Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs

[Joe Baptista <[e-mail]>]

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]

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