> I think a much better metric, but one that would be impossibly difficult to > pin down or get data for, would be looking at the average number of hops > between ISPs caching servers and their closest root server.
Hops are irrelevant. Latency, packetloss, throughput (some people call all three "good-put") is all that matters. And in this case, throughput is not a factor. One can make an argument for AS Hops having some correlation with performance, but it is not perfect. Any company that has a strong dependency on DNS has done the work necessary to put authorities in the places they are required. They have economic / business incentives to do so. The root operators have a very different incentive. This makes the comment about the ISPs building to the roots, or similarly, the ISPs giving the roots an incentive to build, is likely the correct viewpoint. -- TTFN, patrick On May 15, 2012, at 12:06 , Todd S wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Patrik Fältström <p...@frobbit.se> wrote: >> On 15 maj 2012, at 11:14, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> >> > Asking for fairness and equity (for IP addresses or >> > root name servers) seem reasonable to me. > > The devil is in the details. Network elements should on the Internet be > distributed according to network topology. . > > > I think this is the correct approach. But I don't think it should be up to > the root server operators to figure this out - they put root servers out > there in reasonable network locations around the world. ISPs, if they care > sufficiently, should be working to build their network in a manner that > reduces the hops to get to one of the root nodes. > > I think a much better metric, but one that would be impossibly difficult to > pin down or get data for, would be looking at the average number of hops > between ISPs caching servers and their closest root server. > > Another roughly similar approach would be to look at the geographic location > of the root namesevers and correlate that with the population density for the > associated region. One could logically assume that if a caching server is > within a certain radius of a node geographically, they are likely able to > route to it (country boundaries/geography may change this, but I did say > roughly). That data is likely much more available, and may show that the > root nameserver/population ratio isn't so bad, or may show where enhancement > is required. > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-operations mailing list > dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations > dns-jobs mailing list > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
