Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs

[John Crain <[e-mail]>]

hi Joe

Not sure if everyone is interested in our back and forth so maybe you  
can post me a list of questions privately and
I'll pull up more stats and graphs if I have them and post them on the  
blog where people can see them...

The more data you have, the more questions it raises...

Currently about 60% New IP to 40% old IP... and rising slowly

So clearly a lot of folks still need to up date their hints files :(


I'll produce some trends (and publish them) once we have more long  
term data on this.


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



On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:28, Joe Baptista wrote:

> John Crain wrote:
>
>> Hi Joe.
>>
>> I didn't do the math, I was using DSC.
>>
>> I'm sure I could figure it out with some DSC tweaking...
>>
>> However with beign completely unscientific and measuring rates   
>> averaging from 8kq/s (low)  to 10kq/s (high) over a 24hr period
>> it's between 691.2 million and 864 million queries. So a fairly  
>> big  sample.. I would estimate that it is somewhere inbetween at  
>> about 750  million.
>
> Interesting.  Just doing some more estimating - what percentage of  
> those queries, or how are they divided between the old and new IP.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
>>
>>
>> I'll leave more in depth analysis to the likes of CAIDA, they're   
>> better at it than me.
>>
>>
>> John L. Crain
>> Chief Technical Officer
>> I.C.A.N.N.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:05, Joe Baptista wrote:
>>
>>> John Crain wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Your right.  There is no trickery, plots or evil schemes  
>>> involved.   I misspoke in the message to the GA.  The only one  
>>> misleading us  using the data was stephane and I doubt that was  
>>> intentional.  We  are having a discussion concerning TLDs there  
>>> and the data was used  to make a point, which on reflection does  
>>> not exist due to the  particulars made in my reply.
>>>
>>>> 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 know - in both cases recent deployments of a root server.  It   
>>> would be very beneficial to see this data across the other roots  
>>> for  comparison.  As I have said the L.root is not reflective of  
>>> the  overall traffic patterns to all the roots as L is a very new   
>>> instance of a root, either old or new IPv4 address.
>>>
>>> Incidentally - just how much traffic is this representative of?   
>>> How  many queries came in during the period the data was captured?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>> regards
>>> joe baptista
>>>
>>> regards
>>> joe baptista
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 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