nanog mailing list archives

Re: DNS Reliability


From: Phil Fagan <philfagan () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:49:57 -0600

Thumbs up on this one; my entire path and chain of management of that path
need to be equally fault tolerant - Awesome.


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Glen Wiley <glen.wiley () gmail com> wrote:

Remember though that anycast only solves for availability in one layer of
the system and it is not difficult to create a less available anycast
presence if you do silly things with the way you manage your routes. A
system is only as available as the least available layer in that system

For example, if you use an automated system that changes your route
advertisements and that system encounters a defect that breaks your
announcements then although a well built anycast footprint might acheive
99.999, a poorly implemented management system that is less available and
creates an outage would reduce the number.


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan () gmail com> wrote:

Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected.


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Beavis <pfunix () gmail com> wrote:

I go with 99.999% given that you have a good number of DNS Servers
(anycasted).


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan () gmail com>
wrote:

Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation
for
DNS reliability?

98%
99%
99.5%
99.9%
99.99%
99.999%

Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost.

Whats the consensus?


--
Phil Fagan
Denver, CO
970-480-7618




--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

Disclaimer:
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/




--
Phil Fagan
Denver, CO
970-480-7618




--
Glen Wiley
KK4SFV

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left
to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de
Saint-Exupery




-- 
Phil Fagan
Denver, CO
970-480-7618


Current thread: