In summary, could someone educate me on the benefits of having RNSes
outside your network?
[Tomas L. Byrnes] We were a small regional ISP with only one main POP at
the time.
On 17/02/2010 20:51, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
[Tomas L. Byrnes] We were a small regional ISP with only one main POP at
the time.
off-net resolvers means that your continued customer satisfaction (and
therefore your continued reliable cash-flow) is completely dependent on
maintaining a good
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:56 PM
To: Tomas L. Byrnes
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
On 17/02/2010 20:51, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
[Tomas L. Byrnes] We were a small
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
In summary, could someone educate me on the benefits of having RNSes
outside your network?
[Tomas L. Byrnes] We were a small regional ISP with only one main POP at
the time.
If you are single homed, you -are- your upstream's network, er,
. Consolidation has rendered a lot of the
collaboration from those days moot.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:11 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Tomas
We do. It's at our upstream provider, just in case we had an upstream
connectivity issue or some internal meltdown that prevented those in the
outside world to hit our (authoritative) DNS servers. Of course, that's
most helpful for DNS records that resolve to IPs *outside* our network.
Frank
On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
We do. It's at our upstream provider, just in case we had an upstream
connectivity issue or some internal meltdown that prevented those in the
outside world to hit our (authoritative) DNS servers. Of course, that's
most helpful for DNS records
are all AIS, so the point is moot.
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:25 PM
To: 'Joe Abley'
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
We do. It's at our upstream provider, just in case we
Our upstream ISP also has such a reciprocal secondary, too.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:t...@byrneit.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:26 PM
To: frnk...@iname.com; Joe Abley
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
We
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:33 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
We do. It's at our upstream provider, just in case we had
On 2010-02-16, at 20:35, Frank Bulk wrote:
Our nameservers handle both the authoritative and recursive traffic,
As general advice, and as an aside, don't do that. (Aside from anything else,
you're inserting authoritative answers in a lookup path that might not be found
by a parent
I've wondered about this for years, but only this evening did I start
searching for details. And I really couldn't find any.
Can anyone point me at distant history about how 4.2.2.2 came to be, in my
estimation, the most famous DNS server on the planet?
I know that it was originally at BBN,
I think around 10 years ago Slashdot had a few stories (and still do,
actually) about how great these resolvers were. I think that propelled
quite a bit of their growth and popularity.
On 2/14/2010 1:16 AM, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
I've wondered about this for years, but only this evening
Since I'm watching B5 again on DVD
I was there at the dawning of the age of 4.2.2.1 :)
We did it, and we I mean Brett McCoy and my self. But most of the
credit/blame goes to Brett... I helped him, but at the time I was mostly
working on getting out Mail relays working right. This
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 02:16:30AM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
I've wondered about this for years, but only this evening did I start
searching for details. And I really couldn't find any.
Can anyone point me at distant history about how 4.2.2.2 came to be, in my
estimation, the most
It was always pretty robust due to the BIND code, thanks to ISC, and
the fact it was always IPV4 AnyCast.
$ asp 4.2.2.2 # look it up in routeviews
4.0.0.0/9 ASN 3356, path 3549 - 3356
Wow, that's a heck of an anycast block.
R's,
John
Ryan au...@mind.net
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
I think around 10 years ago Slashdot had a few stories (and still do,
actually) about how great these resolvers were. I think that propelled
quite a bit
On 14. feb. 2010, at 19.43, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
4.2.2.2 is stunted just like any other resolvers that use only the USG root.
A more useful resolver is ASLAN [199.5.157.128] which is an inclusive
namespace resolver which shows users a complete map of the internet, not just
what
On 2/14/10 11:43 AM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
4.2.2.2 is stunted just like any other resolvers that use only the USG
root. A more useful resolver is ASLAN [199.5.157.128] which is an
inclusive namespace resolver which shows users a complete map of the
internet, not just what ICANN wants
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:43:12PM -0600,
John Palmer (NANOG Acct) nan...@adns.net wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
A more useful resolver is ASLAN [199.5.157.128] which is an
inclusive namespace resolver which shows users a complete map of the
internet,
There are many crooks which
* John Levine:
It was always pretty robust due to the BIND code, thanks to ISC, and
the fact it was always IPV4 AnyCast.
$ asp 4.2.2.2 # look it up in routeviews
4.0.0.0/9 ASN 3356, path 3549 - 3356
Wow, that's a heck of an anycast block.
You can do anycast with your IGP, too. 8-)
On 02/14/2010 07:41 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
I don't think anyone else can help you determine your estimaation...
Sorry, I was being kind of flippant and paying homage to the Peggy Hill
character in _King_of_the_Hill_.
That is a question for folks at L3. Any publicly-sharable data might
be
On 02/14/2010 07:16 AM, John Orthoefer wrote:
Since I'm watching B5 again on DVD
Awesome. Thanks for taking the time to reply, I really enjoyed the story.
Have fun with the B5. The only time I watched it was on a VHS borrowed
from a friend. It was a 3'x3' cabinet full of them. :-)
Sean
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Sean Reifschneider j...@tummy.com wrote:
Why conjecture? Examining the /32s from inside and outside of 3356
I said conjecture because every person I found in my searches said things
like I think it might be anycasted or they could be using anycast.
Until this
In message 182e6e76-f12a-41d9-800a-e5e40f3c3...@direwolf.com, John Orthoefer
writes:
Genuity/GTEI/Planet/BBN owned 4/8. Brett went looking for an IP that =
was simple to remember, I think 4.4.4.4 was in use by neteng already. =
But it was picked to be easy to remember, I think jhawk had put
On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 182e6e76-f12a-41d9-800a-e5e40f3c3...@direwolf.com, John
Orthoefer
writes:
Genuity/GTEI/Planet/BBN owned 4/8. Brett went looking for an IP that =
was simple to remember, I think 4.4.4.4 was in use by neteng already. =
But it was
On 2010-02-14, at 17:17, Mark Andrews wrote:
I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still
under the *one* external route and as such subject to single points
of failure and as such don't have enough independence.
Are you asserting architectural control over what Level3
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 17:20 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Besides, it is quicker / better to use your local ISP's RNS. If
something goes wrong, you can fall back to OpenDNS or L3, and, of
course, yell at the _company_you_are_paying_ when their stuff doesn't
work. :)
The best
In message 10be7b64-46ff-46d8-a428-268897413...@hopcount.ca, Joe Abley writes
:
On 2010-02-14, at 17:17, Mark Andrews wrote:
I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still
under the *one* external route and as such subject to single points
of failure and as such don't
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still
under the *one* external route and as such subject to single points
of failure and as such don't have enough independence.
Where has Level 3 ever claimed that
On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 10be7b64-46ff-46d8-a428-268897413...@hopcount.ca, Joe Abley
writes
:
On 2010-02-14, at 17:17, Mark Andrews wrote:
I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still
under the *one* external route and as such
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Richard Golodner
rgolod...@infratection.com wrote:
Cisco tech support tells their customers (us) to use it when testing.
Perhaps this is not such a good practice.
No doubt because they are easier to remember than Cisco's own two
public DNS resolvers :
In message f1dedf9c1002141446p892aeacy74273f94d6e2a...@mail.gmail.com, Scott
Howard writes:
I'd also be interested in knowing where you consider the single
points of failure for their announcement of 4/8 is, but that's
probably for another thread...
You mean you have never seen traffic
I'll add to what Johno writes. I worked on the anycast routing side to
the server side which he describes.
The 4.2.0.0/16 prefix was set aside by John Hawkinson in our reservation
system under the label Numerology since he had the wisdom to see that
the numbers in themselves could be valuable.
At the time I was involved it did have an SLA, and was considered critical
infrastructure for Genuitity customers. Once we started to deploy 4.2.2.1, we
gave customers time to swap over, but we started turning off our existing DNS
servers.
One reason we did it was that we kept having to
On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:55 PM, John Orthoefer wrote:
At the time I was involved it did have an SLA, and was considered critical
infrastructure for Genuitity customers. Once we started to deploy 4.2.2.1,
we gave customers time to swap over, but we started turning off our existing
DNS
36 matches
Mail list logo
