Re: Is Scope working well?

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Kato san;

> > The network operators decide whether to accept or reject advertised
> > root based on the AS path and other information.
> 
> Oops, I apologize that I missed to read "other information". So one
> of the implemetations in which the server selection is performed in
> the regular BGP route selection may comply with the draft.

primarily on the second hop AS.

The detail of the selection is, as usual with BGP, a local
policy issue.

> >> I understand the operators of adjacent ASes should have some degree of
> >> responsibility on the transit service to/from the root server AS.  The
> >> responsibility of the operation of a root server should be on the
> >> operators of the root server.
> 
> >The recommendation in the draft can be satisfied, for example, by
> >administrating both domains by the same ISP with the same set of
> >operators.
> 
> What I mean is that the model of operation just above can be practical.
> However, the draft "requires" it is. 

No, it does not.

	Or, a root server and its domain attached to an IX may be operated
	by some consortium of ISPs, in which case, some of operators of
	all the ISPs should be the operators of the root server.

and the requirement/recommendation is still satisfied.

> Assume a stuation where a server is attached to an exchange point in
> which 60 ISPs are connected and where they peer with the
> serverm. Mohta san's requirement can be understood that the operators
> of *all* ISPs must have responsibility on the server. I don't think
> this is practical and necessary.

Suppose a root server domain advertises a wrong route, which is
found by an operator at a distance from the IX.

As the AS number of the domain is shared by other domains containg
root servers with the same IP address, there is no information on
the single administrative contact of the domain.

Thus, the administrator of the second hop AS is the proper point
of contact.

The point of contact should be able to fix the problem of the
wrong route advertised not only through his AS but also through
other 59 ISPs.

Note that the draft does not forbid 60 ISPs jointly hire a single
operator for the root server domain. But, it is required that
operators of all the 60 ISPs can tell the shared operator to
fix the route problem.

In practice, the set of advertised route is fixed to be a
route to a single network that it is unlikely that any
routing problem occur.

And, I have noticed that I should add a sentence that the ASes
for root servers should be non-transit leaf. Can you agree
with me?


							Masataka Ohta