Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure

[Alexander Koch <koch () tiscali net>]

On Thu, 31 March 2005 14:42:34 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>       On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
>     > Yes, the selection of criteria could be biased.  Or Telcordia compared
>     > apples and oranges when it compared Verisign's 100 ms to DENIC's
>     > 200 ms (or what the actual numbers where).
>
> Yeah, I was a little curious about the composition of the latency number 
> as well...  A heavily-splayed anycast deployment should have influenced 
> that number favorably, I'd have thought, but apparently not.

Hmh.

;; ANSWER SECTION:
de.                     171765  IN      NS      A.NIC.de.
de.                     171765  IN      NS      F.NIC.de.
de.                     171765  IN      NS      C.DE.NET.
de.                     171765  IN      NS      L.DE.NET.
de.                     171765  IN      NS      S.DE.NET.
de.                     171765  IN      NS      Z.NIC.de.

a.nic.de is with RIPE in Amsterdam
f.nic.de and z.nic.de are in Frankfurt
c.de.net. is with Savvis in Santa Clara
s.de.net is with Deutsche Telekom in Germany
l.de.net I see over Mediaways/Telefonica DE in London (what a poor choice, scary)

They have anycasted nodes elsewhere in the US, I know, but
the picture I am getting here is sad.

Alexander