DNS: 13 Name Servers vs. 3

DNS: 13 Name Servers vs. 3

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming§unety.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 00:58:25 -0500
On Saturday, June 20, 1998 12:59 AM, Lincoln Dale[SMTP:ltd&#167;interlink.com.au] wrote:
<snip>
&#167;
&#167;.. and, pray-tell, why would i want to decrease the number of root-nameservers
&#167;from (currently) 13, located at in excess of 10 locations, down to *3*,
&#167;located off two (seemingly not-particularly-well-connected) links?
&#167;

The Root Name Servers do not provide very much information when operating
as Root Name Servers. The 13 servers that you are referring to are doing double
(and triple) duty as .COM servers as well as IN-ADDR.ARPA servers. You are
much better off accessing a small number of very well connected Root Name
Servers for the Root Zone information than sending traffic half-way around the
world just to be able to say you have 13 servers to choose from, none of which
is near you (geo-netricaly).

Some ISPs move to a situation where they run their own in-house Root Name
Servers. This allows them to control the contents of the Root Zone which is
not hard to maintain. In the end, it all boils down to time-space tradeoffs and
the economics of the situation. The more that people are educated about the
DNS and various alternative configurations, the more they will avoid the knee
jerk reaction of sticking to the status quou which may not provide the best
egineering solution.


Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
1998 - The Year of the C+&#167;
Received on Sat Jun 20 1998 - 17:54:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Sep 16 2014 - 20:00:06 UTC