Hello Piet, your message could only be understood as slightly offensive:
its already some time ago, that I have sent an e-mail to the wg-dns list. In that e-mail SWITCH was offering to run a secondary root name server at a location with good connectivity (2 Mbit/s) to CERN. I have heard whether positive nor negative responses to this proposal. Well, I've seen a couple of reactions floating by. The DNS group is the place to discuss this issue. But such an offer from a network service provider within RIPE that blocks traffic from certain other RIPE networks is not to be taken serious. Piet
And you managed! Some Swiss problems to find out about who is allowed to use whose resources at which cost is used by you to consider one party as not serious just because the other party used every means to throw mud around. And you are fully inline with this game. This leads me to start thinking if I can take you serious if you are not able to consider proposals on objective and technical grounds and show this also by Cc-ing to the full RIPE-list. EUNET is known to contribute valuable technical expertise to keep a European IP service running. Your comments count on the negative side. Best regards, Urs.
Gentlemen! Please cool down! The discussion about name service should remain the discussion about name service. The RIPE DNS working group will have to acieve consensus at the next meeting about two things: 1) Whether more root servers in Europe are necessary. If it ain't broken don't fix it. Personally I haven't seen that many indications that this is really needed at this point. Those who think so, please speak up. 2) if yes, where to locate it (them). To my mind the criteria for this would be - change in DNS traffic patterns expected vs. infrastructure to support it - willingness of organisations to host servers (of course the SWITCH offer is input here, and it goes without saying that the NCC -within its resources- will do what RIPE wants) - expertise available there - ... Please let us concentrate on these issues. Daniel
Hi,
The RIPE DNS working group will have to acieve consensus at the next meeting about two things:
1) Whether more root servers in Europe are necessary. If it ain't broken don't fix it. Personally I haven't seen that many indications that this is really needed at this point. Those who think so, please speak up.
As manager of the Dutch part of EUnet I've seen several occasions where our machine had severe trouble reaching a root server after some involuntary downtime. The machine is on the same LAN as mcsun, and thus reasonably well connected. Problem appeared to be an empty cache and no reachable root servers. I haven't seen any problems for the last months though, but that may be due to the fact that the machine has been up for 107 days now :-)
2) if yes, where to locate it (them).
If consensus is reached on point one I'd be happy if the new root server was within walking distance:-) With regards to the good work they are already doing I'd say the NCC is the logical place for such a beast. Martijn Roos Lindgreen
your message could only be understood as slightly offensive: I've only described reality. If reality is offensive to you, you know what to do about it. This leads me to start thinking if I can take you serious if you are not able to consider proposals on objective and technical grounds You don't have to take me serious; lots of others who know me do, which is enough for me. Blocking traffic from other RIPE participants is a technical action to which EUnet has never lowered itself. EUNET is known to contribute valuable technical expertise to keep a European IP service running. And SWITCH is actively breaking that European IP service; actively, but cleverly *highly* selective, so as not to make a complete fool out of itself in front of the whole IP community. Piet
participants (4)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Martijn Roos Lindgreen -
Piet.Beertemaï¼ mcsun.EU.net -
Urs Eppenberger