In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:55:13PM -0700, Matt Ghali wrote:
DNS traffic, surprisingly, is not very fat. It is no HTTP nor SMTP.
The engineering behind appropriately sizing a unicast fallback would
be pretty trivial, especially compared to building a somewhat-robust
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
10.1.0.1 Anycast1 (x50 boxes)
10.2.0.1 Anycast2 (x50 boxes - different to anycast1)
In each scenario two systems have to fail to take out any one customer.. but
isnt the bottom one better for the usual pro anycast reasons?
On 2 Jul 2004, at 00:18, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
So, I thought of it like this:
1) Rodney/Centergate/UltraDNS knows where all their 35000billion
copies of
the 2 .org TLD boxes are, what network pieces they are connected to at
which bandwidths and the current utilization
2)
In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:22:09AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
This leaves the anycast servers providing all the optimisation that
they are good for (local nameserver in toplogically distant networks;
distributed DDoS traffic sink; reduced transaction RTT) and provides a
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:22:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
With the fix above, the problem becomes hey, *some* of the nameservers
for ORG are dead! We should fix that, but since not *all* of them are
dead, at least ORG still works.
Sorry, I missed the top of this thread. I cannot mail an ORG
On 2 Jul 2004, at 10:43, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Note in the later pages what happens to particular servers under
packet loss. They all start to show an affinity for a subset of
the servers. It's been said that by putting some non-anycasted
servers in with the anycasted servers what can happen is
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
All the failure modes that ISC has seen with anycast nameserver
instances can be avoided (for the authoritative DNS service as a whole)
by including one or more non-anycast nameservers in the NS set.
Am I missing something..
So you say:
10.1.0.1
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
So the question is not so much is 500ms towards the server
bad, it's can I build a single server (cluster) that will take
all the load worldwide when the client software does bad things.
DNS traffic, surprisingly, is not very fat. It is no HTTP nor
is anyone else seeing timeouts reaching ultradns' .org nameservers?
I'm seeing seemingly random timeout failures from both sbci and uc berkeley.
01, 2004 7:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ultradns reachability
is anyone else seeing timeouts reaching ultradns' .org nameservers?
I'm seeing seemingly random timeout failures from both sbci and uc
berkeley.
Once upon a time, Matt Ghali [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
is anyone else seeing timeouts reaching ultradns' .org nameservers?
I'm seeing seemingly random timeout failures from both sbci and uc berkeley.
One is working and one is not from here.
$ dig +norec @tld1.ultradns.net
Yes, it looks like it is starting to get back to normal since I got your
email :)
As far as I could tell it started around 5:30 PST and ended around 6:00 PST.
Thanks,
Eric
At 06:01 PM 7/1/2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
is anyone else seeing timeouts reaching ultradns' .org nameservers?
I'm seeing
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, James Edwards wrote:
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html
my mrtg skillz are kind of lame, but this seems to show 2/3rds outage from
this monitoring point of view. It'd be nice if the aforementioned
'what/where/who' info was available for each monitoring point CYMRU
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:06:59AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, James Edwards wrote:
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html
my mrtg skillz are kind of lame, but this seems to show 2/3rds outage from
this monitoring point of view. It'd be nice if
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, k claffy wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:06:59AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, James Edwards wrote:
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/gtlddns-o.html
Anycast makes the pinpointing of problems a little challenging from the
external
CLM Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:18:07 + (GMT)
CLM From: Christopher L. Morrow
[ editted for brevity -- some punctuation/wording modified ]
CLM So, I thought of it like this. Rodney/Centergate/UltraDNS
CLM knows:
[ snip enumeration ]
CLM [and] should know almost exactly when they have a
17 matches
Mail list logo
