[137523] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Feb 15 12:43:24 2011
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:08:01 +0100."
<97EF8D2D-B47C-44FB-94B0-816C998F9A1C@muada.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:41:26 -0500
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1297791686_4968P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:08:01 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
> > Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and
> > creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments like
> > this that raise the hair on admins' necks. At least mine.
> I don't get this. Why spend cycles discovering a value that doesn't need
> to change?
You've obviously never had to change a number in a /etc/resolv.conf because
the number you've listed has gone bat-guano insane.
If the root DNS address becomes a magic IP address (presumably some variety
of anycast), it becomes a lot harder to change to another address if the
closest anycast address goes insane. If root nameserver F (or merely the
anycast instance I can see) goes bonkers(*), I can say "screw this, ask G and K
instead".
You can't do that if G and K are the same magic address as F.
(*) "bonkers" for whatever operational definition you want - wedged hardware,
corrupted database, coercion by men with legal documents and firearms, whatever.
--==_Exmh_1297791686_4968P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNWrrGcC3lWbTT17ARAlrrAKDLiiDhlh1MTy08FgC31n6TPgS51wCfXknp
OIz++ofxMS5nu5UDV2m5JTk=
=TOI1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1297791686_4968P--
