Bjørn Mork wrote:
This is quite common to tie an underlying service announcement to BGP
announcements in an Anycast or similar environment.
Yes, that is a commonly seen mistake with anycast.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I do but you don't.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4786#section-4.4.1
Not a mistake. BCP.
My comment on the rfc is that it is simply wrong.
See also:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3258
While it would be
possible to have some process withdraw the route for a specific
server instance when it is not available, there is considerable
operational complexity involved in ensuring that this occurs
reliably. Given the existing DNS failover methods, the marginal
improvement in performance will not be sufficient to justify the
additional complexity for most uses.
which was our consensus at that time in DNSOP. I have no idea
why it was forgotten.
Masataka Ohta
