On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 19:16:16 -0600, "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 15:49 6/12/2004, Kenneth Porter wrote: > > Kenneth, while your comment is technically correct, in my not-so-humble > opinion it is a very poor recommendation to give others. Having every > nickel-and-dime home network go straight to the root servers is going to > create exponential growth of the load on those servers; the fact that large > backbone providers serve ISP's who in turn serve their customers is one of > the things that helps make the Internet scalable. The actual root servers have a lot of extra capacity. The servers more likely to need to be beefed up are the gtld servers that handle .com. However, neither ICANN nor Network Solutions get a lot of sympathy from me. For what they charge they can run a few more servers and the world's ISPs can run a few less. > As an example: say there are only three layers of service providers between > the typical home/SOHO/smallbiz network and the root servers. If there were > only 1,000 companies in each layer (which is ridiculously small) and only > 5% of the typical small networks went straight to the rootservers, then one > can see that out of 1,000,000,000 (one billion) small networks, there > would now be an additional 50,000,000 (fifty million) small networks > directly querying the rootservers. Those numbers add up, man. Remember home caches don't go right to the root servers for every request. You will only need to look up gtld addresses about every day and a half. The amount of extra traffic is very small compared to other things I do. A mistaken download can waste more network bandwidth than I use for DNS lookups in a year. The real difference is whose servers handle the requests. ICANN and Network Solutions get paid a lot more money than they should be to run this stuff. They can afford to handle a little cost shifting from ISPs to their servers.
