%
% On 17-mei-04, at 17:41, Bill Manning wrote:
%
% > % But as long as we're dissing anycast root DNS servers: how many of
% > the
% > % root servers are being anycast now or in the future, and how many
% > % won't?
%
% > http://www.rssac.org/
%
% > check the 17th & 18th meeting minutes.
%
% Result:
%
% Unicast: A, E, H, L
% Anycast: B, C, D, F, G, I, J, K, M (now or planned)
And in this brave new world, anycast may not equal anycast... :)
Consider VRRP. Is that anycast? If not, why not?
Any instance of localised load-balancing. Is it anycast?
What are the distinctions btwn local/remote loadbalancing?
None (to my knowledge) of the roots have a consistant view of
a shared anycast vision, so you should not read too much into
the summaries found in the RSSAC notes.
% The thing that worries me is that apparently, there is no policy about
% this whatsoever, the root operators each get to decide what they want
% to do. The fact that .org is run using only two anycast addresses also
% indicates that apparently the ICANN doesn't feel the need to throw
% their weight around in this area.
ICANN has no say in the matter, with the exception of "L".
There is nothing binding the root operators to a single policy
with regard to deployment. But thanks for noticing. :)
% It seems to me that any design that makes the root addresses seem as
% distributed around the net as possible would be optimal, as in this
% case the changes of an outage triggering rerouting of a large number of
% root addresses is as small as possible. In order to do this, the number
% of root addresses that are available within a geographic region (where
% "region" < RIR region) should be limited.
Er... geography != network topology.
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf