[169810] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (manning bill)
Mon Mar 17 10:30:07 2014
From: manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <A0124AF5-2435-4FC9-8D4D-987FFE87CB67@hopcount.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:27:29 -0700
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@isi.edu
Cc: John Bond <john.bond@icann.org>, NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>,
RIPE DNS Working Group <dns-wg@ripe.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
alas, our service predates Joe=92s marvelous text.
=93B=94 provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
We don=92t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or attempt to=20
influence prefix announcement.
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 17March2014Monday, at 7:17, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>=20
> On 17 Mar 2014, at 7:39, John Bond <john.bond@icann.org> wrote:
>=20
>> Global and Local nodes are very loosely defined terms. However =
general
>> consensus of a local node is one that has a desired routing policy =
which
>> does not allow the service supernets to propagate globally. As we =
impose
>> no policy we mark all nodes as global.
>=20
> I think the taxonomy is probably my fault. At least, I thought I =
invented it when I wrote
>=20
> http://ftp.isc.org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt
>=20
> the pertinent text of which is this:
>=20
> Two classes of node are described in this document:
>=20
> Global Nodes advertise their service supernets such that they are
> propagated globally through the routing system (i.e. they
> advertise them for transit), and hence potentially provide =
service
> for the entire Internet.
>=20
> Local Nodes advertise their service supernets such that the radius =
of
> propagation in the routing system is limited, and hence provide
> service for a contained local catchment area.
>=20
> Global Nodes provide a baseline degree of proximity to the entire
> Internet. Multiple global nodes are deployed to ensure that the
> general availability of the service does not rely on the =
availability
> or reachability of a single global node.
>=20
> Local Nodes provide contained regions of optimisation. Clients =
within
> the catchment area of a local node may have their queries serviced =
by
> a Local Node, rather than one of the Global Nodes.
>=20
> The operational considerations that you mention would have been great =
for me to think about when I wrote that text (i.e. it's the intention of =
the originator of the route that's important, not the practical limit to =
propagation of the route due to the policies of other networks).
>=20
> We did a slightly better job in RFC 4768 (e.g. "in such a way", =
"potentially"):
>=20
> Local-Scope Anycast: reachability information for the anycast
> Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
> way that a particular anycast node is only visible to a subset of
> the whole routing system.
>=20
> Local Node: an Anycast Node providing service using a Local-Scope
> Anycast Address.
>=20
> Global-Scope Anycast: reachability information for the anycast
> Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
> way that a particular anycast node is potentially visible to the
> whole routing system.
>=20
> Global Node: an Anycast Node providing service using a Global-Scope
> Anycast Address.
>=20
>=20
> Joe
