Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org

[bmanning]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:27, manning bill  wrote:
> 
> > alas, our service predates Joe’s marvelous text.
> > 
> > “B” provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
> > We don’t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or attempt to 
> > influence prefix announcement.
> 
> In the taxonomy I just shared, that makes the origin nodes of B all "global 
> nodes".
> 
> To clarify though, I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that the things I 
> described were new or original when I was writing in 2003. Anycast had 
> already been in use for quite some time by a variety of people at that time.
> 
> It's specifically the terms "local" and "global" in a DNS anycast context 
> that I was apologising for :-)
> 
> 
> Joe

No apology needed.  I was clarifying why "B" is listed as a local node.
That it doesn't fit you taxonomy is fine - but it does need an 
explaination.

/bill

Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org

[Joe Abley]

On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:27, manning bill  wrote:

> alas, our service predates Joe’s marvelous text.
> 
> “B” provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
> We don’t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or attempt to 
> influence prefix announcement.

In the taxonomy I just shared, that makes the origin nodes of B all "global 
nodes".

To clarify though, I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that the things I 
described were new or original when I was writing in 2003. Anycast had already 
been in use for quite some time by a variety of people at that time.

It's specifically the terms "local" and "global" in a DNS anycast context that 
I was apologising for :-)


Joe

Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org

[manning bill]

alas, our service predates Joe’s marvelous text.

“B” provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
We don’t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or attempt to 
influence prefix announcement.

/bill
Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.

On 17March2014Monday, at 7:17, Joe Abley  wrote:

> 
> On 17 Mar 2014, at 7:39, John Bond  wrote:
> 
>> Global and Local nodes are very loosely defined terms.  However general
>> consensus of a local node is one that has a desired routing policy which
>> does not allow the service supernets to propagate globally.  As we impose
>> no policy we mark all nodes as global.
> 
> I think the taxonomy is probably my fault. At least, I thought I invented it 
> when I wrote
> 
>  http://ftp.isc.org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt
> 
> the pertinent text of which is this:
> 
>   Two classes of node are described in this document:
> 
>   Global Nodes advertise their service supernets such that they are
>  propagated globally through the routing system (i.e. they
>  advertise them for transit), and hence potentially provide service
>  for the entire Internet.
> 
>   Local Nodes advertise their service supernets such that the radius of
>  propagation in the routing system is limited, and hence provide
>  service for a contained local catchment area.
> 
>   Global Nodes provide a baseline degree of proximity to the entire
>   Internet. Multiple global nodes are deployed to ensure that the
>   general availability of the service does not rely on the availability
>   or reachability of a single global node.
> 
>   Local Nodes provide contained regions of optimisation. Clients within
>   the catchment area of a local node may have their queries serviced by
>   a Local Node, rather than one of the Global Nodes.
> 
> The operational considerations that you mention would have been great for me 
> to think about when I wrote that text (i.e. it's the intention of the 
> originator of the route that's important, not the practical limit to 
> propagation of the route due to the policies of other networks).
> 
> We did a slightly better job in RFC 4768 (e.g. "in such a way", 
> "potentially"):
> 
>   Local-Scope Anycast:  reachability information for the anycast
>  Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
>  way that a particular anycast node is only visible to a subset of
>  the whole routing system.
> 
>   Local Node:  an Anycast Node providing service using a Local-Scope
>  Anycast Address.
> 
>   Global-Scope Anycast:  reachability information for the anycast
>  Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
>  way that a particular anycast node is potentially visible to the
>  whole routing system.
> 
>   Global Node:  an Anycast Node providing service using a Global-Scope
>  Anycast Address.
> 
> 
> Joe

Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org

[Joe Abley]

On 17 Mar 2014, at 7:39, John Bond  wrote:

> Global and Local nodes are very loosely defined terms.  However general
> consensus of a local node is one that has a desired routing policy which
> does not allow the service supernets to propagate globally.  As we impose
> no policy we mark all nodes as global.

I think the taxonomy is probably my fault. At least, I thought I invented it 
when I wrote

  http://ftp.isc.org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt

the pertinent text of which is this:

   Two classes of node are described in this document:

   Global Nodes advertise their service supernets such that they are
  propagated globally through the routing system (i.e. they
  advertise them for transit), and hence potentially provide service
  for the entire Internet.

   Local Nodes advertise their service supernets such that the radius of
  propagation in the routing system is limited, and hence provide
  service for a contained local catchment area.

   Global Nodes provide a baseline degree of proximity to the entire
   Internet. Multiple global nodes are deployed to ensure that the
   general availability of the service does not rely on the availability
   or reachability of a single global node.

   Local Nodes provide contained regions of optimisation. Clients within
   the catchment area of a local node may have their queries serviced by
   a Local Node, rather than one of the Global Nodes.

The operational considerations that you mention would have been great for me to 
think about when I wrote that text (i.e. it's the intention of the originator 
of the route that's important, not the practical limit to propagation of the 
route due to the policies of other networks).

We did a slightly better job in RFC 4768 (e.g. "in such a way", "potentially"):

   Local-Scope Anycast:  reachability information for the anycast
  Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
  way that a particular anycast node is only visible to a subset of
  the whole routing system.

   Local Node:  an Anycast Node providing service using a Local-Scope
  Anycast Address.

   Global-Scope Anycast:  reachability information for the anycast
  Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
  way that a particular anycast node is potentially visible to the
  whole routing system.

   Global Node:  an Anycast Node providing service using a Global-Scope
  Anycast Address.


Joe


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org

[Romeo Zwart]

Hi Anurag,

On 16 mrt. 2014, at 10:11, Anurag Bhatia mailto:m...@anuragbhatia.com>> wrote:

> Hello everyone!
>
>
> It seems like http://www.root-servers.org/index.html has been updated
> after quite sometime.

The root-servers.org  site has indeed been
updated recently. We will investigate if the mentioned data errors are
related to the change. 

> Seems like data about local Vs global for many of root servers nodes
> is incorrect.

Details of all instances, incl. global vs.  local information, are
provided directly by individual root-server operators. 

I will ask the responsible people to verify their instances' details,
and if necessary correct these, asap.

Kind regards,
Romeo 


> E.g for Netnod i root all nodes are marked as Global nodes. As far as
> I understand it means that routes announced by these nodes are
> announced to transit links as well to make routes visible globally.
> Likely that is not case here right? 
>
> Same seems with L root and few others. Do we have webmaster of the
> project on mailing list? 


>
>
> Thanks. 
>
> -- 
>
>
> Anurag Bhatia
> anuragbhatia.com 
>
> Linkedin  | Twitter
> 
> Skype: anuragbhatia.com
>
> PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2