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

Reply via email to