Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
Daniel, I've had a number of discussions with Bill Manning to facilitate this, and hosting of this server was again discusssed and endorsed at the LINX meeting today. However, I am rather surprised to hear of the involvement of VBCnet and ISPA - despite Jim regularly attending LINX meetings and being active in LINX mailing lists, he has not mentioned anything about either of these. Normally the ISPA does not concern itself with technical or infrastructure matters. LINX policy, which was endorsed at the two recent IEPG meetings, is that the proposed root server would be in the LINX neutral AS rather than that of any particular member - clearly we welcome VBC's offer of resources, but I am not sure the other LINX members would be quite so supportive of this if they felt one member was being a chance they also might also want. With this qualification LINX remains highly supportive of this proposal and I'll do my best to facilitate it. I will be at the RIPE meeting next Mon and Tue, and hope Jim will be there to clarify any confusion. Keith Mitchell Chairman London InterNet Exchange keith@linx.org PO Box 51 Stamford, PE9 2WF United Kingdom Phone: +44 7000 783797 (fax 783798) Mobile: +44 385 346152
To: dns-wg@ripe.net Cc: RIPE WG Chairpeople <wg-chairs@ripe.net> Subject: 2nd Root Server in Europe From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
I have received an informal query from IANA about RIPE's opinion about the placement of a second root name server in Europe at the LINX operated by VBCnet. This should be discussed at the next meeting. Personally I think that placement at the LINX makes good sense because of current network topology.
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Jim Dixon wrote:
We will have a server built to Paul Vixie's recommendations some time this week. As he suggests, it will be placed in its own class C on a private LAN segment. This will be on a 100 Mbps port on a router with a 100 Mbps connection to the LINX, the London Internet Exchange, which is the major UK peering point (http://www.linx.net). The LINX is actually attracting a significant number of networks from the continent: we now have one Dutch and two German members, with EBONE talking about joining in December.
This proposal has the endorsement of the UK Internet Service Providers Association (http://www.ispa.org.uk), of which I am one of the directors. ISPA is more or less equivalent to the CIX in the US. The machine will be operated by VBCnet, which is an owner/ member of the LINX, and will be, as I said, one hop from the LINX on a 100 Mbps port.
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Keith Mitchell wrote:
I've had a number of discussions with Bill Manning to facilitate this, and hosting of this server was again discusssed and endorsed at the LINX meeting today.
I was unable to attend the LINX meeting today, but I was pleased to hear that you had suddenly taken an active interest in the idea of a root name server at the LINX.
However, I am rather surprised to hear of the involvement of VBCnet and ISPA - despite Jim regularly attending LINX meetings and being active in LINX mailing lists, he has not mentioned anything about either of these. Normally the ISPA does not concern itself with technical or infrastructure matters.
Neither the LINX nor ISPA is particularly technical. I am encouraging ISPA to become more involved in technical issues, because I think that it is important to develop UK forums. But the reality is that in both organisations technical issues are given what I believe is too little attention. Last year VBCnet proposed to IANA that we should set up a root name server in the UK because we believed that one was sorely needed and no one else was taking any action on this. ISPA endorsed this action for much the same reasons. There has also been discussion at ISPA about providing other needed technical resources; I think that a little technical competition would inspire us all to move faster ;-) The last time this was discussed at the LINX, the conclusion was that the LINX itself would not take any action until the LINX had hired and trained a systems engineer, if then. You said this yourself, Keith. As I recall, there was a vague suggestion that some action might be initiated in six months. Like, for example, Demon, we have been impatient with the slow pace of things at the LINX. I understand that Demon today announced that they would be bringing up a route server at the LINX. I know that they proposed this many months ago and were met with indifference. So they unilaterally took action. We have been doing the same as regards a root name server. We were not just impatient with the lack of progress. What has been discussed in the past at the LINX, and I believe was discussed again today, was a root server for "." We think that what would be of most benefit to Europe would be a full root name server, including the largest domains (.com and .net), and this is what we discussed with Paul Vixie and proposed to Jon Postel last year. We are not proposing to put up a minimal root name server; frankly, I can't see any purpose in minimizing the name server's scope. We believe that what is needed is a full-blown name server.
LINX policy, which was endorsed at the two recent IEPG meetings, is that the proposed root server would be in the LINX neutral AS rather than that of any particular member - clearly we welcome VBC's offer of resources, but I am not sure the other LINX members would be quite so supportive of this if they felt one member was being a chance they also might also want.
I don't quite understand what is meant here. We have offered to provide and operate a root name server at Telehouse at our own expense. We originally began looking into this because we wanted a root name server for our own use; then we talked it over and decided to make it available to everyone at no charge as a service to the UK / European Internet community. ISPA endorsed it on this basis. There is a long tradition of this in this country; EUnet GB, for example, operated the .uk name servers on the same basis for years. I think that many or most LINX members would like to see a root name server at the LINX and wouldn't much care who manages it. We will begin formally canvassing other LINX members on this issue tomorrow, but those that we have spoken with so far are supportive. Certainly ISPA members are.
With this qualification LINX remains highly supportive of this proposal and I'll do my best to facilitate it.
We would certainly appreciate this. Given official approval, we can have a server up in days. We were prepared to do so in November.
I will be at the RIPE meeting next Mon and Tue, and hope Jim will be there to clarify any confusion.
I myself cannot be there; I have critical prior commitments. However VBCnet will be represented and I am certain that we can come to a arrangement that will satisfy all concerned.
Keith Mitchell
Chairman London InterNet Exchange keith@linx.org PO Box 51 Stamford, PE9 2WF United Kingdom Phone: +44 7000 783797 (fax 783798) Mobile: +44 385 346152
To: dns-wg@ripe.net Cc: RIPE WG Chairpeople <wg-chairs@ripe.net> Subject: 2nd Root Server in Europe From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
I have received an informal query from IANA about RIPE's opinion about the placement of a second root name server in Europe at the LINX operated by VBCnet. This should be discussed at the next meeting. Personally I think that placement at the LINX makes good sense because of current network topology.
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Jim Dixon wrote:
We will have a server built to Paul Vixie's recommendations some time this week. As he suggests, it will be placed in its own class C on a private LAN segment. This will be on a 100 Mbps port on a router with a 100 Mbps connection to the LINX, the London Internet Exchange, which is the major UK peering point (http://www.linx.net). The LINX is actually attracting a significant number of networks from the continent: we now have one Dutch and two German members, with EBONE talking about joining in December.
This proposal has the endorsement of the UK Internet Service Providers Association (http://www.ispa.org.uk), of which I am one of the directors. ISPA is more or less equivalent to the CIX in the US. The machine will be operated by VBCnet, which is an owner/ member of the LINX, and will be, as I said, one hop from the LINX on a 100 Mbps port.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Jim, In <Pine.BSI.3.91.970113220513.3496D-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, <jdd@vbc.net> wrote:
Neither the LINX nor ISPA is particularly technical.
If the LINX is not technical, how come we are running a sucessful exchange point ?
The last time this was discussed at the LINX, the conclusion was that the LINX itself would not take any action until the LINX had hired and trained a systems engineer, if then. You said this yourself, Keith. As I recall, there was a vague suggestion that some action might be initiated in six months.
There have been some developments on this subject to further discussions with ISI - the situation has changed.
Like, for example, Demon, we have been impatient with the slow pace of things at the LINX. I understand that Demon today announced that they would be bringing up a route server at the LINX. I know that they proposed this many months ago and were met with indifference. So they unilaterally took action. We have been doing the same as regards a root name server.
This is a mis-representation of Demon's position at yesterday's meeting that you did not attend - their action is co-operative rather than unilateral. I am sure Demon will correct whichever of us they feel is mis-representing them.
What has been discussed in the past at the LINX, and I believe was discussed again today, was a root server for "." We think that what would be of most benefit to Europe would be a full root name server, including the largest domains (.com and .net), and this is what we discussed with Paul Vixie and proposed to Jon Postel last year.
We are not proposing to put up a minimal root name server; frankly, I can't see any purpose in minimizing the name server's scope. We believe that what is needed is a full-blown name server.
I disagree, but let's debate this in the relevant forums first, and not go off and do our thing. In <Pine.BSI.3.91.970114073615.3496E-100000@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, <jdd@vbc.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Peter Lothberg wrote:
Shared resources has to bee keept as neutral as possible, and having for example a root-name-server behind it's own router attached to a well recogized public exchange point seems to be the best avaliable implementation today.
This is in fact exactly the physical arrangement that we have proposed: a root name server on its own class C one hop off the LINX.
Not from a routing policy point of view - will you put the root server in a seperate AS, or will connectivity be constrained by your peering/routing policy ?
To repeat what may not be clear to those added to the lengthening CC: list, some time ago, after securing the endorsement of the UK ISPA, VBCnet approached IANA on behalf of ISPA with an offer to provide and manage a root name server at the LINX.
Neither VBCnet nor ISPA has the authority to offer "to provide and manage a root name server at the LINX", without appropriate approval from a majority of LINX members. They do of course have authority to offer to provide and manage a root nameserver on their own, or another of their members' own network.
We sent an engineer to California to discuss this with Paul Vixie, who operates one of the root name servers and is responsible for the software. We intend to follow Vixie's recommendations on hardware, software, and the way in which the root name server is attached to the LINX, which is in fact as you have described above.
Could someone maybe reconcile this with the offer of ready hardware I've had from Bill Manning ? I'm confused. I think we need a little more discussion between those who have plans and policy ideas here, and a rather less attempts at public point-scoring to the widest possible distribution. Keith Mitchell Chairman London InterNet Exchange keith@linx.org PO Box 51 Stamford, PE9 2WF United Kingdom Phone: +44 7000 783797 (fax 783798) Mobile: +44 385 346152
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Keith Mitchell wrote:
Neither the LINX nor ISPA is particularly technical.
If the LINX is not technical, how come we are running a sucessful exchange point ?
Is this worth going into? Yes we cooperate in operating a successful exchange point at the LINX. But the LINX is not a centre for new ideas; I personally would prefer that it was.
The last time this was discussed at the LINX, the conclusion was that the LINX itself would not take any action until the LINX had hired and trained a systems engineer, if then. You said this yourself, Keith. As I recall, there was a vague suggestion that some action might be initiated in six months.
There have been some developments on this subject to further discussions with ISI - the situation has changed.
So I understand. However, to make things clear, your discussion with Bill Manning followed our approach to IANA by quite some time.
This is a mis-representation of Demon's position at yesterday's meeting that you did not attend - their action is co-operative rather than unilateral. I am sure Demon will correct whichever of us they feel is mis-representing them.
I stand ready to be chastised ;-)
What has been discussed in the past at the LINX, and I believe was discussed again today, was a root server for "." We think that what would be of most benefit to Europe would be a full root name server, including the largest domains (.com and .net), and this is what we discussed with Paul Vixie and proposed to Jon Postel last year.
We are not proposing to put up a minimal root name server; frankly, I can't see any purpose in minimizing the name server's scope. We believe that what is needed is a full-blown name server.
I disagree, but let's debate this in the relevant forums first, and not go off and do our thing.
We would appear to be in the relevant forums. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Keith Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Peter Lothberg wrote:
Shared resources has to bee keept as neutral as possible, and having for example a root-name-server behind it's own router attached to a well recogized public exchange point seems to be the best avaliable implementation today.
This is in fact exactly the physical arrangement that we have proposed: a root name server on its own class C one hop off the LINX.
Not from a routing policy point of view - will you put the root server in a seperate AS, or will connectivity be constrained by your peering/routing policy ?
As I think that I have already said, we don't much care which AS it is in, and, no, it would not be constrained by our peering/routing policy.
To repeat what may not be clear to those added to the lengthening CC: list, some time ago, after securing the endorsement of the UK ISPA, VBCnet approached IANA on behalf of ISPA with an offer to provide and manage a root name server at the LINX.
Neither VBCnet nor ISPA has the authority to offer "to provide and manage a root name server at the LINX", without appropriate approval from a majority of LINX members. They do of course have authority to offer to provide and manage a root nameserver on their own, or another of their members' own network.
I was quickly restating our offer and did so sloppily. If you look back at what I was restating, it used the phrase "one hop away from the LINX". I believe that everything else that I have written has made the correct distinctions. VBCnet is a member of the LINX. We and other members use its facilities only by mutual agreement. All of us understand that perfectly clearly.
We sent an engineer to California to discuss this with Paul Vixie, who operates one of the root name servers and is responsible for the software. We intend to follow Vixie's recommendations on hardware, software, and the way in which the root name server is attached to the LINX, which is in fact as you have described above.
Could someone maybe reconcile this with the offer of ready hardware I've had from Bill Manning ? I'm confused.
Sorry, but I know nothing about this.
I think we need a little more discussion between those who have plans and policy ideas here, and a rather less attempts at public point-scoring to the widest possible distribution.
Let us make this also perfectly clear: I have added not one name to the CC list. I did correct "chief@ispa.org.uk" to "ispa-com@ispa.org.uk". It is others who have grown and grown the CC list and are, if you are correct, interested in "public point-scoring to the widest possible distibution". -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
We sent an engineer to California to discuss this with Paul Vixie, who operates one of the root name servers and is responsible for the software. We intend to follow Vixie's recommendations on hardware, software, and the way in which the root name server is attached to the LINX, which is in fact as you have described above.
Could someone maybe reconcile this with the offer of ready hardware I've had from Bill Manning ? I'm confused. I think we need a little more discussion between those who have plans and policy ideas here, and a rather less attempts at public point-scoring to the widest possible distribution.
I would expect that Paul Vixies recommendations fall closely in line with RFC 2010 and I would expect that any new root nameservers would fall under this document as far as operational activities are concerned. I will note that neither Paul or myself has the final say in this matter. One school of thought is for the IANA to provide the hardware the other is to have the organization provide it. The actual attachment would seem to be best served off a public exchange with the machine on its own prefix and behind its own AS. --bill
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
We sent an engineer to California to discuss this with Paul Vixie, who operates one of the root name servers and is responsible for the software. We intend to follow Vixie's recommendations on hardware, software, and the way in which the root name server is attached to the LINX, which is in fact as you have described above. ... I would expect that Paul Vixies recommendations fall closely in line with RFC 2010 and I would expect that any new root nameservers would fall under this document as far as operational activities are concerned.
Just for the record, we had someone talk to Paul Vixie because RFC 2010 lacks sufficient detail. Yes, his recommendations followed the RFC, but they were much clearer and more specific.
The actual attachment would seem to be best served off a public exchange with the machine on its own prefix and behind its own AS.
Understood and agreed. There is no contradiction between this and our original proposal. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Keith, thank you for your message. I personally agree that topologically speaking the LINX is an excellent place for a 2nd root nameserver. I also agree that from a routing standpoint such a box should not be in any particular ISP's AS and it should not be operated by a particular ISP either unless there is very wide and stable consensus that this is the right thing to do. At the RIPE meeting I would like to establish consensus about the physical location (LINX, telehouse), the routing location (LINX AS or dedicated AS) and the operations. About the latter I personally think that operation by the RIPE NCC in cooperation with the LINX is a good soloution. While I may be somewhat biased in favour of the NCC ;-), I think this is good because it would allow all ISPs in the region to buy into the soloution rather than only the LINX members. After all the NCC's role in life is to be the neutral place where all ISPs in the region can do things they need to do together. Do I make sense? Daniel
participants (4)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jim Dixon -
Keith Mitchell