Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs

[Joe Baptista <[e-mail]>]

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]

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