nanog mailing list archives
Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems)
From: Craig Partridge <craig () aland bbn com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:33:20 -0500
In message <3A6F3FB8.FA526852 () senie com>, Daniel Senie writes:
Looking at traces to Microsoft's DNS servers (which are all hosted on the same ISP backbone, bad idea) shows 50% packet loss right now from ATT Broadband. It's possible the servers will actually answer DNS queries, but the protocols don't survive all that well in the face of 50% or greater packet loss.
Past evidence (like times in 1987 and 1988 when we ran the DNS over links with 50% loss and higher, and experience on the bottlenecked trans Atlantic cable a few years back) suggests the DNS works pretty well with high loss regimes. Craig
Current thread:
- Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) John Payne (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Dave McKay (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) jamie rishaw (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Charles Scott (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Daniel Senie (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Craig Partridge (Feb 24)
- RFC 2182 was: Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Jim Mercer (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) jamie rishaw (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Dave McKay (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Daniel Roesen (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Chris Cappuccio (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Dave McKay (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Steven J. Sobol (Feb 24)
- Re: Great job AT&T (re: Microsoft problems) Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)