On 27/08/05, Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org> wrote:
If we look at the Asia-Pacific region (for these purposes everything east of the UAE and West of the Americas), and then exclude Japan, Korea, and Singapore, countries that are undisputably part of the Internet core, what we've got are a bunch of F and I Roots, with a K Root in Brisbane and now a K Root somewhere in India. Having root servers that are part of three different anycast clouds would make India somewhat special within its region.
The crying shame of it all is that most ISPs, for various reasons [below] don't advertise all their routes at nixi - and so exchange piddly little amounts of traffic where they could exchange LOTS more. So, you'd find a whole lot of Indian traceroutes, even between two local ISPs, go out through Singapore (or possibly Reach / NTT now, in some cases), and/or PAIX Having three anycast instances in a country is no damned use when the nearest roots, network wise, are elsewhere. If traffic stats from those things are available, and are studied, I am reasonably sure we'd get some interesting results. But for now, having X number of anycast roots in the country is only scoring brownie points in the i-governance debate. --srs Reasons include - * don't have good people with bgp clue, only "senior network admins" who ask Philip Smith what a route map is, in an advanced bgp tutorial at a recent SANOG... * don't trust each other too much at all, and fear that peering means that people can rip them off by using those links for transit as well * have a network that's a mess of botched mpls and other implementations, all held together by a bunch of static routes upstream * or in some cases have, besides their usual IP space, a huge lot of deaggregated IP blocks that are a legacy from when they had a whole lot of leased lines purchased from the then incumbent + sole upstream VSNL ..