[122432] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sun Feb 14 17:51:00 2010
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <201002142243.o1EMhx44071536@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:46:19 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <10BE7B64-46FF-46D8-A428-268897413EB4@hopcount.ca>, Joe =
Abley writes
> :
>> On 2010-02-14, at 17:17, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> Are you asserting architectural control over what Level3 decide to do =
=3D
>> with their own servers, Mark? :-)
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>> If their goal is distribute a service for the benefit of their own =3D
>> customers, then keeping all anycast nodes associated with that =
service =3D
>> on-net seems entirely sensible.
>=20
> Which only helps if *all* customers of those servers are also on net.
All _customers_ are.
People using a service which was not announced or support are not =
customers.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
