<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Hi Chris,</div>On 8 December 2015 at 16:35:29, Chris Amin (<a href="mailto:camin@ripe.net">camin@ripe.net</a>) wrote: <div><blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div><div></div><div>On 08/12/2015 16:16, Nico CARTRON wrote: > On 8 December 2015 at 16:07:02, Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer@nic.fr > <mailto:bortzmeyer@nic.fr>) wrote: >> http://root-servers.org/news/events-of-20151130.txt > > Thanks Stéphane for your reactivity, as usual :) > > “Such test traffic may not be indicative of what happens to normal > traffic or user experience”. > > Not entirely sure what this means behind, or is it just them trying to > minimise the impact? It could be a bit of expectation management on their part. I agree with the statement that DNSMON and other similar tools do not provide direct insight into end user experience, but that is also not their goal. DNSMON at least is deliberately designed to measure from stable vantage points (RIPE Atlas anchors, formerly TTM boxes), and makes no attempt to simulate how recursive resolvers and end user operating systems may behave. In fact, it avoids such attempts, even to the point that it never retries a failed query, which most clients would do. I would argue that this is a feature of the system, providing as it does a nice clear signal that functions as a good metric for traffic between recursive resolvers and the authoritative servers. For reference, this is what DNSMON "saw" during the reported time period, which seems to correspond to the times in the report: […]</div></div></blockquote></div>Fully agreed, but I still don’t see why they are downplaying the event like this.Tools such as DNSMON are useful, and of course need to be taken with a grain of salt and not blindly believed “as it”.A lot of users/eyeballs have noticed problems, so pretending this did not happen is not really… constructive.(OK, they did not pretend this did not happen, but downplaying is kind of the same to me). Cheers,-- Nico<div></div></body></html>