Re: verizon.net and other email grief

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On 16-dec-04, at 12:52, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> > That's definitely true, though it can be used successfully -- if 
> > there's a
> > very reliable kill-switch to withdraw the advertisement in a moment, 
> > or some
> > kind of fallback mechanism in place to handle gross failures.

> Using this as the *only* remedy for unavailability of an anycast 
> instance
> is insufficient given the speed at which bad news travels in BGP. You 
> want
> to have the service available at multiple addresses with each of those
> engineered as differently as possible.

And that's exactly why UltraDNS' treatment of .org is evil. I really 
don't understand why people with .org domains aren't complaining louder 
about this.

There are also other risks associated with anycast. See discussions on 
the IETF list earlier this year: about anycast + per packet load 
balancing ("[dnsop] Re: Root Anycast (fwd)", early october) and about 
root anycast ("13 Root Server Limitation", may).