> > For network neutrality, backbone providers *MUST* be neutral > for contents they carry. > > However, CDN providers having their own backbone are using > their backbone for contents they prefer, which is *NOT* > neutral at all. > > As such, access/retail providers may pay for peering with > neutral backbone providers for their customers but should > reject direct peering request from, actively behaving against > neutrality, CDN providers. >
If I am understanding you correctly, are you arguing that anyone with a network MUST be forced to become a transit provider for anyone else, in the name of "neutrality"? I'll reserve further comment until I make sure I have grasped your point. On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:28 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Matthew Petach wrote: > > >>> With an anycast setup using the same IP addresses in every > >>> location, returning SERVFAIL doesn't have the same effect, > >>> however, because failing over from anycast address 1 to > >>> anycast address 2 is likely to be routed to the same pop > >>> location, where the same result will occur. > >> > >> That's why that is a bad idea. Alternative name servers with > >> different IP addresses should be provided at separate locations. > > > Sure. But that doesn't do anything to help prevent the > > type of outage that hit Facebook, which was the point I > > was trying to make in my response. Facebook did use > different IP > addresses, and it didn't matter, because the > > underlying health of the network is what was at issue, > > not the health of the nameservers. > > A possible solution is to force unbundling of CDN providers and > transit providers by antitrust agencies. > > Then, CDN providers can't pursue efficiency only to kill > fundamental redundancy of DNS. > > For network neutrality, backbone providers *MUST* be neutral > for contents they carry. > > However, CDN providers having their own backbone are using > their backbone for contents they prefer, which is *NOT* > neutral at all. > > As such, access/retail providers may pay for peering with > neutral backbone providers for their customers but should > reject direct peering request from, actively behaving against > neutrality, CDN providers. > > > I agree with you--different IP addresses should be > > used in different geographic locations, even with > > anycast setups. > > > > But people need to also recognize that's not a > > panacea that solves everything, and that it wouldn't > > have changed the nature of the outage last week. > > We should recognize the fundamental difference between > independent, thus neutral, backbone providers and > CDN providers with anti-neutral backbone of their own. > > Masataka Ohta >
