Re: Topological Motivation for draft-ohta-root-servers-01.txt?

[Gunnar Lindberg <lindberg@cdg.chalmers.se>]

To add more fuel to this interesting debate...

Please note that "country" may be less relevant or may not even be
relevant at all. "ISP" may in fact be the better term - and ISPs
tend to cross country borders...

The sad news, however, is there are more ISPs than countries and each
ISP may want its own root server(s). Assume a country with two large
ISPs. I find it extremely unlikely that one of them will accept that
the other ISP runs that country's copy of the root server. So, either
there must be some neutral organization or they'll have one each.

My 1c worth is for technical arguments on where root server copies
should be located, but the optimum solution should preferably scale
up to each ISP having several copies of the root server. It would be
nice to hear a BGP expert claim the current draft does.

	Gunnar Lindberg

>From owner-dnsop@cafax.se  Thu Jul  8 11:06:36 1999
>From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
>Message-Id: <199907080842.RAA15107@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
>Subject: Re: Topological Motivation for draft-ohta-root-servers-01.txt?
>To: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
>Date: Thu, 8 Jul 99 17:42:20 JST
>Cc: mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp, dnsop@cafax.se
>In-Reply-To: <m11294A-00000BC@roam.psg.com>; from "Randy Bush" at Jul 8, 99 12:57 am

>Randy;

>> the swiss have always wanted an ocean for their navy.  they have a cultural
>> right to one.  why do you not share yours as you have so much?

>Most of the ocean does not belong any country and is already
>shared internationally.

>BTW, Mark wrote:

>> > 	We should be defining the siting of servers on technical 
>> > 	grounds not politcal ones.

>Do you also think so?

>							Masataka Ohta