[ga-full] RE: [ga] Fw: ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY 54%

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> Behalf Of John Charles Broomfield
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM
>
> Hi all,
> 	Apart from the fact that it's just a shameless plug,
> I'd like to put it into perspective.
>
> (...)
> > 1. Visibility of ORSC Top-Level domains jumps 54% in March
> (...)
> > VISIBILITY OF ORSC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS JUMPS 54% IN MARCH
> > The results are in and they show that the number of hits on ADNS's
> > root server / resolver ASLAN.OPEN-RSC.ORG jumped in March
> to 530,634 hits
> > compared to 353,000 in February. This is an increase of over 54%.
>
> /flame on heat-level=nova

Really? This sounds like FUD to me ...

> This means that on average, it was getting around 1 hit every
> 5 seconds.
> Note that if I look at the hits that *my* main resolver gets (the main
> resolver for an ISP with around 3500 dialup customers, and a
> bunch of hosted
> sites, but with a total outbound connectivity of 2Mb which is
> not full -ie a VERY small ISP by todays standards-) it's aproximately 5
> times that (one hit per second aprox).

Okay, you have a pair of E1's ... I believe that matches the smallest system
feeding alternate roots, but they're a pair of SDSL lines (1.1 Mbps each).

> My system services 3500+ customers. ORSC roots are trying to
> indicate that
> they are a RELEVANT alternative to the legacy IANA roots
> (which serve for
> all *practical* purposes ALL of the internet).
> If someone can post the hits per second of the legacy IANA
> roots, it would
> put it even further in perspective, but I suspect that the
> ORSC is something
> around 0.01% of hits at the VERY most. I don't call that
> relevant. In fact I
> call it totally IRRELEVANT.

As pointed out before, the DNS is a very light load. Even a K6-200 can
handle multiple hits per second and a dual PIII-800 could probably handle
the entire Internet, with all zones local. But, if one really feels like
spending money, a VALinux Cluster City would handle all possible loads, with
one gig-ether NIC
disconnected.<http://www.valinux.com/systems/clustercity.html>

> /flame off
>
> A burning commentary, but true nevertheless.

I'd like to see a capacity analysis supporting your statement. An Excel
spreadsheet would be fine. I you have a problem with MS products, xspread is
also useable. Even my esteemed opponent, Kent Crispin, agrees that you don't
need a big box for DNS. What you need is decent pipes and, with DSL and
whatnot, those are getting cheaper every day. (Covad SDSL [1.1 Mbps] is
$348US per month, retail. [Sorry John, I know what those E1's are costing
you]).

I suspect that in the process of building such an analysis (which you
clearly haven't done) you will come to the realization that making such
claims, in an audience containing folks who do that sort of thing, as part
of their livelyhood, is more than slightly risk-prone. The numbers had
better be there, they had better be right, and you MUST show your work.
Anything less is FUD.

BTW, didn't we go throught this effort on the IFWP list, or was it
DOMAIN-POLICY.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html