Subject: noodling, looking for stats

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:24:21 -0500

Following the discussion on the ietf list last week, I've been thinking
about ways to quantify the degree of cache misses. It seems that a
reasonable way to determine an approximation of this would be by comparing
the number of answers for some TLD provided at the root with the number of
queries processed for that TLD. For example, how many times in a given
hour did x.root-servers.net provide a referral to .com, and how many
queries did x.gtld-servers.net get for .com in that same hour. This simple
comparison would give a general ratio which could be used to perform some
minimal projections, that N% of queries were forwarded from a cached
referral, while the remainder were not.

Is this kind of detail available?

off-list discussions/data welcome if desired

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 04:16:59 +0000

> ... This simple comparison would give a general ratio which could be
> used to perform some minimal projections, that N% of queries were
> forwarded from a cached referral, while the remainder were not.
> 

from some of the root servers but probably not from all of them.
note that some of the roots servers are also authoritative for some
tld's (.edu and .mil are examples) and in this case a referral from
the "root" will actually be to a second level name rather than a tld.
(i mention this only to avoid evaluating skewed data.)

i suspect that verisign would treat this as proprietary data about
.com, net, and .org, which are the busiest tld's.  you might be
able to get some tld operator to go along but i can't think of one
that's both (likely AND useful).