ultradns reachability

Sat Jul 3 13:06:58 UTC 2004

In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:55:13PM -0700, Matt Ghali wrote:
> DNS traffic, surprisingly, is not very "fat". It is no HTTP nor SMTP.
> 
> The engineering behind appropriately sizing a unicast fallback would
> be pretty trivial, especially compared to building a somewhat-robust
> anycast architecture.

This statement may be true for many DNS servers, but I suspect it
is completely false for the roots, or for the GTLD's.  Perhaps the
folks from .org or from f-root would like to comment on how hard
it would be to handle the whole load from a single box, particularly
when you consider they are all high profile DDoS targets as well.

If it were trivial, more GTLD's would be doing it.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040703/8d594a24/attachment.sig>