quietly....

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Tue Feb 15 11:41:26 CST 2011


On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:08:01 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
> > Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and
> > creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice.  It's comments like
> > this that raise the hair on admins' necks.  At least mine.

> I don't get this. Why spend cycles discovering a value that doesn't need
> to change?

You've obviously never had to change a number in a /etc/resolv.conf because
the number you've listed has gone bat-guano insane.

If the root DNS address becomes a magic IP address (presumably some variety
of anycast), it becomes a lot harder to change to another address if the
closest anycast address goes insane.  If root nameserver F (or merely the
anycast instance I can see) goes bonkers(*), I can say "screw this, ask G and K
instead".

You can't do that  if G and K are the same magic address as F.

(*) "bonkers" for whatever operational definition you want - wedged hardware,
corrupted database, coercion by men with legal documents and firearms, whatever.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110215/be134ffd/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list