On donderdag, sep 18, 2003, at 13:38 Europe/Amsterdam, Todd Vierling
wrote:
: ultradns uses the power of anycast to have these ips that appear
: to be on close subnets in geographyically diverse locations.
Oh, that's brilliant. How nice of them to defeat the concept of
redundancy
by
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
: BIND does it but what about Microsoft cache/forwarder? At RIPE 45 (you
: were there), a talk by people at CAIDA showed that A.root-servers.net
: received twice as much traffic as the other root name servers since it
: is just the first one
On donderdag, sep 18, 2003, at 14:08 Europe/Amsterdam, Stephane
Bortzmeyer wrote:
BGP is really bad at. DNS servers on the other hand track RTTs for
query responses
BIND does it but what about Microsoft cache/forwarder? At RIPE 45 (you
were there),
Was I???
a talk by people at CAIDA showed
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
: There's an easy fix to that particular situation: Make the first (or first
: two) listed servers anycast, and the rest unicast.
:
: It would require a central management (or at least a central
: oversight) of the root name servers and I do not
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
: Still doesn't help .ORG, which is 100% anycast and thus has no DNS-based
: redundancy
:
: Wrong since there are two IP addresses. They may fail at the same time
: (which apparently happened to you) but there is a least an element of
: non-BGP
: There's an easy fix to that particular situation: Make the first (or first
: two) listed servers anycast, and the rest unicast.
:
: It would require a central management (or at least a central
: oversight) of the root name servers and I do not believe there is one:
: each root name
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
: Still doesn't help .ORG, which is 100% anycast and thus has no DNS-based
: redundancy
:
: Wrong since there are two IP addresses. They may fail at the same time
: (which apparently happened to
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
: 1. Only you were affected
I doubt this. At least one person has noted seeing the same on this list,
and I bet many more would corroborate by looking for DNS temp failures for
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED] in mail logs from last night between about
In a message written on Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:57:23AM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
The problem with UltraDNS, the point which many on this people are missing,
is that at least some UltraDNS sites are advertising *all* anycast networks
simultaneously (see traceroutes below). Yes, all == 2 at
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
: Number your sites from 1..N, have all odds announce one address, all
: evens the other. DNS servers will still use the closest (due to RTT
: checking), but will now also have a backup that does not go to the same
: site in steady state, but is still
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
A truely robust anycast setup has two addresses (or networks, or
whatever), but only one per site. From the momentary outage while
BGP reconverges to the very real problem of the service being down
and the route still being announced there are issues
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
A truely robust anycast setup has two addresses (or networks, or
whatever), but only one per site. From the momentary outage while
BGP reconverges to the very real problem of the service being down
and the route still being announced there are
12 matches
Mail list logo
