[169812] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Mon Mar 17 11:52:48 2014
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:51:03 -0700
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <527E0ACC-B700-456E-A844-BF67F9A334DD@hopcount.ca>
Cc: John Bond <john.bond@icann.org>, NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>,
RIPE DNS Working Group <dns-wg@ripe.net>, manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:27, manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu> wrote:
>
> > alas, our service predates Joe’s marvelous text.
> >
> > “B” provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
> > We don’t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or attempt to
> > influence prefix announcement.
>
> In the taxonomy I just shared, that makes the origin nodes of B all "global nodes".
>
> To clarify though, I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that the things I described were new or original when I was writing in 2003. Anycast had already been in use for quite some time by a variety of people at that time.
>
> It's specifically the terms "local" and "global" in a DNS anycast context that I was apologising for :-)
>
>
> Joe
No apology needed. I was clarifying why "B" is listed as a local node.
That it doesn't fit you taxonomy is fine - but it does need an explaination.
/bill
