Re: [ga] More Root-Servers?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Marc, Daniel, and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested
parties,

  It would seem more logical to fix the protocol to allow for more Root
servers than to use Anycast to piggyback additional Root servers.
Even better would be a SROOTS or MultiRoot structure.  But of course
ICANN is strongly against that...  :(  None the less, Bind 9.0+ has
been modified in our [INEG. INC] version to allow for up to 255
root servers.  We call this fix or improved/inhanced version, BindPlus,
and have been quietly deploying it for some time now..

  I do believe that Anycast or Multicast can and has been tested a number
of times to be used for linking/stacking of Root servers under existing
Bind restrictions.  One might consider asking Paul Vixie about some of
this if I recall correctly.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Yesterday suggestions were made here for placing root-servers more
> geographically spread around the world. The problem is that 13 is
> the maximum.
>
> Below an idea that RIPE (which operates K) is considering. In short:
> there would be several machines with the same IP number in different
> places using anycast. So there would in fact be more root-servers that
> appear to be just one of the 13.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 13:12:22 +0100
> From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
> To: RIPE DNS WG <dns-wg@ripe.net>
> Cc: RIPE Routing WG <routing-wg@ripe.net>
> Subject: Distributing K-Root Service by Anycast Routing
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> below you find the proposal to start distributing the service
> of k.root-servers.net by using anycast. I welcome comments
> and suggestions either privately or on the DNS WG list.
> I would like to see a good discussion so that we can proceed
> with support from the RIPE community. Can we have this
> discussion on the DNS WG list too please? In particular
> I would like to hear technical suggestions for Appendix A.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
>
> ---------
>
>      Distributing  K-Root Service by Anycast Routing of
>                         193.0.14.129
>
>                      Daniel Karrenberg
>                 <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>
>
>      $Id: k-any.ms,v 1.9 2002/11/05 12:03:32 dfk Exp $
>
>                           ABSTRACT
>
>           This memo proposes to distribute the DNS ser-
>      vice  provided by k.root-servers.net across multi-
>      ple locations in the Internet topology.   It  dis-
>      cusses  the  motivation  for and the principles of
>      implementation.  A  first  inventory  of  detailed
>      issues is provided in an appendix.
>
> 1.  Introduction
>
> DNS  root  name  servers  need  to be accessible by Internet
> hosts in order for the DNS to function  properly.   Accessi-
> bility  is determined by the ability of the server to handle
> a given query load and by the connectivity of the server  to
> the rest of the Internet.
>
> The  RIPE  NCC  operates  k.root-servers.net (K-root) in the
> RIPE region in order to help safeguard the  quality  of  the
> DNS  in  the  Internet and in the RIPE region in particular.
> The RIPE NCC obtains guidance from RIPE.
>
> For K-root the connectivity  issue  has  been  addressed  by
> placing  it at the LINX, a topologically very well connected
> point.  The server load issue has been addressed by  deploy-
> ing  successive  generations of hardware with increased pro-
> cessing power and by distributing the load locally  among  a
> number  of  machines  at different LINX sites.  A cold spare
> system has been available in Amsterdam at all times to  pro-
> vide continuity in case of catastrophic failures at the pri-
> mary server location.  Over the years this set-up  has  pro-
> vided very reliable service.
>
> However issues about differences in connectivity to the ser-
> vice across the RIPE region have been raised repeatedly.   A
> more  distributed provision of the service is generally seen
> as positive because of
>
>   -  lower network  delays  due  to  shorter  paths  between
>      clients and servers,
>
>   -  less dependence on connectivity to a single location,
>
>   -  better  load and DDoS attack resiliance because of dis-
>      tributed servers,
>
>   -  more overall redundancy.
>
> For these reasons numerous  organisations  have  offered  to
> host  additional  servers  operated  by the RIPE NCC. So far
> this has not been considered because the number of unique IP
> addresses  at which the service can be provided is exhausted
> by currently assigned servers.
>
> 2.  Scope of this Memo
>
> This memo proposes  to  deploy  multiple  servers  providing
> k.root-servers.net name service across the RIPE region, each
> using the same IP address.  This is  commonly  called  'any-
> casting'.   A detailed description of one implementation can
> be found in RFC3258.  The  intention  of  this  memo  is  to
> establish  the  principles  of  this,  inventarise the major
> issues and request comments  from  the  RIPE  community  and
> other  interested parties.  An initial inventory of detailed
> issues is provided as an appendix.
>
> 3.  Proposal
>
> Simply put the RIPE NCC will provide K-root name service  at
> multiple  locations dispersed over the Internet topology but
> at the same IP address.  No DNS client/resolver changes  are
> necessary.  The service will appear exactly the same for the
> users.  Normal Internet routing will distribute the  traffic
> among the different instances of K-root.
>
> This  will  be  implemented by installing multiple copies of
> the current server sets at different points  and  announcing
> the current prefix 193.0.14/24 from these points.
>
> The  main  challenge  with  this set-up is to ensure consis-
> tency:
>
> operation -
>      All servers will be operated in a consistent way by the
>      RIPE  NCC.   They  will  have  appropriate  out-of-band
>      access path to ensure that the  operations  centre  can
>      access them.
>
> monitoring -
>      The  availability  and  responses  will be monitored by
>      dedicated  monitoring  systems  installed  at  multiple
>      locations.   Also  the  BGP  propagation  of the prefix
>      193.0.14/24 will be monitored constantly by the  exist-
>      ing remote route collectors.  [http://www.ripe.net/ris]
>      Users will be able to identify the particular  instance
>      they  are using by published methods using DNS queries.
>      [draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid]
>
> correctness -
>      The correctness and authenticity of the root zone  data
>      will  eventually be guaranteed using DNSSEC. Until this
>      can be deployed the current  method  will  need  to  be
>      employed:  ISPs will need to closely monitor where they
>      route traffic to 193.0.14/24 and from where they accept
>      traffic  from  that address.  The RIPE NCC will publish
>      and maintain a list with the locations  of  the  k-root
>      instances,  the  BGP autonomous system numbers of their
>      immediate neighbors and any other information that  can
>      help  ISPs  and  others  to  ensure  that they reach an
>      authentic instance of K-root.  This list will be  main-
>      tained until appropriate routing security technology is
>      widely deployed.
>
> The RIPE NCC and K-root itself are well suited for this mode
> of  operation.   IANA  asked the RIPE NCC to operate K-root,
> the geographic and topological location of  K-root  was  not
> specified  in  any  way  other  than  "somewhere in the RIPE
> region". The RIPE NCC was chosen because it is  neutral  and
> professional  but above all directly accountable to RIPE and
> its membership.
>
> The location at the LINX was subsequently  chosen  based  on
> evaluation of the Internet topology in the region and a rec-
> ommendation by the RIPE DNS working group.  Distributing  K-
> root  over  a  number of places is a natural continuation of
> this policy.
>
> In addition to operating K-root at  a  remote  location  the
> RIPE  NCC  has  considerable  experience  in  operating dis-
> tributed services.  The Test  Traffic  Measurements  Service
> operates more than 80 machines all over the world to collect
> performance measurements.  Some of these can be used to mon-
> itor  the DNS service of K-root as well.  The Routing Infor-
> mation  Service  operates  9  remote  route  collectors   at
> exchange  points  all  over the world to collect BGP routing
> information.  These route collectors will be used to monitor
> the routing of 193.0.14/24.
>
> At  any point in time there is a trade-off between the added
> benefit of adding more servers and the difficulty of operat-
> ing  them  consistently.   The  optimal  number  of  servers
> depends on a large number of  constantly  changing  factors.
> It needs to be evaluated continuously as things progress.
>
> 4.  Operational & Funding Models
>
> For  the purpose of stability and for gaining experience all
> instances of K-root will be operated by the RIPE NCC.   This
> ensures  smooth  transitions, consistency and correctness of
> root zone data.
>
> After the initial deployment there are a number of  possible
> operational and funding models.
>
> 4.1.  Traditional
>
> Traditionally  K-root  operations  have been part of general
> RIPE NCC activities and thus have been  collectively  funded
> by  the RIPE NCC membership.  This is an appropriate funding
> model as all members benefit from stable root name  service.
> It  is also easy to administer.  Difficulties may arise when
> the number of locations is such that the  operational  costs
> increase  very significantly.  Another important drawback of
> this model is that the number of additional  sites  will  be
> limited  by  available  funds  and the sites will have to be
> determined  by  a  selection  procedure  based  on  criteria
> including
>
>      - position in Internet topology,
>
>      - position relative to existing K-root instances,
>
>      - local operations support,
>
>      - operational requirements [rfc2870],
>
>      - commitment to fund operations at a later stage.
>
> 4.2.  Location Fees
>
> The  drawbacks of the traditional model can be largely over-
> come by charging the organisations hosting K-root  instances
> a  fee  that  covers  the  operational costs. This obviously
> scales better and requires less of a beauty contest, because
> the  funds available will more closely match the operational
> costs.  It is quite possible that the initial demand will be
> higher than the operational capabilities of the RIPE NCC.
>
> Also  it  should  be observed that in funding and some other
> aspects this is exactly  the  opposite  of  the  traditional
> model: In the traditional model the RIPE NCC pays facilities
> management fees to the hosts whereas in this model the hosts
> pay.
>
> Transition should be planned carefully.
>
> 4.3.  Operated and Funded Decentrally
>
> In  this  model anyone who wishes would be able to operate a
> K-root instance.  This model has such serious problems  with
> guaranteeing  stability  and  consistency  that it cannot be
> implemented today  or  in  the  near  future.   The  minimum
> requirement  for  this  operational  mode  is a zone signing
> mechanism that ensures consistency and authenticity of  root
> zone  data.  Implementing this also requires a changed model
> of service responsibility as it is obviously  impossible  to
> hold any one entity responsible for the service.  While this
> may ultimately scale the best, it is extremely premature  at
> this point.
>
> We  propose  to  continue with the traditional model for now
> and explore other models while gaining  operational  experi-
> ence.   The associated selection procedures will be executed
> by the RIPE NCC and guided by the relevant requirements RFCs
> and the RIPE DNS working group.
>
> 5.  Implementation Plan
>
> 5.1.  Initial BGP change
>
> The  routing  announcements  of  the  current  server prefix
> 193.0.14/24 will change from AS5459 (LINX) to the  dedicated
> new K-root autonomous system number AS25152.
>
> ISPs  need  to be aware of this and adapt their routing fil-
> ters accordingly.  It is recommended that ISPs  who  do  not
> already  do  so,  take  precautions,  safeguaring  that they
> receive this prefix from an authentic K-root via  a  trusted
> path  and that they route traffic to it via trusted paths as
> far as possible.  At the same time an initial set of BGP and
> DNS service monitors will be deployed.
>
> 5.2.  Move the Cold Standby to Service
>
> The  current  cold  standby  server  at the RIPE NCC will be
> activated as a regular server.  AS25152  will  be  announced
> also  by  the  RIPE  NCC  at  the  AMS-IX.  As the server is
> already available and configured this  can  be  done  fairly
> rapidly.  The distribution of the load, BGP routing informa-
> tion and other operational data will be gathered and  evalu-
> ated.   ISPs  will  have the opportunity to test this set-up
> and provide feedback.  In case  of  problems  the  RIPE  NCC
> instance of K-root will be deactivated quickly, returning to
> the previous service level.
>
> 5.3.  Implement Further Instances
>
> While monitoring continuously a number of further  instances
> of  K-root will be deployed.  Currently we expect this to be
> about 5 additional instances.  This  number  is  limited  by
> operational and monitoring capacity.  It is important not to
> deploy more instances than can safely be operated and  moni-
> tored.   Especially the capacity to detect and correct prob-
> lems in this distributed set-up needs to be carefully  moni-
> tored.
>
> 5.4.  Spreading Further
>
> Planning further than this is currently difficult because of
> lack of experience with distributed  K-root  operations  and
> possible funding models.
>
> Acknowledgements
>
> The author would like to thank Joao Silva Damas for comments
> on an earlier draft as well as Andrei Robachevsky  and  Henk
> Uijterwaal who provided comments on recent drafts.
>
> Appendix A - Detailed Issues
>
> Using a router or having a server speak BGP?
>
> Withdrawing BGP announcements based on service availability?
>
> Distributed service monitoring: Using current RIPE NCC oper-
> ated  machines  all  over the world is an easy option. Maybe
> distributing automatic monitoring software to be run by vol-
> unteers  is  another. What is essentially needed is to try a
> small number of queries  periodically  including  the  query
> identifying  the  instance  of the server. Then transmitting
> the results back to a (set of) collection point(s).
>
> Distributed BGP Monitoring: The RIS can be  used  for  this.
> Coverage should be sufficient.
>
> Information  Campaign: What is needed to reach all ISPs that
> need to know? How long a lead time do they need for the var-
> ious stages of the deployment?
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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