History of 126.96.36.199. What's the story?
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Sun Feb 14 16:46:19 CST 2010
On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <10BE7B64-46FF-46D8-A428-268897413EB4 at hopcount.ca>, Joe Abley writes
>> On 2010-02-14, at 17:17, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still
>>> under the *one* external route and as such subject to single points
>>> of failure and as such don't have enough independence.
>> Are you asserting architectural control over what Level3 decide to do =
>> with their own servers, Mark? :-)
> No. The reason for multiple nameservers is to remove single points
> of failures. Using three consecutive addresses doesn't remove
> single points of failure in the routing system.
>> If their goal is distribute a service for the benefit of their own =
>> customers, then keeping all anycast nodes associated with that service =
>> on-net seems entirely sensible.
> Which only helps if *all* customers of those servers are also on net.
All _customers_ are.
People using a service which was not announced or support are not customers.
More information about the NANOG