Sven, On Aug 17, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> this whole "you have to put 2 nameservers on two seperate subnets at two > different locations" seems a bit.. pre-1993 to me. > plus, why only 2, why not... 20 or so, all in different parts of the world > and let bgp handle the rest. There's an important component that is missing from the above. It's one thing to have a single nameserver hosted in such a manner, but through operational integration and history there are still a lot of domain names that are not fault tolerant. I remember "in recent years" a ccTLD that ended up without functioning services as a result of poor nameserver site selection. Ideally you would have a system with two geographically diverse nameservers for a domain, under seperate (routing) administrative control. One of my former employers backhauled all their legacy nameservers to a single site, eg: e[0-2].ns.voyager.net. While they were originally on diverse subnets and geographical locations, this appears to have changed. Selecting a site outside of your control is valuable. When I was hostmas...@cic.net, we "traded" with mr.net. These days, if I were in the same role, I would want to have three instead of two. Asia, Europe and US someplace. If US only, east, west and central. If you look at ntt.net, our "off-net" resolver is 69.36.249.36 This means if there is a ntt meltdown, there's a good chance you can still resolve related names off-net. - Jared
