On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <10be7b64-46ff-46d8-a428-268897413...@hopcount.ca>, Joe Abley > writes > : >> On 2010-02-14, at 17:17, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >>> I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still >>> under the *one* external route and as such subject to single points >>> of failure and as such don't have enough independence. >> >> Are you asserting architectural control over what Level3 decide to do = >> with their own servers, Mark? :-) > > No. The reason for multiple nameservers is to remove single points > of failures. Using three consecutive addresses doesn't remove > single points of failure in the routing system. > >> If their goal is distribute a service for the benefit of their own = >> customers, then keeping all anycast nodes associated with that service = >> on-net seems entirely sensible. > > Which only helps if *all* customers of those servers are also on net.
All _customers_ are. People using a service which was not announced or support are not customers. -- TTFN, patrick
