To:
marka@isc.org
Cc:
mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp, Mark_Andrews@isc.org, gih@telstra.net, randy@psg.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Sat, 10 Jul 99 8:10:42 JST
In-Reply-To:
<199907092232.IAA14523@bsdi.dv.isc.org>; from "marka@isc.org" at Jul 10, 99 8:31 am
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Topological Motivation for draft-ohta-root-servers-01.txt?
Mark; > > 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 > > > Ohta-san, > I think we both agree, if we ignored borders, about > what constitutes good root name service. As we agreed, the definition of "good root name service" is defined by, say, end users and is a subjective issue. > Redundant servers, > relatively close RTT wise, sited so that single failures > are unlikely to make the all unreachable. The servers > and links should also not be overloaded, this reflects back > into RTT and packet loss. They are your subjecive definitions. > Just saying that every country needs a root nameserver does > nor guarantee that people will get good root service. Exactly. Just writing BCP does not guarantee that people will get good root service. It is not our business to give such a guarantee. Let countries satisfy their citizens, ISPs their customers, according to their definitions of the good root services. They don't want you specify their requirements. Masataka Ohta