Remember though that anycast only solves for availability in one layer of the system and it is not difficult to create a less available anycast presence if you do silly things with the way you manage your routes. A system is only as available as the least available layer in that system
For example, if you use an automated system that changes your route advertisements and that system encounters a defect that breaks your announcements then although a well built anycast footprint might acheive 99.999, a poorly implemented management system that is less available and creates an outage would reduce the number. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Phil Fagan <philfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected. > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Beavis <pfu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I go with 99.999% given that you have a good number of DNS Servers > > (anycasted). > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Phil Fagan <philfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for > >> DNS reliability? > >> > >> 98% > >> 99% > >> 99.5% > >> 99.9% > >> 99.99% > >> 99.999% > >> > >> Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost. > >> > >> Whats the consensus? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Phil Fagan > >> Denver, CO > >> 970-480-7618 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail > > /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments > > > > Disclaimer: > > http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ > > > > > > -- > Phil Fagan > Denver, CO > 970-480-7618 > -- Glen Wiley KK4SFV "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery