Re: draft-manning-dnssvr-criteria-01.txt

[[e-mail]]

> 
>     Date:        Mon, 6 May 1996 14:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
>     From:        [e-mail]
>     Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>
> 
>     -02 was some editorial changes that Paul had asked for
>     and Brians excise of the draft nature of the docuement.
> 
> Did it ever appear in the I-D directories?  I don't see it.

	Nope, there was some debate as to minor editorial changes... :0

>     1. Modern BIND or equivalents (if any exist).
> 
> This is probably better expressed without reference to
> BIND, as "Latest release qquality versions of nameserver software"

	What the heck is wrong with BIND?  The biggest show
	stoppers are the transaction rates, which will be 
	exceeded before someone comes up with a replacement.

> I assume the body of this is directed at people running secondary
> servers.  It doesn't say so, and probably should.   96 hours is
> very short though, for many people this kind of mod only happens
> weekends, when the consequences of a failure are smaller.  Weekends
> are more than 96 hours from mondays...

	really?  friday - 24, saturday - 24, sunday - 24, monday - 24
	looks like a nice four day weekend, out on thursday and back
	on tuesday.  While I agree that these may be too short, they
	seem to be typical in some parts of the world.

	how long are your weekends?

>     3. Dedicated host. 
> This is still not explained.

	You want criteria -and- justification?  :)

>     4.
> This is still not explained.
> 
> 50% a month is high, wasn't it 15% a while ago (with no mention
> of a month)?   The internet doubles (so its said) every 8-12 months.
> 50% a month is almost a total of a 130 fold increase in a year.
> That's immense, even the internet isn't doing that! 

	the 15% was a placeholder.
	(How -do- you measure internet growth?  http patckets? :)

> Make the
> number a little more reasonable.  Even 20% a month is 9x in a
> year, 10% is probably a safer (and more reasonable) number, that's
> just over 3 times growth over a year.   (now you know why the
> maffia like to charge the interest rates they do on loans...)

	Tough call.  I'm not sure what is reasonable here. I'm using 
	numbers derived from posted data from a.root-servers.net and
	f.root-servers.net.  Care to justify some other, more reasonable
	numbers?

	I think the transaction rate numbers supplied by those that run root
	servers may be best, esp. when there is some historic
	trend data available.  (insert chestnut about forcasting here)


> Again, it would be better if this could be expressed in more
> generic terms.  Or perhaps change the title to
> 
> 	Proposed technical Criteria for [Major] Name Servers running BIND

	I did.  (please point me at -any- active name servers not using
	BIND code or derived from the BIND code base... :)

    
--bill