On 1/6/06 9:54 PM, "Steve Gibbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Wil Schultz wrote: >> >>> Apparently they have lost two authoritative servers. ETA is unknown. >> >> You forgot to mention that they only have two authoritative servers for >> most of their domains... > [snip] > > So from my uninformed vantage point, it looks like they started doing this > more or less right -- two servers or clusters of servers in two different > facilities, a few thousand miles apart on different power grids and not > subject to the same natural disasters. In other words, they did the hard > part. What they didn't do is put them in different BGP routes, which for > a network with as much IP space as Qwest has would seem fairly easy. > While it's tempting to make fun of Qwest here, variations on this theme -- > working hard on one area of design while ignoring another that's also > critical -- are really common. It's something we all need to be careful > of. > > Or, not having seen what happened here, the problem could have been > something completely different, perhaps even having nothing to do with > routing or network topology. In that case, my general point would remain > the same, but this would be a bad example to use. > > -Steve At some point in a carrier's growth, Anycast DNS has got to become a best practice. Are there many major carriers that don't do it today, or am I just a starry-eyed idealist? - Dan
