RFC 2182....
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:57:06PM -0400, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> writes: > > > On 3/7/2014 5:03 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > > >> for decades. i have a vague recollection of an rfc that said > >> secondary nameservers ought not be connected to the same psn (remember > >> those?) but my google fu fails me this early in the morning. > > > > Packet Switch Node? > > > > Not sure what would be in this context. > > > > Not on the same router? How about two routers away with both THEM on > > the same router (a third one)? > > A PSN or IMP was an ARPANET/MILNET "core" router. Some sites had more > than one. A reasonable carry-forward of the concept would be that > nameservers ought to be geographically and topologically diverse so as > to avoid fate-sharing. Different upstreams, different coasts (maybe > different continents?), different covering prefixes, and certainly not > on the same IPv4 /32... would be the intelligent thing to do > particularly if one wants to query nanog@ about operational hinkiness > and not be on the receiving end of derisive chuckles. > > > Not on a host that does anything else? > > > > Both of those actually make some sense to me, the first from a single > > point of failure consideration, the second regarding unrelated > > failures (I have to re-boot my windows PC at least once a day, most > > days because Firefox, the way I use it, gets itself tangled about that > > often and a reboot is the quickest way to clear it). > > Can't hurt to have authoritative nameservers on dedicated VMs > (enterprise guys running AD have my sympathies), but that's not what > we're talking about here. > > -r >