verizon.net and other email grief
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Dec 16 13:27:52 UTC 2004
On 16-dec-04, at 12:52, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>> That's definitely true, though it can be used successfully -- if
>> there's a
>> very reliable kill-switch to withdraw the advertisement in a moment,
>> or some
>> kind of fallback mechanism in place to handle gross failures.
> Using this as the *only* remedy for unavailability of an anycast
> instance
> is insufficient given the speed at which bad news travels in BGP. You
> want
> to have the service available at multiple addresses with each of those
> engineered as differently as possible.
And that's exactly why UltraDNS' treatment of .org is evil. I really
don't understand why people with .org domains aren't complaining louder
about this.
There are also other risks associated with anycast. See discussions on
the IETF list earlier this year: about anycast + per packet load
balancing ("[dnsop] Re: Root Anycast (fwd)", early october) and about
root anycast ("13 Root Server Limitation", may).
More information about the NANOG
mailing list