Subject: Commercial Advantages of Hosting Name Servers

From: Peter Gradwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:22:21 +0000

Hi,

Thanks for all your feedback on the placement of secondary name servers
for the .uk domain (and subs).

I have been asked to address one remaining question. That is:

If a name server is hosted with an ISP, does that give the ISP a commercial
advantage in anyway, for example, in marketing, or in negotiating peering
agreements, or similar?

Should be we concerned about this?

thanks

peter

--
peter gradwell; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/peter/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:54:57 -0800

> advantage in anyway, for example, in marketing, or in negotiating peering

should not.  if they find a way to make it so, fire them.

randy

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:32:21 -0800 (PST)

% If a name server is hosted with an ISP, does that give the ISP a commercial
% advantage in anyway, for example, in marketing, or in negotiating peering
% agreements, or similar?

	Yes, hosting a server does provide a commercial advantage. There
	is no way to escape it.

	This concern was what drove the placement of the four additional
	root servers that were created in 1995.  Many ISPs expressed 
	interest in hosting. The principle reason was that it provided
	a competative advantage, hence the model that was chosen was to
	have one entity, usually a membership or constituency based 
	entity operate the node, with physical placement being directed
	by short RTTs within a region and good connectivity to the 
	other servers for the domain.

--bill

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:23:52 -0800

> 	other servers for the domain.

i can't find the part of your message which describes the commercial
advantage.

randy

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:54:07 +0859 ()

Bill;

> 	other servers for the domain.

Hmmm, if so, ISPs running root servers are motivated to act against
anycast root servers, I'm afraid.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:19:58 -0800

> anycast root servers, I'm afraid.

it's also bad if they decide to use nuclear weapons.

can we stick to reality?

randy

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 06:56:47 -0800 (PST)

% Hmmm, if so, ISPs running root servers are motivated to act against
% anycast root servers, I'm afraid.
% 
% 							Masataka Ohta

Except ISPs generally are not running root servers.

-- 
--bill

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:04:14 -0800

> I guess I've just become too cynical about what marketing folks will 
> do.  Perhaps you're right.  Perhaps no ISP's marketing folks would say 
> "since we run one of the nameservers for <blah>, it is obvious that 
> responses to requests to <blah> would be better than for our 
> competitors."  or "since we run one of the nameservers for <blah>, our 
> network is obviously better than our competitor who doesn't."  (regardless 
> of how true such statements might be).

87.3% of the customers do not understand/care.  12.5% of the customers know
it's rubbish.  my competitors can have the other 0.2%

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:57:41 -0800

bill said they would, but did not substantiate this with the merest example.
hard to provide a counterexample to a non-existent example.

but, to make trouble, as a competitor, i would have no problem with, e.g.,
uunet having a root server near its edge with its peers.

randy, who likes having money near mouths

> Are you suggesting that marketing folk would not take advantage of such a 
> situation?
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 
> At 04:23 PM 12/10/2000 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:50:37 -0800

Randy,

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:10:02 -0800

Randy,

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:34:39 -0800

> 99% of all statistics are crap

most mailing list posters are statistics

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:26:36 -0800

-- Theodore Sturgeon

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:38:30 -0800

let me be more clear.  we have heard a bunch of non-isps tell us how the
isps need to be saved from eachother.  we have had one isp speak and say
that they don't need saving.  i have yet to hear an isp who wants you to
save them.  maybe we will.  until then, the value of more well-meaning
non-isps offering to help us seems low.

randy

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:00:20 -0800

Randy,

Went fishing for red herring recently, did you?

The question asked was whether or not an ISP could be given a "commercial 
advantage in anyway, for example, in marketing, ..." by hosting a (high 
level) domain.  I indicated, that while I might be too cynical and I could 
be wrong, I thought that marketing folks at ISPs probably would.  A matter 
of opinion.  You then made up bogus statistics and have now branched off 
into some diatribe about non-ISPs trying to save ISPs.

I don't believe anyone (that is, either of the "bunch" of two of us) has 
proposed (or even discussed) trying to save ISPs from each other nor do I 
believe this relevant to the discussion.

If you are honestly claiming that you do not believe ISP marketing folk 
would try to gain advantage from hosting a high level domain, then we have 
dealt with different ISP marketing folks.  'Nuff said.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: "Brian W. Spolarich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:28:58 +0000 (GMT)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, David R. Conrad wrote:

| 99% of all statistics are crap

  99% of crap is crap.

  -bws

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:04:09 -0800

david,

why not 'fess up.  it is you and bill who are afraid of the isps.

randy

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:17:23 +0100

Randy,

It has nothing to do with fear. It is a simple matter of observation
that if marketing at a  commercial ISP get to know that the techs at
said ISP are hosting something that is, so to speak, "high-profile",
they will try to take advantage of it, unless forbidden to by agreement
with that specific customer (or what have you).

-- 
Måns Nilsson			DNS Technichian
+46 709 174 840			NIC-SE
+46 8 545 85 707		MN1334-RIPE

My EARS are GONE!!

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:22:39 -0800

thank you all for speaking for my company.  could you run some tv ads too?
would save us some money.

randy

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:22:16 -0800

Randy,

See the definition of "ad hominem argument".

Given you can't seem to respond to the question posed, how 'bout we spare 
dnsop further discussion?  Feel free to have the last word, I won't bother 
reading it.

BTW: it would be pretty silly to fear my customers.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 04:52:13 -0800 (PST)

% 
% david,
% 
% why not 'fess up.  it is you and bill who are afraid of the isps.
% 
% randy
% 

	An amazing assertion. I can't speak for David but
	your keen ability to read my mind leaves me in awe.
	Would that you could get it right.

--bill

---

From: Lars-Johan Liman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:22:44 -0800

Can we please kill this thread. I don't see how it contributes to the
work in the working group.

				  /Liman

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:30:07 -0800

> See the definition of "ad hominem argument".

ahh, and telling us all that we need to be protected from the evil isps
isn't?

bye david

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:50:07 -0800

> 	your keen ability to read my mind leaves me in awe.

i learned it from your ability to read the minds of an entire industry
segment to which you do not belong.

randy