DNS Resolving issues. So for related just to Cox. But could be larger.

Mon Mar 10 20:49:26 UTC 2014

RFC 2182....


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:57:06PM -0400, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> 
> 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 nanog@ 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.
> 
> -r
>