Yesturday I published a test on root server response times and failure
rates which seems to have caused a bit of an uproar with root server
operators and much discussion. As is my usual habit - I published the
results without much explanation and I appologize for all the concern it
has caused.
Some interesting data I just found.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:07:16 -0400
From: root [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here are the results of the first test. Please note - IDNS root server
b.i-dns.net. (203.37.255.102) is down due to a subway
No disrespect intended, Joe but seems we should have a little more
background on how this data was obtained. For instance if you are pinging
from your own server then the results are factoring in network conditions
on your end as well. Then what we'd be looking at could be labelled
"results of
All of your questions are good. The server where the tests were conducted
did not use icmp. The time in millisec was obtained from dig which
calculates the response time to a question on it's own.
Also the data is biased - the program is being run on an IP string which
is next door to ORSC
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:08:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] root server statistics
There's nothin
At 03:21 PM 4/26/00 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
Of course the TINC roots only do referral. And rather than being
"extraordinary" it seems to me that doing recursion at the root is
unnatural and unscalable.
I dunno. NSI did it until com hit about 7 million names if I'm
not mistaken.
But I
