Re: placement of secondary name servers for .uk.

["Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>]

I'd be sure to think about rates of growth in different parts of the
Internet rather than worrying about exact current levels of traffic.
Even if, for example, asian traffic is currently low, it seems like an
area that will grow very rapidly.  In fact, I don't see that you could
go that far wrong by using one server per continent as a starting
point and adjusting from there with a few extra is the US and Europe.
It would also seem generaly a waste to put any in places that are
blocked from a significant part of the Internet.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  Peter Gradwell <peter@gradwell.com>
Message-Id:  <5.0.0.25.0.20001121083805.0352ef18@pop3.gradwell.net>
Date:  Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:50:08 +0000
To:  dnsop@cafax.se

>Hi,
>
>Nominet is the .uk. Domain name Registry and I am part of it's policy advisory
>group. A bunch of people who attempt to say wise things when asked difficult
>questions. We have recently been asked by Nominet to give advice on the 
>placement
>of the secondary name servers for the .uk domain name.
>
>- Currently this is done on a "traditional" and "cooperative" basis. The 
>question
>is whether it needs to be formalised (the lawyers probably think so) and if so
>who should be asked to tender.
>
>Currently, I'm seeking advice on the following points, and should be grateful
>for your views:
>
>a)      What is the traffic profile for DNS queries? For example, should we put
>         servers in asia? What weighting in terms of numbers of servers should
>         we give to the UK/Europe/East Coast/West Coast/Mid US ?
>
>- I notice that CAIDA made a report to the RSSAC, in October 1999
>http://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/skitter/RSSAC/
>
>- Does anyone know if they made any subsequent reports?
>
>b)      Should DNS servers be placed on the transit LANS of Exchange Points,
>         or should they be hosted at the premises of ISPs? Can they be "one 
>hop"
>         from an EP, but at an ISP's datacentre (for ease of management). What
>         if that ISP doesn't have an open peering policy? Or if they block 
>some
>         traffic (RBL) ?
>
>I understand that the root server advisory committee is asking similar 
>questions
>for ICANN. I assume that other registries may be doing the same. If anyone
>else is currently considering these issues, please let me know  - perhaps we
>can pool brains and produce a combined strategy?
>
>thanks
>
>peter
>
>--
>peter gradwell; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/peter/
>