Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org

[manning bill <bmanning () isi edu>]

alas, our service predates Joe’s marvelous text.

“B” provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
We don’t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or attempt to 
influence prefix announcement.

/bill
Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.

On 17March2014Monday, at 7:17, Joe Abley <jabley () hopcount ca> wrote:

> On 17 Mar 2014, at 7:39, John Bond <john.bond () icann org> wrote:
>
> > Global and Local nodes are very loosely defined terms.  However general
> > consensus of a local node is one that has a desired routing policy which
> > does not allow the service supernets to propagate globally.  As we impose
> > no policy we mark all nodes as global.
>
> I think the taxonomy is probably my fault. At least, I thought I invented it when I wrote
>
>  http://ftp.isc.org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt
>
> the pertinent text of which is this:
>
>   Two classes of node are described in this document:
>
>   Global Nodes advertise their service supernets such that they are
>      propagated globally through the routing system (i.e. they
>      advertise them for transit), and hence potentially provide service
>      for the entire Internet.
>
>   Local Nodes advertise their service supernets such that the radius of
>      propagation in the routing system is limited, and hence provide
>      service for a contained local catchment area.
>
>   Global Nodes provide a baseline degree of proximity to the entire
>   Internet. Multiple global nodes are deployed to ensure that the
>   general availability of the service does not rely on the availability
>   or reachability of a single global node.
>
>   Local Nodes provide contained regions of optimisation. Clients within
>   the catchment area of a local node may have their queries serviced by
>   a Local Node, rather than one of the Global Nodes.
>
> The operational considerations that you mention would have been great for me to think about when I wrote that text 
> (i.e. it's the intention of the originator of the route that's important, not the practical limit to propagation of 
> the route due to the policies of other networks).
>
> We did a slightly better job in RFC 4768 (e.g. "in such a way", "potentially"):
>
>   Local-Scope Anycast:  reachability information for the anycast
>      Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
>      way that a particular anycast node is only visible to a subset of
>      the whole routing system.
>
>   Local Node:  an Anycast Node providing service using a Local-Scope
>      Anycast Address.
>
>   Global-Scope Anycast:  reachability information for the anycast
>      Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
>      way that a particular anycast node is potentially visible to the
>      whole routing system.
>
>   Global Node:  an Anycast Node providing service using a Global-Scope
>      Anycast Address.
>
>
> Joe