[73228] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Summary with further Question: Domain Name System protection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W Gilmore)
Tue Aug 17 00:48:30 2004
In-Reply-To: <20040817043127.GA21285@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
From: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:46:00 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Aug 17, 2004, at 12:31 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>>> 4. Anycast is the most scalable and standard solution
>>>> for dispersed DNS server farm, while layer-4 switch
>>>> could deal could do with centralized server farm;
>>>
>>> its not a standard.
>>
>> <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1546.txt>, aka _Host Anycasting
>> Service_
>>
>> Looks pretty standard to me.
>
>
> Nope. Its -INFORMATIONAL- e.g. Not a Standard.
Ahhh, I see.
>> Not to mention being used in production on several major networks for
>> over half a decade (read: "forever") on the Internet is pretty well
>> tested technology.
>
> true enough. but not "the most scaleable and standard solution"
Yeah, well, neither is HTTP for that matter. But most people would
consider both of them pretty standard(ized?).
I'm perfectly happy for someone to quote even an _informational_ RFC as
a "standard". Guess I'm weird.
Sorry if everyone thinks differently.
--
TTFN,
patrick
P.S. That would be "i.e.". If you are going to argue semantic points,
you should get your grammar right. =)
