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

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

Mark;

> 	Geoff,
> 		no one is try to usurp anything.  The point of the draft
> 	is how do we provide *many* root (or tld) name servers on a single
> 	advertised IP address and manage them effectively.  Distribute route
> 	information, handle fault reporting. etc.

Thanks.

But,

> 	Ohta-san's premise is that every country needs a root name server.

That is a misunderstanding of you I have had no time to correct.

I think at least every contry with developped domestic internet
needs several root name servers.

If I said every ISP needed it, there was a possibility that some
conter argue that many ISPs can share a root server.

But, I was too optimistic, as you even say that many countries can
share it, which will ultimately lead to the silly conclusion that the
current number of root servers is large enough.

No, you can't convince some people who think they are receiving
good root name service are actually receiving poor service.

So, we should not involved in the argument on how many servers
we need and just specify a way to allow arbitrary many root name
servers.

> 	My premise is that every body / country needs good root name service.

Geoff made a good point that several ISPs in Australia needs
several (or, at least one?) root servers, which is different
from your definition of "good root name service" that a
single server is fine.

BTW, the other point of you I have had no time to correct is that delay
is not the only factor. Fault tolerance, for example, is another
important factor and I may be missing other factors. The best
strategy is just specify the way to have a lot of root servers
with underestimated reasons on why we need many without specifying
when to have them.

							Masataka Ohta