As a lot of people are offering secondary services: may be it's a good idea
to place infrastructural services at IXP. IXP seem to be more stable than
any ISPs and often more neutral than ISPs.
Comments?
Arnold
While a good idea, not everyone can announce or reach the
IX fabrics that they connect to or are out there.
One solution to that problem is to have the IX operate a
zeebra/gated/whatnot box (or router+machine combo) that
announces a /24 and as part of connecting to the IX people
are required to peer (and provide transit) for that /24 for
the "good of the internet".
This would allow everyone that connects to the IX to see
the benifits of having a close (to their network that is) dns server
as well as if my provider does not announce the DE-CIX, LINX, mae-e, mae-w,
paix, nyiix, or whatever space to me, i can still reach a server
placed at the IX via their network or via their peers/upstreams.
- Jared
http://puck.nether.net/dns/
(very rough ui)
Yes, but there is problem about the transit for the network of the IXP
In my experience, some big providers only have the commercial view of
internet.
Really, if all the IXP members give some transit to the IXP for essential
services, internet will be more robust.
Daniel
Intelideas
This is done in Sweden, by the exchange point company Netnod,
<http://www.netnod.se/>. They have an AS of their own, which is free to
peer with, in which a number of crucial services are located, for instance:
* Root DNS server
* COM/NET/ORG DNS server
* DNS for a number of ccTLDs including Sweden.
* NTP masters directly synchronised to swedish standard time
* RIPE whois mirror.
Some of these services are present at several Netnod IXen, notably ccTLD
and NTP.
It works, and gives excellent service levels.
Yes, but there is problem about the transit for the network of the IXP
In my experience, some big providers only have the commercial view of
internet.
If an IXP decides to offer infrastructural services then you have to buy
upstream of course.
Really, if all the IXP members give some transit to the IXP for essential
services, internet will be more robust.
At least each IXP member would have direct connectivity to such
infrastructural services (DNS, NTP, WHOIS, NNTP??) and thereby their
customers would benefit from it.
And an IXP should be in a good position to get upstream :-)) And for
the commercials: these services are not for free of course. So bills
for IXP members will drop not raise.
-- Arnold
Indeed, for example k.root-servers.net is hosted at LINX and is reachable
globally by this kind of setup..
Steve
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote (on Jun 06):
Indeed, for example k.root-servers.net is hosted at LINX and is reachable
globally by this kind of setup..
A few of LINXs' members also transit the services provided by LINX
"for the good of the community" - ie, at zero cost. That includes
k.root. I don't mind doing it. I wouldn't mind for others either.
Chris.
Hi,
Just as a (potentially self-serving, apologies if this offends) aside, there
are several companies that specialize in DNS hosting out there. The one
that I'm most familiar with (Nominum's), co-locates our equipment at IXPs,
has an open peering policy (of course), and has multiple (paid) transit
providers. We decided upon this approach for exactly the reasons you
indicate: they tend to be both more stable and more neutral than ISPs. We
also believe locating at IXPs can reduce latency and improve performance.
We were already providing secondary for one of the TLDs affected by
ns.eu.net going away and would, of course, be happy to provide services to
others.
Rgds,
-drc
<http://www.netnod.se/>\. They have an AS of their own, which is free to
peer with, in which a number of crucial services are located, for
...as long as you provide transit for free. Which I don't see why you wouldn't. Even Tier-1 providers (and ex- such..
) do this.
Best regards,
- kurtis -