On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
> Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
> DNS reliability?
>
> 98%
> 99%
> 99.5%
> 99.9%
> 99.99%
> 99.999%
>
> Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost.
>
> Whats the consensus?
>
ICANN new gTLD agreemen
Remember though that anycast only solves for availability in one layer of
the system and it is not difficult to create a less available anycast
presence if you do silly things with the way you manage your routes. A
system is only as available as the least available layer in that system
For example
> 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
To me anything below 99.99% is unacceptable.
100 failures out of 100,000 queries still seems like a lot especially if
its not network related.
So I would say 99.999% would be what I would look for.
Thanks
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
> Everything else remaining equal...
Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
DNS reliability?
98%
99%
99.5%
99.9%
99.99%
99.999%
Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost.
Whats the consensus?
--
Phil Fagan
Denver, CO
970-480-7618
Thumbs up on this one; my entire path and chain of management of that path
need to be equally fault tolerant - Awesome.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Glen Wiley wrote:
> Remember though that anycast only solves for availability in one layer of
> the system and it is not difficult to create a
Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Beavis wrote:
> I go with 99.999% given that you have a good number of DNS Servers
> (anycasted).
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
>
>> Everything else remaining equal...is
I go with 99.999% given that you have a good number of DNS Servers
(anycasted).
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
> Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
> DNS reliability?
>
> 98%
> 99%
> 99.5%
> 99.9%
> 99.99%
> 99.999%
>
> Measured in queri
Good reference; thank you.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
>
>> Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
>> DNS reliability?
>>
>> 98%
>> 99%
>> 99.5%
>> 99.9%
>> 99.99%
>> 99.999%
>>
On Sep 12, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Randy Bush 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.
>
> ran
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'
If there's anyone from the IP-side of Verizon Wireless, if you could
contact me off-list, that would be awesome! Saves me hours of pointless
phone calls. :)
Thanks!
--
*Scott Morris*, CCIE/x4/ (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
CCDE #2009::D,
CCNP-Data Center, CCNP-Voice, JNC
> we're already outside our operating envelope
not really. just some folk seem not to understand things such as udp
datagrams and the dns protocols.
randy
you removed a clause in that sentence randy:
"we're already outside our operating envelope, if these community
expectation figures are believable"
there is a point to that clause. its the same as your answer in some
respects.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > we're alread
On Sep 12, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> we're already outside our operating envelope
>
> not really. just some folk seem not to understand things such as udp
> datagrams and the dns protocols.
>
> randy
Statistically, UDP sometimes arrives after an internet wide round trip. Hones
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:03:44 -0600, Phil Fagan said:
> Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for
> DNS reliability?
>
> 98%
> 99%
> 99.5%
> 99.9%
> 99.99%
> 99.999%
>
> Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost.
>
> Whats the consensus?
Remember to factor in Dua
On 9/12/2013 3:25 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected.
A small choice of attitude-reflecting language.
I expect 100.000%
I'll accept 99.999% or better.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM, George William Herbert
wrote:
> 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
On 9/12/13 1:39 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> ICANN new gTLD agreements specified 100% availability for the service,
> meaning at least 2 DNS IP addresses answered 95% of requests within 500 ms
> (UDP) or 1500 ms (TCP) for 51+% of the probes, or 99% availability for a
> single name server, defined as 1
19 matches
Mail list logo
