Re: L-Root address change [Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs]

Joe Baptista <baptista@publicroot.org> Wed, 28 November 2007 19:02 UTC

Return-path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxSB5-00013m-PY; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:02:32 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxSB5-00013b-6k for dnsop@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:02:31 -0500
Received: from smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.36.79]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxSB4-000307-Np for dnsop@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:02:31 -0500
Received: (qmail 38592 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2007 19:02:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.201.101?) (antoniobaptista@rogers.com@99.240.21.247 with plain) by smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2007 19:02:27 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 37LTAHgVM1nkMHbD2_D3ZrDpEdLQ.T.ATbYtvb7RbAtvtTci45RATAaNsvb7r3DwrA--
Message-ID: <474DBB41.5080402@publicroot.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:02:25 -0500
From: Joe Baptista <baptista@publicroot.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <>
Subject: Re: L-Root address change [Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs]
References: <20071127141848.GA16571@nic.fr> <20071127150813.GD33734@moof.catpipe.net> <474C40DF.8080100@publicroot.org> <9B9F9C57-5000-4A63-99CA-89EEB8014205@icann.org> <474C9497.7020308@publicroot.org> <CDFBEFF8-B4BD-4D2B-8E86-6919B62DBA14@icann.org> <474C9A04.1090405@publicroot.org> <77E55800-E184-4225-91C5-59DA85D3E156@icann.org> <20071128095544.GB19314@unknown.office.denic.de> <m2r6iaxkz7.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <m2r6iaxkz7.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050302060307040803090006"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a
Cc: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org

Yes - many questions and few answer and very little data available for 
the community to figure out those answers. John Crain should publish 
stats more often. Why indeed does root behave so strangely. That little 
40 percentage thingy indeed does raise alotof questions. John can you 
speculate for us? Whats going on.

Another very interesting thing is the incredible power behind one IP 
number when it has experienced root activity. It only takes one rogue 
root to highjack the entire root system. Its been done twice now in 
internet history. How is that possible?

regards
joe baptista

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:

>At Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:55:44 +0100,
>Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>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 :(
>>>      
>>>
>>part of that traffic will be due to old hints files, but priming was
>>actually supposed to accelerate the migration.  40% of total L traffic
>>seems a bit much for 1/13 of the priming traffic?
>>    
>>
>
>BIND9 also uses the root hint when it finds necessary glue is
>missing.  For example, consider the following delegation:
>
>child.foo.example.  NS 86400 ns.child.foo.example.
>ns.child.foo.example. A 3600 192.0.2.1
>
>When the (recursive) resolver first visits the child.foo.example zone,
>it caches both the NS and A records.  The glue (A) record will expire
>in 1 hour.  When the resolver tries to visit the zone after that while
>still keeping the NS record, it tries to fetch the missing glue from
>the root using the hint file, regardless of whether it has the root NS
>and the root server addresses in its cache.
>
>This would be another reason for the queries to the old L-root
>address, though I don't think it makes the 40% of total traffic unless
>the vast majority of hint files aren't updated.
>
>					JINMEI, Tatuya
>					Communication Platform Lab.
>					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
>					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
>
>_______________________________________________
>DNSOP mailing list
>DNSOP@ietf.org
>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: +1 (202) 517-1593
     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop