On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:36:22PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
* bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com (bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com) [Fri 13 Sep
2013, 22:16 CEST]:
from where? to where? what % of the Internet is _not_
reachable from my DNS service at any given time? why is
that
* bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com (bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com) [Fri 13 Sep
2013, 22:16 CEST]:
from where? to where? what % of the Internet is _not_
reachable from my DNS service at any given time? why is
that acceptable? and more importantly, who's job is it to
On 16/09/2013 17:36, Niels Bakker wrote:
Is this thread even about authoritative or recursive DNS?
as far as I can tell, it's about waves hands wildly
Or something.
Nick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/09/13 12:45, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:03:44 -0600, Phil Fagan said:
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
On 09/13/13 03:53, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 9/12/2013 3:25 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected.
A small choice of attitude-reflecting language.
I expect 100.000%
I'll accept 99.999% or better.
It depends... define 'lost queries'. For
On 9/13/2013 2:14 AM, Marco Davids (Prive) wrote:
On 09/13/13 03:53, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 9/12/2013 3:25 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected.
A small choice of attitude-reflecting language.
I expect 100.000%
I'll accept 99.999% or better.
Tolerance for failure; I like it.
Eric - I'm interested in an accepted norm of loss of queries made to the
cache tier. Yes, when I provide a 'service' to a client (don't really care
about SLA) i'm interested in what the accepted norm or guidance is on %
loss on queries -- because this drives my
On 13-09-12 21:53, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I expect 100.000%
I'll accept 99.999% or better.
At these numbers, one has to start to count failover time. A system
can be disaster tolerant but take 2 hours to recover fully, or it could
also recover within a couple of seconds. It depends on
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:01:51PM -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
On 13-09-12 21:53, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I expect 100.000%
I'll accept 99.999% or better.
At these numbers, one has to start to count failover time. A system
can be disaster tolerant but take 2 hours to recover
On 2013-09-13, at 16:01, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-09-12 21:53, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I expect 100.000%
I'll accept 99.999% or better.
At these numbers, one has to start to count failover time.
Before really any part of this thread makes sense, you
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:03 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?
ICANN new gTLD
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
Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
DNS reliability?
...
Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost.
this is the wrong question. the protocol is designed assuming query
failures.
randy
To me anything below 99.99% is unacceptable.
100 failures out of 100,000 queries still seems like a lot especially if
its not network related.
So I would say 99.999% would be what I would look for.
Thanks
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Phil Fagan philfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything else
Thumbs up on this one; my entire path and chain of management of that path
need to be equally fault tolerant - Awesome.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Glen Wiley glen.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember though that anycast only solves for availability in one layer of
the system and it is not
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:
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
Good reference; thank you.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:03 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%
On Sep 12, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
DNS reliability?
...
Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost.
this is the wrong question. the protocol is designed assuming query
failures.
we're already outside our operating envelope, if these community
expectation figures are believable. a wise man once said to me that when
setting formal conformance targets its a good idea to only set ones you can
honestly achieve, otherwise you're setting yourself up to be measured to
fail. I
we're already outside our operating envelope
not really. just some folk seem not to understand things such as udp
datagrams and the dns protocols.
randy
you removed a clause in that sentence randy:
we're already outside our operating envelope, if these community
expectation figures are believable
there is a point to that clause. its the same as your answer in some
respects.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
we're already outside our operating envelope
not really. just some folk seem not to understand things such as udp
datagrams and the dns protocols.
randy
Statistically, UDP sometimes arrives after an internet wide round trip.
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:03:44 -0600, Phil Fagan said:
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?
Remember to factor in Duane Wessel's
On 9/12/2013 3:25 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected.
A small choice of attitude-reflecting language.
I expect 100.000%
I'll accept 99.999% or better.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM, George William Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
The other subthread about routeability plays into that. For BIGPLACE
environments, you should be considering how many AS numbers independently
host DNS instances for you, in how many geographical regions,
On 9/12/13 1:39 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
ICANN new gTLD agreements specified 100% availability for the service,
meaning at least 2 DNS IP addresses answered 95% of requests within 500 ms
(UDP) or 1500 ms (TCP) for 51+% of the probes, or 99% availability for a
single name server, defined as 1 DNS
27 matches
Mail list logo
