because most of the end users who would be querying it are in
Canada, and, with one nameserver in Canada and one in Japan,
they would get a long RTT on DNS queries roughly half the time.
But only, say, once per week if you're running a reasonable TTL on your
zone.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 08:52:20AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Selecting a site outside of your control is valuable. When I was
> hostmas...@cic.net, we "traded" with mr.net. These days, if I were
> in the same role, I would want to have three instead of two. Asia,
> Europe and US someplace. If
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Nick Olsen wrote:
>
>> So lets say that you have multiple DNS resolvers in the same ip space that
>> you advertise from multiple locations. All would be fine for the most part.
>> But if you had a location equidistant network wise from two POP's
On 16/08/2010 08:49, Mike wrote:
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
from eachother? Anyone got advice either way? Should I tr
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Nick Olsen wrote:
So lets say that you have multiple DNS resolvers in the same ip space that
you advertise from multiple locations. All would be fine for the most part.
But if you had a location equidistant network wise from two POP's wouldn't
it load balance and possibly br
How would someone get
around this? This is also what OpenDNS does from what I understand.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(321) 205-1100 x106
From: "Doug Barton"
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:12 PM
To: "Sven Olaf Kamphuis"
Subject:
On 08/17/2010 05:11, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
tcp/zonetransfer not working reliably is no longer a problem
TCP is a MUST for DNS.
It's used as a fallback in the normal resolution process if an answer
can't fit in a UDP packet for whatever reason. This is true even for
common things like lar
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:11:56 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> nowadays, i'd simply put them all on the same /24 which you simply
> announce on different pops
I would raise a red flag of caution with this approach especially for
services that need to be reachable outside your network If
> One of my former employers backhauled all their legacy nameservers to a =
> single site, eg: e[0-2].ns.voyager.net.
>
> While they were originally on diverse subnets and geographical =
> locations, this appears to have changed.
As one of the people who originally worked on that setup, I'll note
On Aug 17, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Sven Olaf Kamphuis said:
>> tcp/zonetransfer not working reliably is no longer a problem as you simply
>> retreive those directly from the database over a seperate ip, no more
>> old-fashioned bind related crap.
>
> TCP is no
Once upon a time, Sven Olaf Kamphuis said:
> tcp/zonetransfer not working reliably is no longer a problem as you simply
> retreive those directly from the database over a seperate ip, no more
> old-fashioned bind related crap.
TCP is not just for zone transfers (especially in the age of DNSSEC
> nowadays, i'd simply put them all on the same /24 which you simply
> announce on different pops
>
> tcp/zonetransfer not working reliably is no longer a problem as you simply
> retreive those directly from the database over a seperate ip, no more
> old-fashioned
> bind related crap.
tcp/zon
Sven,
On Aug 17, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> this whole "you have to put 2 nameservers on two seperate subnets at two
> different locations" seems a bit.. pre-1993 to me.
> plus, why only 2, why not... 20 or so, all in different parts of the world
> and let bgp handle the rest
nowadays, i'd simply put them all on the same /24 which you simply
announce on different pops
tcp/zonetransfer not working reliably is no longer a problem as you simply
retreive those directly from the database over a seperate ip, no more old-fashioned
bind related crap.
so 1 /24 prefix, wit
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:08:02AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
> >> 1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
> >> your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unre
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
>> 1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
>> your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable
>> breaks the whole Internet as far as users are concerned.
On 8/15/2010 11:49 PM, Mike wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets
away from eachother?
Authoritative name servers sh
In IPv6 you should be able to advertise up to /48 with no problem...
Arie
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
> > 1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
> > your entire network. (Nameservers and resolv
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
>> 1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
>> your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable
>> breaks the whole Internet as far as users are concerned.)
On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
>> 1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
>> your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable
>> breaks the whole Internet as far as users are concerned.
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
> 1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
> your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable
> breaks the whole Internet as far as users are concerned.)
How do you do this in the IPv6 world, where I get a
On 2010-08-16 08:49, Mike wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
>I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
> nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
> wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
> from eachother? Anyone got advice ei
For resolvers, I guess it would make sense to advertise them as /32s as
dynamic prefixes coming from some SLB device...
You can have multiple VIPs, each representing a different POP/network
domain...
Arie
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Mike wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I am needing to renumber so
for authoritatuve servers, i try to have one on a very different
backbone on a distant continent. i make deals with friends. there have
been just too many failures where servers were in the same facility, or
behind the same routing, or on a single backbone. see rfc 2182.
for customer- and infra
On 8/16/2010 2:49 AM, Mike wrote:
from eachother? Anyone got advice either way? Should I try to give
If you have a dedicated subnet for /32s (e.g., router loopback
interfaces), i'd pick from there.
if you eventually require geo-redundancy or want to load balance your
queries, it's much neat
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:49:05 PDT, Mike said:
> I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
> nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
> wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
> from eachother? Anyone got advice eithe
On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:49 AM, Mike wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my nameservers
> and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective wisdom still says
> heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away from eachother? Anyone
>
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49, Mike wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my nameservers
> and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective wisdom still says
> heck yes keep this stuff all
Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
from eachother? Anyone got advice either way? Should I try to give
sequentia
29 matches
Mail list logo
