> i'm interested to see are the popular TLDs that result in errors  
>> (NXDOMAIN) as per the original 2003 report methodology.
>>
>> Next there is nothing in the data that states the number of queries  
>> received at the root servers.  Only percentages are used in the  
>> metrics.  The articles I wrote
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/ 
>> dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/
>>
>> show us that CAIDA conducted an analysis on 152 million messages.   
>> This data was obtained from f.root.  f.root is one of the oldest  
>> roots on the net while l.root is one of the newest.  In fact if as  
>> per the ICANN blog this data was collected on November 26 then it  
>> would of come from IP 199.7.83.42 that was implemented on 1  
>> November 2007 and replaced the previous IP address of 198.32.64.12.
>>
>> http://l.root-servers.org/ip-change-26nov07.htm
>>
>> The data is unclear if it was collected from 199.7.83.42 or  
>> 198.32.64.12.  In any case what is certain is that both versions of  
>> the L.root run by ICANN are very new and that means the amount of  
>> traffic to them would be very low in comparison to f.root - which  
>> in my opinion provides a more accurate reflection of traffic  
>> patterns on the net.
>>
>> So in conclusion is this data in any way reflective of the impact  
>> of Karl, "boutique" TLDs?  The answer in this case would be NO.  It  
>> is however reflective of the data one would associate with a  
>> recently launched root server that few people are yet dependent on.
>>
>> Hope my comments help you interpret the data.
>>
>> kindest regards
>> joe baptista
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joe Baptista                                www.publicroot.org
> PublicRoot Consortium
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
> Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Office: [phone]
>    Fax: [phone]
>
> <baptista.vcf>_______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop