[ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hank Nussbacher
hank at att.net.il
Wed Sep 10 12:18:04 CEST 2003
At 11:17 AM 10-09-03 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: My view: RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR is willing to endorse. -Hank >[sorry about the useless re-post to dns-wg, finger trouble ....] > >On 10.09 04:58, Joerg Schumacher wrote: > > ... > > Mind adding the nameservers for .ORG to the monitoring? I'd be > > interested in the effects of the recent change in the root zone. > > Having only two nameservers for a tld and both of them in a single AS > > makes me kind of nervous. > > ... > >Weiteres Nachdenken ergab: > >While we so far have only monitored TLDs with whome we have some contact, >we can certainly also monitor any TLD if there is an expressed interest >from the RIPE community. Thechnically this is no problem at all. >Configuring it takes all of 5 minutes and even the alpha version >of the analysis web site on the development server box can easily take >the load. > >However there is a more principle problem and that is why I copied >ncc-services: > >Currently there is a heated debate about (new) NCC services and their >cost. One question asked over and over again there is: Why should NCC >members pay for this service? For dnsmon my answer is that they are >interested in seeing the data, just like Joerg; they are also interested >that the data is collected professionally and neutrally, so that they >can point all sorts of people to it. Most importantly they can use it >to take action if TLD service, a service vital to their business, should >not be adawquate. So very generally this data helps to keep the DNS >stable in a number of ways; that benefits the whole community in general >and the RIPE NCC membership in particular. > >However, quite obviously, the TLD administrators concerned also benefit >from this data. They can use it direcly to monitor their operations. >They can also use it in the same way as the NCC membership: they can >point third parties to it and say that independent and professional >measurements show that they are doing a good job. So why should they >not pay a fair share of the cost? So far the TLDs we monitor have >agreed informally to do that, once the service becomes fully operational. > >I have had a number of questions like Joerg's already for all gTLDs >besides .MIL. I see little chance that we can get them all to agree to >pay a share of the cost. I also see that the overhead of making >agreements with some of the organisations involoved can be prohibitive. >If there is interest from the RIPE community it is easy to monitor these >domains. However it is very difficult to do it for some for free and >ask the others to pay. So doing that may lead to a situation where the >RIPE NCC membership ends up paying the whole bill. I would actually >like that because it makes the measurements even more independent >and I would not have to invest time into making agreements with the TLD >admins, >billing, etc. pp. > >But is this acceptable to the RIPE NCC memebrship in the long run? > >Comments please! > >Daniel
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]