2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)

Jim,

In <Pine.BSI.3.91.970113220513.3496D-100000 at avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, <jdd at vbc.net> wrote:

> Neither the LINX nor ISPA is particularly technical.  

If the LINX is not technical, how come we are running a sucessful
exchange point ?

> The last time this was discussed at the LINX, the conclusion was 
> that the LINX itself would not take any action until the LINX had
> hired and trained a systems engineer, if then.  You said this 
> yourself, Keith.  As I recall, there was a vague suggestion that 
> some action might be initiated in six months.

There have been some developments on this subject to further
discussions with ISI - the situation has changed.

> Like, for example, Demon, we have been impatient with the slow pace 
> of things at the LINX.  I understand that Demon today announced that 
> they would be bringing up a route server at the LINX.  I know that
> they proposed this many months ago and were met with indifference.  
> So they unilaterally took action.  We have been doing the same as 
> regards a root name server.

This is a mis-representation of Demon's position at yesterday's
meeting that you did not attend - their action is co-operative
rather than unilateral. I am sure Demon will correct whichever of us
they feel is mis-representing them. 

> What has been
> discussed in the past at the LINX, and I believe was discussed again
> today, was a root server for "."  We think that what would be of most
> benefit to Europe would be a full root name server, including the 
> largest domains (.com and .net), and this is what we discussed with
> Paul Vixie and proposed to Jon Postel last year.
> 
> We are not proposing to put up a minimal root name server; frankly,
> I can't see any purpose in minimizing the name server's scope.  
> We believe that what is needed is a full-blown name server.

I disagree, but let's debate this in the relevant forums first, and
not go off and do our thing.

In <Pine.BSI.3.91.970114073615.3496E-100000 at avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net>, <jdd at vbc.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Peter Lothberg wrote:

> > Shared resources has to bee keept as neutral as possible, and having
> > for example a root-name-server behind it's own router attached to a well
> > recogized public exchange point seems to be the best avaliable
> > implementation today.
> 
> This is in fact exactly the physical arrangement that we have proposed: 
> a root name server on its own class C one hop off the LINX.  

Not from a routing policy point of view - will you put the root
server in a seperate AS, or will connectivity be constrained by
your peering/routing policy ?

> To repeat what may not be clear to those
> added to the lengthening CC: list, some time ago, after securing the
> endorsement of the UK ISPA, VBCnet approached IANA on behalf of ISPA
> with an offer to provide and manage a root name server at the LINX.  

Neither VBCnet nor ISPA has the authority to offer "to provide and
manage a root name server at the LINX", without appropriate approval
from a majority of LINX members. They do of course have authority to
offer to provide and manage a root nameserver on their own, or
another of their members' own network.

> We sent an engineer to California to discuss this with Paul Vixie,
> who operates one of the root name servers and is responsible for the
> software.  We intend to follow Vixie's recommendations on hardware,
> software, and the way in which the root name server is attached to
> the LINX, which is in fact as you have described above.

Could someone maybe reconcile this with the offer of ready hardware
I've had from Bill Manning ? I'm confused. I think we need a little
more discussion between those who have plans and policy ideas here,
and a rather less attempts at public point-scoring to the widest
possible distribution.

Keith Mitchell

Chairman
London InterNet Exchange       keith at linx.org
PO Box 51
Stamford, PE9 2WF
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 7000 783797         (fax 783798)
Mobile: +44 385 346152