nanog mailing list archives
Re: DNS Reliability
From: Phil Fagan <philfagan () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:48:46 -0600
Good reference; thank you. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan () gmail com> wrote:Everything else remaining equal...is there a standard or expectation for DNS reliability? 98% 99% 99.5% 99.9% 99.99% 99.999% Measured in queries completed vs. queries lost. Whats the consensus?ICANN new gTLD agreements specified 100% availability for the service, meaning at least 2 DNS IP addresses answered 95% of requests within 500 ms (UDP) or 1500 ms (TCP) for 51+% of the probes, or 99% availability for a single name server, defined as 1 DNS IP address. Rubens
-- Phil Fagan Denver, CO 970-480-7618
Current thread:
- Re: DNS Reliability, (continued)
- Re: DNS Reliability Marco Davids (Prive) (Sep 13)
- Message not available
- Re: DNS Reliability Larry Sheldon (Sep 13)
- Re: DNS Reliability Phil Fagan (Sep 13)
- Re: DNS Reliability Jean-Francois Mezei (Sep 13)
- Re: DNS Reliability Joe Abley (Sep 13)
- Re: DNS Reliability bmanning (Sep 13)
- Re: DNS Reliability Niels Bakker (Sep 16)
- Re: DNS Reliability Nick Hilliard (Sep 16)
- Re: DNS Reliability bmanning (Sep 23)
- Re: DNS Reliability Phil Fagan (Sep 12)
- Re: DNS Reliability Eric Brunner-Williams (Sep 12)
- Re: DNS Reliability George William Herbert (Sep 12)
- Re: DNS Reliability George Michaelson (Sep 12)
- Re: DNS Reliability Randy Bush (Sep 12)
- Re: DNS Reliability George William Herbert (Sep 12)
- Re: DNS Reliability George Michaelson (Sep 12)
- Re: DNS Reliability Sebastian Castro (Sep 16)