glen.wiley at gmail.com
Thu Sep 12 20:40:05 UTC 2013
Remember though that anycast only solves for availability in one layer of
the system and it is not difficult to create a less available anycast
presence if you do silly things with the way you manage your routes. A
system is only as available as the least available layer in that system
For example, if you use an automated system that changes your route
advertisements and that system encounters a defect that breaks your
announcements then although a well built anycast footprint might acheive
99.999, a poorly implemented management system that is less available and
creates an outage would reduce the number.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected.
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Beavis <pfunix at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I go with 99.999% given that you have a good number of DNS Servers
> > (anycasted).
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
> >> DNS reliability?
> >> 98%
> >> 99%
> >> 99.5%
> >> 99.9%
> >> 99.99%
> >> 99.999%
> >> Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost.
> >> Whats the consensus?
> >> --
> >> Phil Fagan
> >> Denver, CO
> >> 970-480-7618
> > --
> > () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> > /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
> > Disclaimer:
> > http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
> Phil Fagan
> Denver, CO
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left
to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de
More information about the NANOG