[76604] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anycast 101
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Fri Dec 17 07:12:21 2004
In-Reply-To: <20041217112515.GB6301@nic.fr>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:11:53 +0100
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 17-dec-04, at 12:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> but even if 5 or 8 or 12 addresses become unreachable the timeouts
>> get bad enough for users to notice.
> We can turn this into a Good Practice: do not put an instance of every
> root name server on any given exchange point.
> Actually, this is only a theoretical issue, the current maximum seems
> to be only three (at the LINX in London).
Well, there may be only three "at" the LINX, but from where I'm
sitting, 7 are reachable over the AMS-IX, 4 over ISP #1 and 1 over ISPs
#2 and #3, respectively.
Interestingly enough, b, c, d and f all share this hop:
6 portch1.core01.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (195.69.144.124)
(195.69.144.0/23 is the AMS-IX exchange subnet.)
