root name servers
owen at DeLong.SJ.CA.US
Sat Jul 29 19:01:54 UTC 1995
> there has never been a shortage of volunteers to run root servers. i'm
> not sure that the exchange points are good spots, since the folks who run
> exchange points (MFS, NASA, Pac Bell, etc) usually know a lot more about
> the link level than the network level -- and besides, i'm not sure that a
> root name server ought to have an ASN and run BGP4, which means that it
> will have to be behind a router that _does_ have an ASN and run BGP4. if
> this is to be the case, i'd rather see the routers inside NSP offices,
> where UNIX experts and network experts are more plentiful than at the
> exchange points.
Actually, I think that it might be interesting to look at the possibility
of putting Root DNS on the Route-Servers.
> to that end, NS.ISC.ORG is one 10Mb/s hop away from BADnet (barrnet-alternet-
> digital) in the DECWRL computer room. it's likely that i will shortly add
> an SMDS T1 connection to the CIX cloud for other reasons, and that will help
> a tiny bit (only a tiny bit, since Alternet has T3 to that cloud from the
> router i peer with in that room.)
> work is underway (by the Postel-Mockapetris-Vixie-Kosters quadumvirite) to
> implement Bill Manning's suggestion of putting all the root servers under
> a single domain, which will let DNS' name compression start winning for us.
> if this works out, we should be able to just about double the number of root
> name servers. NSP's with multiple T3's to geographically disparite exchange
> points will be given strong preference. sites outside the United States will
> be given strong preference.
Interesting... That should definitely help.
> the root servers are not currently suffering from load (my own server does
> about 100 queries per second, which is about 10% of the capacity of my little
> 66Mhz/64MB BSD/OS machine). the goal here is to reduce load on the wide area
> net rather than on the root servers themselves. and also to increase the
> likelihood that any given host can reach a root server during times of wide-
> scale connectivity problems (which seem to be more common lately?)
True. However, the nice thing about a RNS on an XP is that the RNS is one
hop from EVERY provider at the XP, and is independent of OTHER providers.
I agree that the XP management shouldn't manage the RNS. However, I would
be QUITE comfortable with MERIT running it on the RS or adjacent machine.
> > For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should
> > not be run by a single organisation.
> they never have been.
Although I agree that ALL RNS's shouldn't be run by a single organization, I would
not have a problem with the RNS's at the XP's being run by the RADB group.
More information about the NANOG