[62582] in North American Network Operators' Group
apathy (was Re: .ORG problems this evening)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Vierling)
Fri Sep 19 11:38:55 2003
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:36:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <1227179200.1063988607@[192.168.100.8]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Alex Bligh wrote:
: > DNS site A goes down, but its BGP advertisements are still in effect.
: > (Their firewall still appears to be up, but DNS requests fail.) Host
: > site C cannot resolve ANYTHING from DNS site A, even though DNS site B is
: > still up and running. But host site C cannot see DNS site B!
:
: What you seem to be missing is that the BGP advert goes away when the DNS
: requests stop working.
It didn't. That's the problem.
I've repeatedly described how I do understand the methodology here. What's
being expressed on this list is blind faith and trust in an anycast-only
gTLD DNS scheme that has the possibility of routing to a single point of
failure.
This scheme has already failed once. ("When will it fail again?")
Established gTLD practice has not put trust in an anycast routing scheme
where one (1) destination might serve all queries for a host. What I've
tried to express is that the years-established, standard DNS redundancy
failover model could and should be implemented to complement -- not replace
-- this anycast model for something as critical as a Big Three gTLD.
That's fine; I give up due to pervasive community apathy. When this happens
again, I'll be sure to bring up the archive URL to the head of this thread.
<sigh>
--
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com>
