History of 220.127.116.11. What's the story?
jabley at hopcount.ca
Sun Feb 14 17:04:46 CST 2010
On 2010-02-14, at 17:43, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> Using three consecutive addresses doesn't remove
> single points of failure in the routing system.
That depends on how the routes for those destinations are chosen, and
what routing system you're talking about.
For distribution of a service using anycast inside a single AS, and
with one route per service, it makes no difference whether the
addresses are adjacent. Two /24 routes are no more stable than two /32
routes within an IGP. There's no prefix filtering convention to
>> 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.
Whether it helps depends on what Level3's goals are. This is not
public infrastructure; this is a service operated by a commercial
For what it's worth, I have never heard of an ISP, big or small,
deciding to place resolvers used by their customers in someone else's
network. Perhaps I just need to get out more.
More information about the NANOG