DNS Reliability

Thu Sep 12 22:34:25 UTC 2013

we're already outside our operating envelope, if these community
expectation figures are believable. a wise man once said to me that when
setting formal conformance targets its a good idea to only set ones you can
honestly achieve, otherwise you're setting yourself up to be measured to
fail. I don't think that necessarily competes with 'aim high' ('be all you
can be') but...

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:26 AM, George William Herbert <
george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 12, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>
> >> Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
> >> DNS reliability?
> >> ...
> >> Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost.
> >
> > this is the wrong question.  the protocol is designed assuming query
> > failures.
> >
> > randy
>
> I think it's part of the right answer.  Capacity and server connectivity
> issues, what this metric will mostly measure, do matter.
>
> The other part, more likely to get you on CNN and Reddit and the front
> pages of the NY Times and WSJ, is the area represented by MTBF / MTTR /
> etc.  how often is DNS for your domain DOWN - or WRONG - and how fast did
> you recover.
>
> The other subthread about routeability plays into that.  For BIGPLACE
> environments, you should be considering how many AS numbers independently
> host DNS instances for you, in how many geographical regions, and do you
> have a backup registrar available spun up...
>
>
> -george william herbert
>
>
> Sent from Kangphone
>