On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > doesn't really require 3 DNS addresses. > > > > If one of the site-locals doesn't answer you, it's highly > > unlikely that > > the next one will (ie: not configured at all). If the second doesn't > > answer either, it is almost unheard of if the third one does answer. > > I do not really see what harm would three addresses do. You may have > networks that would have only one DNS server (small business or a home > user with for a reason or another his own DNS server). However, in cases > like ISPs or bigger businesses there may be multiple DNS servers > configure. I believe this is the case even now. > > In short, I would argue that three is the right number.
Consider the case where the resolver has been upgraded to support this mechanism but the network isn't: this has an impact on 3 vs 0/1/2. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
