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

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 28 November 2007 18:50 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 1IxRzu-00031y-9u; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:50:58 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxRzs-0002pm-TS for dnsop@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:50:57 -0500
Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp ([2001:200:1b1::35]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxRzs-0002KH-D5 for dnsop@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:50:56 -0500
Received: from mymb.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:e:21b:63ff:fe08:3e64]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206877301E; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:50:53 +0900 (JST)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:50:52 -0800
Message-ID: <m2r6iaxkz7.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
Subject: Re: L-Root address change [Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs]
In-Reply-To: <20071128095544.GB19314@unknown.office.denic.de>
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>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.0 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: 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

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