Re: placement of secondary name servers for .uk.

[Peter Gradwell <peter@gradwell.com>]

Hi,

Thanks all for your feedback. I shall follow up some of the leads and
CENTR mailing list bits.

The original idea given to us by the Nominet Executive management
(Willy Black et al) was that Nominet wanted to place "sealed box"
servers at these locations and so was simply interested in finding
a "heat and light" locations which would be responsible for providing
transit, electricity and the odd bit of remote hands reboot for when it
all when wrong.

Thus, I think they would want to do the "planning and ops" bit "in house".

Obviously, the question of having a shared name servers is a very
interesting one. Do you think it would make more sense for the
RSSAC to operate, as a body, a globally distributed set of name
servers to which registries could out source their name server provision?
- Possibly a new business model for Versign-GRS ? :)

I'm also speaking to the people at CAIDA about their research. Currently
it seems that the US, Asia and Europe require equal amounts of "attention".
Their work is excellent and highly commended. But you knew that
already!

One final question. Randy posted a traceroute to ns0.ja.net. However,
for .uk. we have ns.uu.net and ns.eu.net, which might be "closer" to
randy (for this example). Which server would Randy prefer to use?
Do resolvers take the "closest?". AFAIK, from reading "DNS & BIND"
it's all rather random. Thoughts? Does this randomness affect the placement
of the servers?

thanks

peter

--
peter gradwell; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/peter/