Eric
*/Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
>Roberto,
>
>Joe raises an interesting consideration, namely that
>if ICANN is in the business of dealing with DNS
>Security and Stability concerns, it should probably
>have the benefit of as much hard data as it can get.
>Joe has mentioned CAIDA (well known for their research
>and scholarship -- see, for instance
>http://www.caida.org/research/dns/ ).
>
>
They probably already have the data. They have an on going
relationship
with Paul Vixie. Vixie at this time sees a good portion of the
internet
universes of networks. He collects data from the following major city
centers, Ottawa; Palo Alto; San Jose CA;
New York City; San Francisco; Madrid; Hong Kong; Los Angeles; Rome;
Auckland; Sao Paulo; Beijing; Seoul; Moscow; Taipei; Dubai; Paris;
Singapore; Brisbane; Toronto; Monterrey; Lisbon; Johannesburg; Tel
Aviv;
Jakarta; Munich; Osaka; Prague; Amsterdam; Barcelona; Nairobi;
Chennai;
London; Santiago de Chile; Dhaka;Karachi;Torino;Chicago; Buenos
Aires;Caracas;and Oslo.
Can you imagine the data Paul has collected. It can actually prove
and
show internet fractures forming with each additional of root. From
the
alternative roots to the ministry of industry china launching the
china
national tlds. A major error rate on the icann roots. Someday this
may
all be evidence, one way or the other of te damage caused by icann to
the net. They know they have created significant error.
All this information is collected by root. i know vixie logs it.
imagine the privacy implications too.
>Perhaps ICANN could look into the prospect of engaging
>CAIDA's services? Perhaps periodic analyses of DNS
>performance?
>
>
That will be a really good idea. Or perhaps it is time to verify my
claims - demand the data be produced and independently analised. And
the analysis be made public with appropriate attention being paid to
privacy issues.
regards
joe baptista
>
>--- Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>
>
>>Joe,
>>
>>The queries you refer are indeed errors: they are
>>requests who were
>>addressed to the wrong root.
>>People who want to address resources who are outside
>>the official root
>>system should go to the particular root that
>>recognizes those resources: if
>>they don't, it's what is commonly called a mistake,
>>aka "error".
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Roberto
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>[mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe
>>>
>>>
>>Baptista
>>
>>
>>>Sent: 06 July 2007 18:14
>>>To: Hugh Dierker
>>>Cc: Karl Auerbach; Danny Younger;
>>>
>>>
>>ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>>Subject: Re: [ga] Sponsorship of IGF Workshops
>>>
>>>Hugh Dierker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Go slow for me. I assume that the root server
>>>>
>>>>
>>traffic analysis has
>>
>>
>>>>been asked for by someone. What is the suggested
>>>>
>>>>
>>reason for
>>
>>
>>>refusing
>>>
>>>
>>>>to make it public?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The only one I ever remember being published was
>>>
>>>
>>the one from
>>
>>
>>>CAIDA. I wrote on it:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/
>
>
>>>After that article I have never again seen an
>>>
>>>
>>analysis of
>>
>>
>>>root server traffic. I asked for the data and
>>>
>>>
>>Paul Vxie back
>>
>>
>>>then refused to provide it to the public claiming
>>>
>>>
>>possible
>>
>>
>>>privacy violations.
>>>
>>>The reason why root server data and analysis is
>>>
>>>
>>not made
>>
>>
>>>public is because it show how much technical harm
>>>
>>>
>>has been
>>
>>
>>>done or is being done to the technical
>>>
>>>
>>infrastructure icann
>>
>>
>>>as sworn to protect. The article tells you that
>>>
>>>
>>back in 2003
>>
>>
>>>98 percent of the queries to the root servers were
>>>
>>>
>>errors.
>>
>>
>>>This is not altogether true. Many of these errors
>>>
>>>
>>are as a
>>
>>
>>>result of the rapid expansion of other namespaces
>>>
>>>
>>- i.e. like
>>
>>
>>>the chinese government MII, the arab consortium -
>>>
>>>
>>etc etc.
>>
>>
>>>I would not be surprised if a majority of the
>>>
>>>
>>queries were to
>>
>>
>>>chinese IDNs run by the chinese government. I
>>>
>>>
>>suspect the
>>
>>
>>>chinese wth the launch of their national tlds and
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>conversion of the china network to national IDNs I
>>>
>>>
>>suspect
>>
>>
>>>the chinese traffic would now make up the bulk of
>>>
>>>
>>the volumn
>>
>>
>>>in DNS queries to the ICANN root.
>>>
>>>A proper analysis also makes them look like fools.
>>>
>>>
>> Since it
>>
>>
>>>shows that as the US government has tried to
>>>
>>>
>>control the
>>
>>
>>>internet - the internet has fragemented and the
>>>
>>>
>>proof is in
>>
>>
>>>the traffic error rate.
>>>
>>>ICANN is proof that the USG experimet has failed.
>>>
>>>
>>This
>>
>>
>>>brings up the question - should we develop a root
>>>
>>>
>>integration
>>
>>
>>>experiment and have that replace icann.
>>>
>>>You see the problem here. This data clearly shows
>>>
>>>
>>that as
>>
>>
>>>icann as played fun and games pretending to run
>>>
>>>
>>the internet,
>>
>>
>>>the internet has ended up causing them over 98 %
>>>
>>>
>>error rate
>>
>>
>>>and those errors represent alot of internet roo
>>>fragmentation. And that is a violation of the IAB
>>>
>>>
>>Policy on
>>
>>
>>>the Unique root.
>>>
>>>I still remember the silly claims they had at
>>>
>>>
>>icann many years ago.
>>
>>
>>>They were grinding the propaganda mill telling the
>>>
>>>
>>world they
>>
>>
>>>had a monopoly on root services. The alternative
>>>
>>>
>>root
>>
>>
>>>experiments proved that a farce.
>>>
>>>Check in to it - see if you can find any public
>>>
>>>
>>analysis available.
>>
>>
>>>CAIDA should be able to provide you with a copy of
>>>
>>>
>>the analysis.
>>
>>
>>>cheers
>>>joe baptista
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Eric
>>>>
>>>>*/Joe Baptista /*
>>>>
>>>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Even if ICANN were to vanish in a poof of
>>>>
>>>>
>>money
>>
>>
>>>colored smoke IP
>>>
>>>
>>>> > packets would still flow unvexed from
>>>>
>>>>
>>source IP address to
>>
>>
>>>> destination
>>>> > IP address and domain name query packets
>>>>
>>>>
>>would continue to be
>>
>>
>>>> > transformed into domain name response
>>>>
>>>>
>>packets.
>>
>>
>>>Registrars would
>>>
>>>
>>>> still
>>>> > buy and sell domain names and registrars
>>>>
>>>>
>>would still
>>
>>
>>>construct zone
>>>
>>>
>>>> > files and run their name servers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>Intellectual
>>
>>
>>>property lawyers
>>>
>>>
>>>> will
>>>> > whine, but will compensate by increasing
>>>>
>>>>
>>the bills
>>
>>
>>>they send to
>>>
>>>
>>>> their
>>>> > clients. And a lot of superfluous "staff"
>>>>
>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>consultants would
>>>
>>>
>>>> have
>>>> > to find new jobs.
>>>>
>>>> Amen. That day is coming.
>>>>
>>>> I would go further and say that ICANN has
>>>>
>>>>
>>actually
>>
>>
>>>cause problems
>>>
>>>
>>>> in the
>>>> technical function. I'm a bit concerned with
>>>>
>>>>
>>their little
>>
>>
>>>> experiment in
>>>> list IDN TLDs as A RRs.
>>>>
>>>> Also speaking about TLDs as A RRs, what
>>>>
>>>>
>>about
>>
>>
>>>localhost. That TLD
>>>
>>>
>>>> causes alot of traffic at the root server
>>>>
>>>>
>>level.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> And if ICANN published it's root server
>>>>
>>>>
>>traffic
>>
>>
>>>analysis we would
>>>
>>>
>>>> see that.
>>>>
>>>> Every computer in
>>>> the world knows the answer to localhost. The
>>>>
>>>>
>>only
>>
>>
>>>localhost traffic
>>>
>>>
>>>> that is hitting ICANN roots these days is
>>>>
>>>>
>>coming from
>>
>>
>>>misconfigured
>>>
>>>
>>>> computers. If ICANN provided an answer to
>>>>
>>>>
>>localhost then would
>>
>>
>>>> that not
>>>> be better. Would te internet not benefit
>>>>
>>>>
>>from a
>>
>>
>>>decrease in localhost
>>>
>>>
>>>> traffic to the root servers.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the function of managing internet
>>>>
>>>>
>>resources is
>>
>>
>>>to correct
>>>
>>>
>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
>that gives answers, not web links.
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
>
>
>
>
--
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
begin:vcard
fn:Joe Baptista
n:Baptista;Joe
org:PublicRoot Consortium
adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada
email;internet:baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:PublicRoot Representative
tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084
tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.publicroot.org
version:2.1
end:vcard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48254/*http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/_ylc=X3oDMTI5MGx2aThyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAzNTIEX3MDMzk2NTQ1MTAzBHNlYwNCQUJwaWxsYXJfTklfMzYwBHNsawNQcm9kdWN0X3F1ZXN0aW9uX3BhZ2U-?link=list&sid=396545469>from
someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.