nanog mailing list archives
Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:08:02 -0700
On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> said:1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable breaks the whole Internet as far as users are concerned.)How do you do this in the IPv6 world, where I get a single /32? Will others accept announcements of two /33s to better handle things like this?
The better solution is to trade secondary services with some other provider. Sure, it's a bit of a pain keeping up with the new zones to be added and old zones to be removed back and forth, but, it's a great way to have your authoritative servers truly diverse and independent. Owen
Current thread:
- Numbering nameservers and resolvers Mike (Aug 15)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 16)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Chris Adams (Aug 16)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Owen DeLong (Aug 16)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Matthew Palmer (Aug 17)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Sven Olaf Kamphuis (Aug 17)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Jared Mauch (Aug 17)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Joe Greco (Aug 17)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Phil Vandry (Aug 18)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Lyndon Nerenberg (Aug 18)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Chris Adams (Aug 16)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Joe Greco (Aug 17)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Chris Adams (Aug 17)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Jared Mauch (Aug 17)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 16)
- Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers John Kristoff (Aug 17)