[76568] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: verizon.net and other email grief
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Thu Dec 16 14:53:19 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0412161025050.28903@pants.snark.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:52:46 +0100
To: just me <matt@snark.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 16-dec-04, at 19:33, just me wrote:
> The great thing about teh
> internat is that differing solutions to common problems are embraced.
> Better solutions reap their rewards, and generally survive.
> I wonder how many folks perpetually arguing this point have ever
> actually implemented anycasted DNS service?
> In any case, I cry uncle. Can we just agree to disagree?
No, we can't.
Reasonable people can and disagree on how much anycasting is exactly
right. This is somewhat important, as there is a tradeoff between
normal case performance and the likeliness of certain exceptional
failure modes.
However, having two IP addresses that are authoritative for a TLD and
then heavily anycasting those is just plain wrong because these failure
modes aren't very exceptional any more this way. This would be easily
fixed by adding more authoritative addresses and making their
anycasting different from the other addresses.
Having just two addresses is the main problem, the fact that they're
also anycast just makes it even worse under certain circumstances.
