At 5:23 PM 2/18/97, Karl Denninger wrote: [...]
BTW, churn is the right word. Its taking anywhere from 5-10 *seconds* to come back as NXDOMAIN on each request for those that fail to resolve, and this is from the IANA roots.
Churn shmurn. Those domains are probably ones that have been paid for (to the InterNIC), but aren't yet being used. Who's accessing those unused domains and doing all this needless churning? We should find 'em and string 'em up.
Seems like most of the churning would be caused by spammers and testers like yourself.
I'd be interested in seeing actual machine statistics on how much performance degredation can be attributed to lack of responses. Without those statistics, I can't see how the InterNIC fees aren't covering this scenario.
Well, RFC2010 specifies a latency of 5ms at 1,200 requests/second. I can guarantee you're not meeting that right now on any of the existing COM servers. I'm seeing five *SECOND* response times right now to get back an NXDOMAIN. Lots of people hit non-existant domains. The problem is that this is only a linear degredation problem for a while -- when working sets get into the hundreds of megabytes (as they are for the COM tld servers right now) degredation isn't linear any longer -- its far worse. Pull 60% of the records off those servers and performance would improve by far more than 60% -- it would probably cut average service times by at least 75%, and I wouldn't be surprised to see latencies drop by 90%.
As was mentioned before, you shouldn't have to pay an ISP to have a domain name reserved.
Chris Russo
Why not? You have to pay NSI! If you're not going to *USE* the domain, why should you be able to register it at all? DNS names aren't things you bandy about - - they exist to perform a translation function. Tell me what the difference is between $50 a year and $100 a year? Not much. You can't get away from the first, and I don't see what the big deal is with the second, given the existance of the first charge. And by the way, from the analysis that I've done, if you think $50 a year is bad from NSI wait until the IAHC's domains come online. With the stats that I have right now on bogus nameservers and domains I'm willing to bet the *break-even* price for those new registrars is going to be closer to $200 a year per domain -- not $50.00. NSI is going to be the *LOW* price supplier under the IAHC proposal. You heard it here first. And the only way to prevent *THAT* is to force free-market competition into the root level of the domain tree. I think we can easily make a profit at half of NSI's fee ($25/year). But there's no way we can do it for $25.00 under the IAHC's plan with the overhead and policy things they're mandating. That's just on the *economic* front. Folks, we run the network (this *IS* NANOG, right? :-) Let's start actually running it for a change... DNS is one of those things that we ought to be able to do right, and do in an open and competitive format. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal