[136352] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Wed Feb 2 12:51:47 2011
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:49:04 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: Matt Addison <matt.addison@lists.evilgeni.us>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinSOGpdLMczXkFP-k0eweRrjcysNO6qVGg002ee@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 02/02/2011 17:43, Matt Addison wrote:
> Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? What's wrong with having default
> well known (potentially anycasted) resolver addresses, which can then be
> overridden by RA/DHCP/static configuration?
because that increases the complexity of the system, and complexity leads
to more failure modes. If you model how this would work on a state
diagram, you'll see that there are several inherent ways that this will
cause serious problems when people start doing things like removing the
well known addresses (because they don't use them), and so forth.
This is a well-examined problem: well known unicast listener addresses are
a bad, bad idea.
Nick
