[128775] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Aug 16 03:15:32 2010
To: Mike <mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:49:05 PDT."
<4C68DF61.6080601@tiedyenetworks.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:14:53 -0400
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1281942893_5254P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:49:05 PDT, Mike said:
> I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
> nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
> wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
> from eachother? Anyone got advice either way
Microsoft used to have all their DNS servers on one /24. Nine years later,
you can still use Google on just 'microsoft dns server failure subnet' and
find this on the second page of over a million hits:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/01/41423
(OK, so our local resolvers are in one /24, but it's a bridged VLAN across our
entire campus, the servers are physically in buildings several miles apart, and
if you can't reach at least one of them, it probably means our campus core
network is hosed enough that you're not going to do anything with a DNS
response anyhow... Our authoritative servers are split across 2 different AS's
in 2 different states.)
Whatever gave you the idea that collective wisdom could *possibly* have
moved away from "spread it out as far as you can to avoid single points of
failure"?
--==_Exmh_1281942893_5254P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFMaOVtcC3lWbTT17ARAn7BAJ4l8XEtp4OkI2+VG+81ycgCC5QiKgCg/ydN
mUkBa0fqCOiv3sMmGVOepwo=
=07nf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1281942893_5254P--
