Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 03/11/2012 03:57 AM, Peter Losher wrote: > On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > >> I can see India has 3 root servers hosting root zone - i, j & k in India >> which is good. So we can resolve the root zone i.e dot within India. >

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

As J is already there in India which is operated by Verisign, I don't think it's difficult to add .com & .net by Verisign. Just talk to them. Regards, Che-Hoo On 11 Mar, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Peter Losher wrote: > On Mar 11, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > >> Btw coming back to origina

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 11, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > Btw coming back to original question - can you put some light on gTLDs in > India? Are there any instances? Just to clarify - with gTLD I am refering to > .com/net/org primarily. You would have to ask Verisign as operators of the com/net gTLD

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Oops Almost missed that. Sorry about that. Btw coming back to original question - can you put some light on gTLDs in India? Are there any instances? Just to clarify - with gTLD I am refering to .com/net/org primarily. On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Peter Losher wrote: > On Mar 11, 2012, at

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 11, 2012, at 4:01 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > Thanks for info Peter > > > I missed that because firstly no routes from major Indian backbones I can assure you that we get a good chunk of traffic from at least one of the "major Indian Backbones". The Chennai PoP is smaller than NIXI's ot

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Thanks for info Peter I missed that because firstly no routes from major Indian backbones and second it is not even mentioned on official site of root servers - http://www.root-servers.org under F root. On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Peter Losher wrote: > On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Anurag

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > I can see India has 3 root servers hosting root zone - i, j & k in India > which is good. So we can resolve the root zone i.e dot within India. One correction to that; F has been operating in India from NIXI Chennai's PoP since 2005. The reas

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

You mean you haven't then immediately heard the "we are a developing country, please provide it free" story? On 3/11/12, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> >> On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, S

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > The more telling fallacy here that really speaks to the heart of why I am > dismayed and disappointed by ICANN's management of the whole TLD mess is the > idea that a CCTLD is the property of a TLD operator to begin with. Your dismay and disappoi

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

> I can tell you with 100% certainty that when I was responsible for > handling ccTLD delegation changes that we took the issue of ccTLDs being > operated for the benefit of the Internet community in that country, and > the global Internet community as a whole, very seriously. I have no > reason to

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 03/10/2012 04:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > >> On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: >>> I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth >>> the effort to deploy into India. >> >> operational control of .in pass

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: >> I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the >> effort to deploy into India. > > operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled > in one_of{us,c

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: > I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the > effort to deploy into India. operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a competitor's property, investment

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > > On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the >> traffic, and has staff who are able to provide eff

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

>> Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and >> generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs. > > I suppose, but they all have similar registry and registrar agreements > with ICANN, which is what makes them different from ccTLDs. at present there are almost as many subst

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Yes of course, if you don't count the multi gbps DDoS attacks and such .. On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > > DNS even at scale is not a particularly compute intensive service. > > That said whether it's worth it or not is in the eyes of operator. -- Suresh Ramasubram

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the > traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for > huge racks of extremely powerful servers

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Graham Beneke wrote: > There appear to be no anycast instances of the gTLD servers in Africa either. That's not the case. .ORG, for example, is hosted in Cape Town and Cairo, and we host more than a hundred ccTLDs in

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 3/10/12 08:05 , Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the > traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for > huge racks of extremely powerful servers .. and are possibly also open to > cross subsidizing the co

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

The IDN TLDs (to date, with the exception of the test IDN TLDs) are more properly considered ccTLDs as they are the localized version of country names. Good point. Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs. I suppose, bu

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for huge racks of extremely powerful servers .. and are possibly also open to cross subsidizing the costs that GTLD operators will incur to host instances of t

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:24 AM, John Levine wrote: > In article <95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net> you write: >> >> On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >>> there are four gtlds >> Aren't there actually seven? > Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60. The IDN TL

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

> In article <95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net> you write: >> On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> >>> there are four gtlds >> Aren't there actually seven? > Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60. well there are the legacy (pre-2000) set. there are

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

In article <95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net> you write: > >On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > >> there are four gtlds > >Aren't there actually seven? Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60. R's, John aero. 172800 IN NS a0.ae

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 10/03/2012 14:54, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: there are four gtlds Aren't there actually seven? According to ICANN[1] there are "roughly two dozen gTLDs" [1] http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about -- Graham Beneke

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > there are four gtlds Aren't there actually seven? --- Roland Dobbins // Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Anurag Bhatia writes: > Can someone share if there's huge difference in . root servers Vs gTLD > servers? I understand that root only hold all TLD's - cc and gTLD > delegation that would be few hundred TLDs delegation while gTLDs hold lot > of domain names but if one country has root, what prev

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Please don't create confusions. I didn't made any assertion. I mentioned issue with India, but Graham came with point that issue is similar in Africa. Good point if he knows that. Certainly relevent to issue I mentioned for India. Again - I have not verified this. I don't know much about ISPs in

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

> No idea about Africa then on what basis did you make the assertion? > but certainly none of gTLD servers in India. i am slightly suspicious of this. often, root servers are accompanied by gtld servers, and there are more than zero root servers in india. there is a fashion among root and gtld

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

I am sure few of people here have experience of running root servers. Can someone share if there's huge difference in . root servers Vs gTLD servers? I understand that root only hold all TLD's - cc and gTLD delegation that would be few hundred TLDs delegation while gTLDs hold lot of domain names

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 10/03/2012 09:12, Randy Bush wrote: This problem is unfortunately not unique to India. There appear to be no anycast instances of the gTLD servers in Africa either. really!? Yes. I was also a little surprised. I'm sure that I read somewhere that at least one of the gTLD anycast prefixes

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 3/10/2012 10:12 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> This problem is unfortunately not unique to India. There appear to be no >> anycast instances of the gTLD servers in Africa either. > > really!? There was one in KE but can't find or reach it: [a-m].gtld-servers.net. seem all to be in 192.0.0.0/8 rou

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Hello Randy No idea about Africa but certainly none of gTLD servers in India. On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > This problem is unfortunately not unique to India. There appear to be no > > anycast instances of the gTLD servers in Africa either. > > really!? > > -- Anu

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

> This problem is unfortunately not unique to India. There appear to be no > anycast instances of the gTLD servers in Africa either. really!?

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 10/03/2012 08:19, Anurag Bhatia wrote: Next, looking gTLD servers used by popular TLDs like com/net/org: None of these gTLD root servers are in India. I have tested routes to each of them from BSNL (AS9829), Tata Comm (AS4755& AS6453), Airtel (AS9498) - all land up outside India - most o