nanog mailing list archives
Re: ultradns reachability
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 20:39:49 +0100 (BST)
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
All the failure modes that ISC has seen with anycast nameserver instances can be avoided (for the authoritative DNS service as a whole) by including one or more non-anycast nameservers in the NS set.
Am I missing something.. So you say: 10.1.0.1 Anycast (x50 boxes) 10.2.0.1 Non-anycast is somehow different from 10.1.0.1 Anycast1 (x50 boxes) 10.2.0.1 Anycast2 (x50 boxes - different to anycast1) In each scenario two systems have to fail to take out any one customer.. but isnt the bottom one better for the usual pro anycast reasons? Steve
Current thread:
- Re: ultradns reachability, (continued)
- Re: ultradns reachability James Edwards (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability k claffy (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability Edward B. Dreger (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability Joe Abley (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Leo Bicknell (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Joe Abley (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Leo Bicknell (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability James Edwards (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability Dr. Jeffrey Race (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Bill Woodcock (Jul 03)
- Re: ultradns reachability Leo Bicknell (Jul 03)
