[132148] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Wed Nov 17 01:17:44 2010
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikHd7oxAK6VwQqOPrRWqx0a3ELPTea6C2dyEsOO@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:17:13 +0800
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> =
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/16/internet-traffic-reportedly-rou=
ted-chinese-servers/
I have read the article and the list, and I'm puzzled. It's pretty clear =
that the root gets its records from a common source, and that the copies =
of them being delivered by a given root server were different. As a =
result, traffic intended to go place A went to place B if the TLD lookup =
happened to go to the particular root server in question. How did an =
instance of the root server find itself serving changed records? While =
there is no obvious indication of who made the change or for what =
reason, it's unlikely it was accidental.
Not sure what Glenn Beck, Fox News, or Godwin's Law have to do with it. =
There was a technical event that resulted in misrouting of traffic, and =
while international concerns regarding it had political overtones, the =
technical event is not a political one. If it was your traffic that had =
been misrouted, you might have issued expressions of concern. So why =
respond to it with a political response?
Sounds to me like one of the arguments for DNSSEC deployment...=
