> On Oct 7, 2021, at 6:25 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > Nice document. > > In section 2.5 Routing, this is written: > > Distributing Authoritative Name Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses... > > organizations implementing these practices should > always provide at least one authoritative server which is not a > participant in any shared unicast mesh.
This was superstition, brought forward from 1992 by the folks who were yelling
“damned kids get offa my lawn” at the time.
There’s no reason to include a unicast address in an NS set in the 21st
century, and plenty of reasons not to (since it’ll be very difficult to
load-balance with the rest of the servers).
But one should NEVER NEVER depend on a single administrative or technical
authority for all your NS records. That’s what shot Facebook in the foot, they
were trying to do it all themselves, so when they shot themselves in the foot,
they only had the one foot, and nothing left to stand on. Whereas other folks
shoot themselves in the foot all the time, and nobody notices, because they
paid attention to the spirit of RFC 2182.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
