[122429] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Sun Feb 14 17:44:27 2010
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:35:54 CDT."
<10BE7B64-46FF-46D8-A428-268897413EB4@hopcount.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:43:59 +1100
Cc: Sean Reifschneider <jafo@tummy.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <10BE7B64-46FF-46D8-A428-268897413EB4@hopcount.ca>, Joe Abley writes
:
> On 2010-02-14, at 17:17, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still
> > under the *one* external route and as such subject to single points
> > of failure and as such don't have enough independence.
>
> Are you asserting architectural control over what Level3 decide to do =
> with their own servers, Mark? :-)
No. The reason for multiple nameservers is to remove single points
of failures. Using three consecutive addresses doesn't remove
single points of failure in the routing system.
> If their goal is distribute a service for the benefit of their own =
> customers, then keeping all anycast nodes associated with that service =
> on-net seems entirely sensible.
Which only helps if *all* customers of those servers are also on net.
> Joe
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
