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

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

The next BIND Survey - which will start in a few months will specifically
test for dns pointing to alternate roots - and the question should be
settled then.

Your analysis is a bit faulty here.  You've made an analysis more
appropriately applied to a standalone nameserver and not a root server.

A root server only acts as a pointer - once it get's the data it needs -
the resolver holds the information for a specific period of time,
therefore the resolver will no longer query the root server for answers.

So the analysis here is a bit off and misinformed.

Regards
Joe Baptista

On Sun, 2 Apr 100, John Charles Broomfield wrote:

> 
> Hi Roeland,
> 	You didn't understand what I was getting at apparently. I agree
> completely with you that the CPU-power you need currently is very low. What
> I was saying is that ORSC as it stands today is not handling more than a
> completely marginal proportion of internet traffic (probably less than
> 0.01% of legacy IANA traffic), so for all practical purposes it just doesn;t
> exist. The problem of having enough CPU or not just doesn't come into it.
> 
> So this lovely newletter stating over half a million hits in one month is
> really an attempt of glorifying something that doesn't need to be glorified.
> Your servers may be able to handle all the load you want. I'm not arguing
> about that. What I *am* arguing is that you don't have any load at all
> because (in all practical senses) nobody is using you. From the perspective
> of the size of the internet, a mere 500K uses in one month works out to one
> use every 5 seconds, which means that nobody uses you or has heard about
> you. For all I care, you may have a Beowolf linux cluster of 5000 alpha-500
> boxes and have ten units like that spread over the world making you the most
> impressive computing facility alive, and would never have a CPU problem in
> this matter. Unfortunately it would all be a wasted effort (for the moment).
> Please do inform us when you get something like a million hits per DAY. (How
> many users on the 'net today? aprox 200 million some say? Even if you get
> just ONE hit per month per person, that would be 200 million hits... -yes
> oversimplification because of cache etc, but you get the idea-)
> The LARGEST rogue^H^H^H^H^Halternative root system out there NEEDS less than
> 64Kb of bandwidth to run and that's an overkill.
> Your 500K hits in one month work out to one hit every 5 secs aprox. Lets say
> that 200 bytes are exchanged in each hit (I'm being extremely exagerated
> there), that means you are consuming an average of 40bytes per second, in
> other words (because of CRC etc) lets say around 400 bits/second. So, in
> fact, you don't even need a 64Kb link. You just need a 0.4Kb link. You could
> run your current server over a 1200baud modem (over a 300baud you would
> probably saturate, but as I've estimated on the higher side, it *might* just
> work). So, run it now on a 300 baud modem, check the bandwidth saturation
> and if it proves to be too bad, you can migrate to a 1200 baud modem to have
> mode than enough bandwidth spare. Hmmm then again that would make your
> latency pretty bad, so maybe (if you have the cash to spare) a 9600baud
> modem would really eliminate all your latency/bandwidth problems, and at
> your current rate of growth shoul allow you another couple of years. Yes,
> very relevant I don't think. You're a technical minded guy. Care to indicate
> where I've made a mistake?
> As far as an excel sheet to backup the above analysis, sorry I don't use
> excel to do 2+2 type equations.
> So, as you see, there is no FUD, apart from that put out by ORSC trying to
> disguise a 300baud-modem system as something that is currently handling
> traffic in a major way. I am *NOT* disputing the fact that you MIGHT be able
> to handle it. What I'm saying is that the effort as-is today is completely
> irrelevant (from the figures you give.
> 
> Yours, John Broomfield.
> 
> P.S.
> /whine on
> I *wish* I had 2 E1's. I only have one (E1=2Mb bandwidth). It's a standard
> leased circuit, not SDSL. And it costs aprox 240Kff per month (around US$35K).
> And I can't colocate out of here, because I need to get the bandwidth from
> the 'net to my customers (who ARE local). If you're wondering why it's so
> expensive, it's because we're located in Guadeloupe -Caribbean-. Bandwidth
> to under-developed areas and third world countries is EXTREMELY expensive
> because of monopolistic structuring of the local telcos (you don't even have
> to go that far, just ask how much a 2Mb link costs between London and Paris,
> and you will see the advantages of breaking up the national telco as they
> did in US).
> 
> > > 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@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

--
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