Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> writes: > Let's check how these big companies are spreading their NS's. > > $ dig +short facebook.com NS > d.ns.facebook.com. > b.ns.facebook.com. > c.ns.facebook.com. > a.ns.facebook.com. > > $ dig +short google.com NS > ns1.google.com. > ns4.google.com. > ns2.google.com. > ns3.google.com. > > $ dig +short apple.com NS > a.ns.apple.com. > b.ns.apple.com. > c.ns.apple.com. > d.ns.apple.com. > > $ dig +short amazon.com NS > ns4.p31.dynect.net. > ns3.p31.dynect.net. > ns1.p31.dynect.net. > ns2.p31.dynect.net. > pdns6.ultradns.co.uk. > pdns1.ultradns.net. > > $ dig +short netflix.com NS > ns-1372.awsdns-43.org. > ns-1984.awsdns-56.co.uk. > ns-659.awsdns-18.net. > ns-81.awsdns-10.com.
Just to state the obvious: Names are irrelevant. Addresses are not. These names are just place holders for the glue in the parent zone anyway. If you look behind the names you'll find that Apple spread their servers between two ASes. So they are not as vulnerable as Google and Facebook. Bjørn
