DNS Resolving issues. So for related just to Cox. But could be larger.
rs at seastrom.com
Mon Mar 10 18:57:06 UTC 2014
Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at cox.net> writes:
> On 3/7/2014 5:03 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> for decades. i have a vague recollection of an rfc that said
>> secondary nameservers ought not be connected to the same psn (remember
>> those?) but my google fu fails me this early in the morning.
> Packet Switch Node?
> Not sure what would be in this context.
> Not on the same router? How about two routers away with both THEM on
> the same router (a third one)?
A PSN or IMP was an ARPANET/MILNET "core" router. Some sites had more
than one. A reasonable carry-forward of the concept would be that
nameservers ought to be geographically and topologically diverse so as
to avoid fate-sharing. Different upstreams, different coasts (maybe
different continents?), different covering prefixes, and certainly not
on the same IPv4 /32... would be the intelligent thing to do
particularly if one wants to query [email protected] about operational hinkiness
and not be on the receiving end of derisive chuckles.
> Not on a host that does anything else?
> Both of those actually make some sense to me, the first from a single
> point of failure consideration, the second regarding unrelated
> failures (I have to re-boot my windows PC at least once a day, most
> days because Firefox, the way I use it, gets itself tangled about that
> often and a reboot is the quickest way to clear it).
Can't hurt to have authoritative nameservers on dedicated VMs
(enterprise guys running AD have my sympathies), but that's not what
we're talking about here.
More information about the NANOG