On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:08:01 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said: > On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote: > > Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and > > creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments like > > this that raise the hair on admins' necks. At least mine.
> I don't get this. Why spend cycles discovering a value that doesn't need > to change? You've obviously never had to change a number in a /etc/resolv.conf because the number you've listed has gone bat-guano insane. If the root DNS address becomes a magic IP address (presumably some variety of anycast), it becomes a lot harder to change to another address if the closest anycast address goes insane. If root nameserver F (or merely the anycast instance I can see) goes bonkers(*), I can say "screw this, ask G and K instead". You can't do that if G and K are the same magic address as F. (*) "bonkers" for whatever operational definition you want - wedged hardware, corrupted database, coercion by men with legal documents and firearms, whatever.
pgp2qaoKrekTz.pgp
Description: PGP signature