DNSSEC signing problems get worse with more NS, if the signatures go bad.
Even with the remediation Mark Andrews put in later bind, there is an
increase in traffic at the authority points and in the system as a whole.
So "more is better" is not necessarily true.
Also, ns and A NS are morally
On 3 Sep 2014, at 13:21, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 9/3/14 10:01 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Guangqing Deng
>> wrote:
>>> From RFC1034 section 4.1, it seems that the way used for improving
>>> the redundancy and resilience of DNS system is to increase DNS
>>> servers
On 9/3/14 10:01 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Guangqing Deng
> wrote:
>> From RFC1034 section 4.1, it seems that the way used for improving
>> the redundancy and resilience of DNS system is to increase DNS
>> servers. I agree that for the performance of the DNS sys
Hi,
On Sep 3, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Guangqing Deng wrote:
> From RFC1034 section 4.1, it seems that the way used for improving the
> redundancy and resilience of DNS system is to increase DNS servers. I agree
> that for the performance of the DNS system, the redundancy and resilience are
> the fir
On Sep 3 2014, Guangqing Deng wrote:
From RFC1034 section 4.1, it seems that the way used for improving the
redundancy and resilience of DNS system is to increase DNS servers.
It might be better to start from RFC2182 "Selection and Operation of
Secondary DNS Servers", a mere 17 years old rathe
.
Guangqing Deng
cnnic
From: Masataka Ohta
Date: 2014-09-03 17:20
To: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Anycast and DNS questions
Guangqing Deng wrote:
> I am interested in the topic of the redundancy and resilience of the
> DNS system, and are there any specific documents about this topic,
> su
Guangqing Deng wrote:
> I am interested in the topic of the redundancy and resilience of the
> DNS system, and are there any specific documents about this topic,
> such as how to achieve that goal?
rfc1034 section 4.1.
Masataka Ohta
_
I am interested in the topic of the redundancy and resilience of the DNS
system, and are there any specific documents about this topic, such as how to
achieve that goal?
Guangqing Deng
CNNIC
From: Antoin Verschuren
Date: 2014-09-02 15:28
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Anycast and
Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Question is: Why do you anycast in the first place.
> I think for DNS, primary reason is redundancy and resilience, which is
> why spreading capacity is the primary goal.
Then, your reason has little to do with anycast.
See, for example, draft-ietf-dnsop-ohta-shared-ro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Op 02-09-14 om 09:31 schreef Andrew Sullivan:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:28:15AM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>> Reducing latency, or better, not increasing latency by introducing
>> anycast is it's secondary goal.
>
> For a number of customers o
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:28:15AM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Reducing latency, or better, not increasing latency by introducing
> anycast is it's secondary goal.
For a number of customers of at least one provider I know (my
employer), the reverse is true. Customers expect 100% uptime from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Op 27-08-14 om 16:04 schreef David Conrad:
> Hi,
>
> On Aug 27, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Guangqing Deng mailto:dengguangq...@cnnic.cn>> wrote:
>> Here, one interesting question can be raised is what is the best
localization policy for DNS? Should DNS client
Hi,
On Aug 27, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Guangqing Deng wrote:
> Here, one interesting question can be raised is what is the best
> localization policy for DNS? Should DNS clients visit the anycast server with
> the least network latency (which can be measured by RTT) or minimal AS hops
> or minimal
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> c) Any example in which the DNS servers utilizing a single shared
> IP address (anycast address) are run by different operators ? Any
> documents describing this ?
draft-ietf-dnsop-ohta-shared-root-server-00.txt
This memo proposes a mechanism of policy base
. Gilmore
CC: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Anycast and DNS questions
Thanks, Patrick, inline
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 08:10:19AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > a) What documents beside RFC3258 are describing any uses/procedures
> > for having DNS servers use
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
>
> c) Any example in which the DNS servers utilizing a single shared
>IP address (anycast address) are run by different operators ? Any
>documents describing this ? (RFC3258 seems to focus on single operator
>anycast group of D
David Conrad wrote:
> ... There have been multiple proposals to do the multiple operator on
> a single anycast IP address approach, but my impression has been that
> concerns about debugging those implementations have discouraged their
> use
AS112 was the grand experiment for unowned anycast
On Aug 6, 2014, at 5:10 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> c) Any example in which the DNS servers utilizing a single shared
>> IP address (anycast address) are run by different operators ?
>
> How about the root servers?
Err, no.
Each of the IP addresses of the DNS servers serving the root hav
>> Is it fair to say that DNS would be the prime reason for anycast addresses
>> injected into the global BGP routing table ?
I would -guess- there are more DNS anycast than HTTP anycast nodes. But looking
at the global table to figure that out is not likely to yield useful results.
> There is a
On 6 August 2014 at 8:10:25, Patrick W. Gilmore (patr...@ianai.net) wrote:
> Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
>
> On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:47, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, haven't been following this group for a long time, so
> > please excuse if answers to these questi
Hah! i am using that NTP one, but it didn't come to mind when asking the
question.
Have to read up on that AS112. Thanks
Thanks!
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:09:18PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >
> > b) How common are deployments in which the information returned by diffe
Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> Is it fair to say that DNS would be the prime reason for anycast addresses
> injected into the global BGP routing table ?
There is also a lot of anycast for HTTP servers. I don't know what its
relative popularity is compared to DNS.
Another example is 6to4, though it i
Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> b) How common are deployments in which the information returned by different
>anycast member DNS servers for the same query would be different,
>aka: to "localize" lookup results, such as pointing to
>local CDN caches or the like ? What would be the most well
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Is it fair to say that DNS would be the prime reason for anycast addresses
injected into the global BGP routing table ? Has anyone tried to stat that ?
Eg: counting how many global BGP prefixes are "anycast" due to their
properties,
such as availabil
Thanks, Patrick, inline
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 08:10:19AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > a) What documents beside RFC3258 are describing any uses/procedures
> > for having DNS servers use an anycast address to receive and respond to
> > requests ?
>
> Dunno, but something tells m
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:47, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> Sorry, haven't been following this group for a long time, so
> please excuse if answers to these questions have been discussed in before:
>
> a) What documents beside RFC3258 are describi
26 matches
Mail list logo
