On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
>
> is anyone else seeing timeouts reaching ultradns' .org nameservers?
>
> I'm seeing seemingly random timeout failures from both sbci and uc berkeley.
I'm seeing random DNS failures in general -- in the last half hour I had
failures on isc.org, slashd
Well
http://www.dnsstuff.com is showing it also
(http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/lookup.ch?name=mariners.org&type=A)
How I am searching:
Searching for A record for mariners.org at j.root-servers.net: Got
referral to TLD2.ULTRADNS.NET. [took 93 ms]
Searching for A record for mariners.org at TLD2.U
Once upon a time, Matt Ghali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> is anyone else seeing timeouts reaching ultradns' .org nameservers?
>
> I'm seeing seemingly random timeout failures from both sbci and uc berkeley.
One is working and one is not from here.
$ dig +norec @tld1.ultradns.net whoareyou.ultrad
Yes, it looks like it is starting to get back to normal since I got your
email :)
As far as I could tell it started around 5:30 PST and ended around 6:00 PST.
Thanks,
Eric
At 06:01 PM 7/1/2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
is anyone else seeing timeouts reaching ultradns' .org nameservers?
I'm seeing seemin
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, James Edwards wrote:
> http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html
>
my mrtg skillz are kind of lame, but this seems to show 2/3rds outage from
this monitoring point of view. It'd be nice if the aforementioned
'what/where/who' info was available for each monitoring point CYMRU
u
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:06:59AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, James Edwards wrote:
> http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html
>
my mrtg skillz are kind of lame, but this seems to show 2/3rds outage from
this monitoring point of view. It'd be nice i
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, k claffy wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:06:59AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, James Edwards wrote:
> > http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html
> >
> Anycast makes the pinpointing of problems a little challenging from the
> external p
CLM> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:18:07 + (GMT)
CLM> From: Christopher L. Morrow
[ editted for brevity -- some punctuation/wording modified ]
CLM> So, I thought of it like this. Rodney/Centergate/UltraDNS
CLM> knows:
[ snip enumeration ]
CLM> [and] should know almost exactly when they have
On 2 Jul 2004, at 00:18, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
So, I thought of it like this:
1) Rodney/Centergate/UltraDNS knows where all their 35000billion
copies of
the 2 .org TLD boxes are, what network pieces they are connected to at
which bandwidths and the current utilization
2) Rodney/Centergate/
In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:22:09AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> This leaves the anycast servers providing all the optimisation that
> they are good for (local nameserver in toplogically distant networks;
> distributed DDoS traffic sink; reduced transaction RTT) and provides a
>
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:22:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>With the fix above, the problem becomes "hey, *some* of the nameservers
>for ORG are dead! We should fix that, but since not *all* of them are
>dead, at least ORG still works."
Sorry, I missed the top of this thread. I cannot mail an ORG cor
On 2 Jul 2004, at 10:43, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Note in the later pages what happens to particular servers under
packet loss. They all start to show an affinity for a subset of
the servers. It's been said that by putting some non-anycasted
servers in with the anycasted servers what can happen is if
In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:16:08AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> In my opinion, the primary purpose of anycast distribution of
> nameservers is reliability of the service as a whole, and not
> performance. Being able to reach a server is much more important than
> whether you ca
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
> All the failure modes that ISC has seen with anycast nameserver
> instances can be avoided (for the authoritative DNS service as a whole)
> by including one or more non-anycast nameservers in the NS set.
Am I missing something..
So you say:
10.1.0.1 Any
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> So the question is not so much "is 500ms towards the server
> bad", it's "can I build a single server (cluster) that will take
> all the load worldwide when the client software does bad things."
DNS traffic, surprisingly, is not very "fat". It is no HTTP
In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:55:13PM -0700, Matt Ghali wrote:
> DNS traffic, surprisingly, is not very "fat". It is no HTTP nor SMTP.
>
> The engineering behind appropriately sizing a unicast fallback would
> be pretty trivial, especially compared to building a somewhat-robust
>
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> 10.1.0.1 Anycast1 (x50 boxes)
> 10.2.0.1 Anycast2 (x50 boxes - different to anycast1)
> In each scenario two systems have to fail to take out any one customer.. but
> isnt the bottom one better for the usual pro anycast reasons?
18 matches
Mail list logo
