nanog mailing list archives
Re: ultradns reachability
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:06:58 -0400
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 anycast architecture.
This statement may be true for many DNS servers, but I suspect it is completely false for the roots, or for the GTLD's. Perhaps the folks from .org or from f-root would like to comment on how hard it would be to handle the whole load from a single box, particularly when you consider they are all high profile DDoS targets as well. If it were trivial, more GTLD's would be doing it. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: ultradns reachability, (continued)
- Re: ultradns reachability Edward B. Dreger (Jul 01)
- Re: ultradns reachability Joe Abley (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Leo Bicknell (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Joe Abley (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Leo Bicknell (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Dr. Jeffrey Race (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 02)
- Re: ultradns reachability Bill Woodcock (Jul 03)
- Re: ultradns reachability Leo Bicknell (Jul 03)