Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs

Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> Tue, 01 April 2008 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4366928C29E; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A38728C29E for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gTqP10fksBjd for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ogud.com (hlid.ogud.com [66.92.146.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94F83A68BC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.31.68.58] (gatt.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.6]) by ogud.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m31Hq2VR030187; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:52:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240801c41825409ca1@[10.31.68.58]>
In-Reply-To: <47F2726E.6060906@nic.cl>
References: <20071127141848.GA16571@nic.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712031339450.13550@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <47546DB3.1040907@ca.afilias.info> <a0624080cc37ba1875cf0@[130.129.67.81]> <47F2726E.6060906@nic.cl>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:51:54 -0400
To: Sebastian Castro Avila <secastro@nic.cl>
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 10.20.30.6
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org

At 10:35 -0700 4/1/08, Sebastian Castro Avila wrote:

>Sorry for the late response. About this matter, using the data collected
>at the root server instances participating in DITL 2007, we found 24.73%
>of the queries seen at the roots were for invalid TLD's.
>
>Doing an analysis per root, the numbers vary
>
>C-root		19.15%
>F-root		46.79%
>K-root		10.01%
>M-root		20.96%

Wow, what a dispersion.  I'm not calling into question the effort, 
etc., but seeing these numbers makes me wonder about the value of the 
results.  The reasons for my suspicion are:

1) That there such wide variation
2) from sampling just a minority of the root ('s 13) "nodes"
3) considering that the topology/architecture of each sampled node is 
vastly different

(I should ask - for, say, F, are the samples across all nodes of the 
[F] any cast cloud or just sampling at a few of the node's any cast 
members?)

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop