Phil Regnauld wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes:
I cannot find another report about the TLDs most often queried at a
root name server. Other reports I've seen aggregated data, while this
small glimpse, however partial, at least *names* the TLDs.
I'm posting the comments made to you on the GA/GNSO. Since I have
pointed out to you there that this data from L.root is not very
reflective of network traffic.
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I cannot find another report about the TLDs most often queried at a
root name server. Other reports I've seen aggregated data, while this
small glimpse, however partial, at least *names* the TLDs.
It has been said sometimes that dummy (sorry, Karl, "boutique" TLDs)
were present in requests to the root name servers. This is clearly
false, all the non-existing TLDs queried are local domains (such as
Apple's ".local"), leaking through a configuration error.
http://blog.icann.org/?p=240
Thanks for that Stephane. It would look to me like things are getting
better. This root where the data originates seems to get less errors
then that reported in 2003 which data mainly came from f.root.
Thats a significant improvement however after careful inspection we
begin to see the flaws in this data. If this were f.root data then I
would be very impressed. Because the data would show a significant
decrease in error traffic. That would be amazing. In fact the data
looks alot like that I have seen for public roots I have setup. Like
the one now used in Turkey.
However this is data from the L.root run by ICANN and i'm not so
amazed anymore. I speculate this is just a little bit of ICANN
nonsense designed to once again mislead the public. Shame.
Now the problem as I see it here is that this data is very limited in
scope. I don't dispute the first chart on popular TLDs. What i'm
interested to see are the popular TLDs that result in errors
(NXDOMAIN) as per the original 2003 report methodology.
Next there is nothing in the data that states the number of queries
received at the root servers. Only percentages are used in the
metrics. The articles I wrote
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/
show us that CAIDA conducted an analysis on 152 million messages.
This data was obtained from f.root. f.root is one of the oldest roots
on the net while l.root is one of the newest. In fact if as per the
ICANN blog this data was collected on November 26 then it would of
come from IP 199.7.83.42 that was implemented on 1 November 2007 and
replaced the previous IP address of 198.32.64.12.
http://l.root-servers.org/ip-change-26nov07.htm
The data is unclear if it was collected from 199.7.83.42 or
198.32.64.12. In any case what is certain is that both versions of
the L.root run by ICANN are very new and that means the amount of
traffic to them would be very low in comparison to f.root - which in
my opinion provides a more accurate reflection of traffic patterns on
the net.
So in conclusion is this data in any way reflective of the impact of
Karl, "boutique" TLDs? The answer in this case would be NO. It is
however reflective of the data one would associate with a recently
launched root server that few people are yet dependent on.
Hope my comments help you interpret the data.
kindest regards
joe baptista
--
Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (202) 517-1593
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
begin:vcard
fn:Joe Baptista
n:Baptista;Joe
org:PublicRoot Consortium
adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:PublicRoot Representative
tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084
tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.publicroot.org
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
