Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt

From: "黄理灿" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:28:48 +0800

If ISP located at China with domain name with www.*.com, then probably unreachable because of its RR stored in the DN Server located at USA. 
This was true when Taiwan earthquaked on Dec.26, 2006.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/27/boxing_day_earthquake_taiwan/

That is why the draft uses P2P technology.

>From: Joao Damas <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: 
>To: 黄理�?<[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
>Date:Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:17:05 +0200
>
>
>On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:58 AM, 黄理�?wrote:
>>
>>  For example, the fibre cables connecting US with China was broken  
>> by earthquake, then almost all web pages was unreachable even the  
>> machine was in China because of root servers are located in USA.
>
>Not so. Have a look at http://www.isc.org/ops/f-root/ for the part  
>that refers to f.root-servers.net
>There are at least 2 other Internet root server instances in mainland  
>China, and additional ones in the Hong Kong area.
>Lack of access to root servers was definitely not at the source of any  
>unreachability.
>
>Joao Damas
>ISC 
�^<��{�&v{(��.�Ǭ��_����n�n��M��m4�����j�]��)n��q�"z��ή("��S��좖�r�zX��Ȟ��+�7����y���_j�!v{(��܆+�r��ݩ���&E����~�&�n��Yhq�a��u۽4ռ����jk%r����_�"�13�w~=��
BN�蛧�M<�}6ӭ;�C�Ms���jT�v{(��+{v��W(�7����y��v{(��+{v��W(��z+�u��ZjXh��hq�a��u۽4ռ����jk%r����_�"�13�w�;�m��
B~�ݞ�)r��ݩ���&N�蛧�M<�}6ӝ;�C�Mub��q��y֦j��vw�j֦�W(�t�jaejN]*Z�'(����ҥ��z��]*Z�+Z��
��(����Z��i�/{�}�ꮊ���׬��@`D��n}�!�E!@X�G}� �<���GM� �!:�1O^��Ć 1Q8�qDt�M�yǢ��_���j)bz���׽=�}��ZjXh��(��ښ�\�mv�M5jf���g{
h��t�n0��DH�ω�3>�QY����좗(��ښ�\�d�n��}���7�m8ӽ4<4�yǢ��_����۞v�'�����nyۜ�m|�O<�^�o'(��ښ�\�c������#>'wox���w��좘���+�8nۢn�m4�M��Mt�M
4^q�yײ����k�
ڙ8nۢn�m4�^��>��41�,j��x㽹��5��s�۞v�'E����~�&�_|�^�ۍ�f��;-��nr|"��L��n��}���{��<�O4�u�l�,��_|�^�ۍ���om���l�-9bq�ṩ���nyۜ�:	��jf����u���+��jד���&���O5�o8��<�EϮ*+�ܷ	�g��bz���n7���5#� 0L��v���X�jxnjx��)v+-�&��]��8�W�N�y�좘���+�s�Y��W��*'�_O��u��zX����$聽��`n�;l��Ƨ�槃;-��nrr�� D�Ԏ=a�j)b�	b��g��bz����'���r��zm����"z���j)fj��b��?v{(�f�����)��z�bz��.n7���칻�&�.+-�!������0��_��?�*^�f���g��K��O��fj)m��좘���+����w��f�����)��z�bz��.n7�������+����m�m��?�0��_��?�������+-�w���좙��[hv{(�����-��_��,���r�.n�+����{^���鮖ةj��,^u�.�֫�]x��y�zw^��좖�w�'�~������v{(��.�Ǭ��_��

If ISP located at China with domain name with www.*.com, then probably unreachable because of its RR stored in the DN Server located at USA. 
This was true when Taiwan earthquaked on Dec.26, 2006.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/27/boxing_day_earthquake_taiwan/

That is why the draft uses P2P technology.

>From: Joao Damas <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: 
>To: 黄理�?<[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
>Date:Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:17:05 +0200
>
>
>On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:58 AM, 黄理�?wrote:
>>
>>  For example, the fibre cables connecting US with China was broken  
>> by earthquake, then almost all web pages was unreachable even the  
>> machine was in China because of root servers are located in USA.
>
>Not so. Have a look at http://www.isc.org/ops/f-root/ for the part  
>that refers to f.root-servers.net
>There are at least 2 other Internet root server instances in mainland  
>China, and additional ones in the Hong Kong area.
>Lack of access to root servers was definitely not at the source of any  
>unreachability.
>
>Joao Damas
>ISC 
�^<��{��<
��z{Sʗ�{�V���Z�ǭ�Ƭr(� �z�"�}t
��z{S���}�ĝ��x;n+B�{^��Ⲛ,�ب�)�w�5#�����x%��C5#���_��!��l��0�'�~���f��f��X��)ߣ�g��

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:37:32 +0200

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:28:48PM +0800,
 ?????? <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 39 lines which said:

> If ISP located at China with domain name with www.*.com, then
> probably unreachable because of its RR stored in the DN Server
> located at USA.

We (the ".fr" registry) always use this marketing argument to convince
people to buy ".fr" and not ".com" :-) 

More seriously, if there is no ".com" name server in China, it is
indeed a problem (but I do not know if it is true or not) but just a
".com" deployment problem, not a DNS problem. I assume ".cn" does not
have this issue.

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/27/boxing_day_earthquake_taiwan/

This is not a serious report, just a small summary, not even
mentioning DNS. Nothing suggest it was a DNS problem.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:37:32 +0200

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:48:44 -0400

On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:37, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> indeed a problem (but I do not know if it is true or not)

If that was true, I think it would be a problem for Verisign, and for  
Chinese Internet users, and possibly ICANN, but I don't see that it's  
a problem for the IETF.

However, it seems to me that there's an instance of B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET  
in Beijing (or close by). Mtr fragment:

>>                                    Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best   
>> Wrst StDev
>>   2. 202.97.10.233                 0.0%    20    1.8   3.2   1.7   
>> 30.8   6.5
>>   3. 219.158.5.85                  0.0%    20    2.3   8.7   1.9  
>> 130.8  28.7
>>   4. 202.96.12.42                  0.0%    20    1.8   2.6   1.7   
>> 17.8   3.6
>>   5. 61.148.152.137                0.0%    20    2.2   2.2   1.8    
>> 3.2   0.3
>>   6. 61.148.156.130                0.0%    20    1.8   2.0   1.8    
>> 2.3   0.1
>>   7. 61.148.6.42                   0.0%    20    2.4   2.5   2.4    
>> 3.2   0.2
>>   8. 202.106.235.194               0.0%    20    2.4   2.4   2.3    
>> 2.6   0.1
>>   9. b.gtld-servers.net            0.0%    20    2.3   2.3   2.2    
>> 2.4   0.1

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:48:44 -0400

Joe