we're already outside our operating envelope, if these community
expectation figures are believable. a wise man once said to me that when
setting formal conformance targets its a good idea to only set ones you can
honestly achieve, otherwise you're setting yourself up to be measured to
fail. I don't think that necessarily competes with 'aim high' ('be all you
can be') but...On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:26 AM, George William Herbert < george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > > >> Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for > >> DNS reliability? > >> ... > >> Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost. > > > > this is the wrong question. the protocol is designed assuming query > > failures. > > > > randy > > I think it's part of the right answer. Capacity and server connectivity > issues, what this metric will mostly measure, do matter. > > The other part, more likely to get you on CNN and Reddit and the front > pages of the NY Times and WSJ, is the area represented by MTBF / MTTR / > etc. how often is DNS for your domain DOWN - or WRONG - and how fast did > you recover. > > The other subthread about routeability plays into that. For BIGPLACE > environments, you should be considering how many AS numbers independently > host DNS instances for you, in how many geographical regions, and do you > have a backup registrar available spun up... > > > -george william herbert > > > Sent from Kangphone >
