hi Joe
Not sure if everyone is interested in our back and forth so maybe you
can post me a list of questions privately and
I'll pull up more stats and graphs if I have them and post them on the
blog where people can see them...
The more data you have, the more questions it raises...
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 :(
I'll produce some trends (and publish them) once we have more long
term data on this.
John L. Crain
Chief Technical Officer
I.C.A.N.N.
On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:28, Joe Baptista wrote:
John Crain wrote:
Hi Joe.
I didn't do the math, I was using DSC.
I'm sure I could figure it out with some DSC tweaking...
However with beign completely unscientific and measuring rates
averaging from 8kq/s (low) to 10kq/s (high) over a 24hr period
it's between 691.2 million and 864 million queries. So a fairly
big sample.. I would estimate that it is somewhere inbetween at
about 750 million.
Interesting. Just doing some more estimating - what percentage of
those queries, or how are they divided between the old and new IP.
regards
joe baptista
I'll leave more in depth analysis to the likes of CAIDA, they're
better at it than me.
John L. Crain
Chief Technical Officer
I.C.A.N.N.
On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:05, Joe Baptista wrote:
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: +1 (202) 517-1593
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
<baptista.vcf>_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
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: +1 (202) 517-1593
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
<baptista.vcf>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
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: +1 (202) 517-1593
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
<baptista.vcf>_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
