Hi Joe.
I didn't do the math, I was using DSC.
I'm sure I could figure it out with some DSC tweaking...
However with beign completely unscientific and measuring rates
averaging from 8kq/s (low) to 10kq/s (high) over a 24hr period
it's between 691.2 million and 864 million queries. So a fairly big
sample.. I would estimate that it is somewhere inbetween at about 750
million.
I'll leave more in depth analysis to the likes of CAIDA, they're
better at it than me.
John L. Crain
Chief Technical Officer
I.C.A.N.N.
On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:05, Joe Baptista wrote:
John Crain wrote:
Hi Joe,
It is exactly reflective of traffic as seen at l.root-servers.net
and measured by DSC. there is no trickery, plots or evil schemes
involved.
Shame that your paranoia gets the better of you;)
Your right. There is no trickery, plots or evil schemes involved.
I misspoke in the message to the GA. The only one misleading us
using the data was stephane and I doubt that was intentional. We
are having a discussion concerning TLDs there and the data was used
to make a point, which on reflection does not exist due to the
particulars made in my reply.
Those are percentages not queries indeed. Total queries varies
between 8Kq/s and 10Kq/s on a normal day.
So you can do the math if you really want to see it by q/s. Also
it only shows the TOP scores, not all TLDs.
For clarity: The data is from both current and old IPv4 addresses
(Across all instances of L)
I know - in both cases recent deployments of a root server. It
would be very beneficial to see this data across the other roots for
comparison. As I have said the L.root is not reflective of the
overall traffic patterns to all the roots as L is a very new
instance of a root, either old or new IPv4 address.
Incidentally - just how much traffic is this representative of? How
many queries came in during the period the data was captured?
Thanks for the clarification.
regards
joe baptista
regards
joe baptista
I have already spoken to CAIDA about supplying them with L-root
data for future projects and we will be taking part in their "day
in the life of" project
so you should see L-root included in their future analysis.
John L. Crain
Chief Technical Officer
I.C.A.N.N.
On 27 Nov 2007, at 08:07, Joe Baptista wrote:
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
<baptista.vcf>_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
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
<baptista.vcf>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
