nanog mailing list archives
Re: quietly....
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:49:04 +0000
On 02/02/2011 17:43, Matt Addison wrote:
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? What's wrong with having default well known (potentially anycasted) resolver addresses, which can then be overridden by RA/DHCP/static configuration?
because that increases the complexity of the system, and complexity leads to more failure modes. If you model how this would work on a state diagram, you'll see that there are several inherent ways that this will cause serious problems when people start doing things like removing the well known addresses (because they don't use them), and so forth.
This is a well-examined problem: well known unicast listener addresses are a bad, bad idea.
Nick
Current thread:
- Re: quietly...., (continued)
- Re: quietly.... Antonio Querubin (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... George Herbert (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... John Payne (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Mark Andrews (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... David Barak (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Lamar Owen (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... david raistrick (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Matt Addison (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Nick Hilliard (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Nick Hilliard (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... David Conrad (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Joel Jaeggli (Feb 13)
- Re: quietly.... David Conrad (Feb 13)
- Re: quietly.... Joel Jaeggli (Feb 13)
- Re: quietly.... bmanning (Feb 13)
- Re: quietly.... David Conrad (Feb 13)
- Re: quietly.... Matt Addison (Feb 02)