nanog mailing list archives
Re: ultradns reachability
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:16:08 -0400
On 2 Jul 2004, at 10:43, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Note in the later pages what happens to particular servers under packet loss. They all start to show an affinity for a subset of the servers. It's been said that by putting some non-anycasted servers in with the anycasted servers what can happen is if the anycast has issues many things will "latch on" to the non-anycasted servers and not go back even when the anycast is fixed.
In my opinion, the primary purpose of anycast distribution of nameservers is reliability of the service as a whole, and not performance. Being able to reach a server is much more important than whether you can get a reply from a particular server in 10ms or 500ms.
So, I think the issue you mention (which is certainly mention-worthy) is a much smaller problem than the apparently observed problem of all nameservers in the NS set being unavailable.
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: ultradns reachability, (continued)
- Re: ultradns reachability Christopher X. Candreva (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability Chris Adams (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability Eric Frazier (Jul 01)
- 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)