> Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
> > therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there
> > is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to
> > the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem
> > statement and an objective a
nt upstream, we should make sure those
issued raised were covered. according to the minutes, those changes
followed by an immediate WGLC was the only thing left to do.
-- bill fumerola // opendns, llc
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 06:52:44PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> What clause would DNS Root Anycast stability fall under?
anycast has so much more to do with routing than dns. dns just happens
to be an often used consumer of anycast. there are others. it seems
more appropriate to centralize proble
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:10:03PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> But none of this is relevant to the claims that Hickson made.
no, but they're directly relevant to the claims that you made:
>> direct server return aka one-arm load balancing does no translation or
>> rewrite of any headers (l3 or
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:33:09PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> No, that isn't anycast. A loadbalancer is actually a stateful NAT with
> several different hosts behind the load balancing NAT. Those
> loadbalancer devices you buy from cisco and other companies are
> specialized NAT boxes. The serv
