Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs

[Joe Baptista <[e-mail]>]

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]

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