RE: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Roeland,
I fully support parts of Mike's memo.

But... as you point out the real failure of the Internet comes from ICANN 
ignoring the ... trivia you point out. Mike's positions on TLDs were from 
there the doom of the Internet and of its security. I do like what he says 
about SAIC, Clinton, NSI  ... (I am only sorry he forgot Joe Sims). But he 
is the one who did it all.

Also, Mike says:
"
Nobody cares that you don't like a particular recommendation, they want to 
know whether you have a better idea, an idea that is good enough to gather 
the support of a lot of other interested parties that may not share your 
individual political or social or economic background but are nevertheless 
interested in the future welfare of ICANN.
"
who really cares about the future welfare of ICANN? I care about my future 
welfare, friendly about yours, the future of the Internet for that reasons, 
but ... ICANN? I Might be interested if I was a Member.

Mike what you have to understand is there is not such a thing as having to 
agree upon the future of the Internet. This is a very pious dream of yours. 
This is exactly as if you wanted people to agree upon the future of the 
radio or of the high-ways. You are the only one wanting to baby-sit the car 
drivers: they are grown enough to drive alone. ICANN is only delivering car 
plates. If it wants to care only about US ones, good for me. If it makes a 
deal with the other countries and get cheap enough car plates, good for me 
too. But $ 50.000++ a plate was no good for anyone.


Hopefully he says:
"
Third, be prepared to compromise your goals in the interests of forging an 
At Large organization that contributes to an ICANN that is going to operate 
in a far different environment than its founders envisaged.
"
That is pure Mike "be prepated to compromise" with people who are 
wrong.  Are you OK with two people to maintain three registries on an Axel 
table (so one can take some vacations)?

If in the "founders" he includes Joe Sims I remove what I said before, but 
I do not understand Mike at all. (BTW Mike this post of yours is the 
wildest post I never read on the matter. I would not have dare writting it. 
Marines are invading the DNSO. Too bad you miss the technical 
background...You would chair the ORSC! )


Unfortunately he finishes in saying:
"
The study committee has worked hard. It doesn't deserve the abuse it has 
received on this list.
"
The ALSC did not received abuse. It was abused. We are the @large: the 
people interested enough to share into the DNSO/ASO/PSO GAs and 
constituencies. No need to have us getting a pin and to know how to vote 
(whose idea was it?). No need to assign 5 people the role of animating a 
continent. No fear that one single company or country may enroll thousands 
of us: we are open to newbies all the year long and yet look at the 
outreach results and press interest. Anyone who want to join can do it and 
show himself. This only shows that the last @large elections were media or 
{some] governements manipulated.


and kindly says:
"
The several points of the action plan are reasonable, centrist, and provide 
a basis for moving forward. They deserve your support.
"
I frankly see only a single points of action as he says: adjourning.


On 11:18 27/10/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>Mike Roberts betrays his ignorance. A PC in a closet is exactly what it is.
>Well, maybe a few PC's. It's called clustering or RAIC (redundant array of
>inexpensive computers), the same idea as RAID, capacity AND
>redundancy/reliability. The closet may indeed be appropriate as well, as
>long as it has a couple of DS1s. Of course, each node in the cluster is the
>capacity of greater than 150 VAX 11/780s (For those not familiar with hist.
>of comp., 1 VAX = 1 MIPS = 1 VUP).
>
>Except for redundancy issues, one PC has more than enough umph to run root
>service for twice the entire Internet that we have today, with capacity to
>spare. I've done 10 million unique page hits per day with just one such box
>and g.root-servers.net ran on a single T1 for years. These are very
>conservative numbers. We've had this discussion over four years ago.
>zs01.root-service.net never exceeds 15% CPU utilization and it maintains a
>steady 1.5Mbps throughput. It's a pair of 500Mhz Celeron powered BookPCs
>(PCchips), using Linux clustering, for reliability.
>
>You don't need big iron to do this stuff. The web-servers and database
>servers place much higher demands on the systems. However, you do need
>intelligent operational procedures and someone other than Forest Gump on the
>switch.

They talk about g.root-server.net getting up to 15.000 calls a second with 
60% being from mistyping. There are also resolvers calling 10 roots one 
shot to "speed-up" the process.

Some serious information on the Root Service would be much in need:

1. how many calls a second
2. distribution of the type of response
3. distribution of the calls per servers
4. average machine down for what reason
5. configuration of each machine
6. number of changes in the root per week (TTL is 2 days)
7. budget of each root server
etc... would someone have serious current elements on that.

Jefsey




--
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