On Saturday 03 July 2004 03:39, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:28:33PM -0400, James M Woods wrote: > > Michael, > > > > Harsh and way off mark. PIR is pretty responsive to issues which are > > actually brought forward to them. Their court docket is pretty light > > compared to some other registries :-S > > Yeah, I agree. This problem isn't directly caused by PIR, and > hopefully they can get the folks that can fix it (UltraDNS) to do > something.
And the fix of course is to have one or more servers that aren't served by anycast - then if anycast announcement fails at least there is a slim chance. You can have too much of a good thing. UltraDNS also serve some UK domains, but in addition to the pre-existing servers - that seems to work well. Before this the UK domains were reliable, but not well monitored (well not by the people who should have ;), although I think the change probably reflected more professional management of the relevant UK domains of which bringing UltraDNS in was probably only part, as they also resolved other potential issues around the same time (and stopped having servers go lame all too often). Anyway I noticed that UltraDNS servers no longer return broken delegation information - anyone know when this was fixed? I know I mentioned it to the relevant ISOC representative in the vain hope the PIR would get something done about it - and it has since happened - coincidence? So I think PIR and UltraDNS seem to be making progress, but the failure of an 'anycast only' service was foreseeable I believe - so should have been allowed for in design. Although I thought they would see more regional failures, and so change the design before a more general failure.
