[governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

Tue Aug 7 01:51:07 EDT 2012

Parminder,

let's assume you may be right. Then, do as engineers do: design and test.

The easiest way to support your view that " the number 13 [root servers] can be expanded without much difficulty " is to get the best engineer in ITForChange and start participating in the IETF with a proposal. Better if it takes into account previous explorations of the subject.

All techno-political framing clouds will dispel.

Alejandro Pisanty

! !! !!! !!!!
NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO

SMS +525541444475
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Enviado el: martes, 07 de agosto de 2012 00:17
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad
Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

David,

On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Parminder,

On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd .

No.

There is a "distribution master".

So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training like Daniel said is a recent email;

"As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server."

Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers).

"Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention."

Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious!

In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above example, I will try and find others in your email below :)

(snip)

That's all.  There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone.
Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago

"The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " (David)

Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators.

It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we are discussing the power of root server operators, which is geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are merely stupid!

How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a sociological 'fact'.

(snip)
What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the difference.

As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist.

Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries.

This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information.

Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate.

:). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical community has -  its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult!

(snip)

You misread.  The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default maximum DNS message size still exists.  While there are now ways around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service.
No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance.

So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy.

Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy.
This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email.

regards
parminder

Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy.

As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their decision.  To date, there has apparently been insufficient justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner".

With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy?

I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true?

Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture".

Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server.

Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed.

If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they?

In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner the zone transfer password.

Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch.

I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators,

Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers).

so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points.

In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations.  Geography is largely irrelevant.

Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute of Technology.

Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of hardware being shipped into the country (see http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786).

Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers?

Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist.  There is no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you will give your root server to IIT".  You and others that care about this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that decision.

Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet.

No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server.

Merging a subsequent note:

On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote:
' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server.

Yes.  However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can gain control of that machine.  Obtaining such control would violate the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant.

This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers.

I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not what is actually written.  No one (to my knowledge) has suggested "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory".  Root service is considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best.  Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion?

As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root servers are operated is "hunky-dory".  I am not among them.

Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister?

Yes. Really.

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120807/a07e309f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t