Re: CORRECTION Re: [ga] A Root with a view...

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dr. Joe and all,

  After reviewing the data regarding L.Root, I tend to
agree with your assesment.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Nov 27, 2007 4:13 PM
>To: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: CORRECTION Re: [ga] A Root with a view...
>
>Just want tomake a correction to a statement I made below in which I 
>accused ICANN of misleading.  That is not true.  This data is simply an 
>analysis from ICANN that makes no claims.  This may have been done for 
>the purpose of appeasing us, but in the end the only one using the data 
>to mislead was stephane.  And I don't think that was in any way 
>intentional.  This was pointed out to me in another conference where the 
>data is being viewed.
>
>In my opinion stephane saw the data and got excited that it proved a 
>point in her argument against Karls "boutique" TLDs when in fact it did 
>not as L.root data is not very reflective of traffic patterns in the 
>roots due to the reasons given in my reply below. 
>
>kindest regards
>joe baptista
>
>Joe Baptista wrote:
>
>> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot find another report about the TLDs most often queried at a
>>> root name server. Other reports I've seen aggregated data, while this
>>> small glimpse, however partial, at least *names* the TLDs.
>>>
>>> It has been said sometimes that dummy (sorry, Karl, "boutique" TLDs)
>>> were present in requests to the root name servers. This is clearly
>>> false, all the non-existing TLDs queried are local domains (such as
>>> Apple's ".local"), leaking through a configuration error.
>>>
>>> http://blog.icann.org/?p=240
>>>  
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for that Stephane.  It would look to me like things are getting 
>> better.  This root where the data originates seems to get less errors 
>> then that reported in 2003 which data mainly came from f.root.
>>
>> Thats a significant improvement however after careful inspection we 
>> begin to see the flaws in this data.  If this were f.root data then I 
>> would be very impressed.  Because the data would show a significant 
>> decrease in error traffic.  That would be amazing.  In fact the data 
>> looks alot like that I have seen for public roots I have setup.  Like 
>> the one now used in Turkey.
>>
>> However this is data from the L.root run by ICANN and i'm not so 
>> amazed anymore.  I speculate this is just a little bit of ICANN 
>> nonsense designed to once again mislead the public.  Shame.
>>
>> Now the problem as I see it here is that this data is very limited in 
>> scope.  I don't dispute the first chart on popular TLDs.  What i'm 
>> interested to see are the popular TLDs that result in errors 
>> (NXDOMAIN) as per the original 2003 report methodology.
>>
>> Next there is nothing in the data that states the number of queries 
>> received at the root servers.  Only percentages are used in the 
>> metrics.  The articles I wrote
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/
>>
>> show us that CAIDA conducted an analysis on 152 million messages.  
>> This data was obtained from f.root.  f.root is one of the oldest roots 
>> on the net while l.root is one of the newest.  In fact if as per the 
>> ICANN blog this data was collected on November 26 then it would of 
>> come from IP 199.7.83.42 that was implemented on 1 November 2007 and 
>> replaced the previous IP address of 198.32.64.12.
>>
>> http://l.root-servers.org/ip-change-26nov07.htm
>>
>> The data is unclear if it was collected from 199.7.83.42 or 
>> 198.32.64.12.  In any case what is certain is that both versions of 
>> the L.root run by ICANN are very new and that means the amount of 
>> traffic to them would be very low in comparison to f.root - which in 
>> my opinion provides a more accurate reflection of traffic patterns on 
>> the net.
>>
>> So in conclusion is this data in any way reflective of the impact of 
>> Karl, "boutique" TLDs?  The answer in this case would be NO.  It is 
>> however reflective of the data one would associate with a recently 
>> launched root server that few people are yet dependent on.
>>
>> Hope my comments help you interpret the data.
>>
>> kindest regards
>> joe baptista
>>
>
>
>-- 
>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
>
'Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827