To:
kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz)
Cc:
hardie@equinix.com, dnsop@cafax.se, aroot@ops.ietf.org
From:
hardie@equinix.com
Date:
Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:52:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<560.973177756@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU> from "Robert Elz" at Nov 02, 2000 10:09:16 PM
Reply-to:
hardie@equinix.com
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Anycast root metrics and analysis
kre quotes me, then writes > | If the current plan resulted in worse performance to > | end sites, I believe it to have failed. > > Absolutely. But there is a difference between "worse performance > than now" and "worse performance than could theoretically be obtained". > The former is what we need to guard against, not the latter. We are examining a change to the operation of a pretty fundamental part of the Internet infrastructure. I agree that we need to guard against "worse performance than now", but I also believe that we need to ensure that the fix we employ is one which gives the best bang (performance) for the buck (operational pain). It is mighty unlikely that we will get apply more than one fix to this particular problem. To me, that means a test of how well we can get this system to perform is important. There is also the tricky question of performance for whom, and a fair likelihood that the results of that will not be an even distribution. In my first email, I proposed a change to Masatka's proposal which would allow as many local copies of a specific anycast root as were desired, but restricted transit to them to a single well-connected provider (as is the current case). I have heard you say that you don't believe that the problem I identified is important enough to warrant further testing and that you believe that the increased distribution of anycast root server instances would solve the problem anyway. Without further data, I doubt we will agree on the first claim. Any chance that you can run an aroot instance from where you are so that we can gather more data to prove your second point? regards, Ted